Talk:Non-standard cosmology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Non-standard cosmology is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive

Untitled[edit]

Archives


1 2

Disruption[edit]

If the person(s) consistently disrupting this article through the IP 84.158.2xx.xxx do not stop this, I will report them to the administrators for a general block. Normally warning would be placed on the user pages, but since this is a dynamical IP, I'm placing it here. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Non standard means nothing but Dark Ages[edit]

Tens of pages of chats, to hide this. Have fun with Dark matter and Dark energy, produced by the highly standard "Standard model". That's tautologic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the last "undo"?[edit]

(Comparison of the two versions). The major flaws I can spot in the last version prior to the undo was the wording "non-standard/ alternative cosmology" instead of just "non-standard", and "the big bang model(s)" instead of "the big bang". Just because the dash and a plural indicated between parenthesis just look somewhat ugly. It could be fixed with something "non standard [cosmologies] or alternative cosmologies" and "big bang models", respectively. Other than that, is there something really faulty with the penultimate (Forrestnoble's) edition? I don't really know the subject very deeply, so I have no idea about the quality entire new section added. The rest were some sort of wordings that, in my point of view, just improved the NPOV, without being innacurate in any sense. --Extremophile (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the last undo. The subject is a bit tricky because it falls squarely under the WP:FRINGE guideline. We are charged with discussing those "alternatives" to the Big Bang according to the WP:WEIGHT they receive in mainstream sources. If we were to follow the letter of the law, the vast majority of this article would be on the steady state theory since that is the one that is by far the most prominent of the non-standard cosmologies. However, we make some accommodations for those ideas which are still around and bumping on the internet and to a lesser extent, the scientific community: e.g. MOND, Hoyle & Narlikary, plasma cosmology, etc. The issue with the previous edit is twofold: one) non-standard cosmologies are not in direct competition any longer with the Big Bang. We essentially have a situation where the most prominent non-standard cosmologies are prominent for historical reasonsa and are not in direct competition. two) the non-standard cosmologies that do have contemporary proponents are so marginalized as to be almost unworthy of mention. We must do our best to let readers know of this situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The section on WP:WEIGHT says that "minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them, [and such] a view may be spelled out in great detail". So as long as we say there is a mainstream view, and do not pretend that the fringe view is more widespread than it really is, then NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are maintained. I agree that there would be a problem if the text was part of an article on a mainstream subject, such as the Big Bang, or Physical Cosmology. --Grburster (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There is weight, and then there is weight. Here we write a summary article on EVERY non-standard cosmology that is encyclopedic. Which ones deserve the most weight? Probably the most famous ones. Ergo the comment on steady-state theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In an article on cosmologies, you are right that the most famous and acceptable one gets the most weight. In an article specifically on one non-standard cosmology, WP:WEIGHT says that such "a view may be spelled out in great detail". In this article, I would not expect the Big Bang to get much coverage because it is not a non-standard cosmology. But we still mention it, and link people to the main article. --Grburster (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I think this article does a pretty good job of doing that. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Fundamental Assumptions:[edit]

Aren't we missing the assumption that all the mass in the universe is contained in a finite volume of space? Without that, there would be no large-scale warping of space-time and no singularity at the beginning of time. --Onerock (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we're not making that assumption. Warping of space locally is based on the density of matter, not the absolute amount present. Warping of space on the scale of the universe requires that the universe have a given average density, not that its mass be confined to any finite volume (just that any finite volume have about the right amount of mass in it).
Regarding a singularity, this refers to the density of the universe approaching infinity some finite amount of time in the past. It doesn't imply that the entire universe collapses to a point; just that the parts that we presently observe (a finite-sized region) were once contained within an arbitrarily small volume.
I hope this helps answer your question. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher; on the matter of the singularity, we seem to be in agreement in principle, though I disagree with your semantics. The term “singularity” originally meant a finite mass contained in zero volume. Perhaps some proponents of the Big Bang model are trying to reverse earlier statements without contradicting them by redefining the word “singularity”.

I am no mathematician, but I know that warping of space-time is a function of the gradient of gravitational potential. If the universe is infinite, and if the distribution of matter is isotropic and homogeneous, then the gravitational potential is the same everywhere. Except for local fluctuations due to clumping of matter, the potential IS the same everywhere, and the gradient is zero everywhere—unless the universe is finite.

I am familiar with the mathematical proof that gravity inside a hollow spherical shell of homogeneously distributed mass is zero; also that gravity outside such a shell is equivalent to the total mass concentrated at a point in the center. (These proofs are mathematically valid, though we should keep in the back of our minds that the physical reality of them depends on the validity of Newton’s universal law of gravitation all the way to infinity, which can never be proven.) I believe what has been overlooked is the gravity inside a sphere of homogenously distributed matter from which a smaller sphere has been removed—the surface of said smaller sphere including the center and being tangent to the surface of the larger sphere. The gravity of this larger sphere exactly cancels the gravity of the smaller sphere.

If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then there is always going to be a larger sphere, as described above, twice the radius of the one whose gravity is being used to calculate the warping of space-time; and gravity from beyond that larger sphere is zero. So Einstein’s derivation of the large-scale warping of space-time, based only on the density of the universe, is fallacious. Onerock (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term "singularity" refers to any mathematical singularity in solutions to the equations of general relativity. When applied to a gravitational singularity, the resulting ill-behaved region is usually either point-like or ring-like, but Schwarzschild's original treatment of black holes in GR had the singularity at the event horizon (due to the coordinate system he chose for the solution). Whether you consider the singularity at the beginning of time to be a gravitational singularity or not is a matter of taste (density and spacetime curvature approach infinity if I understand correctly, but it's very different from what you get inside black holes).
With regards to the potential, it turns out to be very difficult to define "gravitational potential energy" in curved spacetime. When space is approximately Euclidean, you can approximate things with Newtonian gravity, define potential energy, and take the gradient to get force, but this should not be confused with finding the "warping of spacetime". Similarly, your statements about spherical shells hold only in the weak-field approximation (where gravity looks Newtonian). You are correct in concluding that a universe with Euclidean spacetime obeying Newtonian gravity would not be able to act in the way described.
For more information about the equations governing general relativity, see Einstein field equations. For information about a description of the expanding universe, see de Sitter universe, de Sitter space, and metric expansion of space. A solution that describes the dense early universe as well as the later universe would be the Friedmann equations. For a more detailed discussion of the topic, perhaps try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, as my math isn't good enough to solve the field equations for you (though some solutions are already given in the links supplied above). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Change the Title of the Article[edit]

The pejorative title "Non-Standard" should be changed to this neutral wording which already exists in wikipedia articles: Alternative cosmological models. Change the title to "Alternative cosmological models". 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We've already established consensus for this title. You must deal substantively with the winning arguments of this archived discussion and this one in order to reopen debate on this topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Who is we ? I never saw any discussion of the title being inappropriate.173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:RTA. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So where was the title supposedly ever agreed upon by any consensus ? 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The basic point is that non-standard cosmologies are those which are different from the standard Lambda-CDM model and other tweaks to it. "Alternative cosmologies" can involve some models which are still "standard" by the strict definition of having a hot Big Bang. E.g. Quintessence (physics). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It remains that "non-standard" is pejorative and should be changed. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How is it "pejorative"? The "standard" is the one that everybody uses. These are, at best, tiny minority proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-standard is clearly pejorative, like saying sub-standard. The big bang people use the term to denigrate opposing views. 173.169.90.98 (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We're not here to right great wrongs. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia follows the prejudices of the world. If you don't like it, try to get the community to change their terminology. The place to fight this battle is not on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No logic to that. How about articles about Blacks that would use the N-word as the title, because that is historically the word used by Mark Twain and everyone else in history. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm sorry you feel that this is illogical, but it is the consensus of the Wikipedia community. You can discuss the problems with this approach at various locations including, for example, the village pump. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is the community ? you ? The title is misleading and pejorative and should be discussed by more than you. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
By all means please ask for a third opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This title is clearly biased. I support any change to make the main (ie non-redirected) title balanced. Alternate, or alternative, are both better to non-standard.RayTayMiht (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What ScienceApologist says may be ignored. After all, he was banned from Wikipedia for harassing Eric Lerner, making his Wikipedia article unduly negative, and otherwise showing intolerance towards non-mainstream theories; see Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience; even denying that Lerner has a BA; see Statement by Iantresman.

However, I am not convinced that the title “Non-standard cosmology” is derogatory. However, I object to placing it in Category:Pseudophysics, which strongly suggests pseudoscience, a term which Wikipedia admits to be derogatory and judgmental. Also, placing it suggests that all nonstandard cosmologies are pure nonsense, which is about like the Church saying that Galileo’s theory is nonsense – dogmatism. Even though, based on the articles Eric Lerner and PC, the consensus on Wikipedia is to treat Lerner’s theories as legitimate scientific disagreement, not pseudoscience. I have read Lerner’s book, The Big Bang Never Happened, so I am somewhat familiar with PC, at least as Lerner presents it.

There is also widespread belief that Lerner has been treated in a too Inquisition-like manner, denying us expertise on PC.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not censor published sources[edit]

The two Physics Essays references are newly published (June 2010), it is impossible for them to have independent recognition so quickly, but do not censor them, wikipedia uses many brand new published articles, these are not the first. Also, most references cited in wikipedia are never cited by other articles. If you censor with that reasoning there would be nothing left in wikipedia. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#Independent sources, WP:CBALL, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTPAPER are all relevant. We don't use "brand new published articles" until there is critical reception of them found. There are literally hundreds of tiny minority ideas floating around in the fringe literature. Only the most WP:PROMINENT ones deserve mention in Wikipedia. If you want to see those ideas listed here, encourage the astronomy and physics community to review those papers. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
They were both reviewed, peer-reviewed. Also, it is not wikipedia policy to censor minority views, as long as they are in peer-reviewed mainstream journals you cannot censor them because you don't like what they say. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Physics Essays is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense because authors can ignore reviewers' comments. But even if they were reviewed in the best journal, if nobody noticed them and there are no citations to them by outside reviewers they do not belong in Wikipedia because it is impossible to write a reliably sourced neutral article or section of an article on them. If you want to see them included, the best thing you can do is encourage someone to review the articles and publish their reviews in reliable sources so we can use them. See WP:PSTS. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You try publishing there and ignore the reviewers, that is absurd. It is a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're missing the major point: we cannot use the source because no one else has cited it yet. We have only the author's say-so to go on and that is not good enough for Wikipedia's standard of WP:PSTS. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Most articles are NEVER cited by other papers, especially articles that big bang people would rather avoid. You cannot censor on that basis. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I acknowledge that it is a standard to which it is difficult to rise, but it is the standard that was agreed to when Wikipedia formed it's policies and guidelines. If you want to change that standard, you should consider discussing it at the talk pages of the policy, for example: WT:PSTS. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly incorrect - wikipedia uses many published articles that were never cited by others, especially new articles. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I promise you, I'm not incorrect. Feel free to ask around. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:SCIRS - the goal here is to present an accurate overview of the current state of this particular topic. It would be both absurd and impossible to present every paper (especially those published in low-tier journals), so we filter by those that the relevant experts find most interesting. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

173.169.90.98, I reccomend getting a regular Wikipedia account/ username.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

American Institute of Physics must be included[edit]

Physics Essays is refereed and published by the American Institute of Physics. Their recent articles regarding the static universe model should be included in wikipedia in the static universe discussion, see them: http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1 and http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 . There is no reason to censor them. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We've explained why primary source documents from Physics Essays do not bear inclusion here. If you disagree, please post to WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

The following should be removed since there are no citations.

"Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations.[citation needed] In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist.[citation needed]".

These are criticisms of Arp's analysis but the editor who added this has not bothered to source it. Seems like OR to me, though even OR would have to adhere to some sources for these statements. Johnnyc (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Van Flandern[edit]

Van Flandern's cosmology does not seem to have gotten any attention whatsoever in the astrophysical journals which is the standard by which inclusion in this article is done. Please find a person who has published a citation to Van Fladern's cosmology in ApJ, MNRAS, A&A or another equally well-regarded journal before trying to reintroduce it.

Eugene Mallove's website, of cold fusion fame, does not cut it.

Thanks.

71.174.134.165 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing was absolutely dire. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is not at all referenced, most of it has no references and where there are references all I see is a book and a couple of public websites none of these journals that you talk about. You have to understand these non-standard cosmological views are complete crackpot to mainstream science, nobody has the time to even review this stuff, I have found nothing in any journals not just for the stuff on Flandern but for others sections on this article, all we have it seems is book references. Regarding third party references, his meta model has been mentioned in many books. For example theres a whole chapter discussing his views in the book Apocryphal science: creative genius and modern heresies his theory has also been mentioned in a couple of new scientist magazines. GreenUniverse (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Theres an obituary here but does not mention his views on the big bang, so pretty much useless.1 GreenUniverse (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is a long and storied history associated with this subject. The Big Bang was not always taken to be as well-founded as it is now. Improved observations relevant to cosmology are what ended up contributing to the near universal acceptance that the Big Bang theory currently enjoys. However, up until the CMB observations, competing theories were kept around more-or-less due to lack of convincing falsification. The most famous, of course, were Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold's proposal of the Steady State Universe, but other ideas were also kept around. To the extent that those ideas were considered in the field at that time, this is the extent to which we discuss them in this article.
Since the age of precision cosmology, the non-standard proponents have found themselves all but shut-out of the academic discourse and, most importantly, the journals. What has happened then is that there is a historic coverage of certain ideas (steady state, tired light, and, to a lesser extent, Arp's arguments and Alfven's cosmologies) that are discussed in classic text and literature. Meanwhile, newer proposals based on way out-there ideas have received almost no third-party notice. The problem with including Van Flandern's ideas is that there are probably 100s of such proposals floating around the internet of various levels of sophistication or plausibility. Since the community has deigned it not necessary to consider these ideas at this time, we have absolutely no way to determine whether these ideas deserve inclusion in Wikipedia since they seem to be in contravention of the WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR guidelines as they lack the normal notice required for inclusion.
The long-and-the-short of it is that this particular article is more-or-less a closed subject for the time-being. Until there is truly a epistemic crisis in the field of cosmology, the "non-standard cosmologies" of note will remain these historical examples since they are the only ones that third parties have seemed to notice.
Does that make sense?
71.174.134.165 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of consensus - suggest replacement[edit]

Hi, this is a science article, and therefore over reliance on word consensus (3 times in opening) seems at odds with this. I propose to rewrite avoiding use of "consensus" and using words that explain that investigation of the current big bang theory has the largest effort and budget, and that the theory is still developing.

Any objections? RayTayMiht (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How the current explanation for the Cosmological Red-Shift, based on ‘metric-expansion-of-space’, can not be correct[edit]

How the current explanation for the Cosmological Red-Shift, based on ‘metric-expansion-of-space’, can not be correct. In a paper recently published in Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 7, 2013, no. 20, 971 - 976 http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/astp.2013.39102; titled: "Wave-Theoretical Insight into the Relativistic Length-Contraction and Time-Dilation of Super-Nova Light-Curves" by Hasmukh K. Tank, a sub-section reads as follows: "2. How the current explanation for the Cosmological Red-Shift, based on ‘metric-expansion-of-space’, can not be correct: Currently, the cosmological red-shift is understood in terms of ‘metric-expansion-of-space’. It is believed that after the big-bang the space-time started expanding; so the distances between galaxies are increasing, even at the rates faster than the speed of light, near the edge of the universe. So, the wavelengths of extra-galactic-photons get stretched with the expansion-of-space, resulting in the observed ‘cosmological-redshift’. Now, I present here an argument that this explanation can not be correct, as follows. Accepting that the space between the galaxies is expanding; but the space within the galaxies is not expanding, because galaxies are gravitationally bound structures. So, there has to be a smooth transition, from the expanding-space out-side the galaxies, to the non-expanding-space within the galaxy. Now, when the extra-galactic-photons, after their long-long extra-galactic-journey, with their wavelength stretched due to ‘expansion-of-space’, enters the ‘transition-region’ from expanded-space to ‘non-expanded-space’, then their wavelength should start shrinking-back, like it shrinks while entering stronger and stronger gravitational-field; and when they enter the non-expanded-space of our milky-way-galaxy, their wavelength should shrink-back to original wavelength! Isn’t it? Therefore, the current explanation for the ‘cosmological-red shift’, which is based on ‘metric-expansion-of-space’, can not be correct. Every scientist has accepted my argument, that: “there has to be a smooth transition, from the expanding-space out-side the galaxies, to the non-expanding-space within the galaxy” when I attempted to explain galaxies’ rotation-curves based on this smooth-transition of expansion-of-space. This has encouraged me to think of ‘shrinking-back’ of stretched-wavelength of extra-galactic-photons while entering the non-expanding-space of our milky-way-galaxy."

2. Regarding The Accelerated-Expansion of Space, this paper has this to say " This author has recently proposed four alternative-interpretations for the ‘cosmological-red-shift’ [3-5]. According to these new interpretations the red-shift depends only on distance traveled by the extra-galactic-photons, not on the relative-velocity of the source-of-light and observer. Therefore, as the photons travel a unit-distance, say one light-year, then there is certain amount of red-shift; say the frequency of photon which was f0, reduces to f = f0 / 1.1. Then for the next unit-distance f becomes the new input frequency which gets red-shifted to f / 1.1 = f0 / ( 1.1)^2. Then for the third unit-distance, new value of f = f0 / (1.1)^3. Thus the red-shift-distance-curve becomes automatically non-linear, as observed, without invoking any ‘dark-energy’. Perlmutter and Riess based their interpretation of non-linearity of red-shift-distance-curve, on the current, ‘metric-expansion- of-space-based-explanation' for the cosmological-red-shift, so they needed invocation of ‘dark-energy’[6,7], whereas here in section-2, we found that ‘metricexpansion-of-space’ can not explain the observation of the ‘cosmological-red-shift’. Thus there has been a need for considering alternative ways to understand ‘relativistic-length-contraction’, ‘time-dilation’ and the observations of ‘cosmological-red-shift’.

3. Time-dilation of super-nova light curves can also be alternatively-explained In a paper recently published in Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 7, 2013, no. 20, 971 - 976 http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/astp.2013.39102; titled: "Wave-Theoretical Insight into the Relativistic Length-Contraction and Time-Dilation of Super-Nova Light-Curves" by Hasmukh K. Tank, time-dilation of super-nova light-curves is alternatively-explained as follows: 3.2 Explanation for the Time-dilation of Super-Nova Light-Curves: Super-nova-light-curves, described by Giacobbe, [2], can be viewed as a ‘gate-function’ in the ‘time-domain’; and it can be Fourier-transformed into frequency-domain; and it is this wide band of waves which travels in space and reaches us after millions of years. During its travel, when this wide-band of waves, being electromagnetic waves, gets red-shifted due to any mechanism then its band-width shrinks in the frequency-domain; so when it is transformed back into time-domain we find that the duration of the curve has got increased. Thus, time-dilation of supernova-light-curves is not an independent observation from the observations of the‘cosmological-red-shift’ due to any mechanism. Thus this paper reaches two interesting conclusions regarding the two predictions of General Relativity: 1. Metric-expansion-of-space can not explain the observation of the 'cosmological-red-shift' because if the wavelength can streatch due to expansion-of-space, then it should have got shrunk while entering the 'transition-region' from 'expanding-space-between-the- galaxies' to 'non-expanding-space-within-our-milky-way-galaxy'; and 2. 'Time-dilation-of-super-nova-light-curves' can be explained by any alternative-explanation for the 'cosmological-red-shift', i.e. observations of time-dilation-of-super-nova-light-cureve are not the exclusive tests of General Theory of Relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.147.193 (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 210.56.147.193 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alt[edit]

I added WikiProject Alternative Views. (C-class, Mid Importance.) Anyone object?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Time Dilation of Super Nova Light Curves Is Not Inconsistent With Tired-Light Interpretations Of The Cosmological Red-Shift[edit]

In a recent paper titled: "Since the Time-Dilation of Super-Novae Light-Curves Is Not a Confirmative-Evidence for Expansion of Space-Time and the Universe, Some Alternative Possibilities that the Universe May Not Be Expanding" Author: Hasmukh K. Tank, Abstract: "This paper makes use of some astronomical-observations to gain deeper insight into the fundamental questions of physics and astrophysics. Alternative-interpretations of cosmological-red-shift are generally rejected on the ground that ‘tired-light-interpretations’ are inconsistent with the observations of time-dilation of super-nova-light-curves; whereas it is shown here that these curves are time-domain-representations of amplitude of light. So, these curves can be Fourier-transformed into wave-number-domain, and it is this wide band of waves which propagates in inter-galactic-space, and reaches us after millions of years. These Fourier-transformed-components, being electromagnetic-waves, get red-shifted by any mechanism that can cause spectral-shift, and when transformed back into time-domain, show time-dilation. Thus, time-dilation of super-nova light-curves, or the relativistic-time-dilation, means ‘red-shift of light’ due to any mechanism. Similarly, the relativistic-length-contraction is also explained using wave-theory. With this explanation, this letter presents five new possible-mechanisms for the ‘cosmological-red-shift’; which will also give some insight into pure physics. These alternative-interpretations are: (i) Inter-galactic-photons can also get red-shifted due to vacuum-polarization-mechanism; (ii) Spherically-expanding-wave-front of light can be viewed as a spherically-expanding cavity, continuously changing its impedance, causing around -400 dB reflected-power back to the source; (iii) Cumulative-phase-alteration of extra-galactic-photons caused by the cosmic-microwave-background; (iv) Electric-field and magnetic-field of extra-galactic-light in the transverse-directions, causing virtual-electrons to oscillate, and generating gravitational-field in the longitudinal-direction; losing part of their energy in the form of ‘gravitational-waves’; (v) Though the rest-mass of photon is zero, it has a ‘relativistic-mass’ equal to its momentum-divided-by-its-speed (h f / c^2); so this ‘relativistic-mass’ of the photon can radiate gravitational-waves, branching-out its energy into gravitational-wave and electromagnetic-wave; and as a supportive-evidence, it is shown here that the energy lost by ‘cosmologically-red-shifting-photons’ is strikingly proportional to the strength-ratio of gravitational and electric forces. These new alternative explanations also explain the non-linearity of red-shift-distance-curve, observed by Perlmutter and Reiss, without any need for ‘dark-energy’." Full paper is available at the pre=print-server site vixra.org. viXra:1403.0266 103.226.185.42 (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since viXra allows anyone to submit papers and has no peer-review process, a paper published only there won't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources for inclusion in articles. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

I am a lay person with an interest in cosmology. I came here after reading the page on the Big Bang model, hoping to find information on other models. The reason for this post is that I was hoping to find an article similar to the Big Bang page where the model is explained in great detail but with virtually no contradictory statements or views. I expected to find a similar situation here but I was distressed to find that there is a strong bias against any alternative theories. These seem to be dismissed out of hand as, almost, lunatic fringe ideas. It is very difficult to come to any conclusion without having an unbiased, balanced view from all sides. What should be presented here is a detailed review of the more recognised alternatives, along with arguments from experts in these fields supporing their views. Genuine scientific endeavour should be willing to consider all input and make a balanced decision based on all the facts. I realise and am quite aware of the almost hysterical position of some scientists to hang on to pet theories and ideas (witness the in-fighting in the palaeoanthropological community) but these should be avoided at all costs in a work such as Wikipedia. For this reason I find that currently this page is very unhelpful in providing me with the means to make my own decisions regarding the subject of the origins of the universe.

Despite my comments above I am grateful for, and respect all those who take the time and trouble to contribute to these pages. As long as we can still talk there is hope.Greenwraith (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

" What should be presented here is a detailed review of the more recognised alternatives, along with arguments from experts in these fields supporing their views." The trouble is, there aren't really any widely-recognised modern alternatives, and experts in the field largely agree that the Big Bang Theory is almost certainly correct. It's sort of hard for Wikipedia to avoid coming across as biased in favour of the BBT when it has such overwhelming support in the scientific community (whether that support is warranted or is due to scientists being 'hysterical' is another question - but not one Wikipedia or we as its editors are in a position to solve on our own). If this article just presented alternatives without making it clear that most scientists believe they're unlikely to be true we'd be giving a false impression of the field - just as if the article on phlogiston theory tried to avoid seeming 'biased' by avoiding mentioning that it's been debunked. Alright, some of the theories discussed here are not *quite* as fringe as phlogiston is today - but it's the same sort of ball-park, and the article is inevitably going to reflect that.
All that said, if there are any specific theories you think deserve more/different treatment in the article that may well be appropriate - so do feel free to make suggestions. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Censorship[edit]

An 'undo' edit war has commenced, between propagandists for The Standard Theory, and researchers for Plasma Cosmology, where defenders of BBT attempt to refute Plasma Cosmology and censor any new information which cancels out previous criticisms. Censorship of information both relevant and moreover essential to a topic is unacceptable.

Comments such as : "(IP editor: please take this to talk. You'll have to come up with reliable 3rd party sources if you think Marmet's work deserves mentioning here.)" by Parejkoj

Wikipedia does not require a multitude of sources for citations, 1 scientific paper is enough. The opinion of Parejkoj does not decide what "is" and "is not" a reliable source? By this protocol - any source which disagrees with the Standard Model is an "unreliable source.

(rv last edits by IP: using 1 recent paper to claim that the theory has become mainstream, paper is from journal "Physics Essays" and doesn't mention the word "plasma") by Enric Naval (undo)

Firstly, No entries what-so-ever have been made to suggest that Plasma Cosmology has become mainstream. New, extremely important and relevant information has been added to a topic for readers of the topic to gain comprehensive, updated facts on the subject, which defenders of the Standard Model persist in preventing.

Secondly, The paper refers to photon propagation velocity being reduced in "Gas" --- Plasma is Gas! Mass deletion on Wikipedia is vandalism and censorship, both of which are unacceptable.217.208.57.69 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you persist in spamming multiple articles with this fringe nonsense, you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All articles relating to fringe nonsense should be candidates for deletion from Wikipedia - this is exactly our goal.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"...this is exactly our goal" Who is exactly is "our" here? Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned Theory[edit]

The Alfvén-Klein theorum of plasma cosmology, has long been abandoned by theoretical plasma astrophysicists. It has since been entirely replaced with a completely new TOE model "Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics (QMHD)" in development at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of OR[edit]

Original research published only in a fringe journal with no discussion in other sources has been repeatedly inserted into this article. There has been no discussion on this talk page. Per BRD and EW this is against policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:OR policy is particularly relevant - the research seems to have been published elsewhere. The point is that it appears not to have had any significant third-party coverage, and accordingly inclusion is undue per WP:WEIGHT. The article concerns itself with theories that have attracted significant attention, and isn't intended to be an exhaustive list of every non-standard cosmology ever created. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of challenged content is edit warring[edit]

Content that has been challenged must be presented on this talk page and consensus reached for inclusion. Repeatedly redoing an edit that has been reverted is edit warring. IMO VSL is not a notable or major non standard cosmology and does not carry due weight for inclusion. In addition external links do not belong in the body of an article. If VSL related content is proposed, it should be better composed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)