Talk:Cyclic model

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics C‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy C‑class High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

merge

This page should definately be merged with the Cyclic Model page. The two pages are talking about the same thing.--Paulamicela 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the new Penrose model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychogenius018 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Baum-Fraumpton model and other inconsistencies

Even if I am a complete analphabet regarding quantum mechanics or cosmology, I think that the edit of September 6, which removed the Baum-Frampton model from the article and left just a few lines about Steinhardt-Turok on the basis of unsourced text is unjustified.

I don't know how popular in the academic world is the model of Baum-Frampton, but I doubt that at least one properly sourced summary couldn't be found elsewhere. Steinhardt and Turok were also largely disregarded, since their work was reflected only by a detractor in the version of September 6.

The edit also gave undue weight to Lynds model; although personally I find his theory quite attractive, it deals more with philosophy than cosmology. Even one of his apologists from the academy acknowledges that his model is mostly 'speculative'. Furthermore, Lynds has no university degree.

I think the article needs the review of a specialist in this matter, so I posted the "expert-subject" template.--Darius (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to users False vacuum, JocK and Michael Hardy for overhauling this article. I removed the banner. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinhardt–Turok model and its dependency on string-theory ideas

I just heard Steinhardt assert that the branes and so forth needn't be thought of as anything more than a convenient geometric visualisation (i.e. the cyclic universe doesn't require string theory). I am not personally competent to evaluate this, but presumably he is. --False vacuum (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, this is ridiculous.

Stop deleting large, random hunks of the physics stuff and replacing it with Peter Lynds, whoever you are. If you were just adding the Lynds without deleting the legitimate stuff, there might have been some grounds for discussion, but as it is, well... False vacuum (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "large, random hunks of the physics stuff" is unsourced. Please read WP:V. Please do not re-add without sources.
The Lynds stuff is sourced. If you think it is off-topic/unreliably-sourced/whatever, then please explain why. And please remove it without re-adding unsourced material.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look, the material you were re-adding was tagged as unsourced in October 2007 -- 17 months ago! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an even closer look, you're the one who deleted it in the first place (and every other time; I'm not the only one who's put it back in). What's wrong with it, exactly? Without it, the article doesn't even make sense. False vacuum (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What's wrong with it, exactly?" What part of "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" do you fail to understand? It has no source, therefore it is not verifiable. If "the article doesn't even make sense" without it, then we have three choices: (i) provide sources for it, (ii) find something equivalent to say that does have sources, or (iii) delete the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you might want to remove the remaining paragraph about the Steinhardt-Turok model; the citation at the end is just for the last sentence, about string theory being controversial. False vacuum (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll tag it -- allowing others a chance to provide a citation for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material removed is verifiable, only not yet properly verified using inline templates (references are provided at the bottom of the page). After reading the older version, there is nothing that stands out as nonsense, POV pushing, or anything warranting deletion/removal. Restoring the removed material and placing ^{[citation needed]} tags where needed seems a more reasonable course of action. Plus, the Peter Lynd material is giving undue weight, and does not meet WP:RS. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sat there with {{cn}} tags for 17 months and nobody did anything about it -- which was why it was removed. If you want it back, then find citations for it. I have no opinion on the Lynd material, but if you want it removed, then you need to explain why it is WP:UNDUE/not-WP:RS, not merely assert that it is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the tags were installed less than 12 months before Hrafn first deleted most of the article. False vacuum (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Hrafn, but do you actually know anything about this subject? False vacuum (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is obvious, but maybe I need to point it out: My last comment above was intended as sarcasm, and your response to it demonstrates fairly unambiguously that you didn't read the article and figure out what, if anything, was supported by what references, if any (way back when you first deleted most of it, or subsequently). False vacuum (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I just noticed your edit summary for this edit. This subject has nothing to do with "creation science" or "intelligent design" (concerning which you and I, and most physicists, appear to be in perfect agreement: It's crap); perhaps that observation is relevant somehow. False vacuum (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd, as this is neither an edit summary I remember making, nor something I would write (as it oversimplifies the complex relationship between CS & ID), nor was I editing any ID articles at the time. My best explanations for it are (i) I somehow managed to inadvertently copy & paste it from elsewhere (ii) the wiki-software had a brain-fart & picked up somebody else's edit-summary or (iii) I've developed multiple personality disorder & taken to inserting commentary of which my main personality is unaware. Take your pick, and sorry for the totally-off-topic edit summary.. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynds

Taking a closer look at Peter Lynds, the material:

Lacks reliable sources (being based upon self-published, blog, prepublication, etc, etc) material
Gives WP:UNDUE weight to an individual who lacks formal training as a physicist, and whose sole claim to fame seems to be a single published article.

I would suggest that this material not be included in the article unless and until it can be demonstrated (with RSs) that Lynds' ideas on this topic have received notice/discussion from mainstream physicists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to religion

Hi there, I am no scientist but I have made some connections between this theory and religion. I believe that the cyclic nature of the universe and references in the bible and other holy books actually tie in with each other. The concepts of a heaven for example, when judgement day arrives is it not said that the all will become one again? is this not the big crunch? One day we will all become one. I find it hard to ignore that in religion a single point is chosen for all to be as one? Eternity is also refered to in many religions, such as the cycle itself. Being one with god? yet again, the big crunch. God itself is a single figure, such as the model of the cycle, a single power. Remember that when these tales were written it had to be put across in a way the people would understand. Stories can have very viable meanings in real life. I just cannot shake this from my mind, it seems so true to me. (====) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpiomale (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this page is for discussion of article improvements, rather than general philosophy or proselytizing. I'm sure that there are many suitable sites online for discussing your concerns.—RJH (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to ponder

I keep an open mind in science, but i have never been schooled in it, but i am noones dummy either. As many people, i have wondered for years what/where & why black holes are made from/out of. I watched the discovery show the other day about The Steinhardt–Turok model. And it came to me that if what they suspect is true, where these dimensions collide could possibly be the creation of blackholes, it would explain alot all the energy between these would easily explain why light bends and matter cant escape them. Just wanted to throw that out there, just seems logical. Havent read anything about this possible connection. It could also be a possible way to date how many times this has happened, each black hole could be a past collision. Maybe the smaller ones are older and the bigger ones the newest collisions, or vice versa. It would also explain why matter gathers around the blackholes and seperates galaxies.