This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.
IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the Big Bang model, with content based on information presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it or other appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang, please do so at talk.origins.
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Should there be a discussion of where the origination point is of the "big bang"?
I didn't find in the article the location of the origination point of the Big Bang. Is that an intolerable omission? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC))
It was everywhere, because there was nothing else. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Or, in other words, the location of the origin of the Big Bang is not discussed because a) it's hard to find the center of an expanding universe and b) good luck finding reputable and reliable sources discussing such a location.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
We could certainly discuss why there is no such point - it's a common question and I'm sure it's not hard to find reliable sources that discuss it. Waleswatcher(talk) 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The shrinking universe hypothesis (all matter shrinks but space doesn't, near matter shrinks in groupings)
(Extremely old postulation. I don't claim it's right or wrong. It has to be mentioned.
If you mathematically fix it well it's absolutely equivalent with the popular theory (I repeat, fix it well - because some fix it to fail because they love the standard religion), and you can think among theories when you face something difficult. Then you can discribe in different ways the same phenomena.)
Everything shrinks (gets impacted by dark energy) from an initial ultra dense state. We call it big bang.
Afar light doesn't shrink but afar matter does, so we interpret the light as being stretched.
Near matter and near light, shrinks almost with the same pace, except for a tiny percentage which contributes to gravity and dark matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
What if light didn't become of lower energy, but if matter itself was bigger? (it cannot work, it's wrong, and we have to say why! If matter was bigger we would have different quantization numbers, except if the fields were equivalently bigger, but then...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
You might have to add some parameters but it's absolutely the same. Also you might have to create some lies as explanations. If you want to, it works. Why to do it? Not because the shrinking universe is a fact or superior. Simply because it will allow you to think in two different ways. That's the whole point. Not the egoism of some particular dogma, but the ability to play from both sides!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That's interesting and all, but you need to have a source for any information before it can be put into the article. Original research, regardless of it being comprehensive or not, isn't sufficient. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That section doesn't cite any sources, which is normally a requirement. The statements need sources to even be worth considering, since they won't go onto this page without them. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ?
What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ? If you click on the picture, the caption beneath seems inappropriately long and rambling. I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy, but it looks a little fishy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C000:AF7B:9104:FDB8:FFE5:BF20 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)