Talk:Oscillatory universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Expanding universe uses the lower-case u; this article uses the capital, and even capitalizes the word oscillatory. Why? Michael Hardy 23:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beats me. If I had my way, Oscillatory Universe, Big Bang, Big Crunch and Big Rip should all have lowercase second words. –Joke137 23:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 When was this proposed? 2 Another reason why this is no good 3 New Developments 4 New Developments

[edit] When was this proposed?

Why does this article have no date? --James S. 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. I'm sure it was well before the discovery of the CMB, maybe in the thirties. I don't have online access, but I think it is this article

R. C. Tolman, Effects of inhomogeneity on cosmological models, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 20, 169–76 (1934).

–Joke 01:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it could also have been in Tolman's famous book,

R. C. Tolman, Relativity, theormodynamics and cosmology (Oxford U., 1934)

–Joke 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another reason why this is no good

Wasn't the recent discovery that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing another reason for why the oscillating universe theory isn't valid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gellender (talk • contribs) 06:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] New Developments

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070130091159.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.255.105 84.108.255.105 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why does it say that "Philosophers have demonstrated the impossibility of traversing an infinity"... it should say, that some philosophers, for example Whitrow, have presented arguments that traversing an actual infinity is impossible... but they have by no means demonstrated it: Quentin Smith argues against the point in an article you can find on google called "infinity and the past (1987)", saying that it is based on the fallacy of equivocation.

Other arguments presented regarding said impossibility are also being debated still today, so we should not be giving people the impression that the matter is over and done with.

[edit] New Developments

Agreed. Since nothing has been done to correct this horribly incorrect paragraph, I'm removing it entirely. Here it is, in case anyone chooses to try to resurrect it: "Another major issue posed to an oscillatory model is that of traversing infinites. As an external conceptual problem to this model of the universe, Philosophers have demonstrated that it is impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time while ending up in the present. This presents a serious challenge to Oscillatory concepts, since part of this theory includes the notion that the Universe has always existed."

User:Tarotcards 07:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)