Talk:Timeline of cosmology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

Anon User:204.56.7.1, can you explain why you prefer the phrase "determine the presence of" to the single word "discover"? --Blainster 28 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removed "beginnings"

I have removed the beginnings section which does not belong here. Leave that stuff to the Timeline of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 15:08 (UTC)

No ... because that is a Timeline of the universe according to the big bang! JDR 19:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the timeline Oskar Klein developed the ambiplasma theory both in 1950 and 1971. I suppose it is a mistake?

[edit] Discounted Ambiplasma theory

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why the following entries are inaccurate:

And perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide the source for your statement, which shows that ambiplasma has been discounted. --Iantresman 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no objection to the facts of the article here. Place a fact tag if you think something is incorrect. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You didn't add a fact tag to my statements, you just stated that the edits were inaccurate, (though presumably you meant the resulting statements, rather than the process of editing).
  • So I ask again, (A) how were the two statements above inaccurate (b) Where is the citation to your statement? --Iantresman 19:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not respond to this baiting. --ScienceApologist 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Baiting" usually means an attempt either to make the target angry or to trap the target in an inaccuracy. Which do you think Iantresman has in mind? I see only a request for clarification, in the spirit of science. But since I don't know anything about plasma perhaps I'm missing a backstory; was Alfvén embroiled in some scandal? —Tamfang 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Briefly, the backstory is that ambiplasma is part of non-standard cosmology, one of Wikipedia's most bitter ongoing edit wars. Art LaPella 03:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I accept all that. But the criticism levelled was not that Alfven was contentious, or incorrect, but that the statements were inaccurate. Note that I didn't add the statements in the first instance, but ScienceApologist added the "discounted" judgement [1]. As far as I can tell, it's the only judgement made of all the other entries. The Steady State theory is listed, but not described as "discounted", and if it was, I am sure I can find a citation. Ptolemy's Earth-centred Universe is not showing as "discounted" (but I'm sure I can find a citation).
  • So I still trying to find out why the statements lists were deemed inaccurate (I can find citations for them as they stand), and if there is a citation for the amended "discounted" statement. --Iantresman 09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Found my way here via WP:3O, although it appears that more than two users are currently involved. Personally, given that other discounted theories are listed, I'm not sure why this one would be removed. It doesn't seem to be a question of validity, but rather of notability. I'll readily admit a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, but given that the two items in question have lengthy articles, as is, it seems prudent to assume that they bear some notability. Perhaps, as a compromise if no agreement can be reached, one could be included, the other excluded? Just food for thought. Luna Santin 09:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll agree that both ambiplasma theory and the Plasma Universe are not the most well-know theories (in particular ambliplasma). My main quibble was not their notability, but querying the suggestion that their inclusion was considered inaccurate as described, and unveriable as amended.
  • That said, I think that Plasma Universe is more notable than ambliplasma theory, the latter being a minor part of the former. --Iantresman 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambiplasma is much better known in the cosmological community than plasma cosmology. It represents a clever suggestion about baryon asymmetry that is still an open question. Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, represents the kind of "flash in the pan". --ScienceApologist 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you still haven't had the courtesy to answer my questions above concerning the apparent inaccuracy of the statements shown, and provided verification of yours. --Iantresman 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timeline of cosmological theories

This sort of confusion crops up all the time. Someone is looking for the history of the big bang, creation of atoms, etc, only to find that he is looking at the history of the THEORIES about these matters. This should be cleared up in every case. Myles325a 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you find this at the bottom, or are you suggesting it be stated more prominently? "See also Timeline of the Big Bang" Art LaPella 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see that somebody else has already raised the very issue I want to address: namely, the title of this article is misleading — and should be altered to more accurately reflect the contents. I think Myles325a was trying to suggest that the proper title would be Timeline of cosmological theories. If there are no objections, I will make that change in a few days. For the time being, I will put a link at the top for folks who drop by looking for something else. Cgingold 10:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)