Talk:Physical cosmology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
October 26, 2004Peer reviewReviewed

Update the main image of the CMB?[edit]

Wouldn't it make sense to update the main image of the CMB? The current image is the older and lower resolution WMAP image. The newer image, released in 2013, is the more scientifically up-to-date image. see below for NYT comparison: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/21/science/space/0321-universe.html?_r=0 Speedplane (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Other cosmologies reference[edit]

J. V. Narlikar, Introduction to Cosmology, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., Boston, MA, 1983.(HCPotter (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/
    Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Wondering what is the difference between 'Physical cosmology' and 'Cosmic evolution'? I am thinking 'physical cosmology' is the study of the material aspects of the cosmos (which includes our universe, and all other billions & billions of universes) and all the stuff in it -- matter, energy, and it might include the subject of 'cosmic evolution', that is, how all this material stuff evolved? Or, is 'cosmic evolution' a separate area of study?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Excellent agreement with observations"[edit]

Should this phrase be removed: "which are in excellent agreement with many diverse observations." First, it lacks attribution. Secondly, because dark matter and dark entities are hypothetical entities introduced specifically to explain such observations, of course they will agree with those observations. Thus, just as WP is designed to prevent circularity in its own editing (i.e., WP articles may not reference each other for attribution), so too, if there is any circularity here, it will undermine the value of this article. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have posted the same thing twice. (Saw you fixed that -- thanks!) The "excellent agreement" sentence in the lead should be a summary of more extensive material in the body of the article. As such, it wouldn't ordinarily need separate sourcing. However, it might be appropriate to give an attribution in the lead given that the development of the body does seem to be lacking in some areas. We could add a citation of a review article or standard reference such as the PDG. Your second point is not really correct (there are many different observational tests, and in many cases successful predictions rather than just post hoc model-fitting); and it's also not relevant to the article without outside sourcing for the argument. --Amble (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
For some examples: dark matter is inferred from local observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters. Dark energy is inferred from supernovae at z<2 or so. When these are found to agree with cosmological data such as precision measurements of the CMB temperature power spectrum at z=1100, that agreement is far from trivial. --Amble (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added the PDG citation. What do you think? --Amble (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe[edit]

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment[edit]

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Slipher's conclusion[edit]

Regarding this sentence:

In the 1910s, Vesto Slipher (and later Carl Wilhelm Wirtz) interpreted the red shift of spiral nebulae as a Doppler shift that indicated they were receding from Earth.

I looked at a presentation by Slipher in 1917[1] and his conclusion then was as follows:

"We may in a like manner determine our motion relative to the spiral nebulæ, when sufficient material becomes available. A preliminary solution of the material at present available indicates that we are moving in the direction of right-ascension 22 hours and declination −22° with a velocity of about 700 km."

That is, as of 1917 he had not reached the conclusion as stated above, but instead suggested the redshift was due to the general motion of the Milky Way relative to the other nebulæ. The true interpretation came later, but it's not clear that happened during the 1910s. Praemonitus (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I performed some more checking. This 1918 article appears to show that he was changing his views. By 1922 his findings showed that the velocities of the spiral nebulæ showed they were almost all moving away.[2] I'm going to add the last as the reference. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The original statement from the article is slightly vague, depending on whether you take "spiral nebulae" to mean "some spiral nebulae, those which he had observed, primarily in one region of the sky", or "spiral nebulae as a general class". The main thing to clearly state is that Slipher already measured redshifts and used them to find relative velocities, most of which were receding; too often all of this gets credited to Hubble along with his later work. Looks like your new reference is a good addition. --Amble (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More cites needed in "Areas of Study"[edit]

The only inline citations now are for a debunked observation and the new subsection on gravitational waves. More are need in other paragraphs, especially for theoretical proposals and ideas. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to address this concern by adding many new references to the section. If there are still issues, inline tags can be used. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice work on improving the sourcing of this section. I concur that any remaining issues could be addressed with inline tags. --Mark viking (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Main image caption needs to be rewritten[edit]

The main image caption says humanity is a red supernova, the internet is its core, and we live in the event horizon of a black hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5601:8900:F061:21E7:222E:16D1 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, no. Praemonitus (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_cosmology&oldid=874183875"