This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, 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. |
![]() | Universe has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G ( talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, last sentence that “Discoveries in the early 20th century have suggested that the universe had a beginning and has been expanding since then.”. It would be more precise to say “that the universe we live in” or “the known universe”, as there is no proof of a beginning (or end). 91.74.1.182 ( talk) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" [1] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all [2] [3] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant [4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main " Universe" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Warrenmck: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - they're appreciated - you referred to my stance - my stance these days is to help close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re these issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may make such science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => " Readability of Wikipedia Articles" ( BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) [5] - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on " physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => " Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The beginning of the second sentence in the lead is wrong. The terms "universe" and "existence" are not mere synonyms; among other things, that is why they have two different articles, instead of one simply redirecting to the other. Claiming nothing exists outside the universe is POV pushing. Philosophy is divided on ontology. Physics by definition does not address it.
To take the term "universe" to mean "all that exists" is an informal notion, not a scholarly one. It is contradicted by such diverse propositions as Platonism and the multiverse. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F ( talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a large article with lots of scientific information. A lot of work has gone into it over the years. Even I don’t think we should have to delete it because the title, Universe, is scientifically unwarranted and unjustifiable.
The term “universe” is so wide-spread in common usage that it is effectively unquestionable. Among scientific lay-men and expert alike. Amongst militant atheist and god-fearing mega-church pastor the same. If all people did was laugh when I told them that I, as a confirmed idealist, do not believe in the universe, I would comfortably share my point of view at will. But, despite the fact that I hold “the nuts” (poker term), sharing my perspective has never once gone well. People are indoctrinated so deeply into this non-scientific fallacy that they cannot hear a challenge. On this topic, certainly, Wikipedia is and has been a major source of dis/misinformation.
The fact is, the whole article over, and including all the previous versions, there isn’t a single reliable source (WP:RS) establishing the propriety of the term universe itself. I could (perhaps) write an essay investigating the reasons why this fallacious term has become so popular, but the fact remains that, if the Wikipedia community here were to apply as vigorously as they are known to oft do the community standards toward the title/article/term “universe,” the community would not tolerate its usage. Here, or anywhere on the site? The term is an unwarranted and unjustifiable abstraction, doomed to a fate worse than that of Newtonian Mechanics (which remains pretty darn useful though ultimately inadequate and wrong). There is no universe qua Universe. I could tell you that there are persons harmonizing experientially because, as self-existent ideas (instances of the self-existent idea), we have no capacity to do otherwise, but that would be beyond the scope of this article and dispute? At length, we need better terminology.
Yesterday I made a revision to the page that assuaged my (continually being triggered by (my forced silence before) the uncritically, inductively, un-reasoned term “universe”) “wrath,” and all it really took was some careful caveats to the introduction/“definition” of the offending term. There is and cannot be any physical copula encompassing all of existence. “The physical universe,” if taken literally, is an absolute absurdity. Thank God Max Plank pointed it out early!:
“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”
https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up
Here is a link to my revision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=1225820689
Here is a link to the comparison of the changes made:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&diff=next&oldid=1225820689
I suggest we move the article forward from that basis upon conclusion of this “discussion.” If no one can justify with rigorous science the term “universe” itself, the article cannot in rights be left standing as it was? The term “universe” is too prevalent for complete deletion; even if we settled on a new, appropriate term, and migrated all the information there, a page for “the universe” should ever remain standing as a piacular memorial.
God Bless You and yours,
may we thingk (sic) better of ourselves going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisciplinedIdea ( talk • contribs)
Reply:
>Please read WP:SOAPBOX
great, the whole page is a soapbox for an absurd term. “No cap.”
>you’re not going to get Wikipedia to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe,
you get to soapbox idealists forever, and they don’t even get a peep (disputed-tag): got it (as expected)
>and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate.
your lies (on my talk page) and characterizations are wildly inappropriate. Attack the substance, padna.
“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank
https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up
>I’ve reverted more of your edits,
you should be the one at risk for that. The disputed tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. I shouldn’t have to fight like this. Will I be allowed to? I’m not permitted to make you feel some type of way about a mere “disputed” tag, but you can go to all these lengths to bite me and make me feel the type of way idealists are ALWAYS made to feel among physicalists. It’s a travesty. Poor, poor kids. You should take this as your SECOND warning.
>Wikipedia is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy,
let’s delete the article until science comes to a complete Conclusion?
>and edits like this are mostly disruptive.
I bring competence and resources to share: address the substance.
>You’re welcome to edit the article
hardly. I have to be at the top of my game, near perfect. How many less qualified people with legit reservations have been banned for trying?
>but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article
don’t bite the newb and address the substance. I didn’t think so.
>because you personally dispute the idea
Max Plank was a chump?
>of the universe
I see you letters but I know you ain’t got an idea that can defend it.
>isn’t a great place to start.
Wikipedia encourages newcomers to make bold edits. Policy. don’t bite the newb and address the substance.
I didn’t think so.
>If you have objections with the provided sources
put your source on the term universe there in line one, buddy.
>please be more specific
please consider the work I provided before biting
>so we can all work together to improve it.
I’ve contributed what the first reverter (of two) called “certainly valid” and “good faith,” but needing discussion.
You’ve contributed nothing but darkness to hide what you call my “trash.”
address the substance or don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again
Don’t make me warn you a third time (I think I remember something about that being the LIMIT).
DisciplinedIdea ( talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
While spacetime is a technical term, the universe is spacetime and its contents. The interaction of space and time is part of science (see theory of relativity). Therefore, link spacetime and write space and time. Space and time should remain to aid nontechnical readers. Besides, space and time are everyday words which shouldn’t be linked per WP:OL. Closetside ( talk) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
While we both agree the first sentence should be: "The universe is space and time and their contents.", we disagree on how linking should occur for "space and time".
@ Remsense, feel free to provide your TLDR of this dispute if you want. Closetside ( talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The current version seems much preferable to me. We know that the purpose of the first sentence is to introduce the topic to nonspecialist readers in plain English. We also know that lead links should not be required for the general reader to understand—it should be intelligible on sight. We have individual articles on space and time because they are not identical concepts. We also have the capability to explain that science considers space and time to be linked. The current version does everything asked of it, while the proposed changes introduces a much more abstract concept in the first sentence without adequately explaining it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |