Talk:Big Bang

NPOV?

This article seems to not have a neutral point of view, it makes it seem like this "big bang" happened. But it isn't a proven fact. Therefore I think it should be changed some. Private Butcher 17:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should remove the NPOV notice now, thanks to BlockinBlox.--68.94.59.196 23:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

this article is a joke. what is all that stuff about it being a "guess." is all of science a guess? 69.239.143.213 06:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no "proven facts" in science. Private Butcher needs to get an education in the philosophy of science. I have NPOVed the article. --24.14.147.146 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

=The Big Bang is an attempt to explain and provide concepts of the largest real physical entity that we know of. In science we deal with real physical entities. They also have defining properties, like physical and chemical and size. So we need to explain them in the terms of the agreed on definitions. And scientists have studied the Universe and come to the opinion that it originated during a very short time period called the "Inflationary Big Bang" time period when all the primary matter was created. Then after that time period the universe continued to expand during a time perioc when there were gravitational attraction forces existent that were trying to reaccumulate the exploded and expanding matter. Different concepts have been proposed for both the Big Bang and subsequent reaccumulation periods and are still under discussion and change. Science has also invented a lot of experimental and measurement devices that have improved and extended determination of the details of the events of these physical processes. They have also invented a lot of mathematical theories that are complex and hard to understand and led to the idea that only a specialized group of educated people are capable of handling all these details and thus making an intelligent discussion of the subject matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

'What is simple English' is not some mysterious, closely guarded secret

Two of the top articles at Wikipedia:Useful are Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles and Help:Examples of simpler English.

The former has links to the BE and SE word lists, EG: Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist and BE 1500 (probably actually should be moved to Basic English 1500 or Wikipedia:BE 1500)

There's also Wikipedia:List of 1000 basic words (less 'official') and the Wikipedia:VOA Special English Word Book which should mostly only be used if a word on the VOA list, that isn't on one of the above lists, has no simpler synonym.

Checking all lists at once can be done (relatively--often several forms need to be checked) conveniently by using 'what links here'. EG Special:Whatlinkshere/Indicate, Special:Whatlinkshere/Indicating, and Special:Whatlinkshere/Indication have no incoming links from the lists, so they aren't simple. Conversly, Special:Whatlinkshere/explosion is on the BE 1500 list. Freshstart 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, those lists don't seem to be especially reliable; Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist is a lot less "alphabetical" than it claims, as less than 5 seconds into skimming the list I'd already come across numerous mislisted entries, such as the charmingly illiterate "opposite • opinion • other • or". And BE 1500 seems even worse in terms of being consistent, comprehensive and organized: it claims that "zoology" and "zookeeper" are both simple, but not "zoo" itself! Thanks for the advice, though. -Silence 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Writing simply is not just a matter of using simple vocabulary. The use of dependent clauses, parenthetical expressions, compound sentences, "inappropriate" passive, and correctly used double negatives can all make a text harder to read. Kdammers (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the origin and evolution of the universe

Case closed. There is no other theory that does this. The definition of a theory is a framework model that has never been faslified, that describes all observations ever made, and has predictive power. The only cosmological model that does this is the Big Bang. I challenge the editor who is changing the restrictive article "the" to "a" to show how any other model accomplishes the criteria that make the Big Bang the scientific theory that describes the origin and evolution of the universe. --216.125.49.252 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by a Sysop, who must have thought that your edit was not valid. I am therefore going to back his decision and revert your edits. Thanks. Billz (Talk) 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, it's better style and grammar to start off with an indefinite article (a or an) for something that hasn't been mentioned yet, ie, the first mention of something, and the definite article (the) only thereafter... There's nothing wrong or incorrect about saying it's "a" scientific theory - even if it really is the only one, which I doubt. I don't like to give the impression that it's the only possibility, because there is enough room for doubt that it is still called a "hypothesis" and nobody had their cam-corder on back then to be able to state with certainty how anything happened. Personally, I would want to see more of the actual reasons for myself to find it anywhere near convincing, since I am naturally skeptical of anyone who tells me to accept it on faith that they know what happened 36 billion years ago without giving any reasons I can understand. But I am comfortable with calling it "a" theory. I also don't like to give the impression that the entire scientific community world wide is "agreed" about anything so tangential, on any subject, since I know that is not the case - there are scientists in many countries, some are funded by differing political agendas, and the former Soviet scientists, for example, usually said quite different things from other countries' scientists. So calling it "the" theory seems a little presumptuous, you can rarely get a room full of scientist to agree on all the details of such a theory. Some may say 36 billion years ago, some may say 72 billion, or whatever, and nobody can say for sure or prove anything, because until the cam-corder shows up it will always be an unprovable theory (or set of theories.) Having said all that, my being a sysop has nothing to do with this, since I have no special authority in a content dispute, so I am reverting in my capacity as an editor, not as a sysop. Regards Blockinblox 00:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You will need to back up your assertions with citations to the literature. The scientific community is pretty much behind the Big Bang since WMAP experiment results were published. --128.135.76.82 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if I interfere in your edit war.. but it is imaginable that there are other theories about how the earth came into existence. They may even be scientific. Just to cite two others: Christian Creation Myth (Genesis,..), as well as a whole crowd of Creationists out there. Hence, a scientific theory sounds better than the scientific theory. And now, please go on with your edit war. -- Eptalon 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Creationists/Christian creation myths don't qualify as scientific theories. --216.125.49.252 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Says you! Blockinblox 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, says the scientific community. If you look at the statements made by the National Academies, the Association of Science Teachers, or any other group of scientists on creationism and creation according to Genesis they all say that such advocacy is not scientific. --71.57.90.3 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know why some of the periods are commas, and vise versa? 72.76.93.21 (talk)

Yes but once again that is a self defined group that is claiming other scientists aren't scientists unless they conform to this theory. That's bullyism, not a quest for truth. Blockinblox 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, that's what is verifiable. --71.57.90.3 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not so obvious to me

The whole reasoning and logic behind the "theory" seems a little forced to me anyway... From the article:

"...which shows that the universe is getting bigger and colder. If the universe is getting bigger and colder, then it used to be smaller and hotter, so many scientists think that a long time ago, the universe was as small and hot as possible..."

Here we have a premise (that the universe is getting bigger and colder) and a conclusion. The reason given for the premise is "redshift", which is not further explained. Now even if we assume that this is a correct premise, the conclusion seems faulty, because it assumes things have been going in a constant direction temperature wise for 13 billion years or whatever, basically since the beginning of time. Which is completely unknowable. In my own observation nearly everything in nature and in the universe fluctuates; few things can be expected or assumed to go in the same direction for 13 billion years. It would be like arguing "The Earth is currently getting warmer. Therefore, scientists think that at one time it was as cold as possible". Blockinblox 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to get some reliable sources of information rather than spouting from your ignorance. --71.57.90.3 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, 71.57.90.3, be civil! Messages of that sort are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Try to be kind and tolerant. Assume good faith.
Anyway, this point is going out to people arguing over this article; Wikipedia is not a scientific nor religious argument. We state the verifiable facts, and at the moment, everyone is well aware that the Big Bang is the current accepted theory by the majority of physicians and people in the world. If this changes, the article stays exactly as it is except for telling the reader that it is a rejected theory. No offence meant at all by this, but your personal opinion doesn't count for anything in this article. The only things that are important in this article: That it is presented as a scientific theory, not a fact; all of the theory is stated, even if it seems controversial to you; and the criticisms of the theory be presented to the reader. Presenting it as a scientific theory does not mean that you back up every single statement with "scientists guess" or "they think that" or "it is a theory that". It needs stating only once at the top that "the Big Bang is a scientific theory..." or something of that sort.
Thank you for reading. Have a nice day - T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Would it be an idea for a sysop to protect the page until the discussion has been completed? It's just turning into an edit war to be honest. Billz (Talk) 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I am already too involved so I will have to recuse myself from doing anything like that... actually, with the qualification "that is accepted by almost all cosmologists" that now appears in the text, the "the" versus "a" doesn't make that much difference, so perhaps I shouldn't have reverted that last time... But I do get irked, when nobody can say with certainty exactly how the Universe was formed if they were not present to eye-witness it, then to make what is after all only a "theory" decided "behind closed doors" if you will, by a community that rejects all dissent, to sound so certain and indisputable. That is the definition of pov "pushing". For thousands of years, people have argued about how the Universe was formed, and most people have now learned to live with different ideas, but it seems intolerant to claim the authority to tell everyone else what they "must" believe about it, even without understanding why. That's why neutrality is so important. Blockinblox 15:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Were you a witness to the French Revolution? I guess then you can't really say how it happened for sure then, can you? This kind of lazy philosophizing does not belong in Wikipedia. There is a scientific perspective and the Big Bang is it. Others may have other perspectives, but that isn't this article. Get a bit of education, please. --216.125.49.252 21:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I actually agree on the IP on this one. Read the entire sentence. It is the theory that is accepted by most scientists. True. It doesn't say it's right or undisputable, it just states fact. Although opposing an RfA based on something so ridiculous as changing 'the' to 'a' is just getting a bit stupid. This is not worth an edit war. It states fact either way with no NPOV problems. Let's not get carried away here. Archer7 - talk 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't getting carried away, I was simply reverting this user's version, as per Blockinblox's version. I am sorry for doing this, since it has seemed to have started an edit war over a three letter word, but I simply thought I was doing right and that I was saving work for other contributors. I am sorry for starting an edit war, however I can understand both points of view after what Archer7 has said. In this situation, I thought I was doing a good job by reverting your edits, but as Archer7 said, both versions make sense and it isn't worth an edit war. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Billz (Talk) 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this page. Get consensus. -- Netoholic @ 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Neto, but it's a little belated - The principal opponents of the "the", (Billz and myself), have now already both conceded that we can live with the wording as it now stands, so I don't think there is going to be any more revert war here... But please note that a similar storm is brewing over at "Universe" with the same anon, over more than just a couple letters - it seems he doesn't like it being said that no one knows for sure how it began, because of course he feels he does know for sure, and he wants all readers to share in his confidence. His comparison with the French Revolution is totally illogical, since we do have plenty of eyewitness accounts to corroborate at least on that one...! Blockinblox 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected Big Bang. I would strongly suggest that you all practice tolerance of wording of both articles. IF you all REALLY want to make an improvement to Universe, how about expanding it beyond the eight sentences it currently contains? Those few words you're combatting over would probably not even be part of a more comprehensive article. In fact Universe should contain information on many different perceptions. -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"we do have plenty of eyewitness accounts to corroborate at least on that one." None of those eyewitnesses are still alive so you cannot confirm that their accounts are accurate. Anyway, "eyewitness accounts" are much less reliable than physical evidence in the scientific analysis of what happened in the past. --71.57.90.3 23:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO

The Big Bang in simple simple english is: Nothing exploded into something. The something became filled with even more something that came from absolutely nowhere. Where did it come from. We don't know. Why? Er... no reason. Where did the energy come from? Sshh. Why do some galaxies spin backwards when every scientist knows that if something is spinning and explodes all the pieces that fly off spin the same way. Ssh, please. Take a nap.

• sigh* I'm not trying to make the Big Bang look stupid. It's doing a pretty good job itself.

P.S. There is no such thing as a bang in a vacuum such as space.

I believe "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth and you believe "In the beginning Nothing created the Heaven and the Earth." So don't call my view stupid.

SOFIXIT. Phaedriel - 16:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed references to religion

Although this whole idea seems far-fetched, it is certainly more plausible than the theory of a God, a theory conjured up by Religion. However the big bang theory does not completely contradict religion since the theory is mentioned in the Quran - Chapter 21, verse 30.

This is a scientific theory; it does not need to be proved by religion. Before you want to bring in such aguments again, please rean this This theory is only a way to sell some human explanation of something that no one finds easy to understand.And it is incomplete and fails to explain many real facts of our reality today.Like for instance our solar system and the fact that our earth contains uranium. Where that uranium was sintethized?.In how many stars that were born and died before earth?It takes stars with mass a lot biger that our sun to fusion lighter elements and make uranium out of them.That is not possible even with our own sun.So previous stars were responsible of the heavy elements we have on earth.Those elements were made before the sun.And supposing a star lives 5000 millon years.At least you need a born and dead star to have made that uranium, and the subsequent event to use that cold matter that contained the uranium of our earth today.Add all that and you have more than 13.7 billion years. What really happened before us, No one really knows.

Another question...How long does it take for a cloud of dust and matter to heat up and make a huge star that ends into a supermasive black hole?Where are the desperate looked after warmholes, or the invented Higgs Bosons??...To avoid the frightening idea of a entropic death.Just ideas.How many dead stars astronomers have found so far.I mean dense dark bodies with enormous gravity fields. Or a dead solar system , one in which the star in the center does not shine anymore, but still with orbiting planets????. Those 13.7 billion years seem to me prety short.Don't they?

The very idea of an endless space is something alien to humans.We have to have a begining for our own peace of mind.And also want inmortality as well.Perhaps there is no begining and no end.Time is only a concept for our use, and so is memory.If you argue against that please tell me what happened long before the big bang took place.Because obviously all that matter that exploded was someplace else before that supossed explosion.And another question is how long did it take from some previous point in time for the big bang to happen.The very same question does not make much sense, because there is no begining of time.And another one for the big bang supporters...how the big bang matter came all together for the explotion,and why did that matter explode???.

Alternative theory

Perhaps a reference to this article about a theory challenging the existence of an expanding universe should be made: The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests | Live Science Kdammers (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)