Revision as of 04:55, 25 July 2024 editNedBoomerson (talk | contribs)65 edits salutations← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 29 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Universe/Archive 4) (bot |
(11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
Line 65: |
Line 65: |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Universe/1}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Universe/1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== The universe comprises all of nature, not all of existence (or reality). == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#God (artwork)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
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. ] (]) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28#Universe (artwork)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Disputed == |
|
|
|
|
|
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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1225820689 |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to the comparison of the changes made: |
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 |
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please read ], you’re not going to get Misplaced Pages to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe, and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate. I’ve reverted more of your edits, Misplaced Pages is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy, and edits like this are mostly disruptive. You’re welcome to edit the article but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article because you personally dispute the idea of the universe isn’t a great place to start. If you have objections with the provided sources please be more specific so we can all work together to improve it. ] 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Reply: ''' |
|
|
|
|
|
>Please read WP:SOAPBOX |
|
|
|
|
|
great, the whole page is a soapbox for an absurd term. “No cap.” |
|
|
|
|
|
>you’re not going to get Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
>Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages 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). |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You don't have the slightest idea of what Misplaced Pages is about, so I suggest to take your business elsewhere. ] (]) 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agree with ] and the entire field of astronomy. The term 'universe' is already thoroughly sourced; the Definition section has 10 citations. ], Misplaced Pages is not a ] for your inadequately sourced ] views. Misplaced Pages editors are required to be civil to each other (]), that means ] such as . ] like the above can get you blocked. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::More to the point, what {{u|DisciplinedIdea}} peddles is ] ], not ]. ] (]) 09:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] was just indeffed, so back to business as usual. ] 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Space and time == |
|
|
|
|
|
While spacetime is a technical term, the universe is spacetime and its contents. The interaction of space and time is part of science (see ]). 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 ]. ] (]) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think linking the tactile concepts is much more helpful and intuitive for a general audience. Your conception of ] is also a hair too broad and dogmatic: links are a navigation aid, so every article has other articles whence it can be linked: normally space and time shouldn't be linked, but they should be from here, as their encyclopaedic substance is directly relevant. ]] 23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::In the context of the universe, space and time means spacetime. While a technical term, it is the correct term. It is technically incorrect to consider space and time as separate, which is what separate links imply. Additionally, ] redirects to spacetime. ] (]) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think this argument here is very robust or coherent, sorry. We're not operating in a particular technical frame, we're operating in a general, encyclopaedic frame. People following a link in this place are much more likely to be interested in learning about space and time as tactile, general concepts. ]] 23:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::While Misplaced Pages should be accessible to the general, nontechnical reader, it should be technically accurate. ] (]) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Just because it bothers you doesn't make it inaccurate. The scope of the article is broader than a physics context. ]] 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Let's get a ]. ] (]) 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::If someone else agrees with you, I'm sure they'll let me know. ]] 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
=== TLDR for 3O === |
|
|
While we both agree the first sentence should be: "The <b>universe</b> is space and time and their contents.", we disagree on how linking should occur for "space and time". |
|
|
<ul> |
|
|
<li>My opinion: ]. Spacetime is a concept within the ], an accepted scientific theory, that space and time are intertwined. Linking them together conforms to the theory of relativity while linking them separately does not because such linking implies space and time aren't intertwined. </li> |
|
|
<li>{{u|Remsense}}'s opinion: ] and ]. An implied technical inaccuracy is alright because the general reader would prefer to learn about space and time as separate concepts, even though these topics aren't technically separate. </li> |
|
|
</ul> |
|
|
@{{u|Remsense}}, feel free to provide your TLDR of this dispute if you want. ] (]) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; background: transparent; padding: 4px;" |
|
|
| ] '''Response to ]:''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | The current version seems much preferable to me. We know that ] is to introduce the topic to nonspecialist readers in plain English. We also know that ] for the general reader to understand—it should be intelligible ''on sight''. We have individual articles on ] and ] 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. <!-- Template:Third opinion response --> ] (]) 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalization of the word "Universe" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't it be the Universe? I mean we only have one universe, doesn't it make the "universe" a ]? According to English grammar rules, all proper nouns should be capitalized, isn't it? ] (]) 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not quite on, both counts. There are many proper names normally used with the definite article in English running text, but those articles are not actually part of the name, e.g. ], ]. And no, not all proper names are capitalized in English, that's an oversimplification that works most of the time: other exceptions include ''summer'', ]] 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::MOS has had several discussions about this, one in 2014 ], a long one with an RfC in 2015 ] one in 2016 ]. None of these came to a consensus. Looks like they gave up. |
|
|
::We had a discussion on this page in 2019, see ], also with no consensus. In it I did an (unsystematic) survey of recently published astronomy books and there didn't seem to be a consensus, some capitalized and some didn't. I suppose someone could look at the major refereed astronomical journals, and see if there is a consensus policy in those. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The astronomical books stored in my local library use the capitalized Universe. I think the consensus among the estabished astronomical societies is to treat Universe as a proper noun and always capitalizing the word, which is the same method they use to resolve the Earth/earth issue. ] (]) 08:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Here's a list of books that don't capitalize: |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
::::Here's a list of books that capitalize: |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
::::It doesn't seem there is a consensus either way. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think all proper nouns begin with the ] are always capitalized (e.g. the Sun, the Moon, the ], and the ] etc.). ] (]) 08:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''COMMENT''' We should use the capitalized "Universe" to describe the physical universe which we are a part of, and use the lower case "universe" to describe a fictional universe which often appears in comic books or games. |
|
|
:For this article, the capitalized "Universe" should be used. ] (]) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removals == |
|
|
|
|
|
@] seems to have removed a lot of highly verifiable information from the article, as it isn't inline cited. I figure it's best just to ] so people can readd it with citations. ]] 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@] @] How can anyone ever say “the universe is expanding” if the Universe is supposed to be all of everything that ever happened/s in all of The 4D spacetime?! You’ve got me curious about the citations though. When I looked into this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Zeilik1998-11, I found it is just a Gloss from an introductory text book: https://archive.org/details/introductoryastr0000zeil/page/n643/mode/2up?q=totality, https://archive.org/details/introductoryastr0000zeil/page/n643/mode/2up?q=Glossary. Then these three were just enclyclopedia britanica, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Britannica-22, merriam-webster dictionary, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-23, and dictionary dot com, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-24. And then this one https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Schreuder2014-25 linked to a page from a huge book that may have had valid science somewhere, in some section, but linked directly to non-scientific philosophizing the likes of: “Of course, definitions are a matter of taste. And I prefer to write it with a capital U as there is only one of it, and I am of the personal opinion that the Universe has some sort of spiritual ‘personality’, be it, of course, of a non-human kind.” Are these adequate Sources?! Earnestly, ] (]) 03:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not sure myself as to whether the citations are adequate, but I do not feel it's necessary to deliberate here what I understand to be an incontrovertible (if abstract) claim in modern cosmology. ]] 03:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Has there never been a better reference for it though? ] (]) 03:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm sure there is. (To be clear, I'm not a major contributor to this article myself, I'm just peeking in now and then in response to the activity of others. Not to exclude the possibility, but the idea of digging in and working on this one myself is consistently frightening to me.)]] 04:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I can’t imagine a part of an equation trying to calculate an integral over all d4 either /s ] (]) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
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)