This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Knowledge Seeker (talk | contribs) at 03:28, 5 May 2010 (→Removed link: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:28, 5 May 2010 by Knowledge Seeker (talk | contribs) (→Removed link: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Universe was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Exists -> Existance_Existance">
I noticed that the Exists link goes to Existential quantification, but I wonder if Existence would be a better link?
Simplicity apparently coinciding with reality.
It might be helpful to consider Universe from a point of view outside it, i.e. by looking at the complete Universe, either finite or infinite, containing simultaneously both its beginnings and completion, whatever they may be, and all that it contains at all and any points of its completed state. This enables the view that we are merely part of the process of its completion, considered as a minor detail in its linear expansion, with the chemical process of our preception necessarily involving our movement across space, which gives us a blinkered view of Universe.
From this external perspective you may see that Universe has just one ingredient, which is space, rather than the confusing extraneity of 'space-time', and with distorsions or concentrations in space forming the effect of sub-atomic particles, and so on up the scale of material structure. This matter, as observed by animate organisms persisting across space, affords us the illusion of 'time' and of temporal 'activity'.
This external view enables us to appreciate the true essential simplicity of Universe, rather than any complication required by any unreal complex structural contortions necessary to satisfy limited human mathematical inventions. It might also more clearly enable a general appreciation of the reality of Universe, rather than secreting its absolute simplicity behind a web of unnecessary and misleading mathematical concepts. Absolutelyamazin (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Multiverse
This article fails to distinguish between so-called 'universes' where there is a connection between them and those where there is none. "Parallel" implies a connection as does emanating from the same alleged quantum event and having the same history prior to this event. On the other hand there may be universes which truly have no connection with our own and of which we may know nothing.
I found the seven "bubble" universe diagram amusing, especially given the article's equations. Perhaps the article should decide whether it wants to be a graduate level physics article or a popular one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.130.240 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A question metaphysical literacy?
Universe. Fundamental flaw – a question of metaphysical literacy?
The statement: ... all forms of matter and energy ... etc.
I have problems with the “all”. All suggest exactly that, viz. the “all and everything” .
Can there be an entity in which time is an essential factor?
Wilberfalse (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed update to the lead
Currently the lead section of this article does not appear to satisfy WP:LEAD. I put together a rewrite of the lead that cuts the content down to about five paragraphs: still longer than recommended, but much shorter than the present form. It can be reviewed here: Talk:Universe/Temp.
Before making such a wholesale change I wanted to make sure I'm not treading on a sensitive ground here. Does anybody find this rewrite significantly objectionable? If not then I'll go ahead and make the revision. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I was curious as to what would happen if I took out the stuff in the LEDE which seemed too detailed, and rearranged it a bit. I got 5 paragraphs when done, so you might see if you agree with what I took out. And no, be bold. You can always replace it with your own idea of a 5-para revision, and we can compare. For example, should that history-of-models paragraph go back to the end of the LEDE, where it was before? Also, I think the LEDE should mention puppies. SBHarris 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
20 Trillion x 9² is the distance of the Universe from end to end.
Allthough that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres.
It can be measured by 20 Trillion x 9² miles from end to end. 70.181.249.210 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
What lays beyond the universe?
I mean when you arrive at the boundaries of the universe what will you find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.65.225 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- 42 --Marc Kupper|talk 06:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think there are any boundaries. It's like sailing round the world in search of the edge of the earth- there are no boundaries as such, I think space is infinite and is expanding into the 4th dimension. Autonova (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see no problem with that. --M4gnum0n (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be good. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok with me. DVdm (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Done The bots should start over the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Static Universe.
Our Universe is a part of a larger reality. That reality extends beyond the three space times accessible to our observation, those of matter, the material Universe and the immaterial space time. The eternal static Nothingness acts as the observer of its own 'self'. This creates an imbalance which organises the medium of Nothingness, starting from itself as the 'beginning' '0',along the unlimited plurality of parts of Nothingness, back to the Nothingness as the 'whole' symbolised by '1'. The organised medium consists of parts 1/2 to the power of 'n' where n=1.2.3... and it extends to the 'end' of the whole of the static Nothingness as '1' without everreaching the 'end'. The medium remains dynamic due to the imperfection. Every part 1/2 to the power of 'n' is of different magnitude but of the same organisation of unlimited plurality of the units of Nothingness. Th lack of balance,manifested as the difference, is motivation for change. Each 1/2 to 'n' remains static during the time of transformation within it, from the 'beginning' '0' to the identity with the static part 1/2 to 'n'. The organisation of the medium is a 'law of nature'. When the internalo transformation reaches identity with the static unit 1/2 to'n' the two identical units unite quantitastively sand become one new, temporarily static unit 1/2 to the power of (n-1) but of double mangitude. One of such units 1/2 to the power of 'n' is our Universe. It is static from 'outside' but dynamic from the 'inside'. KK (92.24.142.248 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
Whose conception?
I am not sure what this image was supposed to show, but the original caption had something about a "medieval" church man coming to the edge of the Flat Earth. This has nothing to do with Aristotle, who like other educated Greeks had adopted the Spherical Earth concept of Parmenides. It has even less to do with Medieval Christianity - see Myth of the Flat Earth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Caption in French: Un missionnaire du moyen age raconte qu'il avait trouvé le point où le ciel et la Terre se touchent.
- Babelfish translation to English (slightly cleaned up): A missionary of the Middle Ages tells that he has found the point where the sky and the Earth touch
I hate to keep bringing this up, all around the pedia' but it seems to be some sort of meme. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how or when it got here, but your objection makes sense. Too bad, I find it a really nice image :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed link
I removed a link to http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gill/Lat_Intro.htm — I don't think it is appropriate here. Feel free to discuss. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Categories:- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class metaphysics articles
- Mid-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- B-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists