User talk:Thenewbigbang
|
February 2020
[edit]
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Improving the article, you say? You are one of the many people that think the big bang theory is fact, I see. Have you ever looked up the mysteries of the universe? Do you know how many there are? Do you know what dark matter is? Dark energy? Do you know why scientists just found 100 stars that completely disappeared? Don't you realize that the big bang theory needs so much improving that it is ridiculous? Please allow me to help in order to help the many scientists on this Earth that look into space cannot decipher what they see. Look up the word "conventionalism" on wiki. You will find that the big bang theory is defined by this word. Science cannot continue on this path forever. Hopefully you would agree just as so many scientists have as they try to unravel what they see in space. Please respond. I'm looking forward to your response. Thenewbigbang (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
A summary of important site policies and guidelines
[edit]- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- User-generated sources (such as blogs, social media profiles, self-published books, or pay-to-print books) are generally not reliable sources. The only exception is when an already notable subject makes a claim about themselves that is not countered or doubted by independent sources.
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
- We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
- "Assume good faith" is a foundational site policy. Accusing others of not being here in good faith without good evidence can be considered a personal attack.
- Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.
- Noone owns any article here, or even their edits to articles. At the top of the edit page, it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone," which means that if you don't want someone to change or even remove what you add, then you need to use another site.
Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a part of wiki should be dedicated to articles in which scientists admit confusuin as to what they observe in space. If this website continues to back the big bang theory, it is causing a disservice to the public in general. Thanks for your advice. Thenewbigbang (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you need to find a different site. BTW, "wiki" is just the software this site (and many unrelated ones) run on. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I use this site a lot. It is an excellent site. However, the lambda CDM model is not working. I was trying to help the problem. The people that edit my suggestions do not understand what they are editting like I do. The world asks me many questions everyday related to the universe because they do not get what they need from Wikipedia. Maybe, if these editors will let me help, the general public will be satisfied with what they are not currently getting. It is no big deal if I'm rejected. I've seen it in the past. It is because the big bang is a form of conventionalism. That means the world has been forced to believe in a theory that has major flaws. The only way to rectify this is to understand and realize the mysteries of the universe. People once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Now, people think the universe came from nothing. That is conventionalism. A website like this should not promote it. Thanks. Thenewbigbang (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Have you edited here before with another account? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)