Talk:Galaxy
|
|
Reason for reverting: in an article about a scientific subject ("galaxy" is a word invented by and for scientists, not some olden-days "spiritual" word), it's always possible to fill pages upon pages with "This is what the scientists think .... BUT, 'more advanced isoteric sources' say that ...", with a donzen alternate theories, but we should resits that "urge".
The problem is that while thousands of scientists that study galaxies actually believe the kind of stuff written in the current article, the "esoteric" (spiritual, I'd call it) stuff you wrote about is hardly common belief, not even among any groups of spiritualists, astrologists, clerics of some religion, or anything. If you want to you explain how an esoteric school of thought called "Galaxism" (I'm just making this up, sorry) views galaxis, it would be much better if you added a "Galaxism's view on Galaxis" section in the Galaxism article, and in the Galaxy page add a link to that section, from the "Related Links". Nyh 07:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the added stuff is just someone's joke and the material was not expected to stay!
- Adrian Pingstone 14:58, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the added stuff is just someone's joke and the material was not expected to stay!
Would "galactographic" be an appropriate adjective equivalent to "geographical"? (A neologism, but it might be useful) Jackiespeel 19:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no proof that galaxies evolve on their own - the Big Bang is a speculative theory and has quite a few problems. If anyone disagrees, let me know. Salva 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Salva, you know people disagree with that. -- Temtem 03:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, "Temptem." Those that do disagree comprise a shrinking minority. One of the major problems with the Big Bang theory is that it violates several laws of physics. These include, but are not limited to: the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of angular momentum, etc. Although the theory of relativity does show us that our galaxy and the universe are expanding, it does not prove the Big Bang actually happened. If you disagree, then I suggest that you consider relearning about these important laws. By the way - if the Big Bang is true, then where did the laws of physics come from?? Salva 15:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Protogalaxies
Wouldn't it be a good idea to restore the reference to protogalaxies? -- Temtem 16:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Not much to say about them; I think a link in the See Also section would be sufficient. Ben Standeven 20:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)