Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Nature of the Universe

Original research, using WB as a personal web host and worse than that a synthesis of misleading pseudo science. QU TalkQu 22:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I only glanced at it but can't it be merged with some of the work we have on biblical studies ? The subject matter seems be something that someone attempting to conciliate religion with science facts would engage in. The presentation is poor and would require a extensive restructuring, making deletion not objectionable to me, but I would like to see something on this nature covered. It probably would require a special Wikibookian that has a deep understanding not only of science but on biblical based religions, something to me seems mutually exclusive, making it something that I would see as interesting to cover.
 * I wouldn't mind attempting to merge the topics and save some of the conjectures (religion is by definition non factual based, but similar to philosophy and other humanities studies) this extends a bit the normal definition of wikibook, since methodology is primarily analytical, critical, or speculative. This can explains QU classification as pseudo science, since religion is mostly non scientific...  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's a blog entry, using Wikibooks as a platform from which to speak. One person pontificating with no pretense of objective study or of any potential for collaboration; looking for potential value in it would require putting more work into it than the total value that would come out of the effort.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Religious discussion! I challenge the claim that it is pseudo science. This is an attempt to explain the Origin of the Universe and its Nature. The Nature part has not yet been presented and could be omitted. Science, Physics, does not explain how our universe could have come into existence but shows its inability to do so as quoted from Steven Hawking. I have attempted to find any evidence that science has an explanation for the Origin of the Universe and can not find one. The most basic laws of science declares it impossible to explain the creation of the universe. There are numerous scientific arguments that, at least, seem to disprove religious teachings and my goal is not to take part in that discussion. Religion and Atheism are based on believe and not science. I am not interested in such a discussion. My interest is in the science. I believe I know and understand the Nature of the Universe and how it originated without magic but with science we know. Since physics can not explain anything prior to The Big Bang it is necessary to look at other science for the answer and I have found a very reasonable explanation in that other science.

Delete my whole dissertation if you choose. If you choose, limit it to what I have presented, since this much is purely based on the laws of physics. I plead that you do not copy any of it into a religious discussion. If it remains I would hope any discussion would be primarily on the Discussion page. I would be eager to hear where my arguments fall short. Again, although this is a discussion of Science and God it is not a religious discussion. For me it is purely Science, Fact and what you might call Theory. The Theory has not yet been presented.--Thingmaker (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments I propose to speedy delete as out of scope. This is pure original research - Wikibooks does not permit you to define and present your own theory. QU TalkQu 14:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have not yet offered the Theory. The article is a statement of accepted science and the conclusions it demands. But it is your world, I am just a visitor, one that I thoutht had been invided. I was hoping you would point out the pseudo science for me.--Thingmaker (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please include references for the sources where you read about the physical nature of the universe and conclusions to allow the science and conclusions to be verified by others as having been previously published by a reliable and trustworthy source. That is the quickest way to demonstrate that a work is based on accepted science, and not pseudoscience or original research. I think dissertations of an educational nature are within the scope of Wikiversity. --dark lama  17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Kind of have to agree with QuiteUnusual, here., possibly speedy. The thing is not whether it is pseudoscience. The point is that this is aimed at presenting a new theory that attempts to explain something. That is not what Wikibooks is for, we don't offer a home for original research, and there is little that is more OR than a new theory. I would suggest that Wikiversity might be a better home for this. Chazz (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted my material. You might want to delete my deletions. Have a nice day.--Thingmaker (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

QU was hardly the only significant contributer!--Thingmaker (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misreading it. I closed the discussion because YOU requested the deletion and YOU were the only significant contributor. Nowhere does it say QU was the significant contributor, that is my signature you are reading as if it was part of the sentence. QU TalkQu 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I wish you well. I hope Wikibooks can define how it can record only information in books without any original work and not copyright material. I am retiring from WB. Sorry for the disturbance.--Thingmaker (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between original research and original work. The theory of evolution, the theory of the "big bang", either can be written about using your own words. That is original work. If you invent a theory called "big bang evolution" which is a synthesis of the two other theories then it is original research. In simple terms you can write a textbook based on established facts and theories but not on new theories you are proposing yourself. QU TalkQu 19:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not invent a theory called "big bang evolution" or even attempt to combine the two theories. I wanted to clairify missunderstandings about each. My presentation involving The Big Bang used Steven Hawking’s words to point out the misconceptions of the significants of the Big Bang as it relates to the Nature of the Universe. I did not propose any new concept but simply tried to point out the significance of his words and how they disprove the idea that The Big Bang explains the Origin of the Universe. The Big Bang explains the expansion of the Universe but presents a scientificly unexplainable event in its origin.

The discussion of Evolution is a separate matter. Here I only attempted to connect what we all see everyday as Intelegent (human) design. Many believe the theory of Evolutions somehow explains the origin of Life on Earth. In fact it only explains how the development of life forms shows the evolution of life forms not unlike other Human designs.

Is there pseudo science somewhere in this?

I admit the next step would have been to propose some original or semi original theory. I was not certain I really wanted to go there yet. I would have been quite satisified to quit with what I had written, a clairification of what the theories actually prove. Maybe the two theories discussed should have been presented as separate documents but the two lead many to unjustified conclusions about the Nature of the Universe.--Thingmaker (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)