Talk:Big Bang
Quantheory (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I reverted to the previous version because the information about the early universe was simply a duplicate of material later in the same article. [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:32, 14 December 2006 (CST) | I reverted to the previous version because the information about the early universe was simply a duplicate of material later in the same article. [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:32, 14 December 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The word "theory" seems to be used laxly throughout the article. I have the concern of conflating the colloquialism with the scientific meaning. It is however difficult to avoid given the limited diction available for "plausible but unsupported explanation"--[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 21:50, 17 June 2009 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In retrospect, the version previous to my last correction was pretty good, but there was a parenthetical comment at the end that wasn't really right. I'm going to leave my new version because I like it better but if anyone disagrees go ahead and fix it. -- [[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 22:34, 30 June 2010 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:34, 30 June 2010
I reverted to the previous version because the information about the early universe was simply a duplicate of material later in the same article. Kazim 20:32, 14 December 2006 (CST)
The word "theory" seems to be used laxly throughout the article. I have the concern of conflating the colloquialism with the scientific meaning. It is however difficult to avoid given the limited diction available for "plausible but unsupported explanation"--Zurahn 21:50, 17 June 2009 (CDT)
In retrospect, the version previous to my last correction was pretty good, but there was a parenthetical comment at the end that wasn't really right. I'm going to leave my new version because I like it better but if anyone disagrees go ahead and fix it. -- quantheory 22:34, 30 June 2010 (CDT)
