Request for an up to date list of cosmological theories

[Tanelorn]

TL;DR Summary

Request for an up to date list of cosmological theories with various categories of information

Is there an up to date list of all cosmological theories resource which provides some or preferably all of the following information:

Which theories are considered speculative and even highly speculative? (degree 1 to 4)
Which theories are still actively being worked on and roughly how many people and years.
Which theories are unproven and which ones likely cannot ever be proven?
Which theories if proven true would be in agreement with which others? And which ones would then be considered no longer true?
Which theories are not acceptable for discussion here. eg. Max Tegmark's level 1-4 multiverse was not yesterday.

I hope you will agree this would be great information to get everyone on the same page.
I have only be able to find this list so far which does not include the above categorization, but at least it shows the numbers are not too high to produce a list like this.
Timeline of cosmological theories - Wikipedia

Euler diagrams may be useful in this list: Epistemology - Wikipedia
(others are still using wiki links here so hopefully these at least should be ok)

(Also does anyone have a link to the independent research forum?)

 

[Vanadium 50]

It was not Max Tegmark's theory, it was yours. And to paraphrase Lloyd Bentzen, you're no Max Tegmark.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there an up to date list of all cosmological theories resource which provides some or preferably all of the following information:

As you were told in the other thread, no, there is no such list because there is no governing body of "Cosmology" that could create such a list. I don't understand why you keep asking.

I hope you will agree this would be great information to get everyone on the same page.

Who is "everyone"? The relevant people for this forum are the moderators and you. You need to get on the right page.

 

[Tanelorn]

It was not Max Tegmark's theory, it was yours. And to paraphrase Lloyd Bentzen, you're no Max Tegmark.

Actually at the time I had forgotten who it was, and I see very little between what I said and what Max said. It is only how I visualize it.

 

[Tanelorn]

As you were told in the other thread, no, there is no such list because there is no governing body of "Cosmology" that could create such a list. I don't understand why you keep asking.

Who is "everyone"? The relevant people for this forum are the moderators and you. You need to get on the right page.

I didn't ask for this list yesterday, I asked for it today.
Such a list should be relatively easy to write and very useful for part timers.
If you are unable to answer the question please don't reply!

 

[berkeman]

(Also does anyone have a link to the independent research forum?)

That sub-forum was deprecated years ago, for reasons that have been discussed repeatedly in the Feedback forum.

If you are unable to answer the question please don't reply!

He did answer your question.

 

[Tanelorn]

"That sub-forum was deprecated years ago, for reasons that have been discussed repeatedly in the Feedback forum".
I don't drop in here very often, this place is not exactly welcoming.

So the answer from all here? is that the list doesn't exist, we don't feel like doing it, and we are happy to go on handing out warnings. Got it. :)

 

[russ_watters]

So the answer from all here is that the list doesn't exist, we don't feel like doing it...

That's not the question you asked, and that last line in your list of criteria is an error of yours - it doesn't match the prior context and isn't valid/needed on this forum. You asked if there was a governing body in "Cosmology" that decides such things. There isn't. That's a different issue than compliance with the forum rules. The forum rules are not difficult to understand: we do not allow "personal theories", which means that anything we discuss here/you post here has to be backed by peer reviewed research. Note; not just based on it, but actually backed directly by it (what you say must match what the research says). That's it.

I don't drop in here very often, this place is not exactly welcoming.

...and we are happy to go on handing out warnings. Got it.

We'd much prefer you just follow the rules without complaining or trying to back-door around them, but we recognize that this forum isn't for everyone. Still, it makes no sense to join a forum, agree to the rules, then complain that you don't like them and try to circumvent them. That's not us being rude, that's you not keeping your end of the deal. There are other fora out there that would probably fit your needs better.

 

[Tanelorn]

Can we try to move on from yesterdays question already (I have) and instead move on to todays question(s), first post above above.

 

[russ_watters]

Can we try to move on from yesterdays question already (I have) and instead move on to todays question(s) above.

Asked and answered several times now. Do you have anything else, or are we done?

 

[Tanelorn]

ok and which answer applies?

 

[russ_watters]

ok and which answer applies?

Evidently we're done. Thread closed. Please follow the rules and stop this.