User talk:Alexander Shlyapik

Hi!

I look over edits to make sure there are no issues with them. I've recently noticed a large number of accounts registered with usernames similar to yours. Most of these users have been contributing constructively, but a few have been engaging in vandalism. Did you make this account as part of a class or tutorial?

Happy editing!   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! No, this account was not created as part of a course or an educational project. This is my personal account. I am interested in cosmology and noticed that some sections regarding the Hubble tension were missing recent theoretical developments. I am adding scientifically relevant data supported by stable preprints with DOI to improve the comprehensiveness of these articles. Have a great day! Alexander Shlyapik (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, cool!   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alexander Shlyapik: Please don't add self-published sources to articles, like you did at Hubble's law (Special:Diff/1344320900/1344339067). This is particularly true -- but not limited to -- papers that have not been peer-reviewed. In cases where you are involved with a study, constituting a conflict of interest, make an edit request on the article talk page instead. See Template:Edit COI for further instructions. Renerpho (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: I appreciate the clarification on COI protocols. My intent was purely to update the article with the latest empirical results (DESI DR2 2025/2026) that provide a 7.5σ resolution to the tensions discussed.

While the peer-review process for this specific note is ongoing, the mathematical framework (Viscous Cosmology) is well-established by authors like Brevik and Odintsov. I believe the data speaks for itself, regardless of the contributor's identity. I will respect the Wikipedia guidelines and leave further integration to independent editors. Have a great day! ~2026-17371-63 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you are User:Alexander Shlyapik but forgot to sign in: Thanks for your understanding. Please, when the peer-review process is done, feel free to post a note to the article talk page, so that users can take a look and decide if it should be added to the article. Renerpho (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: I understand your concerns regarding self-citation. However, it is important to note that this model is currently undergoing professional verification and has received significant endorsement within the theoretical physics community.

Specifically, the work is endorsed by Iver Brevik (a pioneer of viscous cosmology) on arXiv, and has been positively reviewed by Christian Corda. Furthermore, the CDEX collaboration (Qian Yue) is currently evaluating their experimental data (the 5.889 keV resonance) in the context of this 4.8 keV condensate model.

Given the 7.5σ significance and the support from these established figures, I believe the information provides crucial encyclopedic value for the current state of the Hubble tension debate. I will leave it to the community to decide on the permanent inclusion of these verified results. Alexander Shlyapik (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

That may be so; but as far as I can tell, your comment was the first time that "viscous cosmology" has ever been mentioned on Wikipedia, anywhere. So, when the paper is ready and you make that talk page post, it can't hurt to briefly explain why that theory should be considered. (There is no need to try to explain it to me here, I am in no position to evaluate it.) Renerpho (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that this is an oversight by Wikipedia and that the theory should get some attention, I suggest you make a post at WP:WikiProject Physics instead. Renerpho (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding. As an independent researcher, I aim to bring more physical insight into science, as I believe the classical ΛCDM model has reached a dead end. Lately, there’s been much talk about viscous dark matter, but I personally believe we shouldn't just multiply entities; we need to rethink the foundations. I have developed a model and shared it in the WP:WikiProject Physics section. I’d be grateful if any physicists could take a look and perhaps find it useful for their work. Alexander Shlyapik (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise revolutionary ideas. We present established consensus. We also mention ideas that may challenge that consensus, but only once they have gained attention by enough people to have become notable. Can you convince users that "Viscous Cosmology" passes that high bar, by pointing to independent and reliable sources about it? Renerpho (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)