Jump to content

Talk:Tired light/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Why doesn't this theory seem to be mentioned anywhere?

I'm not able to judge of the validity of the arguments presented in this article, however they look to the very least pretty solid to me. Has this model already been mentioned here ? Is anybody here able to assess it ? DrBoumBoum 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sory SA for cutting in, but I want to ask DrBoumBoum something: what arguments did you see presented in this article? The article seems just stating what "themporalist model" is not. But the same applies to so called Einstei's universe invented by Einstein long before those various things were postulated by BB folks and so it is also not addressing them. So I'd rather stay with Einstein since, as it is easy to prove, most of those newly postulated things aren't real. They are based on a common faulty hypothesis that the universe is expanding, without ever attempting to prove that it really is (which is also impossible to prove since it can be proved observationally that it ain't). Personally I prefer science based on observations rather than wild unprovable guesses. Jim (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look notable enough to be included here. --ScienceApologist 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it does not (a rare case of unity of opinions of ScienceApologist and Jim (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

"Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law."

Is this really necessary? Afterall the standard model is entirely foolish and only kept aloft by relentless lying. And secondly you don't know the above. Have you taken a survey? This is the voice of mindless authoritarian consensus talking. If any scientist comes out against the non-tired-light stupidity they are going to be subject to abuse of the sort that may damage their career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"foolish ... lying ... mindless ... stupidity" Be civil. Assume good faith. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

SORRY, WHAT DID HAPPEN HERE? TOTALLY ERASED

The total history of TIRED LIGHT and the whole discussion until today was simply erased?

84.158.103.3 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed references were removed but non-peer-reviewed references inserted

- I noticed that ScienceApologist had removed peer-reviewed references despite the fact that this issue had been settled on this Talk page; he did so shortly after I indicated that I was taking a Wikipdia break. Now I noticed it, I reinserted mention of these references.

- This article also appears to contain non-peer-reviewed references, notably Arxiv.

Harald88 11:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding Einsteinian model of tired light

Hi, I just added an Einsteinian model of tired light (resulting from an assumption of strict conservation of energy in Einstein's theory of gravitation). I wonder how long it will last since, as I noticed lately, the strict conservation of energy offends a lot of theists (since gods couldn't create the universe if conservation of energy were a law of nature — that supersedes the laws of gods). I assume that one of my friends theists is going promptly to revert my edits and I just wonder who it is going to be. Jim 09:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess: would it be ... ScienceApologist? Jim 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guessed wrong, it was Duae Quartunciae, another believer in legitimacy of making matter out of nothing. Who also protests against being called a friend of mine as apparently he wants to make friends only among theists... And being a believer in conservation of energy, regretably, I don't fit his standards. Jim 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Half a year later and still nobody writes about the true mechanism of tired light...
Actually the tired light is only its Newtonian representation. The same math, different physics. This is since unlike in real physics (Einsteinian) in Newtonian physics one has gravitational forces acting through vacuum changing photon's energy. Not so in real physics though. In the real physics there can't be any tired light since no gravitational forces act through vacuum and so the loss of energy of photons is excluded from the picture... So photons don't lose energy. Just look like they do.
It's amazing how many "serious cosmologists" still think Newtonian and don't try to switch to Einsteinian thinking where the mystery of tired light has been solved many years ago (23, to be exact). When a stationary universe became a scientific fact. Still kept as a secret to general population. Most likely for the fear that it will lose faith in "serious cosmologists" who had been wrong an all accounts. So, not to embarass them, we have to wait until all of them die out before we might even start doing serious physics...
BTW, did anybody notice that the tired light formula gives the same numerical results of the "accelerating expansion of space" as the supernova project? Ineresting, isn't it? And does anybody care for an explanation why it is so? A hint: parameter R in tired light formula is a so called Einstein's radius of the universe. It means that the solution has something to do with curved space. A curved space in Newtonian math? How come? :-) Jim (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't know whether anybody "writes about the true mechanism of tired light" somewhere else. They don't do it here because it's not allowed. "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources." --Art Carlson (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Art, do you think it is right to limit science to professionals (who according to the science theorists, happen to be the worst candidates around to discover anything -- just look at cosmology chasing its tail for over 70 years). Do you think we don't need any more discoveries (or to restore Dark Ages)? BTW, I'm not surprised, just wondering why you bothered. I thought it was funny and prompting people to think. Jim (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is damn hard, if you haven't spent years studying cosmology, spent years getting paid to do cosmology, and spent years being around the best minds in the field, to come up with an idea that is better than the ideas of the thousands of people that have had those years of experience. Over and above that, I think your view of the history and philosophy of science is dead wrong. Why I bother? I couldn't say. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I never had such a quick reponse :D so I'm impressed. I spend over two decades studying cosmology and discussing things with the best minds in the field, with some personnally (A. Guth, A. Lightman, William Press, for example). It helped me a lot to understand that and why the universe is not expanding for which I'm greatful to them. Despite that they don't share my appriciation of Einstein's theory which I found supporting only a stationary model. To make it clear: Einstein's theory does not leave any room for the expansion if energy is strictly conserved. That's why the BB folks assume now a hypothetical lack of conservation of energy to keep Einstein's theory and the hypothetical expansion at the same time. Jim (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I was never getting paid to do cosmology (I was always paid only for doing electronic engineering, software engineering, and once for teaching sculptors, in The Boston Museum School, to cast their works since our sculpture teacher didn't have this knowledge). However I don't see why it might prevent me being able to think straight about cosmology and to see what those thousands of people you mentioned didn't see. And even find out why they didn't see it, which had been the biggest problem of them all to solve. Since this involves a little bit of sociology. Jim (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you have a daytime job. Don't give it up. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW2: did you ever heard a saying that all wise people think alike? Here you have the answer to your problem of thousands of people thinking that the universe is expanding, or thousands of them thinking on another occasion that the Sun is circling the Earth (since the necessary paralax was not visible) and only one of them thinking against the thousands, that perhaps the stars are further than it was resonable for God to locate them (against the argument of smartest of them all, Tycho Brahe). Jim (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources removed

There were a number of cranky-ish sources that were polluting this page. Included were references to:

  • Masreliez
  • Marmet

These folks more-or-less do not qualify for inclusion in this article due to the WP:FRINGE guidelines which state, in part:

"Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects."

In particular, the ideas of these gentlemen, mostly promulgated over internet message boards and not receiving much in the way of mainstream publication in normal journals, do not belong in an article about a notable mainstream idea.

What's more including an unannotated list of references to tired-light-related articles is also not appropriate. References should be directly relevant to text.

Nondistinguished 14:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The unmistakable bluster of ScienceApologist. After having added your own rules to the guidelines on WP:FRINGE,[1], you then quote yourself as a reason to exclude authors. Then you claim ideas "promulgated over internet message boards", whereas the sources you removed were actually peer reviewed, or on Marmet's own Web site (no different to you citing Ned Wright's own web site). It is your editing that is unreliable, not the sources.--65.164.17.4 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted properly peer-reviewed references. Note that tired light itself is a bit a fringe topic that however is notable and thus it must be properly referenced for NPOV. Harald88 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed references that were removed (again, by the same person, on September 27) have been restored (again, this time by a different person than the one who reverted the removal on 4 September). Anyone wanting to remove references to Physics Essays and IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science based on an opinion that these are "fringe journals" would do well to argue their case in more detail here on Talk. Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed journal that has been published since 1988, with an editorial board of 29 members, most of them with sound university credentials. The IEEE is the largest professional technical organization in the world. The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science has been published since 1973 and has an editorial board that is in the same league with that of Physics Essays. As has already been stated here, the article makes it clear enough that Marmet's views are controversial, as are those of other tired light theorists. In a section of the article specifically devoted to such controversy, readers may want to see the details of Marmet's hypotheses. That is why there are references here. Piperh 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone describing IEEE Transactions as "fringe" either doesn't understand peer review, or has an agenda. --Kwik Nick 10:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Physics Essays

The STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EDITORIAL POLICY for physics essays found here is extremely accommodating of "alternative views". Authors are free to reject the critiques of the reviewers in a manner which is wholly different from the majority of mainstream journals. ScienceApologist 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IEEE Transactions

IEEE transactions in plasma physics has been an outlet for plasma cosmology for some time. Therefore this is is not a mainstream outfit. ScienceApologist 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. "Tired light" is not much of a "mainstream" topic; most discussions of it are therefore to be expected in "non-mainstream" journals. But a plasma physicist colleague confirmed to me that IEEE transactions in plasma physics is a respected peer-reviewed journal. Harald88 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Harald, why don't you ask an astronomy or cosmology colleague if it is considered a respected journal for the publication regarding such topics? ScienceApologist 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Joshua sorry but I don't have astronomy or cosmology colleagues (just physics and plasma physics); in any case, they are likely to have less expertise in physics and plasma physics. Harald88 09:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that IEEE is not an astronomy/cosmology journal. As such, it probably isn't relevant to this article which is about an astronomical phenomenon. ScienceApologist 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong: it's first of all a hypothetical physical phenomenon with possible use in astronomy - similar to for example the Doppler effect. Harald88 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a citation for tired light being used outside of an astronomical context, offer it. Otherwise, I suggest that this is simply original research. ScienceApologist 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No. If yo have a citation according to which physical theory isn't physics when it currently only is applied for a single purpose (or not at all), I'm interested to see it! BTW, the article already cites a paper that suggests that it could be applied for satellite orbits. Harald88 09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made a simple statement that tired light only has relevance to cosmological/astronomical considerations. Oblique references to tired light explaining cosmological redshift-distance relations in a gravitational modification scheme meant to explain the pioneer anomaly by certain loonies (Masreliez) notwithstanding, there are no direct explanations for how tired light can explain anything local. ScienceApologist 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. My simple statement was - and still is - that a hypothesis of physics belongs to physics independent of its possible applications. Harald88 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
But the best you could do to show this was the case was the cite to the Masreliez Pioneer Anomaly speculation. That's not good enough. ScienceApologist 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
NO, it's unnecessary! I only gave it in answer to your question. Harald88 19:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am asking for a citation to a work that indicates that someone is describing tired light independent of astronomical considerations. ScienceApologist 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes we know that you are asking that. I am telling you that it is in vain to pretend that physics would not be physics if it currently seems most interesting for one field of application. Harald88 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would consider any IEEE Transaction to be an acceptable source. If the editors saw fit to accept an article, and considering that IEEE transactions are very respected, then that should be accepted. Ofcourse, the science within may be wrong, but the source journal is a good one. As for IEEE not being an astronomy/cosmology organization, that is true. So the effect is that a well respected journal is publishing outside its traditional purview. But that's how plate tectonics was published. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and since this subject has relevance outside of the plasma cosmology protestations, it seems unreasonable to expect that this source be used for cosmology/astrophysics. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Again: Tired light theories are first of all new theories of physics. Harald88 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a secondary or tertiary source which makes this claim? Because I can point to plenty of astronomy books which claim that tired light is first of all applicable to astronomy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that deciding whether a particular journal is relevant in a particular subject area is progressing on a slippery slope to dumping a great number of journals because they are not specialist enough, or their traditional area of coverage does not overlap the subject in question to a great enough degree. We should judge source journals on their own merits. If they publish papers outside their traditional purview, then so be it. If they continue to do so, then either their audience and/or purview expands, or they lose credibility. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Recently I was made to think that two of us (Piperh and myself) were disagreeing with User:ScienceApologist and User:Nondistinguished on the above-mentioned issue. It now turns out that - according to Wikipedia administrators - User:Nondistinguished actually was a sockpuppet of User:ScienceApologist. Using sockputtets in a disagreement so as to get the overhand is disgusting behaviour, it abuses Wikipedia fair play. Harald88 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of this and its appropriateness (or supposed lack thereof) is going on here. ScienceApologist 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the interdiction of such manipulations is discussed on the policy page Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
Harald88 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fringe sources removed

Tired light is an idea which has received mainstream attention. As such, the policy of WP:FRINGE applies here. Papers which have not received mainstream notice or review should not be included as sources here. Therefore, I have removed the papers which have not received mainstream attention. The relevant statements are:

"References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject, such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself, should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."

Proposals for novel ideas and theoretical interpretations appear all the time in literature. It is Wikipedia's job to only report on the most notable theories.

ScienceApologist 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the fringe topic "Tired light", which indeed received attention. It is incompatible with policy to "only report on the most notable theories". Instead, Wikipedia demands to report on notable information. WP:FRINGE is not a policy and you wrote much of it.
Note that I reverted your edit since you changed much more than you suggested, too much to follow. However, I of course support you on the removal of completely un-notable papers (cited by no-one) or non-peer reviewed material such as conference proceedings. Harald88 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The papers that I removed are self-cited only. The ones that remained were at least subject to critical review. ScienceApologist 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

- I still have the impression that you removed more than that. Anyway, I did a little clean-up of Arxiv and conference papers now; I retained two Arxiv papers that allegedly have been published; however, they should be completed by their journal references.

- moreover, I removed the following text that lacks a serious reference and anyway doesn't seem to add anything essential:

Jayant Narlikar notes an earlier mechanism by Pecker (1976)[1] ".. based on the photon having a small rest mass, m, and that while travelling through intergalactic space it is supposed to lose energy by collisional interactions with a specific form of matter. It appears that this matter cannot be made of the usual known particles like electrons or protons". ref name="narlikar">NARLIKAR on Pecker and Vigier Models — LOST REFERENCE, PLEASE HELP

- I also added reference to a paper in Nature.

Harald88 11:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

None of Marmet's articles are cited by anyone other than members of his research group. This means that he hasn't received the recognition required to be encyclopedic. ScienceApologist 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop with inventing new rules for pushing your own agenda. Harald88 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing's changed, Except now Joshua's making it up as he goes along. Jon (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the problem are not the rules but the stupid humans applying them. Remember that Hitler was elected according to democratic rules in the most democratic society of his time and look what happened. In our own society it isn't much better.

Stupid humans believe that one may invent rules that prevent stupid behavior. But "the human stupidity is infinite" [Einstein] and so it can't be stopped with a finite amount of rules. It is more efficient to go around the rules whenever it's reasonable and fight stupidity whenever it is visible. "Reasonable" is the key word.

The wikipedia is an example: despite all the rules, the gravitation is described in it as "a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other, and is one of the fundamental forces of physics" while for nearly a century the mainstream science knows (and it is documented all over the place) that it ain't so (actually it is in English version since apparently in other coutries people heard about Einstein's spacetime and its curvatures, and apparently SA does not know enough languages to correct other wikipedias). Jim (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the rules of Wikipedia should be changed, there are other places to discuss it. The ground rules say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you choose not to abide by the rules, don't be surprised if your nonconforming edits - like this one - are reverted or blocked. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How are you going to verify an opinion that "gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other". It happens to be Newtonian "physics", invalid for almost a century, and yet it sits in English Wikipedia making English editors looking like fools, out of touch with contemporary verifiable physics. And when it gets fixed it is immediately reverted by consensus 9:1 arguing against relativity with unverifiable opinions and it gets accepted with no problem. Jim (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I now notice that SA again removed all peer reviewed references and mention of them, and this time he indicated this collossal change with "m" (minor change)! Such cheating is reprehensible. Harald88 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No more sourcing to low impact factor journals. We will only be sourcing to journals that are respectible within the cosmological community from now on. There is enough available mainstream sources to not pander to the likes of Marmet and other complete charlatans. Let them publish in ApJ if they have something useful to say. Otherwise, move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice:
1. No excuse was offered for the above-mentioned reprehensible behaviour!
2. The implied (erroneous) claim that a high impact factor is necessary for inclusion in such a fringe topic as Tired Light.
3. Name-calling of such people as physics professors and famous astronomours by calling them "complete charlatans".
4. An attempt by one editor to claim ownership of an article.
In the light of such a disrespectful attitude, no serious discussion is possible. And of course I revert.
Harald88 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About the dispute

There has been no response to a third opinion request which was listed one week ago.

Eight of nineteen citations were removed in 31 March and 6 April reverts.

Citations in both versions
Citations which were removed in the reverts

The dispute remains listed on WP:3O; this is just an observation. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the low-impact journal publications need to remain sidelined. The two high-impact articles are
These two articles, however, are not in point-of-fact about tired light mechanisms (though others have (mis)used them to that effect).
There is also
Which was subsequently falsified by Alpher in the lab. May or may not be of interest. Perhaps we should reinclude it....
ScienceApologist (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that there is no good excuse for sidelining "low-impact journal publications" in view of the rather limited number of articles on the topic; and before removing references to peer reviewed science journals, references to web url's must go first!
In any case, as long as the readers are only offered a look through the spectacles of tired light opponents and cosmologists - without an appropiate representation of proponents of tired light mechanisms and physicists - this article has been reduced to its old POV state. I will read it over again in consideration to mark it again as such.
As a reminder to newcomers: this has been already been discussed ad nauseum, even under mediation, see:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-04_tired_light
Harald88 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a limited number of articles on the topic at all. The web URLs are to more notable, prominent, mainstream and respected physicists per WP:REDFLAG we include them before fringe journal publications. The article is NPOV as it currently stands and the resolution we have worked out is amenable to all but Harald88 who is running close to violating WP:DE, and WP:TE. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense (I will not waste time with repeating arguments). Harald88 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reinstated two fringe names [confession: without first going through all this] from the point that further interest can only those count on who rely on models with a full cosmology ambition. A redshift mechanism is mandatory, but the nature of it may be an intrinsic feature of the model. David F. Crawford had his first idea on the fate of light published in Nature (1979). He turned it into a draft proposal for a static stable universe published in 1993:

The full picture was presented recently in a book (2006) just before retiring as a radio astronomer:

  • D.F. Crawford; Curvature Cosmology - A Model for a Static, Stable Universe, BrownWalker Press (2006). ISBN 1599424134.

Johan Masreliez had his model, Scale Expanding Cosmos published in APh&SSc (1999) which so far, as well as Crawford's model, is protoscience. But it is a complete Steady State cosmology producing a tired light red shift formula for the expansion of cosmos, and so is not just an ad hoc theory on tired light. His referenced paper (2005) gives a full account (chapter 5) of how his model refutes all of all the TL flaws in Ned Wright's list. He has published several papers on other relevant issues in peer reviewed journaks since then. / Kurtan (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Before I give any particular opinion, I have a few questions to ask:

  1. Why would a journal from a publisher as reputable as the IEEE be problematic as a source?
  2. What are the problems or positive points of citing "Astrophysics & Space Science", "Physics Essays" and "Physics Letters"?
  3. Ignoring the specific sourcing issues for a moment, what specific points of content are in dispute? (Or rephrasing, what content is changed and/or removed by the removal of the sources?)
  4. How does each version relate to NPOV (not ancillary guidelines, but NPOV itself)?
  5. Is the any concern about certain sources being used to advance original research?

Thank you for indulging my questions. I hope that I may be of some assistance. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

  1. This particular IEEE journal is a transactions journal which means it is subject to the rules agreed to by the affiliate group. In this case, the affiliate group of plasma physics was taken over by a managing editor who is friends with Anthony Peratt and Timothy Eastman who are cosignators of the cosmology statement: [3]. This is what they refer to whenever they are asked why they don't submit astronomical papers for peer review within the community.
  2. A&SS is a relatively new journal that has a hard time getting enough papers submitted to it. They'll basically publish anything that's intelligible. Very low standards for review. Physics Essays is not peer-reviewed in the normal sense. Physics Letters A is so obscure that it is hard to know exactly what their policy is, but most Letter-A journals are not peer reviewed.
  3. The content issues are mainly whether ideas that authors claim to be tired light but are unrecognized by the community as tired light can be called tired light just on the author's say-so. No critical review of these extremely fringe authors has happened to indicate that they are recognized as developing a true "tired light" theory in the historical sense of the term. We have only their biased word to go on.
  4. The version without the obscure journals frames tired light of historical interest that was exhausted in the late 1970s at latest with Alpher's laboratory experiments which showed that there was no observable effect in that regard. Since then, fringe physicists have claimed various tired light mechanisms, but none have received outside notice. The neutral thing to do is to not allow the fringe to co-opt the phrase since no one in the community recognizes their co-option.
  5. Yes. I am very worried that those promoting Marmet, Accardi, etc. are trying to promote original research. Harald88 said as much when we first started discussing this years ago.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I know someone at the local uni who works with plasma physics. It was explained to me that a number of plasma journals do not accept astronomy/astrophysics papers, as their focus and market are directed towards "raw" and "human level" plasma science. (Another was he put it for my non-expert understanding, is that many of those journals are more likely to deal with plasma behavior than plasma systems.) However, I would fail to understand how plasma physics would relate to the behavior of standard electromagnetic waves. On #3 & 4, I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that since they are objectively wrong or misappropriating that they should be excluded? Are you saying that their claims are isolated and therefore an extreme minority? Could you please clarify or rephrase? On #5, could you provide some examples? Vassyana (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
3/4. I'm saying that the claims have not seen the light-of-day beyond extremely fringe publications. They have no citations to other in the field and they are essentially not reviewed by professionals who deal with these subjects.
5. Talk:Tired light/Archive 1#Marmet's physics
ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


My answers to the question above:
#1 One plausible reason I can think of why someone would claim that such journals as IEEE Trans. Plasma Science are problematic as a source is that mention of one or more of its articles goes contrary to the propaganda activities for which one wants to use Wikipedia - see [4]. An additional reason is linked to the attempt to seize the subject matter for cosmology only and to exclude it from physics - as if physicists have no right to have an opinion about possible tired light mechanisms (independent of the question to what extent this may be relevant for cosmology).
#2 Those are smaller journals. However, Astrophysics & Space Science and and Physics Letters A are from respected publishing houses (Springer and Elsevier), and they are all peer reviewed (see for example http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journalrelatedinfo.cws_home/505705/preface1).
#3 The essential difference: The mass deletion was not selective about quality of sources but about opinion and scope of the article. The opinion of physicists who proposed tired light mechanisms was muffled; consequently the opinion of cosmologists who hold that possible tired light mechanisms are of no interest is pushed as sole existing opinion, and information about other opinions as well as interesting information for physicists is suppressed.
#4. No. Citing published sources (WP:reliable sources) can not be called "original research" - SA's mention of my opinion about this point is erroneous. In the past this article has been hijacked alternately by comologists who try to make propaganda for Big Bang Only while muffling all other sounds, and some others who try to push their own theories. Neither kind of manipulation is acceptable for Wikipedia, and evidently Tired Light is not exclusively a topic of cosmology.
Harald88 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Harald88 may be one of the scientists in question, thus presenting us with the peculiar situation of a conflicted soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not involved in cosmology or tired light physics; instead I am a reader who doesn't want people to meddle with the information that I am given. However, as implied by my above comments, I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that ScienceApologist identifies himself with the group of cosmologists that he cites. Harald88 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for indulging my questions and allowing me time to research the topic. I will address the material removed in the change.[5] I have made a subpage (/3O Sources) for quotes from sources.

The simple statements that there are nonstandard cosmologies that rely on tired light mechanisms and that occasionally novel interpretations still come up seem acceptable. However, it would be better to replace the referencing with a source that explicitly states the fact, and hopefully provides some context. Extrapolating broad claims from a couple of examples seems a bit promotional for the citations and a bit more than the sources tell us. I have found sources published by university presses that make mentions of tired light and provide some context for the topic and article claims. (I think we can all agree that Routledge and Oxford University Press are reputable publishers.) The Routledge Companion to the New Cosmology would serve the purpose. Considering it places the tired light in context, it may be appropriate to add a new first section with a {{seealso}} link to Redshift using this source. See /3O Sources#Routledge Companion. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle also provides some valuable insight and may be useful for additional information and referencing. See /3O Sources#Anthropic].

The Vigier work seems much more appropriate in his article. I've not seen anything in my reading about tired light that indicates that his model is particularly significant or noteworthy. It should also be noted the use of an aether-like system is certainly an additional red flag.

Thanks again for your answers and patience. I hope the comments and sources are useful.Vassyana (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us editors to decide that an idea is not notable because we dislike it - see the Flat earth article. Thus we can put a "red flag" next to ideas that are criticized by mentioning that criticism, but that's all.
It's great to have addtional source material as the article is still on the short side - even without the deletions. However I don't see how that solves the question of the deletion of everything that one editor dislikes. To make a point, I could similarly delete all journal references that are critical about tired light mechanisms.
Note that the Anthropological principle relates to the cosmology, not to the physics; the same is certainly true for a book about cosmology. Such sources have therefore a scope that is limited to cosmology alone; they are not likely to properly reflect the opinions of physicist in this regards - they are different communities with different opinions. See for example http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462 which reflects the opinion of a physicist about cosmologists http://physics.uah.edu/FacultyPages/richardlieu.htm.
Apart of that, is there any reason for you to claim that Springer or Elsevier are not reputabe sources as well? And about the Vigier article, do you claim that it doesn't discuss this topic, or that it has not been cited by anyone so that it is not notable? Please be aware that when moving information to another article, the Wikipedia method is to put a summary with a link to it if it is relevant and notable for the topic. Here we are dealing with a topic that expresses a minority view. As WP:NPOV puts it in the section WP:WEIGHT:
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them.
Thanks for your comments too. Harald88 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:WEIGHT. Endless repetition is not helpful. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Harold88, I did not say it was a red flag because I dislike it. (Actually, I find aether theories fascinating and attractive.) The simple fact is that aether-based (and similar) theories are quite clearly an extreme minority among cosmologists and physicists. I also did not encounter a modern aether or aether-like system when researching tired light. As such, in the absence of other evidence, an aether system is certainly a red flag indicating an extreme minority position (whether one considers general physics or the specific topic). It doesn't really matter if you or I like or dislike the theory.

Regarding the distinction between physicists and cosmologists, your assertion is quite bluntly not germane to this discussion or article. The link you provide shows a very strong disagreement with dark matter, which has little to nothing to do with the topic of this article. Dark matter is a poorly understood and widely debated subject that is little more than a catchy name for an unexplained observed phenomena. Redshift is a well-established phenomena, with broadly accepted mechanisms for its existence that are accepted by physicists and astrophysicists.

I did not claim that Springer or Elsevier are not reputable publishers. Part of the problem, as I clearly state above, deals with using individual examples to make broad claims. That is quite simply not acceptable. Rather than simply state that, I even provided sources that discuss such claims and provide more context than was originally present in the article. As such, I'm more than a little bewildered to your antagonistic response.

Vigier does not seem to even make a blip in the world of tired light. I researched the topic at a university library and he does not seem to gain the attention or mention of anyone for his tired light theories. I did research Vigier a bit more since I posted my third opinion. He's certainly a highly regarded physicist, though his work on tired light escaped any mention in my research. I should also note that the Vigier section was certainly constructed in a misleading fashion as well. For example, it presented the critique/review of Schatzman as related to Vigier. However, Schatzman's paper makes absolutely no mention of Vigier or his work.

It's obvious that minority views can receive greater detail in articles where they are the topic. I don't believe that point is under dispute. (I'm certainly not disputing it.) Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Vassyana, I liked the two sources you mentioned for tired light and hope you add them to the article with appropriate text. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I had some issues with some of the wording. Connecting quasar controversies to tired light is pretty "tried", I'd say. It's better to segregate since Barrow's connection is only one of nonstandard cosmologies rather than anything else. Arp and Burbidge never use "tired light" in their arguments anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of our opinions, that is how the source presents the matter of redshift and alternative explanations. We should stick to the source, not our own thoughts on the matter. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I stuck to a better source which is Noriss Hetherington's book. I'll post it shortly. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

In view of the above, I marked this article again with the NPOV mark because a notable group of opinions on the topic "Tired light" has been entirely suppressed and thus literally rendered "unaccessible". As a reminder:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Harald88 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT, which is part of NPOV policy and explain to me how the prominence of this group was determined. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No prominence is claimed. However, in the context of Tired light, the existence of more recent peer reviewed and cited articles by physicists who fancy the idea is certainly as notable as for example the existence of a group of flat earth believers as discussed in the article on flat earth. It should also be noted that lack of space is no excuse here: the article is still on the short side, even with al inclusions -
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
It is against policy to suppress minority views as much as possible, or to rewrite minority-view content strictly from the perspective of the majority view. Such propaganda and indoctrination directly counter the purpose of Wikipedia.
Harald88 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please form a consensus around your position. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have stalled without any specific proposals. Tag removed pending further on-topic discussion finely focused on specific suggestions to improve the article. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Pecker, J. C. 1976, Decalages vers le Rouge et Expansion de l'Universe; l'Evolution des Galaxies et ses Implications Cosmologiques, IAU-CNRS Colloquia, C. Balkowski, and B. E. Wersterlund (Eds.), CNRS, Paris, 451
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tired_light/Archive_2&oldid=791787185"