Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tired light: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:00, 28 January 2006 editHarald88 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,586 edits →Marmet reference← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:02, 28 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,564,005 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Physics}}, {{WikiProject Astronomy}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject History of Science}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=low}}
|-
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=low}}
|align="center"|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
]
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=low}}
|align="center"|
}}
'''This is a ] topic''', which may be ].<br>
{{controversial}}
Please read this talk page discussion ''before'' making substantial changes.<br>
|}<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>


{{Archive box}}
== The misinterpretation of redshift ==


==Early mature Quasar Contradicts the big bang theory==
It is stated in the main article that "mechanism of tired light is not known" and the tired light is interpreted as photons losing energy on their way or photons lowering their frequency on their way, popularly known as "redshift". The problem is that photons don't really lower their frequency on their way and so the mechanism is an empty idea. If it does not exist it can't be known. It is similar to knowing the reason for God if there is no God.
Misplaced Pages should allow published alternative explanations for the redshift, without expanding space. The big bang theory is contradicted by observations. see link. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions ] (]) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:The link does not say that the big bang theory is contradicted by this observation. Nor does this link have any relevance whatsoever for tired light theories. ] (]) 09:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
::The article clearly contradicts the big bang, by presenting a Quasar older than the big bang. ] (]) 12:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


== Edit request ==
Photons start their journey from the source with lower frequency for the reason of the Einsteinian time dilation at the source. Such thing happens in gravitational "redshift", not really a redshift but only an ordinary (gravitational) time dilation. The lower time rate at the source of light.
===Too bad Misplaced Pages censors published articles===
{{hat|This is archived because the person posting it is banned. See relevant policy at ]}}


Heaven forbid that the astronomy students at Columbia University could discover those five articles that refute the big bang theory. The professors at Columbia would not like that now would they ? Better be sure the five articles never get into Misplaced Pages anywhere. ] (]) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It turns out that the Hubble redshift is a similar thing, however not "ordinary" but "general" (graviatational) time dilation. It is not described in the scientific litarature because editors of scientific journals prefer to keep the big bang theory alive and it couldn't stand the competition with the Einsteinian "general time dilation" (conclusion of Einsteinian gravitation that I noticed already in 1985 but which proved unpablishable) and so the general time dilation is better kept not officially known as it might put a monkey wrench into big bang theory. That's why we can't put it into the official article.
{{hab}}
===Add a new section 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models'===
{{hat|This is archived because the person posting it is banned. See relevant policy at ]}}


A new section should be added to the article under the title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' where these five referenced articles should be cited, the authors being all Ph.D.'s in Physics:
The idea of this type of time dilation that has no Newtonian counterpart and so it is purely relativistic effect (originating in general relativity as a consequence of the principle of consrvation of energy) is explained (possibly adequately, if not then please ask for clarifications) in my article . This consequence of Einstein's theory, overlooked by Einstein himself, predicts many observations that puzzle big bang cosmologists as e.g. "accelerating expansion" of space, "anomalous" acceleration of space probes, and it may even predict the high "redshift" of quasars that would be identical with what ] proposed as an explanation for it however without that much faith in Einsteinian gravitation as shown by this author:-). Most importantly, unlike the big bang theory, it does not contradict any already known physics. However the lack of freedom of discussing those things officially forces us to discuss them on "discussion" pages if someone has some objections against existence of the phenomenon of general time dilation. If you have any objections please provode them after this section in the section titled "Objections against general time dilation". ] 21:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


1) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1
:A conspiracy theory, bad science and a misunderstanding of the Bing Bang v the laws of physics all in one? Wow. ] 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


2) Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1
== misleading sentence ==
Yes that tired light has no basis is stated but it's erroneous: it follows from standard mechanics that light that Compton forward scatters '''must''' redshift, assuming that the accepted laws of mechanics are valid. Thus "No physical mechanism for tired light has ever been demonstrated" is misleading and must be changed. ] 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


3) Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004)
Done. ] 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


4) Masreliez C. Johan (2005), pretitle=print pages 13-20 "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108, doi:10.1007/s10509-005-4321-6, http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf pretitle=print pages 13-20


5) Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-400, doi:10.1023/A:1002050702708
:You'd have a hell of a battle on your hands with Witten, Hawking, Kaku and Greene just to name a few. Think you're up to the challenge? ] 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


This will add some neutral balance to the article. ] (]) 03:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
== Objections against general time dilation ==


Apparently, the banned editor is ]. --] (]) 13:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
None so far?


:If so, it is not the only banned editor! It should be noted that the initiating one, who has made substantial contributions to the text under several IPs is the now blocked and identified user ] (]) also using ] (]) and ] (]). The least this calls for is adding the new section requested,'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' and most likely also other revisions. ] (]) 14:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) /]
The pages on the subject were deleted as ] sometime back. This link is therefore removed. --] 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


::Are you evading your block? <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
: I saw a similar reasoning in the paper by Zwicky; can you substantiate that that article by Jastrzebski doesn't simply explain it more? I have not yet read it. ] 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Since when does wikipedia not accept pertinent published references ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::]. ] (]) 09:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::] is published under Springer, and Physics Essays is published under the ]. Misplaced Pages simply refuses any articles that contradict the big bang religion. ] (]) 12:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


] and other administrators should be aware of and take neccessary steps instead of harassing an innocent victim. ] (]) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::Jastrzebski's main contention is that an non-symmetric metric can account for the expansion of space. He digs out a comment by Einstein to this effect that was further expanded upon by Zwicky, but misses the comparison to Zwicky's tired light. Since general time dilation was deleted in accordance with policy, there is no reason to keep it as a link (it is ] as it currently stands). --] 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:The last sentence in the article says tired light proposals are "all but absent" from the scientific literature, which is admitting there do exist tired light proposals. The five sources above should therefore be cited as examples of published tired light proposals. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::They aren't in good enough journals. ] (]) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:::You mean they aren't in big bang journals. ] (]) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted? ==
== mechanism for Tired Light - Lyndon Ashmore ==


I have not looked at this article for a long time, but I notice traces of debates with unreasonable (not in line with the rules) requests to insert or remove references to articles, and new editors. I guess that this is such a small topic that most relevant papers (or one per author) can be mentioned.
The most recent edit to this page ("A mechanism for Tired Light has now been put forward...") looks very much as though it was posted by the author of the reference in question, specifically attempting to advertise his own theory. This would seem to be counter to the intention and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I would recommend that the addition be removed, or modified to be a more neutral assessment of the link in question.
To those who were involved recently, are there any notable papers about "tired light" concepts that are not referred to, or, inversely, unnoticed papers that are still referred to? ] (]) 13:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Grey
:Just because few people read it doesn't mean it is okay to turn it into a rubbish dump of crankery. There's a couple by Masreliez which have been published which use the words 'tired light' but describes a metric expansion of space as far as I can see except they phrase it to say the space doesn't expand - things in it shrink, and uses it to explain the Pioneer anomaly which has been pretty much fully explained anyway. ] (]) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
::Turning it into a rubbish dump or into a propaganda piece are both forbidden, for the same reason. So thanks, I'll take a look. ] (]) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:: I now had a quick look at those papers, and one of them is cited by someone else. I don't think that that warrants a discussion of his ideas. Nevertheless, I recall that there were other alternative hypothesis that also were called tired light. Together that bunch of alternatives is just notable. So, it will be appropriate to add a short section, for example "Alternative tired light hypotheses" in which passing mention is made of those attempts that so far had little impact. ] (]) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Please workshop it in talk if you think you can assemble something that will pass the muster. ] (]) 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes Harald, there should be a short section on published alternative models. The article already says in the very last sentence that some published alternative models do exist, so show them in a section. Why should we hide them? ] (]) 17:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: OK I'll try but not sure if I can find the time in the coming two weeks...
::::: But I now notice in the last section "fringe researchers" - what the hell are that?? I work in research and it's not a term used by scientists, as it sounds just like racist or name-calling. That's inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
::::: PS. I now checked who one of those "fringe scientists" was: a teacher of the Astrophysics Department of the School of Physics, University of Sydney! So it's not merely name-calling, but even misleading. The POV of the last section is put on in such a thick layer that it just drips off. ] (]) 11:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::See ]. I'm afraid I get the impression some of the stuff in areas related to here may by a branch of creationists who have a thing against the theory of Relativity because they think it inspires moral relativism, that would be ]. We should just go by the peer reviews so the problem is mostly not our business though of course if it does seem nutty we should check it really is a good source. ] (]) 11:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I think Harald88 has a point. We use the terms fringe science in our discussions, and I think it's a appropriate here, but barring a reliable source using the same term, I think it best we avoid using the term in the article. I've recast the last paragraph, please double check it to make sure I haven't introduced errors. I think that last clause should be deleted unless we a source for it, so I tagged it. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 11:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:They seem very reasonable. No need to stick in a fringe qualifier unnecessarily. Saying something is fringe really needs a citation saying something like that. ] (]) 11:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Yes, that's better and much more encyclopedic. However, I think that it's still not really good, but as talk about that section is a slightly different topic I started with a new header. ] (]) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Tired light is absolutely fringe science at this point, and not considered credible by any but a tiny number of physicists and astronomers. to that effect:
Indeed, it can be neutralised as there has been a peer reviewed paper on Compton scattered tired light. I'll try to find it back. ] 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Measurements of the cosmic microwave background put the theory
: I now found it back; will include with recycling Ashmore's text. ] 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago; still, scientists
sought more direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.


There's also a nice quote from Ned Wright at the end of the article. I've reverted the recent changes, but not added the article, as I'm not sure where best to work it in.
BTW, according to whom does gas reflect photons, rather than preserving their trajectory? I don't know of a peer reviewed paper claiming such, and I dare say that I can see fairly well through air... ] 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- ] (]) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


:Good find, that's exactly the kind of secondary source we need. I'll see about working it in later once I've had a chance to read the article, if you don't beat me to it. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not a very precise statement. You can see through air because most photons pass through largely unaffected. In Compton scattering, however, the shift in wavelength in the scattered photon is related to the angle by which it is deflected. The shift is largest when the photon is reflected straight back, decreases as the angle of deflection gets smaller, and goes to zero when there is no deflection at all. So the problem with a tired light model using Compton scattering is that, if the wavelength is shifted, the light should be scattered by some amount (which would then blur the image), while if the photon's direction remains the same, there is no wavelength shift at all.
::Fantastic. I added the quote to the end of the article in place of the nebulous "all but absent" line and referenced it in the intro as a source for the fact that the idea is lately consigned to the fringes. ] (]) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Grey, 13:37, 23 December, 2005 (UTC)
:I think in the lead though it is enough just to say it hasn't been supported by observational evidence without labouring the point that it is fringe now. The fringe citation is fine in the paragraph in the main article about where it all is now. ] (]) 17:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::As I already made clear, "fringe scientist" isn't a proper nor a neutral descriptor - "fringe scientist" doesn't exist in serious literature (no, it does not have the same meaning as "fringe science"!). I'll correct it to "fringe physics", or better, as now a whole sentence about the "fringe physics" qualifier has been added, to "tired light models" . ] (]) 18:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


== Misleading, apparently erroneous last section ==
:Thanks for the clarification! But if I understand well, in pure Compton scattering, light cannot go straight at all, for there can be no scattering while going straight... However, on average, we *know* that light interacts with the air molecules, and that it goes straight without much blurring, while by the laws of mechanics it *should* give off energy to those molecules... Anyway, now that the argument is clear, please correct that sentence, or maybe I'll do it later (just have to think how to say it correctly). ] 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I checked up on the last referenced claim of the last section. To my astonishment I found a follow-up article by the same author (as it seems, with an improved theory) in a high quality physics journal, that itself was again referenced (according to Web Of Knowledge) in 8 articles of which I copy some titles that in turn have been cited hereunder. Evidently the claim of that section is not supported by the facts. ] (]) 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No, Compton scattering technically works fine all the way to a scattering angle of zero (with no energy lost), and actually, by the laws of mechanics, there should be no energy lost if it's not scattered, just as we see. In the case of interacting with air (for example) without scattering, what's happening on a microscopic scale is essentially a photon being absorbed and re-emitted (it's really more of a resonance process), resulting in a transmission delay but no change in the photon itself. If you don't get to it, I'll go over all of this after the holidays and see if I can clean it up a bit.


:1. Title: The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe
: My textbook confuses "scattering" and "absorption-reemission". IMO, true bouncing at zero angle is no interaction at all, and can't explain refractive index. How can scattering at any other angles happen without energy exchange from the photons to the electrons? And if instead of the keyword scattering one flees to the keyword absorption, bremsstrahlung is to be taken into account. If there is a peer reviewed article that defends the idea that bremsstrahlung can be avoided in a collision, then indeed it might be argued that absorption and reemission can be envisioned to take place without loss of primary photon energy. If anyone here knows of a good review paper that would be great! ] 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Author(s): Sorrell Wilfred H.
Source: ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE Volume: 317 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 45-58 DOI: 10.1007/s10509-008-9853-0 Published: SEP 2008
Times Cited: 3 (from All Databases)
:3. Title: Curvature pressure in a cosmology with a tired-light redshift
Author(s): Crawford DF
Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS Volume: 52 Issue: 4 Pages: 753-777 Published: 1999
Times Cited: 2 (from All Databases)
:4. Title: THE QUASAR DISTRIBUTION IN A STATIC UNIVERSE
Author(s): CRAWFORD DF
Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 441 Issue: 2 Pages: 488-493 DOI: 10.1086/175375 Part: Part 1 Published: MAR 10 1995
Times Cited: 4 (from All Databases)
:6. Title: A STATIC STABLE UNIVERSE
Author(s): CRAWFORD DF
Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 410 Issue: 2 Pages: 488-492 DOI: 10.1086/172765 Part: Part 1 Published: JUN 20 1993
Times Cited: 6 (from All Databases)
:7. Title: A NEW GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION OF COSMOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE
Author(s): CRAWFORD DF
Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 377 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-6 DOI: 10.1086/170330 Part: Part 1 Published: AUG 10 1991
Times Cited: 6 (from All Databases)
---------
:Sorry, which paper exactly are you referring to and which claim exactly are you saying is refuted? ] (]) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
::I think that Harald88 is trying to say that the refutation of Crawford's theory in Nature was subject to a later rebuttal. But Crawford's attempt to rebut Beckers and Cram was not published in Nature, and as far as I can tell that's the last time that Nature ever entertained a tired light notion. Interestingly, Charles Seife, it seems, referenced a "one-two punch" that essentially removed Crawford and the rest of the tired light fans from the mainstream journals circa 2001. Crawford hasn't had a paper published in a normal astrophysics journal since 1995 and it doesn't look like the others have been successful in getting any paper published during the 2000s in anything but AP&SS which changed its editorial policy in 2008 to avoid a lot of fringe physics. Now they're really struggling for recognition. See, for example, Crawford's foray into the way-out-there ]: . ] (]) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::: No, that's not at all what I meant. The last section suggests (at least, it gives that impression to me!) that apart of a theory by Crawford that was rebutted in 1979, practically no alternative theory has been published in serious journals; and certainly no newer, corrected model by Crawford. ] (]) 18:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There are no serious astronomy journals today, they are all fairy tales who believe in the big bang, it's their Santa Claus. ] (]) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:Sentient and self-aware narratives? Meta-mythologies? This is quite the post-modern novel under construction here. ] (]) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


==Last Section leaves one hanging==
::I feel like there is an entire chapter on this subject in Rybicki and Lightman, but alas the book is eluding me at the moment. --] 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
{{hat|This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at ]}}
The last section ends by saying tired light models are ''all but absent from the literature'', which leaves one asking for some references to those models, at the very least. ] (]) 02:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:Well that looks like what Harald88 is fixing up with something not quite so old, see just above. Can't say I feel myself panting with excitement when I read a statement like that but to each their own. :) ] (]) 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, it appears that there is activity in the area, but that it has died down to a handful of researchers. I think that is to be expected, science is not so uniform as one sometimes assumes. I found somewhat interesting in tone. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 10:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:::And of course we have an article on ]. Interesting in tone - that's a good one! Thanks ;-) ] (]) 11:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't jump all over myself yet with this excitement over fringe physics. Horse's mouth claims about wild ideas are only interesting in hindsight. For every 1000 of these claims there may be one or two which actually end up being worth anything. The rest get consigned to the dustbin of history and per ], ] and ], we aren't equipped to figure out which ones will be of interest to us ahead of time. Short of writing a ridiculous tome that addresses every last minor tired light fan available, I think we're best just describing the marginalized state of the discussion with the Charles Seife quote and leave it at that. This isn't Fringe-pedia. ] (]) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Charles Seife has no training in astronomy. He's just a writer. ] (]) 18:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That's why we say he is a science journalist and not a scientist. ] (]) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::He is not a science journalist, he is a freelance science writer, and a layman, see his wikipedia page. ] (]) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::"Charles Seife is an American author, journalist and professor," says his Misplaced Pages page. ] (]) 03:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::And Writer it says. He is a layman. ] (]) 12:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Seife should not be quoted in the article, he is a layman. ] (]) 13:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


:We should be clear on what we're about. We're not interested in whether the Big Bang or Tired Light is true, but rather in documenting the subject. What we are generally lacking are secondary sources that discuss the development/history of Tired Light. Rössler's notable by our lights, so including some information from him, attributed, may be appropriate. Seife is a journalist, and we accept those as reliable sources in general. I haven't looked at his work yet, but let's not get bogged down in whether or not the theories is right or not. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
== Don't push POV but come with sound arguments ==
::It is certain a tired light explanation will prevail, because the big bang is absurd nonsense. ] (]) 01:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


71.98.XXX.XXX looks like the same banned user that was causing trouble earlier this year. Engaging with him/her is not productive. - ] (]) 03:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Recently two people decided to replace facts by apparent misinformation, without any explanation on this page. A clarification as well as some comments on earlier discussions on this page would be useful to avoid an edit war. ] 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:Don't bury your head in the sand. Observations of extremely redshifted early mature quasars flatly contradict the big bang, see the above section on this. And those early quasars are rich in heavy elements, again refuting the big bang. ] (]) 12:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
::Your belief that the big bang is wrong seems fanatical to me. Is there some reason besides the evidence you believe you have for wanting it to be wrong? ] (]) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::The big bang fairy tale has retarded by a hundred years real astronomy. ] (]) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
::::You do realize that it is not part of Misplaced Pages's remit to push something that is not generally accepted? It is an encyclopaedia, not a science journal. You need to publish papers in peer reviewed science journals to change the status quo. If they are idiots and won't accept the truth as you see it I'm afraid we cannot do anything about that. They are the reliable sources as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. ] (]) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Suppose I found some papers in a non-peer reviewed journal that said water was a very soft jelly and only seemed a liquid because of earth's gravity. Now suppose this had actually been discussed in a peer reviewed journal and they said they had no evidence of anything like that and water seemed to behave like a liquid even in space. How much weight should be placed on the papers saying it is a jelly? ] (]) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::The big bang nuts will all end up with egg on their faces, and will look like complete fools, the king has no clothes. ] (]) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::When that happens we will document it. However we don't make the news. I await that time with bated breath. ] (]) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Let's see you explain how there are indeed quasars, mature objects already billions of years old, that date from the beginning of the big bang's timeline. The quasars are observed to have heavy elements as well. This alone kills the big bang theory. Let's see you explain it to us here. ] (]) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Not our job, we're writing an encyclopedia. Tell you what, go off and write an article for a reliable journal or two, swing some big name scientists to your opinion, create enough of a furor that it gets in the news, and we're write about that here. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 21:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The ] is the place to ask questions. It doesn't sound to me though that you want an answer. ] (]) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::You go ask them. They can't answer, I assure you. ] (]) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory==
:Here is a more detailed version of my objections:
{{hat|This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at ]}}


Oh my, how embarrassing !
:''For the tired light hypothesis to fully explain Hubble's law, it must involve physical processes that are currently unaccounted for.'' - Tired light does not even ''partially'' explain Hubble's law.
:''Mechanisms for Tired Light have been put forward in several papers (Marmet, Carezani) in which photons lose energy by interacting with electrons and other particles in intergalactic space.'' - That's scattering, not tired light, and scattering causes blurring, among other things.
:''One alternative scatter model is claimed to predict Compton scattering with a higher accuracy than the original Compton model.'' - We don't have to report every claim that someone makes. If there is a significant problem with the accuracy of standard Compton calculations, that should be reported in the ] article.
:''According to standard theory, ] is radiated away at any collision with a charged particle such as an electron due to the acceleration, from which one may conclude that a very small energy loss should occur at each interaction.'' - So what? This statement is useless without any quantification and without any reference to the blurring that would be associated with significant scattering.
:''Some adherents even claim that such a model is able to explain the magnitude of the Hubble constant as well as the existence of the CMB .'' - Some significant group of adherents? Or one guy with a web site?


Ancient galaxies contradict the big bang theory. http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/
:Deleting again. --] 11:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Ancient quasars also contradict the big bang theory. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions
:: My objections were, in more detail:
:: - The article of Marmet is about absorption and reemission; if I remember well, the one of Carezani is also not really about scattering (please read first before criticizing!)
:::Absorption and reemission is scattering. This is the way it is handled in detailed radiative transfer. --] 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I concur with ScienceApologist. --] 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


So when will the big bang nuts give it up ? The big bang is just a fairy tale, just like Santa Claus.
::::And what does that imply for your rejection of their articles? Show peer reviewed articles that disprove them or even refer to them and disagree, and we have a basis to omit them. ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


It's high time to look closely at alternative explanations for the redshift. ] (]) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:: - confusion between the ''concept'' of a redshift mechanism and a proposed ''explanation'' of cosmological redshift; your remark that the correctness of Compton theory doesn't matter for this article is obviously wrong, as it was part of the argumentation against tired light models in this article! Nevertheless, your suggestion to add Carezani's article to the Compton article may be a good idea.
:Tired light is not mentioned in those. ] (]) 21:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::A tired light explanation for the redshift is the only alternative when the big bang is discarded. So Misplaced Pages should make mention of published tired light explanations for the redshift, and no longer try to ignore them. ] (]) 21:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:We don't make deductions here on Misplaced Pages, we summarize what the sources say. If you'd like to point those out in the talk of an article about the early cosmos or the composition of stars they might be relevant to improving them. ] (]) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The ancient galaxies and quasars in those two articles contain heavy elements, which contradicts the big bang, because according to the big bang only hydrogen and helium existed at that early time. Heavier elements require billions of years and indicate that those galaxies and quasars are therefore billions of years older than the big bang, which is a blatant contradiction of the big bang theory. Tired light is the only possible alternative, as Hubble admitted himself. So Misplaced Pages should not be ignoring published tired light models, and mention them in the article. ] (]) 17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
:As has already been explained to you, heavy elements should be rare near the beginning of the big bang, NOT non-existent. Nothing about their presence contradicts the big bang. Nothing about that says that they must be older than the big bang itself - and if it did, it would be proper scientific method to conclude that the big bang happened earlier than previously believed, not to throw it out entirely. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with tired light models.] (]) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


:The science reference desk is the place to ask questions at ]. This talk page is for improving the article. The links you provided say nothing about tired light. ] (]) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Carezani's article has real issues with the scientific content. --] 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There should be NO heavy elements at the beginning of the big bang, NONE, but there are now observed early galaxies and quasars that do have heavy elements which fundamentally contradicts the big bang. Edwin Hubble said that with no big bang then there MUST be a tired light explanation for the cosmological redshift. So wikipedia should not ignore them but include published tired light models. ] (]) 02:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


:Please review ], it is fine that you think this, but we cannot use it. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 03:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: I long to see the article on which you base your claim (no original research allowed). ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


:The idea that there should be no heavy elements in the beginning of the big bang has no grounds in reality or science and is found in no educational textbook. You have, frankly, pulled such a notion from your own ass.] (]) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I didn't say it didn't matter (although it doesn't). I said such theories should be dealt with appropriately in the primary article. Once that is done, a link there may be sufficient. --] 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::You know absolutely nothing about the big bang theory. According to the big bang, quarks appeared, then later hydrogen, but heavier elements not until billions of years later. That is why they are embarrassed by the two articles: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/ ] (]) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


:::This is not a forum for discussing the Truth, please cease this line of discussion. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:: And sorry to say, but your remark about ''blurring'' due to ''bremsstrahlung'' sounds like utter nonsense to me.
::::With these blatant contradictions of the big bang hypothesis they are forced to consider alternative tired light models for the cosmological redshift, and wikipedia should not ignore those published tired light models. ] (]) 13:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


:::::Even if an acknowledged expert on astrophysics came along and said all this we could do nothing with it. Before something can be used in Misplaced Pages it needs to be in a ]. They would have to write a paper and get it peer reviewed or otherwise get it published by a reliable publisher. That is written into our basic policies. You can see a summary of the principles of WIkipedia at ]. ] (]) 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::If you don't believe in bremsstrahlung, that's your problem. Don't impose your beliefs on Misplaced Pages. --] 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::BTW the time they are talking about is two billion years after the big bang, not at the big bang itself. ] (]) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Two billion years is not long enough, read the articles, it is a contradiction of the big bang, a contradiction that so-called mainstream astronomers will simply ignore, because the big bang is a multi-billion dollar industry. ] (]) 15:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::This discussion does not contribute to improving the article because tired light is not mentioned in those links. Only discussion which might contribute to improving the associated article is allowed as per ]. This is not a forum for general discussion. You can ask questions at the reference desk but that's the closest to where editors personal opinions and queries are allowed. Why don't you put your ideas on some science discussion forum instead? They're not doing any good here. ] (]) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


As I said above, User:71.XX.XX.XX is a previously banned user with a history of trolling this, and other, cosmology articles. Engaging with him/her is entirely non-productive. - ] (]) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
::::You hereby demonstrated that you did not even look at Marmet's article that you deleted. ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:Here is a galaxy less than one billion years after the hypothetical beginning point of the big bang, and already there are heavy elements, this kills the big bang theory, stars are not formed and die in that short amount of time to have created heavy elements, these ancient galaxies are thus older than the big bang which kills the big bang theory. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Abundant_Carbon_in_the_Early_Universe_999.html ] (]) 04:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:For the umpteenth time, nothing about the big bang says that there should be no heavy elements. they would be uncommon, but not non-existent. Hence none of these articles you continue to post do anything to contradict the big bang theory. Let the grown ups talk and go back to skulking under your bridge.] (]) 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::You know nothing about the big bang theory which clearly states that the universe started only of hydrogen, with heavy elements only forming after a first generation of stars, which requires billions of years. This early galaxy contains already heavy elements, making it older than the big bang, which kills the big bang theory. ] (]) 20:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Really? It "clearly" states this? Where? In what textbook? What official definition says this? I'll tell you. None of them. Cut the bullcrap. We are not fooled. Go bother someone else.] (]) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::::ANY SOURCE on the big bang says this. ANY ONE. Go do some reading. ] (]) 03:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Don't bother yourself about it. They've been told we can't do anything with stuff like that here unless it says 'tired light' in it and is in a reliable source. Any arguments about truth are beside the point. ] (]) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::My point is that with the big bang having serious contradictions like this with observations, that published tired light models should not be simply ignored by wikipedia. ] (]) 03:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::How are you not getting this? Your point is SHIT. It is false, untrue, has no basis in reality, is not claimed by scientists as you say, a lie, misinformation, disinformation, deception, gibberish, meaningless, etc, etc, etc. Get the picture? Misplaced Pages is not going to stop ignoring tired light models just because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. ] (]) 03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The IP was similarly disruptive, and similarly failed to understand what their sources were saying, at ]. I suggest collapsing the thread and moving on (and taking appropriate action if they continue disruption). --] (]) 05:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Also, if Parejkoj is correct about them being a banned user, and if the ban is still in force, then it's time to head over to ] and report this as an IP-sock. A rangeban will likely follow if this is the case. --] (]) 05:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::We don't ignore tired light models. It is just that the 'contributor' is not contributing anything we can use. Misplaced Pages does not publish the thoughts of anonymous people who just say something is wrong. It needs citations to peer reviewed sources. Otherwise it would be just a pile of worthless junk from crackpots and no use to anyone. ] (]) 09:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
A new section should be added to the article under the title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' where these five referenced articles should be cited, the authors being all Ph.D.'s in Physics:


1) Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004) http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO3PDF/V11N2MAS.pdf
:::Bremsstrahlung, like any sort of scattered light, is emitted in a different direction from the incident radiation. That always causes blurring. --] 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


2) Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-447. http://www.estfound.org/planets2.htm
Interesting, I did not know that, nor that it would be notably blurred. And so far I don't believe it; please provide a reference. Note however, that that is not directly relevant for the issue if the mechanism exists, or that no such mechanism is known as you claim... despite that we now discuss this mechanism that you make Misplaced Pages claim that it is not known. So how can we discuss it? ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


3) Masreliez C. Johan (2005), preprint http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108.
:: - my further objection was the resulting ''scientific fraud'' by removing any trace of such mechanisms and next stating that no such mechanisms are known. "If the tired light hypothesis were to be true, it must involve currently unkown physical processes" is a downright '''lie'''. That goes beyond Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. I suppose that you didn't know because you have not read the references.


4) Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1
:::That isn't a lie. The physical processees outlined by these to cranks are "unknown". --] 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


5) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1
:::: What is written by scientists in peer reviewed journals and based on sound physics, can in Misplaced Pages only be called ünknown" or "cranky" if you can refer to another peer reviewed article that debunks it. IMO. you are currently violating the most basic of Misplaced Pages requirements. ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


This will add some neutral balance to the article <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Now, now, watch your language! (And remember to assume good faith.) We seem to disagree about the plausibility that some ''known'' physics can act in some ''unknown'' way. I still hold that to be implausible, or at least worthy of the designation "new physics". --] 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


'''Banned user warning''': 71.xx.xx.xx is a formerly banned user who trolls cosmology articles. See the ] (where this request to include papers by Masreliez was posted almost verbatim), ], and ]. Engaging with him/her is useless. - ] (]) 15:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: Physics that has been published in a peer reviewd journals a number of years ago, and that has never been rebuked can't be called "new physics" and certainly not be called "unknown", except insofar as people like you try to suppress it from being known! ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:Here is a tired light article published in Astrophysical Journal, it should be included also:
6) LaViolette P. A., 1986. ''Is the universe really expanding?'' Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, Vol. 301, p. 544-553. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Here is another to include:
7) Accardi, L. et al, Physics Letters A 209, A third hypothesis on the origin of the redshift: application to the Pioneer 6 data, p.277-284 (1995) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960195008683 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:That <s>first one</s> one by LaViolette definitely looks okay. Haven't checked the second as I have to go off now but you do know the Pioneer anomaly has been perfectly well explained so something that explains it would in fact predict something which isn't there and so the prediction is evidence against any such theory? ] (]) 09:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:: Thus I will now revert; you may label it "POV".
:The first lot of references are in places that let anything through and are very problematic. It seems a bit silly to want the Pioneer ones in but I believe the Accardi article would also count as coming from a reliable source. ] (]) 10:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::Please help to ''clarify'' the matters in a ''fair and neutral'' way.
::There is nothing wrong with the first lot of references. Physics Essays is a think tank published under the American Institute of Physics. Any articles published there must be defended and defendable. ] (]) 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I trust I have helped ''clarify'' matters. I will now make a ''fair and neutral'' revert. --] 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::I trust that the result will be a great article that might even surpass the quality of other such articles in journals and textbooks.
:: I left a referral to a counter opinion about Hubble constant as well as CMB for the simple reason that, as far as I saw, there was no support at all for the claim of the article that "They do not account for the the black body spectrum or anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background". That claim is apparently unsustained and erroneous, but I regard that as "work in progress". If you like, we can remove both that claim and the reference to ''all'' non-peer reviewed papers.


:::I think 'speculative' covers Physics Essays remit fairly well 'Physics Essays dedicates itself to the publication of stimulating exploratory, and original papers'. Misplaced Pages on the other hand is an encyclopaedia where things are described with ] weight. Physics Essays has very low impact, it is barely detectable in physics citations, and putting in references to it is generally considered a sign of a fringe idea in Misplaced Pages. There is no right to publish every single last bit of stuff on something in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Well? What will it be? ] 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Well then how about Accardi ? Put him in the article at least. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The article is wrong to say 'in speculative journals' because Accardi is published in mainstream journal 'Physics Letters A' and his article must therefore be included as a reference here. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{hab}}


== photon aging ==
::] 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


I just reverted an addition to the lede labeling tired light a synonym to photon aging after taking a quick look at google. It doesn't seem like they are exact equivalents, but I could well be wrong, so I'm bringing it up here. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 11:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Harald, your advocacy of non-standard alternatives isn't based in scientific rationale but rather is based on rather far-flung explanations not currently accepted by any cosmologist. The policy on undue weight in the NPOV section demands that we do not give a platform for such nonsense. Thanks, --] 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


:I suppose if it is somewhat similar it could be dealt with here too and just have tired light and photon ageing to not say they are the same. It hardly seems worthwhile to have another article so perhaps include but distinguish? Just had a look and couldn't make out anything notable myself to form an opinion from. ] (]) 11:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: ScienceApologist, I do '''not''' advocate "tired light" as a realistic alternative to Hubble shift -- although I could change my mind one day. Moreover, your continued sabotage on ] to provide for interested persons an easy to find historical link to a known historical alternative as well as your claim that peer reviewed standard science mechanisms would be "nonsense" can't be considered as anything else but POV pushing. Thus: no thanks! -- reverse and POV dispute marking.


::If this is a concept that is discussed at all anywhere, I cannot find it. The one obscure German-language reference was to a book about wild extensions to quantum mechanics. Checking the formal literature, I find absolutely no mention of the term. ] (]) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I never said you advocated "tired light", but inclusion of the two papers is not tired light. --] 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


== Misplaced reference or missing body text ==
:::::: Your new stand is a new argument -- based on what? And I noticed that you "forgot" the POV banner... here an easy link for others to what this dispute is about:] ] 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Ref 11 is to the Goldhaber paper on time-stretch parameterization of supernovae but is linked to the section of text on the Tolman Test which is entirely different. Can someone add some text explaining the Goldhaber result (the curves are stretched because the SN gets farther away during the outburst or equivalently is time dilated) and perhaps also link this paper which provides the same evidence but using quasars: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191
== Does "tired light" have to involve photons? ==
] (]) 21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


== New Alternative-Explanations Seem to Succeed In Satisfying Two Of the Criteria ==
The opening sentence at present restricts the notion of tired light to photon theories. Presumably this is what Zwicky discussed, but couldn't one equally consider it for pure wave theories of light? The kind of thing I have in mind is hypothesis that the wavelength simply increases gradually in time as the amplitude decreases. No assumption of Compton scattering (or not necessarily) -- just slight dampling -- the kind of thing that happens to a water wave. A possible objection, though, is that with water waves the increase is, I gather, accompanied by an increase in velocity. This does not seem to be observed -- or is it? ] 10:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
In the main article the criteria that: any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:(i)admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band; not exhibit blurring, follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe), and explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.


A paper recently published in Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 7, 2013, no. 18, 867, titled:
::The velocity of water waves remains the same as it is determined by the medium. "Pure wave theories" of light don't exist anymore for a variety of reasons. Photons can be said to have wavelengths just like any other ]. --] 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
"Four Alternative Possibilities that the Universe May not be Expanding" by Hasmukh K. Tank, explains that: " Alternative interpretations of cosmological red-shift are generally rejected on the ground that ‘tired-light-interpretations’ are inconsistent with the observations of time-dilation of super-nova-light-curves; but those curves are time-domain-representations
of amplitude of light. These curves can be Fourier-transformed into wave-number-domain, and it is this 'band of waves'that propagates in inter-galactic-space, and reaches us after millions of years. These Fourier-transformed-components, being electromagnetic-waves, get red-shifted by any mechanism that can cause spectral-shift. Thus, time-dilation of super-nova light-curves is not different from red-shift of light due to any mechanism. With this explanation,this letter presents five new possible-mechanisms for the ‘cosmological red-shift’
2. In the conclusion we find an explanation for the recently-observed non-linearity as follows:
"Interesting difference between the standard Doppler-shift-interpretation and the proposed new one here, of branching-out of input-energy into gravitational and EM-waves, is: that after every unit-distance, say one light-year, the red-shifted-frequency f becomes the new input-frequency f0
for the next unit-distance; making the red-shift-distance-curve non-linear, as observed by Perlmutter and Riess; like the telescopic-railway-fare, or like the reducing piano-frequency which gets divided by 1.104 with every key.
As soon as ‘cosmological-red-shift' gets understood as a propagation-property of light then ‘gravity’ can be understood as due to ‘cosmological-red-shift-effect’ on the photons exchanged between the particles.
Therefore, it will be interesting for the experts to consider these possibilities in detail. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ] (]) 10:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


== Revert banned user ==
:::As waves roll into a beach the velocity changes with depth, so the wavelength changes, too. What cannot change, except with an additional interaction like scattering, is the frequency. This, coupled with the constancy of the speed of light, is the real trouble explaining vacuum redshifts except by Doppler, expansion of space, or time dilation. I tried to point this out in the article, but it may not be clear enough. --] 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Banned ] posting as {{userlinks|96.228.244.95}} is inserting ]-cruft by Dean Mamas into this article (among others). Per ], I recommend reverting this diff: .
::::Changing the depth of the water in some sense effectively changes the medium conditions for the water wave. I was under the impression that ] was referring to damping surface waves as in a pond of uniform depth where the wavelengths of waves increase as the wave gets further from the source. But now that I think of it, I seem to remember that this is effectively a diffusion effect due to viscosity, so maybe it's not velocity-independent either. Nutz. --] 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
==Tired light this is not==
:IP blocked per ] results; sockpuppet rants also removed. --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span> 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


== Possible fringe theory ==
Removed:


I had reverted by ] as being particularly ], even for a highly-theoretical article such as this one. It has subsequently restored by an IP editor (presumably the original contributor while logged out). I won't remove it again, but did believe it was worth noting here so that others with more knowledge and expertise about this topic can evaluate whether this information belongs in the article, the journal cited does meet ], etc. --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span> 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
:''In recent years, new tired light mechanisms have been put forward (Marmet 1988, Carezani 1993), in which photons lose energy by interacting with electrons and other particles in intergalactic space. According to standard theory, ] is radiated away at any collision with a charged particle such as an electron so that a very small energy loss occurs at each interaction, which necessarily results in a redshift.''


- Does not seem fringe. One argument to support that it is fringe? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This isn't tired light, though the advocates have tried to make theoretical comparisons. This is a kind of "scattering" effect that is criticized mostly for other reasons. Tired light is independent of absorption/emission (that is, technically, scattering) processes. It was proposed by Zwicky as a new feature of photons -- truly new physics. These proposals are not of the same variety. --] 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


You mean "unofficial"?
:: If that is right then the article is wrong, see further; but if you are right, the contents of that paragraph belongs in either the Redshift article or in the Redshift mechanisms article. Please back up your claim that "tired light" is not what the "tired light" article defines as such; and next correct its definition to make it only cover what it is, and not what it is not. The article would be largely wrong if you are right, as it now states:


== Opening section. ==
::''"Tired light is the hypothesis that photons of light slowly lose energy as they travel through space. Various mechanisms to produce such a drop in energy have been proposed. Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would be expected to blur the images of distant objects, which is not observed."''
::BTW, that last sentence is unwarranted for the "scattering" process that you removed: it refers to another mechanism.


I commend the author for taking the time to create this entry. My only gripe is that the opening section is weak in explaining why Tired Light was rejected, then it becomes a treasure hunt to locate the reasons in the body of the article. The idea that scattering by gases/dust would change the colour of the distant light also makes no sense. There was a notion of tired light which held that it was a cosmological thing, where the light loses energy simply by traversing many light years of empty space. Hard to find minds to check out a failed theory, but Tired Light was pretty good, and needs a stronger refutation. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::The initial paper by Zwicky is useful here. The idea proposed is that photons "get tired" not from a stochastic process but rather from an intrinsic property of the light. Nevertheless, people have claimed that scattering processes could do this, and this is discounted in the above paragraph correctly. --] 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


:Fair critique, but it is unfortunately contaminated by present argumentation. When it was first proposed, it was a serious proposal which could have been "new physics" inasmuch as expansion itself was "new physics". The refutation of tired light came with a look at certain auxiliary effects which are natural results of the expansion of the universe but would have to be re-explained if tired light were truth, thus Occam's Razor cuts away the epicycles, as it were. Yes, that's the story in the mainstream literature. However, the fringe literature has firmly taken over the idea at this point and the more common explanations are those which invoke scattering or known physics to achieve the same effect (presumably hoping to overthrow redshift-distance relationships as being due to GR). That's the current position and it's hard to reconcile the two different approaches except that they result in the same phenomenology. A detailed explanation of this really does require digging further, so I don't see an easy way to deal with this in the intro. ] (]) 17:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
::Apologist, you have been nagging to censor this information from this article just as you attempted to hide the whole tired light subject from the redshift article -- unmistakenly in order to make a strong as possible apology for a single POV about Cosmological redshift. This is part of a pattern, contrary to my attempts to help making Misplaced Pages the most informative and unbiased encyclopedia ever. You are now simultaneously trying to delete an exhaustive list of redshift mechanisms which should be linked to from the Redshift article. If your strategy to censor out a number of known redshift mechanisms from Misplaced Pages will be successfull, it can only lead to a POV notice on the Redshift article as well. ] 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


== "Tired light" unfairly demeaned? ==
:::I'm not trying to censor any information at all. I just want things covered appropriately in the correct articles. Marmet's ideas could be put on the ] page, for example. They don't belong here. You may need to reread the ] guidelines in particular the information regarding pseudoscience and undue weight. Bogging down articles on subjects such as redshift with "alternative" ideas from discredited individuals such as Marmet is not inline with Misplaced Pages policy. We can cover his ideas well on the appropriate pages devoted either to him or to nonstandard cosmology. --] 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I think the article is too critical and demeaning of "tired light", in comparison with other concepts. I find it ironic that "tired light" is considered "speculative" and "ad-hoc", while inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter are more or less mainstream science. I'm not saying "tired light" is valid. "Tired light" seems quite speculative and ad-hoc to me. But no more so than inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter. Based on my understanding of science and history, I believe that 20 years from now, people will look back at the current state of ignorance and shake their heads in amusement, not so much at the ignorance but at the glib acceptance of ad-hoc baseless explanations, especially dark energy and inflation theory. I believe the current crop of physicists and astronomers "strain at a gnat (tired light), but swallow a camel (inflation theory, dark energy, dark matter)". In summary, I find it odd that the article beats up on "tired light" while equally speculative concepts are basically given a pass in Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 19:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::: We both want to do that, I'm glad to see that we at least agree about something basic. Do you claim that the attempts to explain the Hubble shift with Tired light is not part of ]? Then why is it included there? And why do you find Zwicky's paper less "alternative" than Marmet's? You confuse science with pseudoscience, and NPOV with prejudice and bias -- but that is hardly surprising as the very name "ScienceApologist" is almost a contradiction in terms. Come up with a non-discredited, peer reviewed article that discredits his, and we have a basis for omitting it. BTW, I did not know that ] article until today. It may be a good idea to merge this article with that article. ] 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


''Physical Review'' article questions the big bang and proposes a Tired Light model.<ref>http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055</ref> ] (]) 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC) http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055
::::::Historically, Zwicky's paper was/is much more notable than Marmet's. The point is that Marmet is slightly more "cranky" than Zwicky was and there are very few astronomers who take it seriously enough to address it in the normal fora. Marmet has considerable trouble publishing his cosmological fads there anyway. --] 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/344-14-pdf-dean-l-mamas-an-explanation-for-the-cosmological-redshift.html <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::: I see, you apparently regard "Tired light" to be owned by astronomers. However, tired light is first of all a physical process, and not astronomical observation. I noticed a similar problem with ], where it took others a considerable effort to make it more general than cosmic redshift. Anyway, your inconsistency above about selectively including scattering only for negative comments while excluding what you call scattering because "it is not tired light" can't make me do anything else but revert again. ] 20:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


::]-type complaint. Sorry. Misplaced Pages is not the place to fix what you think is a problem with the way modern scientific ideas have developed. Including speculative proposals as citations may be okay. But if you want to fight the current crop of physicists and astronomers, go to your local college or university and do so there. Not here. ] (]) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::This is an unreasonable revert. It isn't based on anything but your own POV. If you won't own up to this, we can get nowhere. Zwicky wrote the tired light paper and he proposed it as independent. That's the end of the story. --] 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::OK then please go ahead and include these speculative citations in the Misplaced Pages article. Do it. ] (]) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
::::Just figured out who you are. I'll be asking for yet another block. Don't you get tired of this? ] (]) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::You're an Astronomy teacher, why don't you tell your students for once that everything you have taught them about the big bang, black holes, wormholes etc is pure BULLCRAP. Media driven, and Einstein wrapped, BULLCRAP. ] (]) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
:::::::::You are the one who is making the unreasonable reverts because of your intolerant POV, and the "reason" you give here isn't any good, avoiding all my requests about quality reasons instead of nonsense to exclude this information. As I explained, if what you state is correct (but I'm sure it isn't), then you'll have to delete much more of the remaining article (but of course you won't). Point. ] 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


== Optical doubt ==
:::::::::::"Quality reasons"? "nonsense"? "I'm sure it isn't"? Have you even read Zwicky's paper on the subject? Comments like this make me believe you haven't and are just here trumpeting your own perspective without bothering to take anyone else's into account. --] 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


When going out from a more refringent medium to a less refringent medium, Light diverges from Normal, this is why objects under water look closer and in a different place as we would see it inside air, and in the same time, the light speed is slightly increased, there's no such a thing as an 'absolute' speed of light, as ] interpreted wronlgy in: 'Materialism and empiriocriticism', a 1909 book against the Russian followers of ], or 'Machists'. We know that 'specific gravity', matter density, changes from one region of the universe to another, the Solar orbit around center of Galaxy crosses every 30 million years or so one of the Galaxy arms, resulting in a rain of planetoids and meteors on our planet, same as it happens twice a year when the Earth crosses the ecliptic plane, 'star rains', some mass extinctions resulted from these Galaxy arms crossings, so, as light comes to us along the universe: can we expect changes in its speed and direction from going through sites of higher or lower refraction, and can this affect the models of matter amount and distribution, also concepts about the expansion, and fate of universe? References about the subject? Thanks, regards. Salut +--] (]) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::: I had a look at Zwicky's paper yes, and he proposed gravitational drag after mentioning some othr less likely mechanisms. I did not notice any mention of "tired light" for either that specific mechanism or the general category. In any case, you can't have it selectively both ways.
:This is well-understood in studies of the ISM and IGM. The effect is minimal when talking about cosmological distances in any given random line of sight. However, in directions where there happens to be high column density, thinking about the index of refraction (which sometimes goes imaginary or negative(!)) is of astrophysical interest. An augmented discussion of this would be nice to read, but it would be largely ] and so not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Pitch it to Scientific American perhaps? Or just write a nice blog entry. ] (]) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::: Here is an example of what I see as quality reasoning, after re-reading the paper by Carezani: His paper is, contrary to Marmet's, not based on standard theory and it doesn't really add anything to Marmet's except for citing and summarizing it; moreover, the Compton effect is not anymore mentioned in the article. Altogether that makes Carezani's paper rather unnotable. Thus I will remove reference to his paper.
Best regards, ] 21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


], a Catalan astronomer who worked in Barcelona, claimed in 1933, inside a divulgation book on Astronomy, published by: 'Editorial Labor', that he thought having proved the Doppler theory for ] being wrong, -at least partly-, and attributed Redshift to clashes between photons during the travel from its sources to us, that would yield a lower energy, lower frequency, closer to red, secondary radiation; photon to photon crashes having more chances to occur with a longer distance traveled, hence the greater: 'Shift to Red' in galaxies or light sources more apart from us. Besides appearing close to the: 'Tired light' concept, this reminds the description of: ], of around same times, for which only recently some evidence seems was found. Regards, Salut +--] (]) 16:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
==Please do not remove the stub designation==
::Yep, that's in the class of tired light theories. I'd be interested to know what his "proof" opposed to the Doppler interpretation would have been. My guess is that is would be related to confusion over ] which still causes confusion up to today what with its counter-intuitive isotropy. Of course, his proposal would cause blurring as well. When your redshifts are far less than 1% (as they were in 1930s), this effect wouldn't be at all noticeable. Today we've got them deep pictures. ] (]) 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


==No Censorship!==
], please review the definition of ]. It is not an open invitation for people to just start typing. Do not impose your own prejudices on articles. Thanks, --] 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


An exhaustive Survey of past and present tired light research and models has been published by Martín López-Corredoira who has published hundreds of articles in top journals, he has excellent notability https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8
ScienceApologist you are mistaken, and please don't try to tell me that what I see with my own eyes is not true. Just click on the right link and you understand that it '''is''' an open invitation for people to '''just start typing''': {{astro-stub}}. Moreover, it's not a real stub; instead it's you who made the article into a fake stub. ] 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Martín López-Corredoira's Survey should be included in the article, and not censored. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8
==Do NOT remove the stub designation==


Note also, Foundations of Physics is not a fringe journal. Foundations of Physics past editorial board members (which include several Nobel laureates) include Louis de Broglie, Robert H. Dicke, Murray Gell-Mann. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The rationale for removing the stub was opposed to ] definitions. The stub is appropriately applied. Please do not act in such a unilateral fashion. --] 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


The Reference to include in this Misplaced Pages article is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: The rationale was due to ''your removal'' of the sub that I added according to common sense, and which you did not recognize (see above). ] 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Request for Cabal Mediation ==


:We can tell you really like nonstandard cosmologies, but Misplaced Pages is not a place for advertising your favorite thing, it must be notable, reliable, and in proportion to its prominence in the field. López-Corredoira's article reads like a high school term paper, not a scientific journal article: I'm skeptical that it underwent any significant peer review at all. Is there any evidence of its notability in secondary sources? - ] (]) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey,
:FYI: ] posted a request for mediation at ].


==Remove the Charles Seife Quote==
:To all editors of this page: please go to ] and post your position on this issue.


Charles Seife has no degrees in astronomy nor physics, he is merely a writer, and no expert in the big bang theory, so this quote of Seife must be deleted from Misplaced Pages:
:I would especially like to hear from ].


Please remove it:
:] requests that I keep my response discrete, but I would like to hear further from the other users on this. Thanks.
..science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Being an astronomer is not required to write about fringe theories. There was no consensus to remove this. because there was no consensus to remove the content. On the contrary: . - ] (]) 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, ] 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:See also ], and re-opened at ]. - ] (]) 15:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


==No Balance to the Article==
:: It does not need to be discrete, that is a misunderstanding. Thanks, ] 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This quote of Dr. Disney should be included in the article, see https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3351.pdf ] (]) 02:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Thanks Harald. ] 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


== Illustration to Tolman surface brightness test used looks wrong ==
==What is tired light==
ScienceApostel argued:


We know, since 2008, that we will not see many dimmer stars (first red, then yellow, and so on) after certain distance, because of their low luminosity, so left part of illustration is incorrect: we are not able to see these stars just because less than 1 photon is received by telescope, not because they are not there. Upgrading of telescope diameter allows us to see more stars.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
"In terms of "tired light", I rely for the definition on the paper which proposed it: Zwicky, Fritz, 1929, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773-779."


==Whom are you trying to convince?==
-> Where exactly? I must have overlooked it.
Why is Seife, who is not even an astronomer, quoted twice, first in the Intro, and again at the very end ? With no credentials Seife is just a media propagandist who should not be quoted here at all in a ''scientific'' article of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
:The lead is a summary of the article (]), as such, it should usually already be in the body to also be in the lead. As for the author and source, please read this talk page's archives. —]] – 08:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
==Remove the Psuedoscience label==
It is wrong to label Tired Light ''fringe theory'' which links to ''Psuedoscience'' when serious physicists such as Pecker at the CNRS, Vigier at the Poincaré Institute, and others have published possible tired light mechanisms, see the links. Also, serious Cosmologists such as Disney would call the big bang theory a ''psuedoscience'', the Disney quote should be included here in Misplaced Pages. see: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3351.pdf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987IAUS..124..507P ] (]) 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


:Your argument is that an unreviewed preprint with no citations, and an IAU proceedings note make this not-fringe? Huh. - ] (]) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::? The paper itself describes tired light. I'm not sure what you are asking in this context. --] 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


::That's a scarecrow argument. Obviously he is saying that a theory can be fringe without being pseudoscience. This is true.] (]) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
::: Where is his definition of that term, on which page. ] 15:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:{{tq|fringe theory which links to Psuedoscience}} Your objection is that this article (Tired light) links to an article (Fringe theory) which links to an article (Pseudoscience) which in turn has no sourced connection to this article? How is that a problem? --] (]) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


==James Webb Telescope destroyed the big bang==
::::It's not on any page. The entire paper describes the idea. It is summarized here. --] 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The James Webb deep field photo proves the universe has always looked just as it still looks today with massive spiral galaxies, so no big bang. Misplaced Pages must now start embracing tired light models which are the alternative to the now defunct big bang. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources. If they embrace it, Misplaced Pages will embrace it. Not sooner. --] (]) 12:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::I guess to be more specific, it is his point F which is his version tired light, generalizable to physical processes that can be parametrized by the metric components in the GR-equations. --] 20:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::I thought so. Then the article's claims about what tired light is have at the moment no verifiable basis (except for the websites which you reject!); thus we have no common basis for discussion of what belongs to the tired light category. ] 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He also wrote:
"There are websites which claim that "tired light" is due to the interaction of light with matter (which is also known as ])."

-> which ones? They may have useful references.

::Well there's always . --] 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ] 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:The page looked like "tired light" is a new kid's toy that you could order from the back of a comic book or off of a bazooka wrapper. But, given the silliness of the argument, maybe that's fitting. ] 01:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:: The page basically looked the same as now, only longer. Why the remark that the page "looked like a kid's toy"? There wasn't even an image or animation included. ] 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Maybe it's the "Big Bang Blasted" graphic, with a simulated explosion. If one wishes to make a rational argument for tired light (or at least try to make one), doing so in a tabloid or advertising fashion certainly isn't going to accomplish one's goal (Actually, upon further review, the page looks like something from the ''National Enquirer''). ] 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

::::No graphics at all shows on my computer! There is currently only a few lines of text, and in the old version I haven't seen graphics either... Are you sure that you are commenting on the correct article? ] 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Totally disputed tag==

Okay, I now realize that this article needs to be completely rewritten. We need to eliminate the scattering discussion, the novel interpretations, etc. I think the entire article should be rewritten. --] 03:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

: As long as nobody presents a verifiable, sufficiently general definition of "tired light", nothing can be done. ] 04:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::We might consider stubbing the article and starting from scratch. We know that tired light was proposed by Zwicky so that's verified. Everything else can be scrapped. What do you think? --] 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I went ahead and stubbed it since there didn't seem to be any response. --] 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Hmm, I have mixed feelings about it; but perhaps stubbing will attract the attention of someone who can give a few good references. ] 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::: The reference to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm has to go from that stub: you contest the implied meaning of "Tired light". I do that now. ] 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::What? I contest what implied meaning? --] 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Who is disputing the reference? Are you? --] 22:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: Here above you wrote that you would remove all references except that of Zwicky; but you forgot to remove the reference of an article according to which Compton scattering was a proposed Tired light mechanism -- with which possibility you now strongly disagree. ] 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::It wasn't proposed as a tired light mechanism. Compton scattering is mentioned as something that "in particular" would not work. The critique applies to tired light in general. Please don't edit on behalf of me. Either state your reasons for editting based on your own ideas or don't edit at all. --] 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: You didn't do as you said, and now you insist; moreover I can't interpret this as anything else but pure nonsense. Thus: no, your proposal to rework it into a stub that pushes your POV under a false pretension is not acceptable to me! Revert to old version. ] 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::okay, let's remove all references. --] 23:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Comment by ] on 18:45, January 10, 2006 ==

''] to the term "Tired light" are very welcome.'' ] 00:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)]

Hi Cobaltbluetony, why did you move it to here? That is not useful as it is already here above, and its purpose is that people will ''not'' repeat the error that was made in the first place by just typing ideas (as after your action people may do, for the "expanding it" link does ''not'' point to this discussion page) without first establishing what is meant with "tired light". Reinsert. ] 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:The statement was not in keeping with an encyclopedic article, nor was it grammatically structured well. Discussions relating to the editing of articles should take place on the talk pages, not within the article itself. I took this concept, partly from my time here, and partly from ] as a guide to content of articles, '''Deleting Useful Content'''.

:Let me take a look at the discussions here, and see if I can think of a way to address the intent of the sentence I moved. Since it seemed to be useful to the article, but not in the right place, I moved it here. What it seems to indicate is that you need sourcing for this article. Other than that I have yet to discern the controvery, so give me some time to review. - CobaltBlueTony 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::There is actually an ongoing dispute as to what qualifies as a legitimate source. I contend that certain authors (Marmet, Carezani, and others) incorrectly incorporate tired light as an idea into their work to lend it legitimacy inappropriately. ] contends that such a contension is effectively POV-pushing and has instead demanded that only peer-reviewed articles be included. I think that Tired Light should be confined to context of the original Zwicky paper (which doesn't actually use the term as it was coined later by other enterprising scientists) and as such there are certain websites (for example, by Ned Wright) which deserve inclusion since they are based on peer-reviewed papers about the subject. However, I would exclude Marmet's paper as being a red herring and actually about his own pet theory that is unrelated to tired light.

::So we're left with a stub article and no agreement on what to use as a reference.

::--] 17:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Almost correct: In the context of a good collection of references I did not ask for removal of Ned Wright's reference, which, BTW, suggests another definition of tired light than only Zwicky's "pet theory". And ] forgot to mention that there was apparent consensus on what is meant with the term until he discovered that the current definition covers more than only rejected theories... ] 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:::The dabate about these authors seems in itself inexorably linked to the scientific process of studying and and writing about the topic on a professional level. I think we need a WikiExpert to help us document all resources to the extent that we can verify their legitimacy. If you can provide me with a list of the resources, I work for ] and can access professors who can clear up this debacle and help us pin down verifiable and reputable sources (whether or not the professors may agree with the conclusion therein). - ] 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks but at the moment, according to ScienceApologist, we have ''no'' good resource that defines "Tired light", while we should have several in order to define this article's boundaries. That's why we put up the request. According to him, the current description that "Tired light is the hypothesis that light slowly loses energy as it travels through space" is much too general. ] 18:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I am confused. Isn't making that statement and sourcing it sufficient? Is it the validity of the sources that is causing this to be questioned? - ] 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::''Sourcing it'' is exactly the problem! Is our request for sources ''for the term'' tired light not clear enough? Apparently (I have not read them all), none of the sources that he accepts bothers to directly define the "tired light" concept, and his interpretation of the implied meaning differs from that of others.
:::::: Interestingly, I misunderstood that he disagrees with the current definition: the current definition turns out to be ambiguous, see below.
:::::: For the context, this is the article that he now completely rejects:
:::::: And this the recently started mediation: ]
:::::: ] 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I will let the Cabal process work its course, then. I would suggest that you exercise patience, therefore, and move on to another needed edit or something so you can clear your mind of the debates. IMHO ;-) - ] 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::''According to him, the current description that "Tired light is the hypothesis that light slowly loses energy as it travels through space" is much too general.'' -- I disagree with this portrayal of my position. I agree with the current definition, I just do not agree that it corresponds to scattering which demands interactions between light and matter. ] can be defined as a ] with no matter whatsoever. --] 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Thanks for this belated explanation! IOW, the current definition is ambiguous. ] 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::What is a WikiExpert and how do I become one? --] 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, that's a term I made up for someone who is good at determining sources; it's not a real term that I know of. But the above-mentioned cabal case should hopefully help to resolve your problems, if you give it time. - ] 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, sorry about the delay on tired light, I have been preoccupied with a long mediation on the Jehovah's Witnesses page. I will take a look at the issues again. I was thinking about heading over to the library, maybe this weekend. It appears there is at least one book on the subject, so maybe that will give me some fresh insight. Thanks, ] 05:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

== correct template ==

Thank you for addressing your concerns for the main article using a Wiki template. This was exactly the proper direction to go, and ''adds'' both ''more'' good faith, as well as credence to the subject matter at hand, or at least your effrots to make it accurate and verifiable. Good job! - ] 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

: The newly added template is indeed an improvement but does not accurately describe the problem, nor does it incite people to first consult this Talk page, as should be done... ] 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

== unstub and add appropriate template ==

The current article misrepresents itself as a stub, and despite some clarification, it still incites people to just type away instead of consulting this Talk page.

IMO it is not standard practice to stub a disputed article, and in view of the Cabal mediation, it's more appropriate and informative to present the full article that ScienceApologist disputes, with a "Disputeabout|Topic of dispute" tag (I only found that one now!).

The topic of the last dispute is on what is generally understood with the definition of tired light, if it only implies the mechanism that Zwicky advocated or any mechanism that causes light to decrease in energy while in transfer. ] 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

: No comment? I'll make the improvement now, at the same time indicating a difference in definition (see . ] 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

::I removed unsourced "simplest" kind of tired light. I also removed the Marmet stuff which should be added in only if you can find a person other than Marmet (who is considered unreliable) that he is referring to an actual tired light mechanism. --] 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't know about this "simplest" kind of tired light, who put that in? Please first send a message to the author and a question about it here, before deleting that interesting information! And note that it was me who put in ''your POV but still unsourced'' definition of Tired light.

:::Thus I repeat my request to you to source it, with the same possible consequence.

::: Your opinion that "Marmet is unreliable" won't do; no research is needed to verify that he refers to a tired light theory as defined by the sourced reference. Please stop amputating wikipedia's articles. ] 07:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Marmet is not making claims that are verifiable by anyone other than himself. This makes his work not ammenable for inclusion.

::::Here is a paper that discounts tired light, but assumes the definition originally provided. I'm going to reinsert the definition:

:::: --] 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::"I suppose that with "definition" you meant "equation". You already noticed that the quoted definition covers all proposed mechanisms that have light decreasing energy en route, and that's why you intended to suppress that definition. But good find of this new ref. You forgot to add it, I did that now.

::::: I am still waiting for you to find support for the narrow definition of tired light that according to you is common. ] 18:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

==Paul Marmet and tired light==

Here is the section that is removed and the reasons for doing so. Please do not reinsert until these problems are addressed:

''In recent years, new tired light mechanisms have been put forward (Marmet 1988), in which photons lose energy by interacting with electrons and other particles in intergalactic space. According to standard theory, ] is radiated away at any collision with a charged particle such as an electron so that a very small energy loss occurs at each interaction, which arguably results in a redshift.''

*Does 1988 qualify as "recent years"? And does the paper in question refer to actual tired light mechanisms or is it just Marmet's posturing. In any case, the reference is questionable enough to be removed to this talkpage for someone to defend it if they would like.

:It's quite recent yes, much more than the one by Zwicky and also long after your last reference. But you could have just edited it to "more recent years".
::My point was that tired light is not a concept that enjoys current research. --] 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::: So what? ] 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::So, this sentence gives an incorrect impression of the situation. --] 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:It refers to a tired light mechanism as defined in the only cited definition in the article. I will wait until the end of the week for you to find a reference for your definition of tired light which I put in there for you, but which has been looking for support for two weeks now.
::I think you are confusing definition with equivocation. --] 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:: definiton: A statement conveying fundamental character. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry. -> That's what I mean.
:: equivocation: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth ->, no, that's exactly what the article is trying to avoid. See AGAIN the guideline about it!

:::While you may mean this, the state of the article you support is far more equivocal than it is factual. --] 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

*''photons lose energy by interacting...'' this applies to a lot of mechanisms that are not even admitted to be tired light. For example, those advocating for scattering as a form for redshifting do not always call such a mechanism tired light. By claiming that these are "tired light mechanisms" the article is claiming something unverified and, frankly, untrue.

:Please read the article again: this has already properly been addressed as part of unstubbing, and please also read the in the related comment linked "Word Ownership" paragraph again.

::Actually, it isn't addressed in the article. --] 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Look at the changes I made, it now gives your uncorroborated definitoin which I asked you many times to corroborate, as well as the cited one. Do you perhaps disagree with the guideline? ] 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::The guideline is irrelevant. The point is that tired light is mostly described as an unknown mechanism. Scattering isn't normally considered a mechanism that works simply because the universe isn't homogeneous in baryons -- Marmet's cranky work notwithstanding. --] 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::"Homogenous" is your unsourced claim and your cranky claim as well -- stop name calling. Nothing in the term "Tired light" suggests homogenous. ] 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::The above criticism is meaningless it seems. Scattering is a different sort of mechanism from most of those proposed as tired light in the articles about the subject. --] 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*This inappropriately conflates ] radiation with scattering. They are different processes. Bremsstrahlung is the radiation due to collisions of charge particles. It is not the scattering or frequency shifting of photons. How radiation of a new photon results in a redshift of a photon passing through is anybody's guess, but this is an example of poor physics and is rightly excluded.

: You must be very confused now, for it was ''I'' who, after some reflection, disagreed with Carlson that scattering is the appropriate term for forward re-emission, so that''I'' called it a different process and gave the exact description ] to avoid conflating it with scattering; while it was ''you'' who claimed:

''This is a kind of "scattering" effect that is criticized mostly for other reasons. Tired light is independent of absorption/emission (that is, technically, scattering) processes''

: Thus, obviously you have not read it, as there is nothing to guess about it -- instead it's accurately described and calculated, on the assumption that with refraction a photon interacts with an electron inside the atom. Of course, if you can find a paper that claims that that mechanism is wrong, then that would be good to add -- the article is still rather short you know.

::The process described by Marmet ''cannot'' be Bremsstrahlung. There's really no more succinct way to put it. --] 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Well, it ''is'' Bremsstrahlung and also called so. Please stop judging what you haven't even read. ] 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Let's be abundantly clear: Bremsstrahlung is radiation due to the acceleration of charged particles. It is not associated with a frequency shift for transmitting photons. --] 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: To be very lear: Marmet associated it with radiation due to the acceleration of electrons due to interaction with photons in the refraction process. ] 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::That's not Bremsstrahlung. That's scattering. Period. --]
22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Radiation due to the acceleration of electrons ''is'' ]... Ask any other physicist, or just read ]... ] 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::The point is that Bremsstrahlung is a classical accelerating electron treatment that is derived from electrodynamic formalism. If you are talking about photon interactions you necessarily invoke the reverse (in a sort of ] fashion). --] 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add this back to the articlespace. Misplaced Pages needs to have correct information and this information is clearly incorrect. Thanks,
--] 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

: It happens to be correct information that at least one alternative to Zwicky's mechanism has been proposed by another scientist, and it is interesting for physicists. Now that I have addressed those issues I will put it back. Note that I regard it as harassment that you remove factual information because you have questions about it, I find that unacceptable. And please don't continue to try to impose your prejudices.
:] 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::Zwicky didn't have a mechanism. This information isn't factual. Please address the concerns directly. You are not responding to them. --] 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::: I addressed all. I didn't look into the details of Zwicky's theory, as it is claimed to have been disproved, but I do remeber that he proposed different mechanisms the last one I understood to be called "Zwicky's ". Now you claim that something that didn't exist was claimed to have been disproved?! That would be a scam if were true! ] 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Mechanisms for tired light are considered usually to be unknown. Zwicky only parametrized the mechanism, he didn't propose any. What he did was describe the way a tired light mechanism would behave, he didn't propose an actual mechanism. --] 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:''And please don't continue to try to impose your prejudices.'' -- What exactly would those "prejudices" be? --] 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:: '''YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN'''': you '''deleted''' the apparent '''mainstream''' and at least notable definition of tired light, and replaced it by your '''acknowledgedly unsupported''' understanding of the term; moreover, you removed again Marmet's mechanism while you have run out of excuses. ] 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Why are you "yelling"? I don't know where you are getting the notion of "mainstream" and "notable" from. Do you have any sources that claim this? Do you have any sources that the "Marmet mechanism" was correctly categorized and described here? --] 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: I started "yelling" as you appeared rather deaf! "mainstream" is always a guess, based on the representation in articles. Several cited articles conform to the cited definition in one of them, and none corresponds, as you know very well, to yours. About categorisation based on title meaning: I already explained that above by my referral to Misplaced Pages rules, but probably you missed it despite my referring to it twice or thrice... should I have yelled there as well? ] 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Your behavior is venturing farther and farther away from ] of a Misplaced Pages editor. Please try to tone it down a bit. I am having a hard time trying to figure out what is wrong with the way the article currently is as I believe it to be an accurate description. This definition currently available conforms to all sources on tired light listed, even the ones that are cranky. --] 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Your behaviour of imposing your POV with help of opportunistic arguments is most inappropriate for Misplaced Pages; indeed you now silently (at least, I saw no comment about it) dropped your unsupported last objection against the article of Marmet on the meaning of "tired light". But you still confuscate the issue by suggesting that there are "cranky sources listed" (which?) that would according to you have a different definition than what appears to be the most common mainstream opinion among scientists.
:::::: With all respect and appreciation for your energetic efforts to write articles, you have built up quite a record of edit warring, as the comments on the arbitration page establish. Such pushy editing together with your smearing of scientists against whom you have a prejudice is certainly not appropriate for keeping civility, as the last sentence of ] notes: ''It should be noted that some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves''.
:::::: ] 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::"What we have here is a failure to communicate" -- Cool Hand Luke.
:::::::Paul Marmet hardly needs to be "smeared" by myself and I'm not "smearing" him by removing references to his work from this article. There is a question of notability of arguments, I'd say, and tired light as a historical subject of interest is well-documented. My opinions of him and other pathological skeptics of his ilk are well-exposed on talkpages, but I try to remain as neutral as possible in the articlespace.
:::::::And what ] are you refering to?
:::::::--] 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

==More tired light resources==

still no decent definition. --] 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

: And, what do you deem "indecent" about this one? ;-) ] 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::I guess the wink means that you are asking in jest. I don't see any "definition" of the sort I expect you are looking for at all. --] 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::: A definition can be implied by the description in the introduction. That is quite often done, as it reads more pleasantly. ] 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Wonderful, then the article as it curently stands conforms well to this definition. --] 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

==Start over==

Aside from the business about Marmet, what are the problems (if any) with the current introductory paragraph? --] 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

: It imposes your definition that is in obvious flagrant disagreement with most quoted sources (even the ones that you didn't delete!). ] 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)]

: Now I won't have time for some days, but I'll be back. ] 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Correction, I expressed myself too extremely above. More precisely, it is suggestive of ScienceApologist's personal narrow definition, and thus hiding the more general mainstream understanding which was he deleted: -- which is typical of most of his work, as attested by others on the mediation page. ] 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::Harald, I left a response on ] (just now) about my slow responses; sorry. Regarding disputing a stub, I do not believe that is against Misplaced Pages policy that I can remember. I have seen disputes handled both by moving the disputed content to the talk page, and by placing a disputed tag on the main page with the dispute text. Right now, I think the article is fine as is. It presents the main definition of tired light, until the editors get something to add, I would not put it on the main page. MHO. ] 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Steve, you are fully right, we did handle it that way on his suggestion; but you overlooked that he had deleted ''nearly all of the article's contents including all references'', and that no appropriate tags exist for such a situation.

::: about the definition: the ''disambiguation'' between his idea and that is expressed in most cited references, he conveniently ''deleted'':

:::"Some scientist understand Tired Light to mean a mechanism caused by the fabric of Spacetime, while others use it as a general descriptor for a decrease of energy as the light travels through the cosmos. "

::: If you look carefully, you may notice that his new definiton is different again, suggesting again something else that is not inherent in the concept tired light: that according to the articles ] is necessary for light to "tire"... ] 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::: ] 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::::It isn't that isotropy is necessary, it's that if the isotropy of ] observations is to be believed then isotropy is a necessary condition on any tired light mechanism. There is no one that disputes this. --] 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: You confused (as often) cosmology with physics. Apparently you think that all readers are only interested in Tired light ''cosmology'' and nobody is interested in tired light ''physics''. But I'm among those, and I know others.
::::: I think the article is quite alright now, except that more good references would be helpful. ] 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Can you point to a single reference that suggests that tired light might be observed on a less than cosmological scale? --] 02:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


==Removed this section for NPOV reasons==

''A more recently proposed tired light mechanism by Marmet (Marmet 1988) is original in that it has photons lose energy by interacting with the electrons in gas molecules, whereby ] is radiated away at the cost of the photon energy, but is just as dependent on the distribution of gas in intergalactic space; and any tired light mechanism can be distinguished from time dilated Doppler shifts.''

This sentence, aside from being POV-pushing Marmet, also makes no physical sense. After all, bremsstrahlung ''is'' photon energy. This is the ''same thing'' as a scattering mechanism which is already listed. Singling out Marmet is unreasonable as many other nonstandard folks have proposed scattering mechanisms.

--] 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

: It can't be helped that not all editors understand everything that they report on, and they don't need to do so -- as long as they report in an unbiased manner without showing their POV! Above I even tried to explain this one to you as it's not difficult to understand. Bremsstrahlung is ''different'' photon energy, emitted by the electrons. If anything can be called POV pushing, it's your removing of mention of a physics paper because you, ''an editor'', doesn't understand it. And I didn't single him out, I just happened to remember his paper when the Ashmore discussion came up and I knew that I had read about such a theory before, although I had forgotten what exactly (I had the idea that it was about Compton scattering, but that's inaccurate).
:Another editor commented on my comments in the following discussion, I will repeat it here so that you understand that there is concensus about this: "In the case of interacting with air (for example) without scattering, what's happening on a microscopic scale is essentially a photon being absorbed and re-emitted (it's really more of a resonance process), resulting in a transmission delay but no change in the photon itself."
:However, he overlooked in that comment the energy loss from Bremsstrahlung, that's what Marmet pointed out and subsequently worked out. I hope that it's clear now! It's in full agreement with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy that I ''include'' mention of that mechanism which is interesting for physicists.

:This article is still very short. Thus, if you know of other such papers as well as eventual criticism, please add them. ] 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::The problem is the article as it currently stands represents incorrect physics from a very basic standpoint. I have inserted the totallydisputed tag because you don't seem to be able to understand this. --] 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Indeed, I'm not able to understand that you could be as pretentious to claim to know better physics than other editors and cited physicists, while you even don't know that ] is not scattering. ] 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::We need to be clear: the mechanism Marmet outlines does not conform to a "tired light" mechanism as initially described by Zwicky since the explanation doesn't apply across the entire spectrum. In particular, Marmet's explanation does not produce proportional shifts in frequency for radiowaves, for example. --] 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::: You are here making a ''renewed'' attempt to narrow the definition of "tired light" down in precisely such a way that certain papers may be selectively omitted. However, the ''preferred'' "tired light" mechanism of Zwicky also does not predict exactly the same as the Doppler effect, and neither do scattering mechanisms. The only thing that such theories have in common, is that they propose mechanisms that might make photons loose energy while in transit -- which is precisely what the term "Tired light" means according to all the sources we have. ] 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Zwicky did not have a tired light mechanism. Zwicky only parametrized models that would cause photons to lose energy which is generally agreed upon by historians of science and astrophysicists who refer to "tired light" in their papers. Here is a quote from ''Cosmology: Historical, Literary, Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific Perspectives'' that illustrates this:

:::::''A third major cosmological model was proposed by Fritz Zwicky.... He suggested that the universe might not be expanding.... Zwicky did not hesitate to advance a theory requiring a new principle of physics. Indeed he perceived that requirement as an asset rather than a liability....''

::::Since such models seems to be separate from scattering mechanisms currently proposed by nonstandard cosmology proponents including Marmet (which include such things as ] and the ]) it seems hardly appropriate to include Marmet here as he is indicative of only one crank and their models aren't necessarily "tired light" as strictly criticized by scientists since Zwicky's first suggestions. If you can find a resource that refers to any of these mechanisms as tired light provide it here. I have provided resources (which you have rejected, I might add) that have described Zwicky's parameterization as tired light.

::::: It's entirely your opinion that Marmet was widely considered to be a crank when he published that paper, as well as your suggestion that that paper itself is cranky. If so, no doubt you can find another scientific paper that targets it, just as has been doen with Dingle. That's the Misplaced Pages method. And I don't remember to have not reject your resources, quite to the contrary: most resources that you provided do either not exclude other mechanisms such as scattering, or they even positively include them. I also take note of the fact that twice you didn't react to mention of such mechanisms until I added Marmet's mechanism. ] 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::::--] 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

==Marmet reference==

I just realized that the reference of Marmet's in this article does not refer to his idea as "tired light" (though he does refer to it being tired light elsewhere). I think this is a good indication that my position is correct and Marmet should be removed from this page to his own ] page. --] 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

: Does he? Where? And are you sure that Zwicky refers to it as "tired light"? If so, on which page?
: And what about Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, should that also be removed from the special relativity page because in that paper he did not refer to his idea as "special relativity"? ... ] 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::Comparing Marmet and Einstein seems like quite a stretch. Marmet is not considered a reliable source in the ]. And if the reference we are using is not admitting to being tired light then it's not accurate to describe it as such. --] 13:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:::As usual, you entirely missed the point. Now please show to be consistent and tell us where Zwicky called his theory "tired light" or try to delete that article to from the references, and also just try deleting Einstein's 1905 paper from ] with the argument that "the reference is not admitting to being special relativity". ] 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Others refer to Zwicky's idea as tired light: we've shown that in references. What we haven't shown is others refering to Marmet's idea as tired light. --] 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: That's not a useful argument, if you accept the genral definition of tired light. However, I still looked into this as I would not consider Marmet's mechanism worth of mention if in literature nobody but himself refers to it. But it turns out, that Grote Reber and Andre Assis liked his theory (and, as a matter of fact, all call it "tired light"); Grote Reber actually co-authored an article with Marmet in a mainstream physicist journal. Thus I will add the reference to the co-authored one. BTW, I'm now reading it; possibly more is to be said about this.
::::: PS: I did not know that Marmet was more an expert in these matters than is commonly admitted: he was director of a research lab in atomic and mol. phys., and next he did research in the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. ] 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Marmet is an atomic physicist, not a cosmologist. Reber is also well known for being outside the mainstream of cosmological understanding (even about tired light). Revert. --] 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Now you finally acknowledged that Marmet was a specialist in the field that you, as Misplaced Pages editor, decared him "a crank"; and it may have escaped you that his paper must have been reviewed by other physicists. Your claim above amounts to stating that "Tired light is not mainstream, and therefore only outdated tired light models may be mentioned in an article about tired light". I will not even reply anymore to such arguments. ] 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

== Marmet's physics ==

I haven't read Marmet, but I don't see how his ideas (as I understand them from what has been presented here) can possibly be right. He says photons come in with frequency f1 and leave in the same direction with the lower frequency f2. The energy loss per photon is thus h*(f1-f2) and the momentum loss ish*(f1-f2)/c. If the momentum and energy is transferred to nonrelativistic particles of mass m (electrons) initially at rest, their final energy per particle is m*v^2/2 and their momentum is m*v. Equating the ratio of energy to momentum for photons and electrons respectively, we have c=v/2, inconsistent with (among other things) the statement that only a small amount of energy is transferred to the electrons. I don't want to do original research in Misplaced Pages, but if the physics is so questionable, that is another argument for not reporting on ideas that were forgotten after two people published on them 17 years ago. --] 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:02, 28 February 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPhysics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAstronomy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory of Science Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Early mature Quasar Contradicts the big bang theory

Misplaced Pages should allow published alternative explanations for the redshift, without expanding space. The big bang theory is contradicted by observations. see link. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions 71.98.132.136 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The link does not say that the big bang theory is contradicted by this observation. Nor does this link have any relevance whatsoever for tired light theories. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The article clearly contradicts the big bang, by presenting a Quasar older than the big bang. 71.98.135.144 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Too bad Misplaced Pages censors published articles

This is archived because the person posting it is banned. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Heaven forbid that the astronomy students at Columbia University could discover those five articles that refute the big bang theory. The professors at Columbia would not like that now would they ? Better be sure the five articles never get into Misplaced Pages anywhere. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Add a new section 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models'

This is archived because the person posting it is banned. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


A new section should be added to the article under the title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' where these five referenced articles should be cited, the authors being all Ph.D.'s in Physics:

1) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1

2) Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1

3) Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004)

4) Masreliez C. Johan (2005), pretitle=print pages 13-20 "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108, doi:10.1007/s10509-005-4321-6, http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf pretitle=print pages 13-20

5) Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-400, doi:10.1023/A:1002050702708

This will add some neutral balance to the article. 71.98.133.122 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the banned editor is User:Licorne. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If so, it is not the only banned editor! It should be noted that the initiating one, who has made substantial contributions to the text under several IPs is the now blocked and identified user 128.59.169.46 (talk) also using 140.252.83.232 (talk) and 140.252.83.241 (talk). The least this calls for is adding the new section requested,'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' and most likely also other revisions. 77.219.181.190 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) /User:Mariguld
Are you evading your block? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Since when does wikipedia not accept pertinent published references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.5 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:SCIRS. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Astrophysics and Space Science is published under Springer, and Physics Essays is published under the AIP. Misplaced Pages simply refuses any articles that contradict the big bang religion. 71.98.135.144 (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn and other administrators should be aware of pertinent research on the IP-issue at stake and take neccessary steps instead of harassing an innocent victim. 77.219.176.32 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence in the article says tired light proposals are "all but absent" from the scientific literature, which is admitting there do exist tired light proposals. The five sources above should therefore be cited as examples of published tired light proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.129.251 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
They aren't in good enough journals. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean they aren't in big bang journals. 71.98.129.61 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?

I have not looked at this article for a long time, but I notice traces of debates with unreasonable (not in line with the rules) requests to insert or remove references to articles, and new editors. I guess that this is such a small topic that most relevant papers (or one per author) can be mentioned. To those who were involved recently, are there any notable papers about "tired light" concepts that are not referred to, or, inversely, unnoticed papers that are still referred to? Harald88 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because few people read it doesn't mean it is okay to turn it into a rubbish dump of crankery. There's a couple by Masreliez which have been published which use the words 'tired light' but describes a metric expansion of space as far as I can see except they phrase it to say the space doesn't expand - things in it shrink, and uses it to explain the Pioneer anomaly which has been pretty much fully explained anyway. Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Turning it into a rubbish dump or into a propaganda piece are both forbidden, for the same reason. So thanks, I'll take a look. Harald88 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I now had a quick look at those papers, and one of them is cited by someone else. I don't think that that warrants a discussion of his ideas. Nevertheless, I recall that there were other alternative hypothesis that also were called tired light. Together that bunch of alternatives is just notable. So, it will be appropriate to add a short section, for example "Alternative tired light hypotheses" in which passing mention is made of those attempts that so far had little impact. Harald88 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Please workshop it in talk if you think you can assemble something that will pass the muster. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes Harald, there should be a short section on published alternative models. The article already says in the very last sentence that some published alternative models do exist, so show them in a section. Why should we hide them? 71.98.129.155 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I'll try but not sure if I can find the time in the coming two weeks...
But I now notice in the last section "fringe researchers" - what the hell are that?? I work in research and it's not a term used by scientists, as it sounds just like racist or name-calling. That's inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
PS. I now checked who one of those "fringe scientists" was: a teacher of the Astrophysics Department of the School of Physics, University of Sydney! So it's not merely name-calling, but even misleading. The POV of the last section is put on in such a thick layer that it just drips off. Harald88 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
See fringe science. I'm afraid I get the impression some of the stuff in areas related to here may by a branch of creationists who have a thing against the theory of Relativity because they think it inspires moral relativism, that would be pseudoscience. We should just go by the peer reviews so the problem is mostly not our business though of course if it does seem nutty we should check it really is a good source. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Harald88 has a point. We use the terms fringe science in our discussions, and I think it's a appropriate here, but barring a reliable source using the same term, I think it best we avoid using the term in the article. I've recast the last paragraph, please double check it to make sure I haven't introduced errors. I think that last clause should be deleted unless we a source for it, so I tagged it. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

They seem very reasonable. No need to stick in a fringe qualifier unnecessarily. Saying something is fringe really needs a citation saying something like that. Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's better and much more encyclopedic. However, I think that it's still not really good, but as talk about that section is a slightly different topic I started with a new header. Harald88 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tired light is absolutely fringe science at this point, and not considered credible by any but a tiny number of physicists and astronomers. Here's a citation from ScienceNOW in 2001 to that effect: 

Measurements of the cosmic microwave background put the theory 
firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago; still, scientists 
sought more direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.

There's also a nice quote from Ned Wright at the end of the article. I've reverted the recent changes, but not added the article, as I'm not sure where best to work it in. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good find, that's exactly the kind of secondary source we need. I'll see about working it in later once I've had a chance to read the article, if you don't beat me to it. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic. I added the quote to the end of the article in place of the nebulous "all but absent" line and referenced it in the intro as a source for the fact that the idea is lately consigned to the fringes. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think in the lead though it is enough just to say it hasn't been supported by observational evidence without labouring the point that it is fringe now. The fringe citation is fine in the paragraph in the main article about where it all is now. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As I already made clear, "fringe scientist" isn't a proper nor a neutral descriptor - "fringe scientist" doesn't exist in serious literature (no, it does not have the same meaning as "fringe science"!). I'll correct it to "fringe physics", or better, as now a whole sentence about the "fringe physics" qualifier has been added, to "tired light models" . Harald88 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading, apparently erroneous last section

I checked up on the last referenced claim of the last section. To my astonishment I found a follow-up article by the same author (as it seems, with an improved theory) in a high quality physics journal, that itself was again referenced (according to Web Of Knowledge) in 8 articles of which I copy some titles that in turn have been cited hereunder. Evidently the claim of that section is not supported by the facts. Harald88 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Title: The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe

Author(s): Sorrell Wilfred H. Source: ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE Volume: 317 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 45-58 DOI: 10.1007/s10509-008-9853-0 Published: SEP 2008 Times Cited: 3 (from All Databases)

3. Title: Curvature pressure in a cosmology with a tired-light redshift

Author(s): Crawford DF Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS Volume: 52 Issue: 4 Pages: 753-777 Published: 1999 Times Cited: 2 (from All Databases)

4. Title: THE QUASAR DISTRIBUTION IN A STATIC UNIVERSE

Author(s): CRAWFORD DF Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 441 Issue: 2 Pages: 488-493 DOI: 10.1086/175375 Part: Part 1 Published: MAR 10 1995 Times Cited: 4 (from All Databases)

6. Title: A STATIC STABLE UNIVERSE

Author(s): CRAWFORD DF Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 410 Issue: 2 Pages: 488-492 DOI: 10.1086/172765 Part: Part 1 Published: JUN 20 1993 Times Cited: 6 (from All Databases)

7. Title: A NEW GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION OF COSMOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

Author(s): CRAWFORD DF Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 377 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-6 DOI: 10.1086/170330 Part: Part 1 Published: AUG 10 1991 Times Cited: 6 (from All Databases)

Sorry, which paper exactly are you referring to and which claim exactly are you saying is refuted? Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that Harald88 is trying to say that the refutation of Crawford's theory in Nature was subject to a later rebuttal. But Crawford's attempt to rebut Beckers and Cram was not published in Nature, and as far as I can tell that's the last time that Nature ever entertained a tired light notion. Interestingly, Charles Seife, it seems, referenced a "one-two punch" that essentially removed Crawford and the rest of the tired light fans from the mainstream journals circa 2001. Crawford hasn't had a paper published in a normal astrophysics journal since 1995 and it doesn't look like the others have been successful in getting any paper published during the 2000s in anything but AP&SS which changed its editorial policy in 2008 to avoid a lot of fringe physics. Now they're really struggling for recognition. See, for example, Crawford's foray into the way-out-there Journal of Cosmology: . 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not at all what I meant. The last section suggests (at least, it gives that impression to me!) that apart of a theory by Crawford that was rebutted in 1979, practically no alternative theory has been published in serious journals; and certainly no newer, corrected model by Crawford. Harald88 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no serious astronomy journals today, they are all fairy tales who believe in the big bang, it's their Santa Claus. 71.98.137.180 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentient and self-aware narratives? Meta-mythologies? This is quite the post-modern novel under construction here. 77.103.132.143 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Section leaves one hanging

This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The last section ends by saying tired light models are all but absent from the literature, which leaves one asking for some references to those models, at the very least. 71.98.128.187 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that looks like what Harald88 is fixing up with something not quite so old, see just above. Can't say I feel myself panting with excitement when I read a statement like that but to each their own. :) Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that there is activity in the area, but that it has died down to a handful of researchers. I think that is to be expected, science is not so uniform as one sometimes assumes. I found this somewhat interesting in tone. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And of course we have an article on Otto Rössler. Interesting in tone - that's a good one! Thanks ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't jump all over myself yet with this excitement over fringe physics. Horse's mouth claims about wild ideas are only interesting in hindsight. For every 1000 of these claims there may be one or two which actually end up being worth anything. The rest get consigned to the dustbin of history and per WP:CBALL, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, we aren't equipped to figure out which ones will be of interest to us ahead of time. Short of writing a ridiculous tome that addresses every last minor tired light fan available, I think we're best just describing the marginalized state of the discussion with the Charles Seife quote and leave it at that. This isn't Fringe-pedia. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Charles Seife has no training in astronomy. He's just a writer. 71.98.140.218 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That's why we say he is a science journalist and not a scientist. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
He is not a science journalist, he is a freelance science writer, and a layman, see his wikipedia page. 71.98.132.103 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"Charles Seife is an American author, journalist and professor," says his Misplaced Pages page. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And Writer it says. He is a layman. 71.98.132.103 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Seife should not be quoted in the article, he is a layman. 71.98.132.103 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We should be clear on what we're about. We're not interested in whether the Big Bang or Tired Light is true, but rather in documenting the subject. What we are generally lacking are secondary sources that discuss the development/history of Tired Light. Rössler's notable by our lights, so including some information from him, attributed, may be appropriate. Seife is a journalist, and we accept those as reliable sources in general. I haven't looked at his work yet, but let's not get bogged down in whether or not the theories is right or not. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It is certain a tired light explanation will prevail, because the big bang is absurd nonsense. 71.98.135.222 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

71.98.XXX.XXX looks like the same banned user that was causing trouble earlier this year. Engaging with him/her is not productive. - Parejkoj (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't bury your head in the sand. Observations of extremely redshifted early mature quasars flatly contradict the big bang, see the above section on this. And those early quasars are rich in heavy elements, again refuting the big bang. 71.98.129.249 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Your belief that the big bang is wrong seems fanatical to me. Is there some reason besides the evidence you believe you have for wanting it to be wrong? Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The big bang fairy tale has retarded by a hundred years real astronomy. 71.98.134.33 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that it is not part of Misplaced Pages's remit to push something that is not generally accepted? It is an encyclopaedia, not a science journal. You need to publish papers in peer reviewed science journals to change the status quo. If they are idiots and won't accept the truth as you see it I'm afraid we cannot do anything about that. They are the reliable sources as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Suppose I found some papers in a non-peer reviewed journal that said water was a very soft jelly and only seemed a liquid because of earth's gravity. Now suppose this had actually been discussed in a peer reviewed journal and they said they had no evidence of anything like that and water seemed to behave like a liquid even in space. How much weight should be placed on the papers saying it is a jelly? Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The big bang nuts will all end up with egg on their faces, and will look like complete fools, the king has no clothes. 71.98.134.33 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
When that happens we will document it. However we don't make the news. I await that time with bated breath. Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's see you explain how there are indeed quasars, mature objects already billions of years old, that date from the beginning of the big bang's timeline. The quasars are observed to have heavy elements as well. This alone kills the big bang theory. Let's see you explain it to us here. 71.98.134.33 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Not our job, we're writing an encyclopedia. Tell you what, go off and write an article for a reliable journal or two, swing some big name scientists to your opinion, create enough of a furor that it gets in the news, and we're write about that here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The Science reference desk is the place to ask questions. It doesn't sound to me though that you want an answer. Dmcq (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You go ask them. They can't answer, I assure you. 71.98.137.147 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory

This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Oh my, how embarrassing !

Ancient galaxies contradict the big bang theory. http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/

Ancient quasars also contradict the big bang theory. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions

So when will the big bang nuts give it up ? The big bang is just a fairy tale, just like Santa Claus.

It's high time to look closely at alternative explanations for the redshift. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tired light is not mentioned in those. Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
A tired light explanation for the redshift is the only alternative when the big bang is discarded. So Misplaced Pages should make mention of published tired light explanations for the redshift, and no longer try to ignore them. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't make deductions here on Misplaced Pages, we summarize what the sources say. If you'd like to point those out in the talk of an article about the early cosmos or the composition of stars they might be relevant to improving them. Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The ancient galaxies and quasars in those two articles contain heavy elements, which contradicts the big bang, because according to the big bang only hydrogen and helium existed at that early time. Heavier elements require billions of years and indicate that those galaxies and quasars are therefore billions of years older than the big bang, which is a blatant contradiction of the big bang theory. Tired light is the only possible alternative, as Hubble admitted himself. So Misplaced Pages should not be ignoring published tired light models, and mention them in the article. 71.98.136.237 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, heavy elements should be rare near the beginning of the big bang, NOT non-existent. Nothing about their presence contradicts the big bang. Nothing about that says that they must be older than the big bang itself - and if it did, it would be proper scientific method to conclude that the big bang happened earlier than previously believed, not to throw it out entirely. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with tired light models.Farsight001 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The science reference desk is the place to ask questions at WP:RD/S. This talk page is for improving the article. The links you provided say nothing about tired light. Dmcq (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be NO heavy elements at the beginning of the big bang, NONE, but there are now observed early galaxies and quasars that do have heavy elements which fundamentally contradicts the big bang. Edwin Hubble said that with no big bang then there MUST be a tired light explanation for the cosmological redshift. So wikipedia should not ignore them but include published tired light models. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, it is fine that you think this, but we cannot use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The idea that there should be no heavy elements in the beginning of the big bang has no grounds in reality or science and is found in no educational textbook. You have, frankly, pulled such a notion from your own ass.Farsight001 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You know absolutely nothing about the big bang theory. According to the big bang, quarks appeared, then later hydrogen, but heavier elements not until billions of years later. That is why they are embarrassed by the two articles: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/ 71.98.135.146 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussing the Truth, please cease this line of discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
With these blatant contradictions of the big bang hypothesis they are forced to consider alternative tired light models for the cosmological redshift, and wikipedia should not ignore those published tired light models. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if an acknowledged expert on astrophysics came along and said all this we could do nothing with it. Before something can be used in Misplaced Pages it needs to be in a WP:reliable source. They would have to write a paper and get it peer reviewed or otherwise get it published by a reliable publisher. That is written into our basic policies. You can see a summary of the principles of WIkipedia at WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW the time they are talking about is two billion years after the big bang, not at the big bang itself. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Two billion years is not long enough, read the articles, it is a contradiction of the big bang, a contradiction that so-called mainstream astronomers will simply ignore, because the big bang is a multi-billion dollar industry. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion does not contribute to improving the article because tired light is not mentioned in those links. Only discussion which might contribute to improving the associated article is allowed as per WP:TALK. This is not a forum for general discussion. You can ask questions at the reference desk but that's the closest to where editors personal opinions and queries are allowed. Why don't you put your ideas on some science discussion forum instead? They're not doing any good here. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, User:71.XX.XX.XX is a previously banned user with a history of trolling this, and other, cosmology articles. Engaging with him/her is entirely non-productive. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a galaxy less than one billion years after the hypothetical beginning point of the big bang, and already there are heavy elements, this kills the big bang theory, stars are not formed and die in that short amount of time to have created heavy elements, these ancient galaxies are thus older than the big bang which kills the big bang theory. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Abundant_Carbon_in_the_Early_Universe_999.html 71.98.136.218 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, nothing about the big bang says that there should be no heavy elements. they would be uncommon, but not non-existent. Hence none of these articles you continue to post do anything to contradict the big bang theory. Let the grown ups talk and go back to skulking under your bridge.Farsight001 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
You know nothing about the big bang theory which clearly states that the universe started only of hydrogen, with heavy elements only forming after a first generation of stars, which requires billions of years. This early galaxy contains already heavy elements, making it older than the big bang, which kills the big bang theory. 71.98.142.5 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Really? It "clearly" states this? Where? In what textbook? What official definition says this? I'll tell you. None of them. Cut the bullcrap. We are not fooled. Go bother someone else.Farsight001 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
ANY SOURCE on the big bang says this. ANY ONE. Go do some reading. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother yourself about it. They've been told we can't do anything with stuff like that here unless it says 'tired light' in it and is in a reliable source. Any arguments about truth are beside the point. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
My point is that with the big bang having serious contradictions like this with observations, that published tired light models should not be simply ignored by wikipedia. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
How are you not getting this? Your point is SHIT. It is false, untrue, has no basis in reality, is not claimed by scientists as you say, a lie, misinformation, disinformation, deception, gibberish, meaningless, etc, etc, etc. Get the picture? Misplaced Pages is not going to stop ignoring tired light models just because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Farsight001 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The IP was similarly disruptive, and similarly failed to understand what their sources were saying, at Talk:Big Bang. I suggest collapsing the thread and moving on (and taking appropriate action if they continue disruption). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, if Parejkoj is correct about them being a banned user, and if the ban is still in force, then it's time to head over to WP:SPI and report this as an IP-sock. A rangeban will likely follow if this is the case. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't ignore tired light models. It is just that the 'contributor' is not contributing anything we can use. Misplaced Pages does not publish the thoughts of anonymous people who just say something is wrong. It needs citations to peer reviewed sources. Otherwise it would be just a pile of worthless junk from crackpots and no use to anyone. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A new section should be added to the article under the title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' where these five referenced articles should be cited, the authors being all Ph.D.'s in Physics:

1) Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004) http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO3PDF/V11N2MAS.pdf

2) Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-447. http://www.estfound.org/planets2.htm

3) Masreliez C. Johan (2005), preprint http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108.

4) Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1

5) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1

This will add some neutral balance to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Banned user warning: 71.xx.xx.xx is a formerly banned user who trolls cosmology articles. See the collapsed sections above (where this request to include papers by Masreliez was posted almost verbatim), nearly all of the recent archive, and Licorne's Sockpuppet investigation archive. Engaging with him/her is useless. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a tired light article published in Astrophysical Journal, it should be included also:

6) LaViolette P. A., 1986. Is the universe really expanding? Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, Vol. 301, p. 544-553. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is another to include:

7) Accardi, L. et al, Physics Letters A 209, A third hypothesis on the origin of the redshift: application to the Pioneer 6 data, p.277-284 (1995) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960195008683 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That first one one by LaViolette definitely looks okay. Haven't checked the second as I have to go off now but you do know the Pioneer anomaly has been perfectly well explained so something that explains it would in fact predict something which isn't there and so the prediction is evidence against any such theory? Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The first lot of references are in places that let anything through and are very problematic. It seems a bit silly to want the Pioneer ones in but I believe the Accardi article would also count as coming from a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the first lot of references. Physics Essays is a think tank published under the American Institute of Physics. Any articles published there must be defended and defendable. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I think 'speculative' covers Physics Essays remit fairly well 'Physics Essays dedicates itself to the publication of stimulating exploratory, and original papers'. Misplaced Pages on the other hand is an encyclopaedia where things are described with WP:DUE weight. Physics Essays has very low impact, it is barely detectable in physics citations, and putting in references to it is generally considered a sign of a fringe idea in Misplaced Pages. There is no right to publish every single last bit of stuff on something in Misplaced Pages. Dmcq (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well then how about Accardi ? Put him in the article at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is wrong to say 'in speculative journals' because Accardi is published in mainstream journal 'Physics Letters A' and his article must therefore be included as a reference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

photon aging

I just reverted an addition to the lede labeling tired light a synonym to photon aging after taking a quick look at google. It doesn't seem like they are exact equivalents, but I could well be wrong, so I'm bringing it up here. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if it is somewhat similar it could be dealt with here too and just have tired light and photon ageing to not say they are the same. It hardly seems worthwhile to have another article so perhaps include but distinguish? Just had a look and couldn't make out anything notable myself to form an opinion from. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is a concept that is discussed at all anywhere, I cannot find it. The one obscure German-language reference was to a book about wild extensions to quantum mechanics. Checking the formal literature, I find absolutely no mention of the term. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced reference or missing body text

Ref 11 is to the Goldhaber paper on time-stretch parameterization of supernovae but is linked to the section of text on the Tolman Test which is entirely different. Can someone add some text explaining the Goldhaber result (the curves are stretched because the SN gets farther away during the outburst or equivalently is time dilated) and perhaps also link this paper which provides the same evidence but using quasars: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191 George Dishman (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

New Alternative-Explanations Seem to Succeed In Satisfying Two Of the Criteria

In the main article the criteria that: any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:(i)admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band; not exhibit blurring, follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe), and explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.

A paper recently published in Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 7, 2013, no. 18, 867, titled: "Four Alternative Possibilities that the Universe May not be Expanding" by Hasmukh K. Tank, explains that: " Alternative interpretations of cosmological red-shift are generally rejected on the ground that ‘tired-light-interpretations’ are inconsistent with the observations of time-dilation of super-nova-light-curves; but those curves are time-domain-representations of amplitude of light. These curves can be Fourier-transformed into wave-number-domain, and it is this 'band of waves'that propagates in inter-galactic-space, and reaches us after millions of years. These Fourier-transformed-components, being electromagnetic-waves, get red-shifted by any mechanism that can cause spectral-shift. Thus, time-dilation of super-nova light-curves is not different from red-shift of light due to any mechanism. With this explanation,this letter presents five new possible-mechanisms for the ‘cosmological red-shift’ 2. In the conclusion we find an explanation for the recently-observed non-linearity as follows: "Interesting difference between the standard Doppler-shift-interpretation and the proposed new one here, of branching-out of input-energy into gravitational and EM-waves, is: that after every unit-distance, say one light-year, the red-shifted-frequency f becomes the new input-frequency f0 for the next unit-distance; making the red-shift-distance-curve non-linear, as observed by Perlmutter and Riess; like the telescopic-railway-fare, or like the reducing piano-frequency which gets divided by 1.104 with every key. As soon as ‘cosmological-red-shift' gets understood as a propagation-property of light then ‘gravity’ can be understood as due to ‘cosmological-red-shift-effect’ on the photons exchanged between the particles. Therefore, it will be interesting for the experts to consider these possibilities in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.103.145 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 123.201.103.145 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert banned user

Banned User:Licorne posting as 96.228.244.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting WP:FRINGE-cruft by Dean Mamas into this article (among others). Per WP:DENY, I recommend reverting this diff: .

jps (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked per WP:SPI results; sockpuppet rants also removed. --Kinu /c 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible fringe theory

I had reverted this edit by User:Tiredlight as being particularly fringe, even for a highly-theoretical article such as this one. It has subsequently restored by an IP editor (presumably the original contributor while logged out). I won't remove it again, but did believe it was worth noting here so that others with more knowledge and expertise about this topic can evaluate whether this information belongs in the article, the journal cited does meet WP:RS, etc. --Kinu /c 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

- Does not seem fringe. One argument to support that it is fringe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.14.211.124 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean "unofficial"?

Opening section.

I commend the author for taking the time to create this entry. My only gripe is that the opening section is weak in explaining why Tired Light was rejected, then it becomes a treasure hunt to locate the reasons in the body of the article. The idea that scattering by gases/dust would change the colour of the distant light also makes no sense. There was a notion of tired light which held that it was a cosmological thing, where the light loses energy simply by traversing many light years of empty space. Hard to find minds to check out a failed theory, but Tired Light was pretty good, and needs a stronger refutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.126.253 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair critique, but it is unfortunately contaminated by present argumentation. When it was first proposed, it was a serious proposal which could have been "new physics" inasmuch as expansion itself was "new physics". The refutation of tired light came with a look at certain auxiliary effects which are natural results of the expansion of the universe but would have to be re-explained if tired light were truth, thus Occam's Razor cuts away the epicycles, as it were. Yes, that's the story in the mainstream literature. However, the fringe literature has firmly taken over the idea at this point and the more common explanations are those which invoke scattering or known physics to achieve the same effect (presumably hoping to overthrow redshift-distance relationships as being due to GR). That's the current position and it's hard to reconcile the two different approaches except that they result in the same phenomenology. A detailed explanation of this really does require digging further, so I don't see an easy way to deal with this in the intro. jps (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Tired light" unfairly demeaned?

I think the article is too critical and demeaning of "tired light", in comparison with other concepts. I find it ironic that "tired light" is considered "speculative" and "ad-hoc", while inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter are more or less mainstream science. I'm not saying "tired light" is valid. "Tired light" seems quite speculative and ad-hoc to me. But no more so than inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter. Based on my understanding of science and history, I believe that 20 years from now, people will look back at the current state of ignorance and shake their heads in amusement, not so much at the ignorance but at the glib acceptance of ad-hoc baseless explanations, especially dark energy and inflation theory. I believe the current crop of physicists and astronomers "strain at a gnat (tired light), but swallow a camel (inflation theory, dark energy, dark matter)". In summary, I find it odd that the article beats up on "tired light" while equally speculative concepts are basically given a pass in Misplaced Pages articles. 71.35.176.10 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Physical Review article questions the big bang and proposes a Tired Light model. 47.201.179.7 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC) http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/344-14-pdf-dean-l-mamas-an-explanation-for-the-cosmological-redshift.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RGW-type complaint. Sorry. Misplaced Pages is not the place to fix what you think is a problem with the way modern scientific ideas have developed. Including speculative proposals as citations may be okay. But if you want to fight the current crop of physicists and astronomers, go to your local college or university and do so there. Not here. jps (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
OK then please go ahead and include these speculative citations in the Misplaced Pages article. Do it. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Just figured out who you are. I'll be asking for yet another block. Don't you get tired of this? jps (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You're an Astronomy teacher, why don't you tell your students for once that everything you have taught them about the big bang, black holes, wormholes etc is pure BULLCRAP. Media driven, and Einstein wrapped, BULLCRAP. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055

Optical doubt

When going out from a more refringent medium to a less refringent medium, Light diverges from Normal, this is why objects under water look closer and in a different place as we would see it inside air, and in the same time, the light speed is slightly increased, there's no such a thing as an 'absolute' speed of light, as Vladimir Illich Lenin interpreted wronlgy in: 'Materialism and empiriocriticism', a 1909 book against the Russian followers of Ernst Mach, or 'Machists'. We know that 'specific gravity', matter density, changes from one region of the universe to another, the Solar orbit around center of Galaxy crosses every 30 million years or so one of the Galaxy arms, resulting in a rain of planetoids and meteors on our planet, same as it happens twice a year when the Earth crosses the ecliptic plane, 'star rains', some mass extinctions resulted from these Galaxy arms crossings, so, as light comes to us along the universe: can we expect changes in its speed and direction from going through sites of higher or lower refraction, and can this affect the models of matter amount and distribution, also concepts about the expansion, and fate of universe? References about the subject? Thanks, regards. Salut +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is well-understood in studies of the ISM and IGM. The effect is minimal when talking about cosmological distances in any given random line of sight. However, in directions where there happens to be high column density, thinking about the index of refraction (which sometimes goes imaginary or negative(!)) is of astrophysical interest. An augmented discussion of this would be nice to read, but it would be largely original research and so not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Pitch it to Scientific American perhaps? Or just write a nice blog entry. jps (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Josep Comas i Solà, a Catalan astronomer who worked in Barcelona, claimed in 1933, inside a divulgation book on Astronomy, published by: 'Editorial Labor', that he thought having proved the Doppler theory for Redshift being wrong, -at least partly-, and attributed Redshift to clashes between photons during the travel from its sources to us, that would yield a lower energy, lower frequency, closer to red, secondary radiation; photon to photon crashes having more chances to occur with a longer distance traveled, hence the greater: 'Shift to Red' in galaxies or light sources more apart from us. Besides appearing close to the: 'Tired light' concept, this reminds the description of: Breit-Wheeler process, of around same times, for which only recently some evidence seems was found. Regards, Salut +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's in the class of tired light theories. I'd be interested to know what his "proof" opposed to the Doppler interpretation would have been. My guess is that is would be related to confusion over metric expansion of the universe which still causes confusion up to today what with its counter-intuitive isotropy. Of course, his proposal would cause blurring as well. When your redshifts are far less than 1% (as they were in 1930s), this effect wouldn't be at all noticeable. Today we've got them deep pictures. jps (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No Censorship!

An exhaustive Survey of past and present tired light research and models has been published by Martín López-Corredoira who has published hundreds of articles in top journals, he has excellent notability https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8

Martín López-Corredoira's Survey should be included in the article, and not censored. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8

Note also, Foundations of Physics is not a fringe journal. Foundations of Physics past editorial board members (which include several Nobel laureates) include Louis de Broglie, Robert H. Dicke, Murray Gell-Mann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Reference to include in this Misplaced Pages article is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We can tell you really like nonstandard cosmologies, but Misplaced Pages is not a place for advertising your favorite thing, it must be notable, reliable, and in proportion to its prominence in the field. López-Corredoira's article reads like a high school term paper, not a scientific journal article: I'm skeptical that it underwent any significant peer review at all. Is there any evidence of its notability in secondary sources? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove the Charles Seife Quote

Charles Seife has no degrees in astronomy nor physics, he is merely a writer, and no expert in the big bang theory, so this quote of Seife must be deleted from Misplaced Pages:

Please remove it: 

..science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Being an astronomer is not required to write about fringe theories. There was no consensus to remove this. Restored because there was no consensus to remove the content. On the contrary: . - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne/Archive#04 January 2018, and re-opened at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne. - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No Balance to the Article

This quote of Dr. Disney should be included in the article, see https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3351.pdf 47.201.190.53 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Illustration to Tolman surface brightness test used looks wrong

We know, since 2008, that we will not see many dimmer stars (first red, then yellow, and so on) after certain distance, because of their low luminosity, so left part of illustration is incorrect: we are not able to see these stars just because less than 1 photon is received by telescope, not because they are not there. Upgrading of telescope diameter allows us to see more stars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlisivka (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Whom are you trying to convince?

Why is Seife, who is not even an astronomer, quoted twice, first in the Intro, and again at the very end ? With no credentials Seife is just a media propagandist who should not be quoted here at all in a scientific article of Misplaced Pages. 47.201.187.246 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article (WP:LEAD), as such, it should usually already be in the body to also be in the lead. As for the author and source, please read this talk page's archives. —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove the Psuedoscience label

It is wrong to label Tired Light fringe theory which links to Psuedoscience when serious physicists such as Pecker at the CNRS, Vigier at the Poincaré Institute, and others have published possible tired light mechanisms, see the links. Also, serious Cosmologists such as Disney would call the big bang theory a psuedoscience, the Disney quote should be included here in Misplaced Pages. see: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3351.pdf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987IAUS..124..507P 47.201.178.246 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is that an unreviewed preprint with no citations, and an IAU proceedings note make this not-fringe? Huh. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a scarecrow argument. Obviously he is saying that a theory can be fringe without being pseudoscience. This is true.2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
fringe theory which links to Psuedoscience Your objection is that this article (Tired light) links to an article (Fringe theory) which links to an article (Pseudoscience) which in turn has no sourced connection to this article? How is that a problem? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

James Webb Telescope destroyed the big bang

The James Webb deep field photo proves the universe has always looked just as it still looks today with massive spiral galaxies, so no big bang. Misplaced Pages must now start embracing tired light models which are the alternative to the now defunct big bang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.188.45 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources. If they embrace it, Misplaced Pages will embrace it. Not sooner. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Categories: