Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 1 December 2005

Template:FAOL

Old talk: from Red Shift, up to April, 2004, up to August 2005, up to Novemeber 2005 ---

Redshift and the POV of nonscientist layman Iantresman

As things have settled down a bit, I popped over here to see a terrible change to this article. Ian, claiming that the nonstandard redshift explanations are "non-Doppler" and the others are "Doppler" is not only incorrect, it belies an inordinate ignorance of the physics involved. You need to cut out your POV-pushing. Redshift is well described as the article stands right now. All that really needs to be done is relegate the non-standard explanations to POV-related articles. Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts as the four causes listed up front. The remaining ideas are outside of the mainstream and do not belong in the article. --ScienceApologist 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Science edit now complete. If anybody sees any errors or ambiguities, let me know. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, no scattering processes are included anymore. They are not agreed upon in the scientific community to allow for full-band redshifts and therefore should not be included. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes Joshua. I'm sorry you didn't like the changes to the article.

• Your description of me as a "nonscientist layman" is childish.
• I have not made any "claims" as you put it. Every statement I have included is taken from peer-reviewed articles as required by the scientific process, and as suggested by Misplaced Pages policy. I suggest that you read it more thoroughly.
• Redshift, as described by this article, is far more inclusive than your narrow viewpoint.
• "Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts"
  

I suggest that you get you head out of your as-tronomy text book, and read further afield.

--Iantresman 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to write this article so that, say, a secondary school student wishing to learn about the subject will be properly informed about the consensus on the subject. As the article stands as you have it, it is full of errors, innuendo that are external to the subject, and general bad science. The article will be reverted.

I strongly suggest you read an introductory astronomy text currently in use at the secondary, college, or graduate level and see what it has to say about redshift. That is our bellweather and our standard.

I stand by my assertion that you are a non-scientist layman who is inappropriately editting the article. I do not mind comments or edits by you, but I will continue to make sure no errors or NPOV problems creep into the article.

Thanks,

--ScienceApologist 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• "I strongly suggest you read an introductory astronomy text"
  

Your astronomy point of view, Joshua, is indeed one POV, and as such is not a neutral point of view. I am delighted to include that point of view in the article.

• "I will continue to make sure no errors..."
  

I note that you have not highlighted any errors to date, except to point out that certain redshifts mentioned are not Doppler-like redshifts. I am pleased that we agree, that the non-Doppler redshifts were excluded.

• As evidence of the use of the term redshift elsewhere, and in peer-reviewed articles, I submit:

• Redshift as used in Brillouin scattering over 30 references
• Redshift as used in Compton scattering over 200 references
• Redshift as used in Raman scattering over 90 references
• Redshift as used in Wolf Effect 100 references to Emil Wolf's original article
• Non-cosmological Redshift over 40 references
• Non-Doppler redshift over 20 references
• Intrinsic redshift over 40 references
• Tired-light redshift over 20 references

• I think you need to provide some peer-reviewed articles to suggest that these 500-odd peer-reviwed articles are using the term redshift incorrectly in their fields.

--Iantresman 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, your POV pushing is out of control. Your refusal to read introductory astronomy texts means that you refuse to address the real concerns about the article representing consensus in the field. I encourage you to read the Italian article for an example of a good redshift article, for example. Your insertion of nonsense does not deserve inclusion in the article. --ScienceApologist 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have already said that I am quite happy with your astronomical definition and use of the word 'redshift'. I have read some text books, and I believe that your point of view is quite accurate.

• "Your insertion of nonsense..."
  

500 peer-reviewed articles are nonsense? Surely I misunderstand you?

• Thanks for the message on my talk page. You mention that I am "getting all information from very biased sources"
  

My source is the Astrophysics Data System. How is that biased?

--Iantresman 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian's demonstartion of understanding

Ian, please before you start inserting your POV into the article answer the following questions:

1. If an object has an observed wavelength of 600 nm and an emission wavelength of 400 nm, what is the redshift?
2. What recessional velocity does a redshift of z=1 correspond to? (HINT: it is not c).
3. A spectroscopic binary shows a recessional velocity of 30 km/sec. What is its redshift?
4. What is the Doppler broadening of a line refer to? Can Doppler broadening of a line be said to be due to redshift?

These will give us an indication of how familiar you are with the subject you wish to completely overhaul with your supposed "neutral" POV.

We need to have an article that will help students, for example, answer these questions with as little clutter as possible.

Thanks,

--ScienceApologist 23:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not jumping through any hoops for you Joshua. If I have made any errors in my additions, besides your non-exceptance of 500 peer-reviewed, non-Doppler-like redshifts, then I am happy to be corrected. --Iantresman 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)