Talk:Tired light/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The misinterpretation of redshift

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.

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.

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 unpublishable) 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.

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 The general time dilation (relativistic redshift in stationary clouds of dust). 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 Halton Arp 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". Jim 21:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory, bad science and a misunderstanding of the Bing Bang v the laws of physics all in one? Wow. Jim62sch 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Harald88 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Harald88 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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? Jim62sch 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Tired light theories may not be up to par as a cosmological explanation for the Hubble redshifts, but redshifting of forward-scattered light is a pretty well known phenomenon and drops ouf of the second law of thermodynamics (high energy photons lose energy, on average, when interacting with cold material). An extreme case is the gradual scrubbing of energy from gamma rays as they propagate through a scattering medium. Ancillary effects (like degradation of image quality or lack of observed time dilation in image sequences of distant objects) may eliminate tired light theories from the cosmological running -- but that should be called out, not simply an assertion that there is no physical mechanism to do the job. zowie 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, except that I'm not sure that scattering can really be called "tired light" since Zwicky's proposal was really involving "other" physics that would be due to isotropy not observed in the distribution of baryonic matter in the universe in order to get a Hubble Law that worked in all directions through the same proportionality. We have a single statement about scattering in the current version of the page and I think that this is a good balance considering scattering is generally considered not a "redshift" mechanism and was not normally associated with tired light. See also the archived discussions on the Talk:redshift page which includes a detailed discussion of whether scattering should be on the page. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Frequency shifts are observed in the labs since 1968, using lasers. The CREIL effect is a coherent light-matter interaction which, increasing the entropy of a set of light beams refracted by a convenient matter produces frequency shifts.

Objections against general time dilation

None so far?

The pages on the subject were deleted as original research sometime back. This link is therefore removed. --ScienceApologist 23:25, 3 January 2006 (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. Harald88 23:38, 3 January 2006 (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 original research as it currently stands). --ScienceApologist 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not true that Jastrzebski's main contention is a metric. This is just a proposition accidentally coinciding with Einsein's. Accidentally, since Jastrzebski didn't know about Einstein's proposition while proposing the same thing. The main contention is that the curvature of space has it's "mirror image" in the rate of time dilation (the conservation of energy requires that their sum vanishes identically) which is called a general time dilation (for google). This is a purely Einsteinian proposition that Einstein didn't do since he lost interest in gravitation when matematicians started to explain it to him. So Jastrzebski just continued Einstein's explanation of physics of gravitation. It incidentally explains all the problems with Einstein's stationary universe in which we seem to live. If someone knows some not yet explained then I may explain them too, if someone is interested. It is just simple Einsteinian physics, a bit simpler than Newtonian and that's why it is better. The fact that it is unpublishable in scientific journals doesn't make it worse than the creationist Big Bang though. Jim 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

mechanism for Tired Light - Lyndon Ashmore

The most recent edit to this page ("A mechanism for Tired Light has now [1] 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 Wikipedia. I would recommend that the addition be removed, or modified to be a more neutral assessment of the link in question. Grey

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. Harald88 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I now found it back; will include with recycling Ashmore's text. Harald88 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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... Harald88 23:05, 22 December 2005 (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. Grey, 13:37, 23 December, 2005 (UTC)

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). Harald88 22:34, 23 December 2005 (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.

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! Harald88 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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. --ScienceApologist 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't push POV but come with sound arguments

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. Harald88 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed version of my objections:

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 Compton scattering article.

According to standard theory, bremsstrahlung 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 [1]. - Some significant group of adherents? Or one guy with a web site?

Deleting again. --Art Carlson 11:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ScienceApologist. --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (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.

Carezani's article has real issues with the scientific content. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I long to see the article on which you base your claim (no original research allowed). Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (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. --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And sorry to say, but your remark about blurring due to bremsstrahlung sounds like utter nonsense to me.

If you don't believe in bremsstrahlung, that's your problem. Don't impose your beliefs on Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You hereby demonstrated that you did not even look at Marmet's article that you deleted. Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bremsstrahlung, like any sort of scattered light, is emitted in a different direction from the incident radiation. That always causes blurring. --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia claim that it is not known. So how can we discuss it? Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- 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 Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I suppose that you didn't know because you have not read the references.

That isn't a lie. The physical processees outlined by these to cranks are "unknown". --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is written by scientists in peer reviewed journals and based on sound physics, can in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia requirements. Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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". --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (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! Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thus I will now revert; you may label it "POV".

Please help to clarify the matters in a fair and neutral way.

I trust I have helped clarify matters. I will now make a fair and neutral revert. --Art Carlson 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.

Well? What will it be? Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald88 13:23, 2 January 2006 (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, --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (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 redshift 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.

I never said you advocated "tired light", but inclusion of the two papers is not tired light. --ScienceApologist 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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:[[2]] Harald88 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Does "tired light" have to involve photons?

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 Roberto Monti's 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? Caroline Thompson 10:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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 waveparticle. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --Art Carlson 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing the depth of the water in some sense effectively changes the medium conditions for the water wave. I was under the impression that User:Caroline Thompson 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. --ScienceApologist 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tired light this is not

Removed:

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, bremsstrahlung 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.

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. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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:

"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.

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. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 4 January 2006 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia will be successfull, it can only lead to a POV notice on the Redshift article as well. Harald88 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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 non-standard cosmology page, for example. They don't belong here. You may need to reread the WP:NPOV 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 Wikipedia policy. We can cover his ideas well on the appropriate pages devoted either to him or to nonstandard cosmology. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 4 January 2006 (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 non-standard cosmology? 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 non-standard cosmology article until today. It may be a good idea to merge this article with that article. Harald88 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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 redshift, 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. Harald88 20:25, 4 January 2006 (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. --ScienceApologist 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Harald88 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"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. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 5 January 2006 (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.

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, Harald88 21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the stub designation

Harald88, please review the definition of stubs. It is not an open invitation for people to just start typing. Do not impose your own prejudices on articles. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT remove the stub designation

The rationale for removing the stub was opposed to Wikipedia:Stub definitions. The stub is appropriately applied. Please do not act in such a unilateral fashion. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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). Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Cabal Mediation

Hey,

FYI: User:Harald88 posted a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/4_01_2006_tired_light#Request_for_cabal_mediation.

To all editors of this page: please go to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/4_01_2006_tired_light#Request_for_cabal_mediation and post your position on this issue.

I would especially like to hear from User:ScienceApologist.

User:Harald88 requests that I keep my response discrete, but I would like to hear further from the other users on this. Thanks.

Many thanks, SteveMc 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not need to be discrete, that is a misunderstanding. Thanks, Harald88 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harald. SteveMc 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What is tired light

ScienceApostel argued:

"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."

-> Where exactly? I must have overlooked it.

? The paper itself describes tired light. I'm not sure what you are asking in this context. --ScienceApologist 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is his definition of that term, on which page. Harald88 15:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not on any page. The entire paper describes the idea. It is summarized here. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 7 January 2006 (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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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 scattering)."

-> which ones? They may have useful references.

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

Thanks, Harald88 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. Jim62sch 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. Harald88 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). Jim62sch 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? Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 03:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as nobody presents a verifiable, sufficiently general definition of "tired light", nothing can be done. Harald88 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? --ScienceApologist 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and stubbed it since there didn't seem to be any response. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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. Harald88 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Who is disputing the reference? Are you? --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Comment by ScienceApologist on 18:45, January 10, 2006

References that conform to Wikipedia guidelines to the term "Tired light" are very welcome. [moved here from article page by Cobaltbluetony 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. Harald88 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 Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes 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. User:Harald88 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.

--ScienceApologist 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 User:ScienceApologist 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... Harald88 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 UPenn 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). - CobaltBlueTony 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. Harald88 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? - CobaltBlueTony 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: [3]

And this the recently started mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/4_01_2006_tired_light#Request_for_cabal_mediation

Harald88 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 ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 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. space can be defined as a vacuum with no matter whatsoever. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this belated explanation! IOW, the current definition is ambiguous. Harald88 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a WikiExpert and how do I become one? --ScienceApologist 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. - CobaltBlueTony 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, SteveMc 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! - CobaltBlueTony 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... Harald88 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. Harald88 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No comment? I'll make the improvement now, at the same time indicating a difference in definition (see [4]. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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:

[5] --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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, bremsstrahlung 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. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? Harald88 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So, this sentence gives an incorrect impression of the situation. --ScienceApologist 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. --ScienceApologist 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. --ScienceApologist 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. --ScienceApologist 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? Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• This inappropriately conflates bremsstrahlung 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 thatI called it a different process and gave the exact description bremsstrahlung 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. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is Bremsstrahlung and also called so. Please stop judging what you haven't even read. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not Bremsstrahlung. That's scattering. Period. --ScienceApologist

22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiation due to the acceleration of electrons is Bremsstrahlung... Ask any other physicist, or just read Bremsstrahlung... Harald88 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 stimulated emission fashion). --ScienceApologist 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add this back to the articlespace. Wikipedia needs to have correct information and this information is clearly incorrect. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 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.

Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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! Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And please don't continue to try to impose your prejudices. -- What exactly would those "prejudices" be? --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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? --ScienceApologist 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 Wikipedia rules, but probably you missed it despite my referring to it twice or thrice... should I have yelled there as well? Harald88 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is venturing farther and farther away from that which is becoming of a Wikipedia 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. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour of imposing your POV with help of opportunistic arguments is most inappropriate for Wikipedia; 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 WP:CIVILITY notes: It should be noted that some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves.

Harald88 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 WP:RfArb are you refering to?

--ScienceApologist 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Marmet is an obvious crackpot and his articles cited here are from obscure journals, neither in the spires database nor in the preprint archives and total 5 citations according to google scholar. this is firmly in the terretory of junk science and not fringe science. furthermore, i do not see how his 'redshift' mechanisms have anything to do with the original tired light proposal. i would omit any reference to this work from the article.

I agree totally. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The tired light subject itself is currently little studied in mainstream science; thus I disagree with anon - as also explained in great detail on this page. Moreover, I notice that SA swiftly also removed another article as well as mention of it. Revert. Harald88 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, anonymous would do better to use Web Of Science (which I use) if Spires is indeed that poor. Harald88 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Web of Science is not generally a good resource for astrophysics.--ScienceApologist 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification for including Marmet in this article as his work is plainly not the main discussion of tired light. --ScienceApologist 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification to exclude reference to that tired light mechanism in an article on Tired light - and you know it. Harald88 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Since tired light is actually a hypothesis discussed occasionally in other contexts, it is inappropriate to claim Marmet is actually putting forth a viable hypothesis. Discuss Marmet on Marmet's page, not on this page. --ScienceApologist 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

i am the anonymous poster from above and this is my first contribution to wikipedia, so i might miss some basic points and i appologize in advance if this is true.nevertheless, i have come across this article last sunday and have read thru all the discussion surrounding it, including the mediation. i realize, that a lot of arguments have been put forward both in favor of keeping the marmet reference and against i, therefore i will try to confine my comment to two points i found underrepresented in the discussion. i think that the marmet reference should be deleted from this article because of the following reason: the original tired light hypothesis was a viable cosmological model at its time. it has been found in contradiction to observation in the early 1970's (as scienceapologist showed) and is abandoned since then. from that point on it has moved from science to science history. marmets contribution mentioned has two features which, in conjunction, show the inappropriateness of mentioning his work here even under the assumption that his work is scientifically sound. this is a) it has been published well after TL was discredited as a viable theory and b) it does claim to provide a TL mechanism with standard physics not more. therefore, even if aall his claims were true, the marmet articles would not reconcile TL with observation and therefore they per definition have no connection with cosmology, as currently written in the article. now if they do not even claim to reconcile TL with observation, i do not see at all any relevance with respect to the original TL proposal and mentioning them in this is certainly giving them undue weight. let me compate this to a fictitious case, that should make my point clear. take the tychonic system of planets for example. it was a viable model at its time and has been falsified since, at the very latest with the discovery of stellar parallaxe in the 19th century. imagine, that someone would put forward a theoretical underpinning of tychos model today, based on newtonian physics but not explaining its disagreement with observation. even if all the claims put forward were correct, would that change the fact, that the model is ruled out experimentally? would this warrant an entry in the tychonic system page on wikipedia? note, that this argument does hold even if the articles in question were scientifically sound. i don't want to discuss this topic over again, but just make one comment i found missing in the previous discussions on that topic. the 'published in a refedeed journal' tag is not a guarantee for the quality of the work. it only means, that at least one person except thr author finds the paper worth publishing. who this person is - well, that depends on the journal. physics essays e.g. is something i would not exaclty call a well reputed journal. i will refraim from mentioning my impression when seeing their current list of titles. let me just give one number, their 2002 impact factor:0.121. the second widely accepted measure of at least the reception of a paper is its citation count and even without wos access (my employer and me are missing the change to get that) it is pretty obvious, that marmets work is next to unknown. the very few citations i could find are exclusively from equally obscure sources and while i would highly welcome if someone would check the actual citation count of the marmet papers, i think it is a safe bet that it is <10 with not one reputed paper among them. based on these external measures, i would say it is safe to conclude, that marmets work is basically unrecognized. -- chris (sorry for the clumsy edit)

More tired light resources

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

And, what do you deem "indecent" about this one? ;-) Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, then the article as it curently stands conforms well to this definition. --ScienceApologist 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? --ScienceApologist 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!). [at a second look, I exaggerated here, sorry: see lower Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)]

Now I won't have time for some days, but I'll be back. Harald88 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. Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I left a response on your talk page (just now) about my slow responses; sorry. Regarding disputing a stub, I do not believe that is against Wikipedia 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. SteveMc 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[7]. "

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 isotropy is necessary for light to "tire"... Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that isotropy is necessary, it's that if the isotropy of Hubble Law observations is to be believed then isotropy is a necessary condition on any tired light mechanism. There is no one that disputes this. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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? --ScienceApologist 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 bremsstrahlung 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.

--ScienceApologist 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 Wikipedia'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. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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 bremsstrahlung is not scattering. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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 CREIL and the Wolf Effect) 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.

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

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 Wikipedia 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. Harald88 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Marmet's mechanisms have been targetted substanitally, though because there are other people that propose nearly identical ideas to him, they don't mention Marmet by name. In particular, criticisms from nonstandard cosmology mostly apply to him. --ScienceApologist 14:43, 28 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 Paul Marmet page. --ScienceApologist 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"? ... Harald88 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Marmet and Einstein seems like quite a stretch. Marmet is not considered a reliable source in the scientific community. And if the reference we are using is not admitting to being tired light then it's not accurate to describe it as such. --ScienceApologist 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 special relativity with the argument that "the reference is not admitting to being special relativity". Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 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. Harald88 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. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you finally acknowledged that Marmet was a specialist in the field that you, as Wikipedia 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. Harald88 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Marmet is a crank in cosmology, not a specialist. Reber is also a crank in cosmology. IEEE isn't reviewed by cosmologists and much of what comes out these conference journals is very poorly vetted. Reber and Marmet's prose about tired light is so convoluted, it indicates that they are trying to appeal to authority (Hubble, Millikan) and make stretched comparisons rather than really relying on the definition provided by Zwicky. Unreliable prose, unreliable research, non-notable comparison by a non-expert in cosmology about a strictly cosmological phenomenon. Therefore the information is removed from this page. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 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 is h*(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 Wikipedia, 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. --Art Carlson 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do understand his idea, and that understanding enabled me to paraphrase it; and it's not forgotten either, contrary to Zwicky's. But more important is that he was an expert in that field; and what matters most for Wikipedia is that obviously other physicists understood his theory, since it was published in a respectable, peer reviewed IEEE plasma physics journal. And that same journal published an article that describes (I haven't read it yet) how that theory explains redshifts in the sun's chronosphere. Also other scientists such as prof Assis understand it, while it's quite possible that many cosmologists are less good in physics. WP:NPOV and [WP:NOR]] have been made exactly with this kind of problem in mind.

Nevertheless, if the short sketch in the article isn't clear enough, it needs a little expansion. The problem is, I don't see what the cause is of the misunderstanding, and thus I have no idea how to phrase it more clearly. The way I understand Marmet's theory: At the time that the photon is absorbed by the molecule, all its momentum is transferred to mainly one electron. This electron emits bremsstrahlung while absorbing and reemitting the primary photon. But the reemitted energy is slightly less, due to the bremsstrahlung energy. Thus refraction may be said to be very slightly "inelastic"; according to Marmet (and apparently, also Bethe and Rohrich), a little energy is lost at each interaction. Harald88 14:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Zwicky's idea is not forgotten, despite claims by the unschooled to the contrary.
• IEEE is notorious for publishing unvetted cosmology criticisms such as plasma cosmology without bothering to get a cosmologist's opinion on the matter. It is not a reliable nor respectable journal for cosmology.
• The redshifts in the sun's chromosphere are explained by helioseismology, despite claims by various woo-woos to the contrary.
• Certain cranks insulting the physics abilities of cosmologists is hardly relevant to an article about cosmological ideas. I am fairly confident that most cosmologists are better at physics than Marmet just from reading his papers.
• Marmet's theory has been idealized by others before him and doubtlessly will continue to be promoted after him. Unfortunately, it isn't tired light but rather is a redshift mechanism based on scattering. Marmet and Reber make a comparison to tired light in a very off-handed and mealy-mouthed manner. I am not convinced they have done any research on tired light other than to get some idealized picture of it. You'll notice they don't reference any papers about tired light models other than some quotes from Millikian.

I think it is clear that User:Harald88 is not reliable in this editorial regard. Prose of Marmet should be removed. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's clear to me that ScienceApologist went far over the line with his/her personal attacks on particular science journals, physicists and myself, together with his/her demonstration of disrespect for Wikipedia guidelines. This must stop. Harald88 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, Harald. I just don't think you are a reliable editor in this regard. --ScienceApologist 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I do interpret this as a personal attack, as well as disrespect for Wikipedia guidelines: we as editors should avoid imposing our own personal views and original research, and instead try to give unopiniated reports about what has been published.

That means to deal with those opinons, instead of trying to hide them! Harald88 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem dealing with Marmet's opinions. I just do not believe that those opinions are relevant to this page. Just because someone claims they are talking about a subject doesn't mean that they actually are talking about the subject. We have to consider the reliability of the source. Marmet is not reliable, neither is Reber, in regards to these subjects. I think we should have a Paul Marmet page as there are a lot of interesting things to write about the man, including some mention of his nonstandard cosmology idealizations. However, his ideas do not belong on this page. --ScienceApologist 22:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Marmet is irrelevant here; what is relevant is that a number of phycicists propose a tired light mechanism that according to them is superior to the ones that are mentioned in this aricle. Purposefully omitting such facts is incompatible with the phiilosophy of Wikipedia, and would probably constitute fraud if it were commercial information. Harald88 19:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that Marmet's mechanism is different from the scattering mechanisms mentioned already in the article? If so, your prose does not indicate this. --ScienceApologist 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's you who claims all the time that it is scattering. Bremsstrahlung can result from scattering, but calling bremsstrahlung itself scattering is sloppy. Read the article again, I don't use that word; instead I formulated it as a newly proposed (=other) mechanism. See also my precision to Art below. Harald88 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting outrageous: nowhere did I call bremsstrahlung itself scattering. However, the mechanisms proposed by Marmet and others is scattering (whether they attach bremsstrahlung or Compton effect or any other appellation to hide this fact). In order to recreate a "redshift" (which is what "tired light" proposes to do so any other mechanism is not relevant to our discussion) what has to happen is a photon has to interact with a charged particle which then is accelerated and emits bremsstrahlung. This is the very definition of photon scattering. --ScienceApologist 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

SA, according to me as well as literature, Marmet's redshift mechanism is not simply what is usually meant with scattering, eventhough it's also caused by scattering/refraction. Can you please cite us the source of your "definition of photon scattering"? Thanks in advance! Harald88 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Marmet's redshift mechanism is, in his own words: "we consider here an electron that is accelerated due to the axial momentum transfer of electromagnetic radiation." Compare this to the definition of Thomson scattering, for example, from Rybicki & Lightman: "the process in which a free charge radiates in response to an incident electromagnetic wave." Effectively what happens is momentum is transfered from the incident radiation to the electron and the emission is due to bremsstrahlung. --ScienceApologist 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

SA, I note that that one is not a general definition of "photon scattering". Moreover, in agreement with Marmet and differently from Thomson scattering, bremsstrahlung is due to axial deceleration. Harald88 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomson scattering is a general definition for the right energy regime. Compton scattering applies for the rest. If you really want to know a general form for photon scattering (and radiation from charges in general), you have to appeal to the Lienard-Wiechart potentials. That gives the full form and includes any and all types of radiation due to photon-charge interaction for classical electrodynamics. Since this boils down to Thomson scattering for the photons that Marmet and Reber are talking about, Thomson scattering would be the proper mechanism for discussion. Thomson scattering's emitted photon is easily described by axial accelerations as described by the LW potentials, so your second comment is meaningless. Perhaps you can enlighten us to how Marmet and Reber are proposing something that isn't contained in L-W potentials if you are so confident that this is a separate subject. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you are right and you cite no support for your claims; but if you are so sure then please correct the article on Thomson scattering, quote an appropriate source, and see what comments you get. Harald88 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You consider Rybicki and Lightman to be a poor source? Okay. There is nothing to correct in Thomson scattering as its very first sentence verifies my claims. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No: you claimed and a lot and also you cited some stuff, but you did not cite a source for any of your allegations against Marmet's papers. If you agree with the description (not just the first sentence!) of Thomson scattering then you confirm that Thomson scattering isn't due to axial acceleration, and thus not radiating Bremsstrahlung (=braking radiation).

Therefore, you found no error in Marmet's theory, nor did you show that this physical mechanism was discussed before in the context of redshift. Enough said about this. Harald88 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomson scattering includes photons inducing axial accelerations of charge particles which then in turn reradiate. In certain frames of reference, this appears just like bremsstrahlung (when the electron brakes). --ScienceApologist 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

book/article, page number? Harald88 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rybicki and Lightman, chapter 3. --ScienceApologist 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What you suggest is very unlikely, as if a peer reviewed journal for plasma physicists would have published Marmet's theory as being a new idea while in fact it would be just Thomson scattering -- which is an important phenomenon in plasma physics! Probably the axial acceleration that you read about in that book is not the direct effect due to axial photon momentum transfer as in Marmet's theory, but instead due to the Lorentz force after the electron has been set in lateral motion by the electric field component (= Thomson scattering). Harald88 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Then show me how the LW potentials don't account for an axial photon momentum transfer. --ScienceApologist 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not read that Thomson scattering is another word for LW potentials. Anyway, you continue to forget: WP:OR. Over and out. Harald88 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have given you the reference that connects the two. Let me know what you think of it. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I think my argument should be clear to a physicist. Do you mind my asking what your background is? Maybe I could ask it this way: After the electron has had its encounter with the light and downshifted its frequency, what do you/Marmet think its velocity is? Can you/Marmet show that the proposed process conserves both energy and momentum? --Art Carlson 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Art, I'll also reformulate my answer correspondingly, and give a simplified version of the theory (no guarantee). It's trivial, but possibly still helpful.

As I stressed before, it may be categorized as scattering, but technically it's not scattering. Instead, the subject matter is that of photon transmission (refraction) through gas molecules, whereby bremsstrahlung is accounted for. The outgoing angle is only approximately equal to the ingoing angle.

E= h*f and p= h*f/c

• According to Marmet, the radiated bremsstrahlung energy during acceleration:

delta_E ~ f ; let's put delta_E = k*E1 with k<<1

• In the most simple example, the electron speed v1=v2=0 (equal deceleration and acceleration) and the angular spread = 0 (not true, but see further).

With 1 = before, and 2 = after the transmission:

1. E1 = h*f1 (photon entering in atom)

2. delta_E = k*E1 = h*(f1-f2) (Bremsstrahlung photon )

3. E2 = E1 - delta_E <=>

4. E2 = (1-k)*h*f1 (photon transmitted)

5. p2 = (1-k)*h*f1/c

Correcting for the 90 degrees Bremstrahlung angle is trivial insofar as your question is concerned, it's just a matter of vector addition of the photon energies.

Note that according to Marmet, the line broadening and blurring are much less than with scattering.

Regards, Harald88 19:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So you've got more or less an optical photon splitting into a redshifted optical photon plus a radio photon, and the electron acts more or less like a catalyst. Right? To conserve energy and momentum you have to have both final photons going in the same direction as the initial photon. What's the 90 degree business? --Art Carlson 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Roughly yes, but as photon energy and momentum are proportional, they can be emitted under different angles. Apparently Bremsstrahlung happens under 90 degrees. Now I think about it (I never did before!), that makes perfect sense, for the electron swing must be perpendicular on the radiation, that's how antenna's work. As a result, the emitted optical photon will be very slightly deviated, if he's fully right about that; and perhaps that's the standard hypothesis. But just now, suddenly I got an idea that may one day lead to a publication and so I deleted it, sorry. And now I go to sleep, I wasted half my weekend on wikipedia articles - but it was interesting for sure!

Cheers, Harald88 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that energy is scalar and momentum is vector. That is why you can only conserve energy and momentum in this process if neither photon changes direction. Just because Bremsstrahlung is not emitted at 0 degrees does not mean it it only emitted at 90 degrees. A radio antenna also has a broad emission characteristic. In what direction is the electron accelerated and decelerated in Marmet's theory? Is there a net displacement? --Art Carlson 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it, there is no change of direction of two photons; instead, in his view there is one absorbed photon and two secondary photons, one of which is almost identical to the primary one, and the other one is a bremsstrahlung loss that is due to the limited coherence lenght of the primary photon. I understand the acceleration to be in the direction of the light.

Note that I'm not here to propose or defend theories, that's not our business. I now notice a summarising phrase of Marmet, and of course it's better to use his phrasing than my own summary:

taking into account the change in momentum of the electrons of gas molecules scattering light in space leads to bremsstrahlung and a slightly inelastic forward scattering Harald88 11:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Statements such as this are deceptively simple. There's nothing wrong with saying that scattering light creates bathochromic shifts. However, to claim that this is "tired light" or a cosmological redshift mechanism is another matter entirely. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but this isn't about spectral bands either... Harald88 21:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As spectral bands are just placeholders for the photon field, this criticism seems to fall a bit flat. --ScienceApologist 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Once more for Art: at first I refered to it with the term Compton scattering as Marmet also used in the article, but from comments by ScienceApologist I realised that that could be misunderstood as referring to the standard hypothetical tired light mechanism that already was examined in earlier papers. But of course you are right (if that's what you mean) that due to the different light emission angles, still some energy and momentum is given to the electron. Thanks for pointing that out. If you want to see his full derivation, I could copy that here of course; but it's just as easy to read it from his html version on the web, which also answers other questions.

Also, I notice that you are working in the field of plasma science. How is the trans. on Plasma Science journal viewed among plasma physicists, do you know? Harald88 08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator questions

The mediator has posted an initial response and additional questions to clarify the dispute at Mediation Cabal: Tired Light. SteveMc 00:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

More deletion of relevant facts by ScienceApologist

Just now ScienceApologist again deleted factual information that he dislikes; this time, he deleted mention of two articles that are necessary for fairly presenting the "pro" tired light POV; mention of the second article he even deleted without providing any excuse. It should be noted that at least one article now refers to this information that he attempts to delete.

SA, please from now on abstain from any such activities against fair presentation of views. 83.76.37.250 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been established that Marmet is talking about tired light (the consistency between tired light and Marmet's ideas does not seem to be more than cosmetic according to sources we have) it is appropriate to wait until the end of the mediation cabal to see what the recommendation is. More than this the reference to the other paper refers to an unconfirmed "redshift anomaly" in Pioneer 6 data that was, as I understand, due to calibration issues -- though the issue is so technical I have only the data archives from NASA to go on. No one else seems to think that this is an issue and the author doesn't refer to tired light in the paper. --ScienceApologist 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I hereby stop answering arguments of you that are based on your own original research, which is not relevant in Wikipedia.

According to the sources that we have (but which you continue to delete!), Marmet's theory is what he claimed it to be; while the newly added theory claims to be about a cosmic redshift mechanism like the one of Marmet (possibly it may be regarded to be an extension of it), and in accordance with the subject.

Interestingly, all those authors and their reviewers disagree with your explanation of the redhift of the solar limb; IOW, your suggestion that your alternative explanation (what was it again?) is the right explanation is clearly erroneous in the context of a discussion between Wikipedia editors.

And I already showed that in Wikipedia the subject matter of an article is not owned by a single POV. Harald88 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Marmet's theory is what it is claimed to be, but rather whether this is relevant to tired light as a subject. There is one and only one source which compares Marmet's theory to tired light, and I claim that the comparison appears to be superficial and not substantive -- especially considering the context of tired light's development. My claims have all been referenced and sourced but you seem to be on an alternative crusade.

Indeed, just as you are apparently on a "Big Bang rules" crusade, I'm participating in Wikipedia because of its fair reporting ("NPOV")policy. We have scientists talking about "tired light" in peer reviewed science journals. Instead of fairly reporting on that, you decide that you disagree with some of them and took the liberty to censor the article from the information that supports that opinion. In Wikipedia that's just not done.

Thus, if you have sources that claim that Marmet's theory is "not really tired light", and if that may be relevant in the cosmic redshift discussion, please go ahead and cite them. As it is, the article is still very short. Thanks. Harald88 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you haven't answered my questions: 1) Are there any references to tired light not in a cosmological context? 2) Does anyone call Marmet's mechanism tired light other than the Marmet and Reber paper (which makes a comparison in one intro paragraph and, according to my reading, does not correspond to a real typology), and 3) Why do you think that the scattering suggested before your insertion is different from Marmet's work? None of the questions is answered, and as far as I can see you are only content in attacking strawmen with regards to this article.

I already answered question 1, as well as 2 (yes: and you call anyone who does so a crackpot), and 3 (I tried to explain his theory in vain; the essence is that it differs and that you are free to cite any article that criticizes his).

You are certainly free to start a specific article called tired light cosmology, with the note that physics will be off-topic; or perhaps even one called (but that should not be allowed): tired light cosmology according to Big Bang apologists - for that is, in the end, what you are trying to turn this article in, eventhough you may not realise it yourself. Just don't count on me. Harald88 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how to communicate with you. I think at this point there has been a total breakdown in the communication. None of my suggestions are taken seriously by you and your editting style is getting more and more truculent. I will make a note of this in the cabal case. I suggest that you are lacking good faith and civility.

--ScienceApologist 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim bad faith, instead I notice extreme POV on your part (personally I don't care if there was a Big Bang or not). But already I had given up on communicating with you when I started the cabal case. That may also be worthy of mention. I'm surprised that someone who calls respectable physicists idiots, suggests that I am lacking civility; under these circumatances, I think that I have been extremely civil to you. Harald88 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Giving up communicating is an indication of bad faith. --ScienceApologist 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead, I'm just realistic: I asked someone else to talk to you. Surely neither of us is here to waste our resources on endless disputes, instead our purpose is to expand and improve Wikipedia. Harald88 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CMB anisotropy?

Which article claims that "tired light" does not account for the " anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background"? I find that highly unlikely, but possibly someone claimed that. Thus, please change the Wikipedia affirmation into a quotation and give a reference, thanks. Harald88 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What you find unlikely is irrelevant. Providing a proper cite to a lack of account is like proving a negative. The onus is on the resources involving tired light to show an account of the anisotropies. --ScienceApologist 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, it suggests that "tired light" is a precise theory, while it is a class of theories; and we have by far not accounted for all of them as yet in this article. Thus, that statement is so imprecise that it's not verifiable. I thought that it was claimed by someone; but if nobody makes that claim, it can easily be rephrased, for example according to SA's above interpretation.

If "no resource involved tired light accounts for the isotropy" will be the precise phrasing, we can next try to verify that. By assuming good faith, I conclude that SA has never read an article on tired light that claims to account for the CMB anisotropy, and that he therefore thinks that no such article exists. However, I vaguely remember having read something of the kind; thus I hereby offer to search for it when I have the time. Harald88 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely have never read an account of tired light that claims to account for the WMAP results. Please offer this article if you find it. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

redshift mechanisms are not cosmology

Again the same old confused mix-up:

"mechanisms (including some proposed by Paul Marmet) are compared to tired light in their mechanistic typology. Cosmologists consider such nonstandard cosmologies..." confuses physics with proposed cosmologies that may be defended, based on knowledge of such mechanisms. A redshift mechanism is not a cosmological model! Harald88 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The implications of Marmet's work is that the standard cosmological model is wrong. Although his work does not represent an entirely new cosmology but only a part of one, it is sufficiently separate from the standard cosmological explanations to warrant such a descriptor. We can reword. --ScienceApologist 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

coherent optical effect?

Someone added a lot about a "coherent optical effect"... it apparently is about some kind of redshift, but it's unclear to me what it has to do with Tired light. Harald88 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As more was added without any comment here, and the issue of relevance remains unclear, I now moved it here below for explanation by the author. Harald88 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

coherent optical effect

As reported by Moret-Bailly, there are other effects which may cause a redshift. From the abstract -- "While it is generally assumed that several light beams propagate independently in a refracting medium, the exception of laser beams may be extended to usual time-incoherent light provided that conditions of space-coherence are fulfilled. Very few molecules have convenient properties, the simplest one being atomic hydrogen in 2S and 2P states (called H* here). The interaction increases the entropy of a set of beams without a permanent excitation of H*, a loss of energy by a beam having a high Planck's temperature producing a decrease of its frequency, and the thermal radiation getting energy. Atomic hydrogen in its ground state is pumped to H* by Lyman alpha absorptions, producing a redshift of the light. The combination of the Lyman absorptions and the redshifts they produce, induce oscillations which generate a spectrum in which the lines deduce from each other by relative frequency shifts which are products of an integer by a constant z_b=0.062. These purely physical results may be applied in astrophysics, searching where H* may appear. In particular, the computed spectra of the accreting neutron stars, remarkably identical to the spectra of the quasars, may explain that these stars seem never observed. The too high frequencies of the radio signals from the Pioneer probes may result from a transfer of energy from the solar light allowed by a cooling of the solar wind able to produce H*. A similar transfer to the CMB may explain its anisotropy bound to the ecliptic."

cat. "Obsolete"?

[copied from elsewhere:]

Hi, I'm seconds before switching off my computer, so this issue has to waot a bit, BUT there's something unsatisfactory with narrow understanding of obsolote. Also note, that the article Superseded scientific theory isn't that consistent, compare the handling of Flat Earth. --Pjacobi 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the "flat earth" used to be a popular concept in ancient times, that has been almost universally abandoned; it's supported in no recent scientific journal article. Thus it has become "obsolete". And if you disagree with the article that defines the concept "obsolete", please work on that article first... Harald88 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability of modern proponents

I haven't evaluated the current point of dispute, but I wanted to raise a broader question...

Who are the modern proponents of this theory, and why are they notable? While the fight rages on some theories, I note that Johan Masreliez is remaining in the article—even though there's no verifiable assertion on that guy's page that he's had any impact at all, and he gets fewer than 300 google hits.

I understand that people outside academia can't be judged exactly by academic standards, but there needs to be some standard by which we determine they're notable fringe theorists and not just some guy with a website. -- SCZenz 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is really an ancillary article (see WP:NPOV; as far as I know, Marmet's Tired light hypothesis is promoted by Halton Arp who is well known in the cosmological fringe field.

But I don't know who is a modern proponent of Johan Masreliez's hypothesis. Harald88 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Arp doesn't explictly endorse Marmet's ideas as far as I know. --ScienceApologist 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My issue isn't that these guys are a minority view, at least not at the moment. My issue, rather, is whether there are some people we have articles on who aren't even notable enough to have an article. -- SCZenz 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What you are really asking here: should there be an article called Johan Masreliez. If you think he's not notable enough you can start a RfD on it to find out what others think. Harald88 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I can do things about the Masreliez article; at the moment, I put in a request on its talk page to have his notability clarified, and we'll see what comes out of that. But I am also asking if he merits a mention on this page. -- SCZenz 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see what you mean! Apparently it isn't even published in a peer reviewed journal... So I'll move that paragraph to here below, just as we did with a similar case some time ago. Harald88 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Proponents may hope for a renascense from Johan Masreliez' Scale Expanding Cosmos theory (1999). The tired light formula is a "spin-off" from an alternate comprehensive treatment of general relativity and is not an ad hoc redshift mechanism. It is said to be free from the flaws generally attributed to tired light.

Actually, he is published in a few peer-reviewed journals. You can get the list of them here: Scale Expanding Cosmos. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald tends to lean towards the inclusionist side, I tend to lean toward the exclusionist side. I don't believe that anybody should be mentioned in the article at all including Marmet, Acardi, etc. Harald thinks that if they have a published paper (which Masreliez does) they should be included. I'm not sure I understand why Harald believes what he does, but he's fairly adamant. --ScienceApologist 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is current practice to identify papers by the name of the first author. Now, SA seems to know more about Masreliez than is written here, in particular about a lacking article reference. Harald88 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

??? Are you unable to read the article that was linked? [8]? --ScienceApologist 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean, linked from another article to which this article linked, I now see your above comment (our comments crossed). Thanks. How "threatening" is his theory to standard cosmology? Harald88 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not very threatening at all. Not generally discussed, studied, or considered (probably because he doesn't have any analysis of the cosmic microwave background). --ScienceApologist 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I have the feeling that the tone of that passage is not exactly right. Now the article gives the impression that there have been some attempts with little echo, until the arrival of this new theory that may really be a smasher. I'll change the sequence so that it is grouped with the other attempts. Harald88 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the published paper from Masreliez seems fairly convincing to me, at least enough that I'm not worried about the article on him (and I've listed his publications there and removed my tags). Whether he should be mentioned here depends on how relevant his work is to the subject, which I'll leave to you guys; I really don't know anything about tired light. Thanks for the info! -- SCZenz 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Marmet is peer reviewed. Referees more knowledgable than us consider his articles to be worthy of publication. His articles on a variety of subjects have appeared in the following peer-reviewed journals:

• IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science [9]
• Physical Review A (Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics)[10]
• Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics[11]
• Canadian Journal of Physics[12]
• Science[13]
• Review of Scientific Instruments[14]
• Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada[15]
• J. Opt. Soc. Am.[16]
• Physical Review[17]

Marmet has several peer reviwed articles specifically on redshift; this together with his publishing pedigree is notable. Since the object of Wikipedia is to represent human knowledge[18], his mention seems consistent with Wiki's aims, even though we might not personally agree with Marmet's. --Iantresman 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian, the point is that when Marmet submitted his papers on his cosmology to the normal astrophysical outlets, they were rejected. I spoke with one of his ApJ reviewers last week about this. To get a better understanding for the little amount of attention Marmet gets, try finding citations to his cosmology papers in the journals. They don't exist. --ScienceApologist 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Many new ideas are rejected first time around, because they don't fit into the usual remit of the publication. What's important is whether the paper meets the necessary standard; Marmet's papers seem to do that. Whether he is right or wrong, I have no idea, but again, Wikipedia is not about judging ideas, it's about telling people what ideas there.

If we were to accept that there is no such thing as tired light, then ANY new idea on the subject is bound to be rejected, and little-cited. But for someone who is interested in tired light, then a mention of Marmet's work is relevent. It does not mean that we endorse it, accept, nor like it. --Iantresman 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hannes Alfvén's ground-breaking paper on magnetohydrodynamics, published in 1942[19] didn't get its first citation for seven years, its second citation six years after that, and third six more years later; indeed, it received just 6 citations in 30 years [20]. --Iantresman 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian, first you list Marmet's publications in other fields as evidence that he should be included. Then, when it is rightly pointed out by ScienceApologist that it is only his papers on this subject that matter, you change your approach, saying that Alfvén didn't get cited until much later. That is an interesting tactic.

It is not the function of Wikipedia to promote new ideas that have not been accepted in the scientific community, and if they are not published, or not cited, then they haven't been. --RE 00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I made it very clear that Marmet's peer-reviewed articles were in other subjects to demonstrate that he is not a fly-by-night, lucky scientists with a couple of papers to his name.

Of course it is not a functin of Wikipedia to promote new ideas, it's purpose is to describe new ideas neutrally. Marmet's papers on redshift appear to have been peer-reviewed, and published. --Iantresman 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1942, there were approximately 2 to 3 orders of magnitude fewer papers written than today and theoretical progress moved much slower (on the order of decades rather than years). Scaling this, we find that we find that MHD actually represents a decent paper compared to Marmet's baloney. What's more, MHD did not meet any resistance from the scientific community when it was first proposed. --ScienceApologist 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

SA, if you manage to get a paper with your baloney allegations published in a decent peer reviewed journal, we will consider to include it. Harald88 12:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating including "baloney allegations" in the article. I'm simply pointing out that Ian's attempt at analogy is flawed. --ScienceApologist 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that Marmet's work is baloney, I've never disputed that. But you're not peer reviewed, and neither am I. And Wikipedia says that verifiable material is quotable, whereas our personal opinions aren't worth a dime. If Marmet's work is so obviously off-base, you should have little problem writing a paper and getting it through peer review, and then I'd be delighted to quote you too. --Iantresman 12:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See above. --ScienceApologist 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...what the hell is a paragraph like "Proponents may hope for a renascense....formula is a "spin-off" from an alternate....and is not an ad hoc....It is said...to be free from the flaws..." doing in Wikipedia and remaining unedited for 3 weeks? Even if you disagree with something that someone has written, please show the consideration to correct their grammar, spelling, and unencyclopedic writing...unless you want this article to look like garbage...which actually might not be such a bad idea. Could someone who agrees with or at the very least understands the sentiments of that paragraph please rewrite it in an intelligible encyclopedic way? Flying Jazz 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree and expected SA to have a go at it. But if he doesn't do so I will. Harald88 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And so I did. (Note that Sdedeo thinks it should be deleted because it's "nn theory" -> what's that?) Harald88 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

nn = non-notable. Note that the article about Masreliez has been deleted for that reason and that the article about his theory is suggested for deletion. --RE 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.springer.com/west/home/physics?SGWID=4-10100-70-35683926-0 seems to be a "good" journal. That a theory isn't notable enough to have its own article space doesn't mean that it's insufficiently notable to be mentioned in an article like this which gives an overview of such alternative ideas. Apparently several such publications about that theory have been accepted. Harald88 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: The Wikipedia fund raising page argues:

Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. :That's what we're doing.

And that's what I am here for to help with. Harald88 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just stepping in here. Just because an author has published an article on a theory in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean it should be covered here, IMO. The "SEC" article is a classic example: completely non-notable. Scientists come up with theories all the time; some of them are unfortunate enough to name their theories and start "institutes" about them even when they're incomprehensible and "not even wrong." The purpose of this article on Tired Light is not to exhaustively catalog every fringe proponent who stops by to add his two cents, but rather to give an overview of the subject, represent it properly to a general audience and not to manufacture controversy where none exists. Right now the article (to this astronomer) seems accurate and well written, though the "external links" need pruning. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Tired light by admission of critical editors is a fringe subject [21]. So who else is going to have theories about the subject, other than fringe scientists presenting even more fringe theories.
• Undue weight comparies minoroty theories with mainstream theories. But minority theories within minority theories are all relatively significant when compared among themselves.
• If there are 20 theories on tired light, and a couple of sentences given over to each, we end up with a moderately sized article, with no undue weight on any of them. This seem wholly consistent with undue weight and NPOV --Iantresman 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light is a subject of essentially historical interest -- i.e., reasonable people talked about it and took it seriously just as they took the Milne universe seriously back in the 1930s. The main focus of the article should be on those historical papers from the 1930s, and should explain why the subject died. Some brief reference to contemporary "rejuvinations" of the idea is fine, but the article should not be a collection of every random theory under the sun -- a few examples, as "mainstream" as possible, are fine.

The "contemporary" section, it's a bit like the tinfoil hat article, in other words; we don't have to list every variant of tinfoil hat design!

Sdedeo (tips) 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's of historical interest, but that's not the only criteria for interest. The article title is "Tired light", and not "A historical look at tired light". So the historical aspect forms one part, and current research must form another part. How do we tell if there is notable research... peer reviewed articles, where other peers have decided that a theory is of sufficient interest to publish. You may not be interested, but people interested in tired light might be. --Iantresman 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, especially since the approach was different and most recent (GRT in contrast to QM); OTOH, there is no reason to award more than minimal space to that latest attempt. I'll reinsert a mininal referral to it. Harald88 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking occasionally under this heading in end of May, I contended myself that some good guys were fighting the bad ones and I was not sure who were administrators and who were just distinguished users. Had no notion of Tired light beeing so hot. And I were not aware of there beeing so many "modern proponents" - really thought that there had been just some attempts with little echo. Perhaps I should have commented when SCZenz gave Masreliez his OK and asked the physics(?) guys of his relevance to the subject. Turning it around, the TL formula is the predicted redshift "mechanism" from his SEC model - an unconventional FLRW-solution to GR. It is caused by the working of the space-time metrics and includes time dilation, no blurring and refutes all other flaws listed by Ned Wright. So the relevance is mutual and his cosmology falls with TL.

As for his threat to mainstream, it is devastating IF he is right. And that is the main reason why no-one cares to comment, which is a catch 22 situation not only against the wiki NN-rules. To ScienceApologist I can say that Ned Wright has complained(privately) about his figures on CMB, but in SEC it is just a thermalized background, not a relic.

Iantresman mentioning of my former professor's scarsity of citations is comforting in the long run, but not to the researcher who is in need of criticism to-day. And Flying Jazz, I had no other intention with my lapidary pidgin English than saying a lot in a small space appropriate to fringe science.

Now for the bad guys. I already know of REs cunning schemes from the sv.wiki. The NN-circus with Masreliez/SEC and all links starts when I am away for a week and the really bad guy seems to be Sdedeo. Can he be so kind as to explain what can be done to reinstate a couple of articles with notable tentative interest to the wiki readers? / Kurtan 15:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cunning schemes? I'm flattered. I know you think it is only my maliciousness and my membership in the mainstream conspiracy that makes me revert your insertions of fringe science in otherwise respectable articles. But let's not discuss our dealings on the Swedish wp here. What is exactly your complaint here? It's really not about good guys vs bad guys, and whether editors are administrators, distinguished users, or not, that has nothing to do with anything. --RE 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

factual dispute tag

Hey, are there any remaining factual disputes? Currently the article seems quite good. I'd remove the tag, but it seems that there are battles in the past. Can someone tell me what the remaining disputes are? Sdedeo (tips) 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The major remaining disputes are a) how exactly to include contemporary advocates of tired light theories and b) how to characterize the historicity of tired light and why (or whether) it was abandoned. --ScienceApologist 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also some dispute as to what kind of theory qualifies as tired light and what kind doesn't. For example, Marmet's ideas are basically "tired light by scattering" (a parenthetical you removed -- something I support). My contention is that "tired light by scattering" isn't technically "tired light" in the classical sense, but other editors disagree. --ScienceApologist 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it. What would you change in the current state of the article? Sdedeo (tips) 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the only thing I would change would be the references to Marmet and Accardi in the text and in the external links. However, when I try to remove them, User:Harald88 usually declares that I'm engaging in information supression and puts them back. So we have the dispute up. --ScienceApologist 03:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As examples of tired light kookery, they seem fine to me; as long as the list does not grow, they don't seem so bad? If that sentence is the only one in dispute then it seems silly to keep the tag up; let them stand IMO. Let me do a minor edit and see how it goes. Sdedeo (tips) 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a verifiable citation indicating that "Tired light" is a fringe theory. I consider this a perjorative nad inappropriate label --Iantresman 08:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And then we have this argument that Ian is making which comes up from time-to-time. Apparently Wright's website isn't considered by Harald and Ian to be good enough a reference to show the fringe nature of these ideas. --ScienceApologist 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• If Ned Wright writes that "tired light is a fringe theory", then that is one person's view, and can not be considered the general view of others, let alone "mainstream science". If you have several peer-reviewed articles which STATE that "tired light is a fringe theory", then you can quote that several sources consider tired light to be fringe.
• If Ned Wright does not STATE that "tired light is a fringe theory", but you have peronsally inferred it from his writings, then it is YOUR opinion that "tired light is a fringe theory", but it is not verifiable, and is inadmissible.
• I think that since verifiable citations denoting "tired light" as "fringe" are hard to find (no mention in Google Books, no mention in the ADS Abstract database) because it is (a) Subjective (b) a perjorative term. This is also why I think that the term is unsuitable as a category.
• Now, if you do want to categorise "tired light", and similar theories, then I think some discussion is required, with its aims, etc. --Iantresman 13:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "fringe theory" quote, since Ned doesn't use that exact wording. Iantresman, do you have any other problems? Sdedeo (tips) 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The rest of it looks fine, though at some point I'd like to add some more tired light theories to reflect the development, and criticism, over the years. --Iantresman 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. So, you're OK with removing the tag now. Let's wait for Harold88 and SA to get back to us. Sdedeo (tips) 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The list has just grown by 1 reference. I think we may see more of this list-growing in the future which we may wish to deal with before removing the tag. --ScienceApologist 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to verify the claim about "not accounting for CMB", which I think is erroneous; but as long as I have not presented evidence of the contrary it isn't an issue - and if it were, another tag would be more appropriate. Thus at this moment the tag doesn't really need to be there.

BTW, fringe science doesn't seem wrong to me as additional catagory: "Fringe science is, simply, potentially real scientific inquiry that is on the edges of mainstream and widely-accepted theories" - what's "wrong" with that? Harald88 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the new reference. As I said above, we cannot include every single tired light theory (and indeed, the "SEC" is sufficiently incomprehensible as to be "tired light" only because its creator claimed so.) We cannot continue to expand this list; the focus of this article must remain on the historical aspects of the theory -- its most important reason for being an article in the first place. Harald88 please let me know what you think.

Tired light does not account for the CMB; please see Ned Wright's page for enlightenment. I believe that detection of the CMB spectrum was the death knell of serious consideration of these theories. Sdedeo (tips) 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we to accurately consider Marmet and Accardi's ideas to be "tired light" even though they are technically "tired light by scattering"? I realize that Ned Wright lumps them all into one category since they sort of act similarly. --ScienceApologist 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tired light by scattering" is a subset of "tired light", no? Sdedeo (tips) 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. It's interesting, though, that Zwicky differentiates between scattering mechanisms and other mechanisms. The problem is if "tired light by scattering" is tired light, then do we include the CREIL people? Do we include those who want to talk about the Wolf Effect? Do we include J. Kieran's ideas regarding the Compton Effect? Where do we draw the line? What qualifies Marmet and not these others for inclusion? --ScienceApologist 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, we just take a few (one or two) names and put them down as examples. If you want to include Kieran instead of Marmet, go ahead, but what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't expand the list of "tired light" people without bound. Something I think you agree with? Let's wait to hear back from Harald88 to see if he agrees. Sdedeo (tips) 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Accardi obliquely refers to his and Marmet's ideas as being a form of "tired light", I guess I just convinced myself that they should be in the list. Okay, I'm done rambling. I'm fine with removal of the tag if the list remains truncated. Should we remove some of the references too? --ScienceApologist 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to hear from Harald88 to see if he is OK with the consensus. Sdedeo (tips) 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think that we have consensus: from Iantresman's comments above I strongly doubt that he agrees!

Let's wait to hear from him if he agrees with your efforts to talk such theories into the grave without putting a grave stone above them. Personally I find it annoying if Wikipedia doesn't mention peer reviewed theories simply because some editors assume that other people don't want to know that they exist.

Of course, we would not want a long list of useless theories, but how many of such theories do you think that are around? I have never heard of Kieran; are you sure that he(?) calls his theory "tired light"? I would be surprised if there are considerably more than already were mentioned. Harald88 21:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald88 -- do you agree with limiting the discussion of contemporary theories to one or two examples? Sdedeo (tips) 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo. Looking quickly below, I notice that I'm not mistaken about what Iantresman explained here above. And as I indicated above, I don't see a valid reason to truncate modern examples so severely - except for people with an agenda. There is more than enough space for mentioning more than one or two peer reviewed fringe theories, and I have no doubt that readers who are looking for such theories for their intellectual enjoyment will appreciate references to them. Other readers won't be bothered. I would personally set the limit at around five modern examples, beyond which it may be better to select "the best", in order to avoid clutter and overdose of ideas. The readers is king! Harald88 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On this issue, I can see no reason to limit ourselves to one or two examples. How do we choose which two? If there are only half a dozen other recent theories on the subject, and they are all peer reviewed, why not include a description of each? We have plenty of space, it's relevent, and as long as the material conforms to NPOV, I can't see any problem; "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."[22] --Iantresman 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it's irrelevant -- these theories are non-notable, they attract no attention. Just as in the tin-foil hat section we don't list every variant of tin foil hat, we should not list every variant of tired light. Simply being peer-reviewed is not sufficient. Sdedeo (tips) 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be irrelevant to you, and you don't have to read about other theories if you don't want to. Such theories may attract no attention from clever people like you, but the rest of us are both interested, and want to make up our own minds. It's not as if we are trying to include and describe 100+ theories, but a limited set of theories which have already been peer-reviewed as notable. --Iantresman 11:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is, how limited is limited? If you, Harald88 and SA can agree on that, then you're done. Anyway, I'll bow out of the discussion now; good luck resolving the dispute. Sdedeo (tips) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not looked at this in any detail before now, but a quick search with the Smithsonian/NASA ADS Abstract service, Google Scholar and Google Books, finds these papers/authors:

• Vigier, Jean-Pierre, Cosmological Implications of Non-Velocity Redshifts-A Tired-Light Mechanism (1977)
• Wilson, D., "Redshift - the Tired Light Mechanism" (1986)
• Pecker, J.-C.; Vigier, J.-P., "A Possible Tired-Light Mechanism "(1987)
• Crawford, David F., "Curvature pressure in a cosmology with a tired-light redshift" (1999)
• P J E Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (1993)
• A Ghosh, "Velocity-dependent inertial induction: a possible tired-light mechanism" (PDF) (1991)
• T Jaakkola, "On Reviving Tired Light" (PDF) (1990)
• Halton Arp, "Comments on tired-light mechanisms" (1990)

So, less than a dozen, though I'd have no problems with up to about 20 theories, though I haven't looked through the papers to see if they are indeed presenting different theories.

I'd have no object seeing just a list (as above), though it would be preferable to group them according to theory type, with a summary explanation --Iantresman 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what you'll find if you read Ian's articles is that this list will become very large very fast. There are many different ways of getting to "tired light" which is defined by this article as simply a mechanism that removes energy from a photon field in a way that "violates" local energy conservation (by "violates" I mean that there is some mechanism that removes the energy, not that they're proposing some sort of "destruction" of the energy). Before we proceed, perhaps it would be good if we list all the different varieties of tired light mechanisms that can possibly exist. We're going to have to read the articles in question to do this. Do people want to have a go? --ScienceApologist 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but not now! Perhaps Ian is willing to make a first reading of his abovementioned papers; for sure there are less "tired light" theories there than papers. Harald88 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We should also go through these 174 articles or so to see what we find about the subject: [23]

• It's not for you and I to decide whether these theories "violate" any conditions. If it was that simple, they would never pass peer-review. A hundred years ago, we might have rubbished theories on powered flight on the grounds that it violated whatever laws of physics... that's why Scientific American refused to check out the Wright Brothers claim for two years, because the editors "knew" better. This is why editors should not debate subjects, but describe them. --Iantresman 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed categorization

We need to categorize this article appropriately: that is it needs to be clear that this theory isn't taken seriously by the majority of people who study the subjects it is about. Earlier we had the categorization of "Obsolete scientific theories". I think as a generality, this is the best categorization of tired light we have at wikipedia. What do other editors think? --ScienceApologist 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a problem quantifying this. There are more than one tired light theories, including Zwicky's. I have no problem including citations criticising Zwicky's tired light theory, and perhaps even citations criticising tired light theories in general. But no scientist worth their salt can dismissed all tired light theories. The discussion already includes such comments.

I think there is also a danger claiming "this theory isn't taken seriously by the majority of people", as (a) the are no citations to back this up (b) I'm sure scientists take all subjects seriously (c) Scientists are not employed to look at tired light seriously.

As for cateogies, I suspect "Obsolete scientific theories" is closest, as indeed, it has been considered this. --Iantresman 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regretfully "fringe physics" seems to have been abandoned as category. "Obsolete scientific theories" is correct for part of the tired light theories, notably Zwicky's. Thus I propose to simply add it (in first place). There is nothing against several cat's. Harald88 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light

(Copied from personal page -- iantresma) Sorry , i shouldn't have used the word badly in my edit summary. It's just 'alternative to redshifts' is confusing as you mean current, accepted redshift theories. my apologies. -- maxrspct in the mud 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While you are quite correct that "the vast majority of physicists and astronomers accept the conclusions of various studies that such an effect does not account for cosmological redshifts.", this does not take into account recent research. I full accept that everyone dismisses Zwicky's tired light, and perhaps many others. But I have no idea whether cosmologists have read, perhaps, all the papers from the last 5 years, and commented on them; it would be misleading and unfair to cosmologists to suggest that they have precluded all recent tired light theories. --Iantresman 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Current additions

Ian, do you have any reason to believe that the two hypotheses you just included are notable enough in the field to warrant special inclusion as you made them out to be? --ScienceApologist 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: I did a little more research. The first reference Ian includes is well-cited in the journals. The second is not. I propose we remove David Crawford's hypothesis as being non-notable and basically an alternative cosmology advocated by a single person bordering (slightly) on original research. --ScienceApologist 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light is already acknowledged to be a minority field. Consequently any new theory is even more minority... but very relevent to anyone studying the field. Crawford may be unknown, but his paper is peer reviewed, and of interest to anyone wanting more information on tired light. --Iantresman 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But it is basically not cited in other papers or in the mainstream while the other works you included are. Notability is an important qualification. Just because something is peer reviewed does not automatically mean it should be found in the article. While I'm sure Crawford's ideas are interesting to some people, they are fundamentally not important as can be seen by the fact that he has very few citations. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To put this another way, Crawford suffers from the same problem that Johan Masreliez suffered from. We removed that prose from this article per the discussion above. The same applies to Crawford. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No. They are peer-reviewed and represent current investigation into the subject. Peers, people who are more expert than you and me, have decided that their work is notable enough to publish in mainstream journals. To everyone who is in this field, these people are very notable. One tiny section mentioning these people work is quite proportional to their notability in the field of tired light. --Iantresman 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I'd appreciate a reply to:

• The above.

Peer review != notability as per earlier discussion. --ScienceApologist 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why you felt the need to reomove the table (reproduced below), when it contained useful summary of factual information:

The interaction of	That results from
Photons with matter Photons with electrons (Compton effect) Photons with photons Photons with gravity Photons with a pseudo-scalar boson	Unspecified lost of energy Curvature pressure due to electrostatic pressure

--Iantresman 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The table you included seems awkward and a bit too novel as an expanatory work. While for the most part accurate from a content standard, I just think it causes more confusion and doesn't help the reader understand tired light any better. Not everything needs to be summarized in a table, sometimes things are better left in prose form. --ScienceApologist 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I see no consensus in the earlier section on the Notability of modern proponents, suggesting that Marmet, Crawford, Masreliez, etc are not notable. It has already been shown that these authors:

• Have peer-reviewed papers published, indicating that their peers considered their work of sufficient quality and notable enough to include in mainstream publications.
• In the field of tired light, excluding their work does not give an accurate representation of recent investigation into the subject.
• I notice your "... opinions of him and other pathological skeptics of his ilk are well-exposed on talkpages"[24]. I will point out that just one peer-reviewed paper carries more weight that your opinions. --Iantresman 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Sdedeo just stepped in June 13 and out next day without judgement. And I regret not having the time to defend my contributions as well as Ian T does. Classical Tired light is declared a dead end redshift mechanism. The standard model of cosmology does not need it and it seems not to comply with some observations. But there are a few die-hards still making efforts to its support and claiming that flaws can be refuted. I think an encyclopedia has an obligation to record and explain such activity and why it is going on. But no accepted main-stream scientist is likely to note or comment about it, since it would have no positive impact on her/his career. So how could you expect any such “modern proponent” ever to gain enough notability and fulfilling other wp criteria to motivate recording who is doing what? WP criteria are creating a catch 22 situation.

In the case of Johan Masreliez and his SEC model I have witnessed the deletion of their separate wp articles on NN claims. This was an undue loss of interesting facts for the seekers of information. I am convinced that the merits of his comprehensive cosmos “theory” will dawn soon. SEC is not an ad hoc TL theory. But Masreliez has shown that his unconvential approach to GR gives rise to a tired light redshift formula. As it is a FLRW-solution it implies time dilation, which is not the case with "classical" TL models. This is published in a peer reviewed journal and can be checked by anyone with the necessary mathematical background. I have found no flaws in this respect. And no-one else has so far voiced objections. This is 2nd hand facts and not original research and should in my view be mentioned in a TL article regardless of the author’s notability status as such from wp rules. It has to be for Wikipedia to promote reasonable new ideas also if they have not yet been accepted in the scientific community. :/ Kurtan 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

See, that's where your mistake is. Wikipedia is not supposed to "promote ... new ideas". To promote the ideas is up the proponent of that idea. Wikipedia is to describe it when it has already reached a certain level of notability and been accepted in the scientific community. Please understand this simple point. So if the "merits of his comprehensive cosmos “theory”" dawn upon the scientific community soon, then fine, then we should have an article about it. --RE 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Promoting" new ideas would violate "undue weight" as well as notability. Besides, it's not up to Wikipedia to "promote" anything...it's up to Wiki to report and describe notable subjects. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, slip of my pen - "promote" should read just "note", since contrary to what is said in last paragraph under "critisism", SEC exists although it is, admittedly, not an ad hoc "tired light" theory. :) Kurtan 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

compatible?

The citation that:

Finlay-Freundlich (1954)[3] and Born (1954)[6] had also deduced the existence of a microwave background from their version of the theory

appears to be in conflict with the rather casual claim that:

Tired light theories do not account for [...] the black body spectrum or anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background.

If there is no conflict, it would be good if the article points out why a microwave background should be expected to be isotropic in the earth's reference frame, according to such tired light theories. Harald88 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a conflict. Neither of these proposals offer the detail isotropy required for the CMB observations. --ScienceApologist 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict. I suspect that criticism of tired light has focused on Zwicky, or perhaps someone else, and that they are not aware of Finlay-Freundlich. This highlights the over-generalisation of "all cosmologists dismss all tired light theories". As to the extent of Finlay-Freundlich's existence of a microwave background, I have no idea, and those that are interested can look up the reference themselves, but the article does not claim a detailed analysis --Iantresman 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Presumably, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, while they may have "deduced the existence of a microwave background", in 1954, they wouldn't have even considered the background's observed homogeneity and isotropy, and nor would ANY other competing theory? --Iantresman 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we can consider whether the observation has falsified their proposal. --ScienceApologist 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Would any other theory from 1954 have conisered the microwave background's homogeneity and isotropy?
• I've restored Narlika's comments on Vigier, which are obviously notable since he notes an improvement in their theory --Iantresman 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Narlikar's comments on another's theory should be excluded as non-notable hearsay. If you want to talk about what Vigier's ideas are, write about them as he puts it not as Narlikar puts it. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay, according definition, is "Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor."[25]. Narlikar's description is both verifiable, and much prefered over any description that you or I could provide. --Iantresman 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to describe Vigier's ideas, do so. You even have the citation. --ScienceApologist 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I describe it, when a professional astronomer of Narlika's calibre and experience, can describe it better than both of us, and with more authority than you and I? Or is that the problem? --Iantresman 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is quoting doesn't lend itself to editting. As this is not to reference a viewpoint but only a description, it is inappropriate to include a quote of a third party. --ScienceApologist 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you want to edit a quote? Why would you want a viewpoint, rather than a description? Who else do you quote, but third parties? --Iantresman 00:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT just a collection of quotes. Sometimes quotes are useful to include in an article. Sometimes they are not. It is an editorial decision. Quoting the author of an idea sometimes makes sense so people can read what the author says in his own words. Sometimes quoting another person makes sense so the reader can learn what a third-party thinks of an idea. But quoting a third-party who describes someone else's work doesn't seem to make sense in the Wikipedia project because no one can edit the description offered. --ScienceApologist 00:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Without too much looking at details, I now did a simple Yahoo search that yielded a few web other references and some are articles similar to this kind of Wikipedia articles or even in competing encyclopdia's. Those might be helpful (neutral style as well as source info) for related articles here:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/cmb.html

http://experts.about.com/e/n/no/Non-standard_cosmology.htm

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/p/plasma_cosmology

From your above comments as well as from the general comments in the abovementioned articles I think that it makes sense to slightly refine the wikipedia statement.

For example, something like No tired light theory is known that correctly accounts for [...] the black body spectrum or anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation or

don't match the CMBR as accurately as certain Big Bang models

may help to better understand the argument.

Harald88 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Quote or write ourselves

Narlikar also notes that "Vigier (1988) has given a different version of the tired light hypothesis. It requires the vacuum to behave like a stochastic covariant superfluid aether whose excitations can interfere with the propagation of particles of light wves through it. The interaction dissipate taking away energy from the waves [..] it is claimed that the two difficulties of the original mechanism are absent in this version [..] its merit lies in that it can in principle be tested by laboratory experiment".[26] Notes: [1] Vigier, J. P. 1988, New Ideas in Astronomy, F. Bertola, B. Madore, and J. Sulentic (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). [2] Narlikar, J. V. Noncosmological redshifts, Space Science Reviews (ISSN 0038-6308), vol. 50, Aug. 1989, p. 523-614.

• In describing a tired light theory by Vigier[27], one editor has suggested including the quote above. The other editor has suggested that we describe Vigier's theory ourselves.
• Which would be better, (a) including the quote (b) writing our own description and include a citation? (c) Another option?
• Please note your preference below. --Iantresman 01:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Preferences

• Quote -- It's written by an expert, it's verifiable, it's peer-reviewed --Iantresman 01:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a quote mine. We do more than collect quotes, we are editors who write articles that summarize ideas and present them in formats useful for the reader. Quoting outside sources is fine in many cases, but in simple exposition it's best to do the verifiable descriptions ourselves so we can edit for readability, content, etc. --ScienceApologist 01:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• What's the fuss? Probably two issues are mixed up. It's generally best to refer directly to the original source, which may include a citation from that source; but if that source is open for interpretation then secondary sources come into play as well (see WP:OR). Harald88 08:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Narlika's description of Vigier's theory (as a secondary source). A primary source would be better if we had it. This secondard source will do. If anyone thinks they can write a better, more credible description than Jayant Narlikar, by all mean give it a go. --Iantresman 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Harald's advice is best: refer directly to the original source (which in this case is Vigier and not Narlikar). The source isn't open to interpretation, as far as I can tell. No evidence to this effect has been presented. --ScienceApologist 10:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not have access to the primary source. Do I trust Narlikar's peer reviewed secondary source? Of course, because I can always check his references if I really wanted.

Since there is no objection to describing Vigier's theory, we have four choices:

1. I describe Vigier's theory. I am biased, my aunt was a communist, and some of my friends are gay.
2. ScienceApologist describes Vigier's theory. He considers researchers in the field as "pathological skeptics"[28], and non-standard alternatives as "nonsense"[29]
3. We use Indian astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar's peer-reviewed and verifiable description of Vigier's theory, [30]
4. Another editor describes Vigier's theory.

Looks like a no-brainer to me --Iantresman 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

- See the Talk page of Ehrenfest paradox for an example of how unreliable secondary source information can be - even if contained in physics journals.

- Let's first establish on this talk page what the essence is according to Vigier by collecting some citations by us; and if Narlikar's summary is beneficial for understanding. Next we can discuss how to render it in the article. For that I would welcome it if SA could send us a copy, as I'm not sure to have access to it. Harald88 12:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, there's no pleasing you, is there. Having spent some time sourcing Vigier's original paper, and including sufficient direct quotes to explain his theory, you remove it all.[31]

Of course you'll claim "the reader's interest", irrelevent quotes, and unrelated information.

Your double standards are appalling. You criticise for not having citations, then that they're not peer-reviewed, or that the journals are little-know, then that they're only secondary sources, or that the authors are not credible, or there's not enough citations to the article, and even primary sources aren't good enough for you. And yet you're quite content to use creationist web sites as sources when it suit you.

You don't even have the courtesy to explain yourself, yet you demand explanation when anyone else makes significant changes. --Iantresman 00:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just summarizing. No need to have 100s of words when a single sentence will do. I think the current Vigier section is quite good, actually. I thank you, Ian, for your research into this work. --ScienceApologist 01:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you removed Vigier's description that:

• His theory is testable

A nonstarter. All theories are testable otherwise they aren't scientific. --ScienceApologist 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• That his ".. model by-passes objections formerly raised against scattering mechanisms"

His model isn't a scattering mechanism which is a totally different "kind" of tired light so there is no reason to mention scattering objections to it by anybody. --ScienceApologist 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• An explanation of HOW "a nonzero photon mass could allow for dissipation of energy into an aether-like vacuum"

Already somewhat explained in previous prose since he's dealing with gauge interactions. --ScienceApologist 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• That his model is based on laboratory observations in plasma theory

Not exactly a correct characterization. He makes an analogy to plasmas, he doesn't use plasmas. --ScienceApologist 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that some of the biggest criticisms of tired light concern whether it is (a) a theory/model/hypothesis/idea, testability is pretty significant (b) Scattering is always put forward as ruling out tired light, these ommissions are pretty sigificant? --Iantresman 07:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the biggest criticism of tired light is not testability at all, rather it's assumed that many of the tests already done rule out tired light (something Vigier does not address). Scattering != tired light. There are two classes of tired light theories: scattering and light actually getting "tired" because that's its "character". If one believes tired light by scattering, one believes that light is described exactly the way it is assumed to be described by modern physics. If one believes light gets "tired" because that's the "nature" of the cosmological propagation of photons, one has the "traditional" tired light theory and must believe that modern physics has missed something about the nature of light or has gotten the equations governing its propagation wrong for cosmological scales. Vigier's ideas are of this second sort so the "scattering" objections are impossible to level against him.

If you wanted, Ian, we could separate out the two different kinds of tired light theories into different sections. I am of the opinion anyway that scattering mechanisms aren't exactly "tired light" in the colloquial "sense" of the term, but I've become resigned to the fact that if the model is as put forward in the last section, scattering would be a functional equivalent to a tired light mechanism. --ScienceApologist 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't understand why you keep removing comments that Vigier says his model is testable and overcomes earlier criticism on scattering, especially when these criticisms have been levelled at other tired light theory. I've included direct verifiable quotes form a primary source. Where's the problem? --Iantresman 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • There are two problems: 1) It isn't clear from what Vigier wrote how one would detect such frequency shifts and determine them to be different from a Hubble shift. Note that the sensititvity one would have to obtain in order to do such a measurement would be at the level required to detect the expansion of the universe. In effect, measuring this frequency shift would not be a confirmation of the theory if it conforms to a tired-light level. 2) Since this isn't a form of scattering, harping on how it sidesteps scattering issues is knocking down a strawman and is unnecessary. --ScienceApologist 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who the bloody hell do you think we are to decide on the practicality of Vigier's work. We are not verifiable. That Vigier says his model is testable is all we need to know. It's up to better people than us to work out the practicality. Wasn't the CMB anisotropy not testable for years because technology wasn't up to it? Didn't stop them from making the prediction, and noting that in principle, it was testable. --Iantresman 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point, Ian. You rightly wrote that Vigier said the shift itself should in principle be visible in the laboratory. It's clear, however, that because he's talking about looking at the frequency shifts themselves, laboratory detection isn't a feature of his proposal -- it's a feature of the fact that there is a cosmological redshift. A test that would directly inquire as to his work would be one that looked for a mass of a photon. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light criticism

The end of the first paragraph notes:

"Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light's wavelength, this effect would produce a redshift in spectral lines that increase proportionately with the distance of the source."

• Zwicky, Hubble, Vigier, etc, would all have been aware of this, and yet it hasn't stopped their investigation of tired light. I suspect it's because they consider that there might be a mechanism, in which the critical statement may not be true. In which case, the statemnent is a strawman argument.
• Similiarly, the suggestion that scattering must cause blurring is a strawman argument. Of course, scattering such as Compton scattering will cause blurring. But that doesn't rule out tired light. It just rules out tired light by those mechanisms responsible for criticisms mentioned.
• A similar logic would rule out galaxy rotation theory on the grounds that there is insufficient matter. --Iantresman 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody claims that a tired light theory doesn't account for the crudest Hubble Law approximation -- it absolutely does. What is true is that a)no scattering mechanism has been proposed to date that didn't suffer in the analysis of most skeptical reviewers from the problem of blurring, b) no tired light explanation has ever been offered which satisfactorally has provided explanations for the phenomena used as evidence for the Big Bang, c) there are no physical mechanisms yet understood which would account for photons changing character (that is, non-scattering tired light). This is different from the physical mechanisms understood which account for gravitational effects of dark matter. Note that dark matter acts as a purely gravitational effect:it's acute nature in light of microphysics is not technically required for a consistent dark matter theory. This is in contrast to tired light which requires a microphysical mechanism to date unobserved. If we had found that photons exhibitted some kind of decay, we may have very well been looking at a tired light universe. The initial interest in tired light was because research into particle physics and its connection to photon-matter interactions was ongoing at the time of Zwicky and Hubble's work. Nobody knew if a tired light mechanism would be discoverd. More than half a century later, still no evidence on the microphysical scale. Note that microphysical searches for dark matter candidates have only been going on for about 10 years or so (and even so, there's still an outside chance that dark matter may be undetectable microphysically). --ScienceApologist 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the criticism voiced is that it is treating "tired light models" as comprehensive cosmological theories, when most of them are just ad hoc redshift models. So what is said is true, since you cannot expect an ad hoc theory to account for all aspects listed in the last paragraph. What then, if you come up with a new comprehensive cosmological hypothesis that as a fringe benefit, by chance, works with a tired light redshift mechanism? That is just what Johan Masreliez has done with his Scale Expanding Cosmos theory and claiming it can stand up to all requirements.... Kurtan 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, SEC is now refered to as The Expanding Spacetime Theory by its founder. Additionally, to say that the jury is still out on this would be an understatement. In fact, given his reliance on the questionable (if not disproven) stead-state theories of Paul LaViolette, his theory is in significant trouble. Additionally, as best as I can tell, he merely discards the concept of time-dilation as it does not fit his theory. Yep, he's got some major problems to deal with. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to the title of his book (2000), which is a bit outdated. As for time-dilation you should read Masreliez' later papers. Most recent popular text is

• Scale-Expanding Cosmos Theory, Nexus Magazine – Volume 13, Number 4 (June - July 2006) /Kurtan 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No link to the article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Nexus magazine, must be true. UFOs took my dawg too. Jon 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See also links

I've restored the See also links which are designed to let readers navigate to related subjects. Of course "Tired light" is different from "Intrinsic redshift. But:

• "Tired light" is a non-cosmological redshift.
• "Intrinsic redshift" is also a non-cosmological redshift

Spotted the relation yet?

Regarding tried light and redshift quantization, Paul Laviolette in Astrophysical Journal (peer reviewed), notes that ".. the tired light interpretation of the cosmological redshift is also compatible with the finding that the extragalactic redshifts have a discrete rather continuous distribution. Spectral studies indicate that cosmological redshifts are quantized..."[32]

I guess we'll have to add a description of Laviolette's views in the article. Bet you can't wait :-) --Iantresman 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, tired light is not a non-cosmological redshift since it assumes the redshift distance relationship holds. LaViolette's views can be included if they are explained. The sentence you quoted makes no sense unless contextualized by the point that LaViolette doesn't use the tired light models we are discussing here. --ScienceApologist 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop being bloody ridiculous. They're ALL related to redshift. --Iantresman 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the redshift page. This is the tired light page. --ScienceApologist 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's RELATED to redshift --Iantresman 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just becasue all of these topics are related to redshift doesn't mean they are necessarily related to each other. Tired light is a different proposal from the intrinsic redshift ideas of Arp and other who harp on quasar discrepancies. Except for Laviolette who has his own definition for tired light which is different than the one we rely on here, redshift quantization is generally more closely connected to intrinsic redshifts than it is to tired light. Just because these are all popular nonstandard cosmology ideas doesn't mean they should be linked. We shouldn't link to creationist cosmologies here just because they both appear on the same nonstandard cosmologies page, for example. --ScienceApologist 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're sufficiently different to warrant different articles. But as would-be redshifts, they are more than adequately related. --Iantresman 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No verifiable links between the subjects except that they are favorites of nonstandard cosmology woo-woos. --ScienceApologist 22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the "See also" links which are all related to redshift as VERIFIED by Wikipedia.

• Tired light is a "non-cosmological" redshift
• The term intrinsic redshift refers to the hypothesis from various non-standard cosmologies that a significant portion of the observed redshift..
• Redshift quantization or redshift periodicity is the hypothesis that the redshifts...

--Iantresman 23:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light is not non-cosmological. Redshift quantization is completely independent of the tired light hypothesis and intrinisc redshifts are likewise independent. This is like including links to time cube and modern geocentrism in a see also list for Nonsymmetric gravitational theory. The only similarity is that they are all nonstandard interpretations of general relativity (forgive me for not using obnoxiously enlarged font sizes on their commonality). --ScienceApologist 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• As an aside, Pecker's article on "Possible explanations of non cosmological redshifts"[33] considers "tired-light mechanisms".

Does he say "tired light" is a "non-cosmological" redshift? --ScienceApologist 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He discusses "tired light" is a "non-cosmological" redshift article because THEY ARE RELATED by REDSHIFT --Iantresman 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Tired light, intrinsic redshift and Redshift quantization are related to redshift. Readers interested in redshift would not be disappointed to learn of such related topics. --Iantresman 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are a slew of links related to redshift not mentioned in this article you can find on the redshift article. Singling these out is irresponsible editting. --ScienceApologist 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the SUBJECT of those links has nothing to do with redshift, whereas Tired light, intrinsic redshift, Redshift quantization and the Wolf effect are all interpretations of REDSHIFT --Iantresman 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian, this is bizarre. That topics are related to redshift is a relevant argument for their inclusion on the Redshift page, not on some other page. If a reader is interested in redshift, then he should go there - with the link we provide - and read all about it. --Art Carlson 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to ScienceApologist, Redshift quantization is not related and not relevent to any other article about redshift. In other words, any reader looking at articles on Tired light, intrinsic redshift, and even redshift, will never find mention of redshift quantization which I find equally bizarre. I would have thought that anyone interested in "alternative redshift interpretations" may be intested in all these subjects. --Iantresman 12:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you in a contest to be as bizarre as ScienceApologist? You still haven't made any rational case for including a link from Tired light to Redshift quantization. --Art Carlson 14:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested in physics - thus cat!

A few of you think that only readers who are interested in cosmology or plasma cosmology will be interested in this article; however, that's erroneous, as one cited article shows and as I can attest myself: I care very little about cosmology or plasma cosmology, my main interest is physics. Please motivate why you want to scrap the category that points for people like me to this highly interesting physics article. Harald88 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

I was looking for a dispute that remained on this page. I couldn't find one. I removed the tag. If any still has a dispute, put the tag back up and let it be known. --ScienceApologist 12:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plasma redshift theories

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Redshift I wrote about Ari Brynjolfsson's and my own theories regarding redshift of light in plasmas which are so diffuse that the average inter-particle spacing exceeds the coherence length of the light. Maybe such theories should be mentioned as modern tired light theories, to distinguish them from those which were developed and abandoned in the first half of the 20th century. Robin Whittle 04:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any critical review of Brynjolfsson's ideas? --ScienceApologist 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require critical reviews, only verifiable reliable sources. --Iantresman 13:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but critical reviews of a subject are one of the ways to determine the notability of a topic. Certainly, singular proposals by lone researchers are not generally considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robin, they don't need to be mentioned as modern since Einstein's theory of tired light is the most modern of them all (read Einsteinian model subsection, if you managed to do it before some BB guy makes it a history - then read the history). Jim 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)