Talk:Tired light/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A mechanism for "tired light"

The phenomenon of photon-path-bending is well documented, both in diffraction of photons past a sharp edge, and in photons passing by a massive object such as the sun. It is a geometric necessity for photons to slow in their path in order for them to have a curved path. When a photon path is bent, the side of the photon proximal (nearest) to the mass, be it a blade or a cosmological mass, slows in comparison to the distal (far) edge of the photon. Since this bending is a function of the field of the object and the field is continuous in space, both the proximal and the distal edge of the photon are slowed. But, the difference between the two speeds causes the photon to follow a curved path. One may then ask, is this interaction between the mass and photon, elastic or inelastic? If the interaction is inelastic, then the photon will leave the interaction having lost energy and thereby leave with a longer wavelength. Since photons can be absorbed by matter and converted to thermal energy, the interaction must be inelastic. The train of energy transfer being: the movement of the electron by the photon and the electron transferring the energy to the thermal vibration of the atom. Even at a large distance the interaction between the cumulative electron field of the mass and the photon is a real interaction as evidenced by the observed bending. As a real interaction, one we have established as inelastic, energy will be transferred and wavelength of the photon increased. In passing thru the universe, photons from a distant object will be slowed equally on average for the entire image. There should be no broadening of wavelength (spectrum blurring), since the entire image is subject to mass fields that are smoothly continuous and distributed nearly equally on all sides of the image’s path. Even in gravitational lensing, there should be no observable spectrum broadening. All photon images are played upon by gravitational lensing to a very small degree, but only when the image passes very near to a large mass does the lensing become observable. This explanation of the “tired light” hypothesis suggests the unification of the electromagnetic and the gravitational forces. My Flatley (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Without citations to reliable sources, this has to be considered original research. You might want to check the talk page guidlines for further information about what's appropriate in here. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

dilation of cosmologically distant events

It seems to be the opposite, the expanding universe theory can't explain why distant quasars are NOT dilated: http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html--90.179.235.249 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent news, thank you! I footnoted it, it is a bit early to work it into the main text. I'm pretty sure that this is going to make headlines. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, as promised, just added this reference. Unfortunately, the article is now garbled. The new reference is used to footnote a statement that it seems to contradict, and it also contradicts the later statements supported by footnotes [13] and [14]. We need to put these papers in relation to each other, at a minimum to say that the issue has not yet been definitively settled. The contradiction seems to be between studies made on supernovae and studies made on quasars. I'm hoping someone with a better background and knowledge of the literature will do this before I come in with a hatchet. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, /me bad copyeditor. The article needs an overhaul anyway, I might find time this weekend. Do you think the patch will stay the execution until then? Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm laid back. I hope and trust you can teach me something if I give you time. I wonder, though, if this is the best place to go into details. Shouldn't these studies, and whatever commentaries that may exist on these studies, be presented in Time dilation, or maybe in Hubble's law? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hubble's law definitely, tired light turns on the question of how to interpret this phenomenon. Depending on how material is distributed, a number of articles relating to cosmology are also concerned. For time dilation this would at most be a question of whether or not to mention that time dilation is observed in distant objects. Current mainstream consensus is "yes", and will not change soon. Of course, if Hawkins' observations are corroborated and turn out to be as annoying as, say, the Pioneer anomaly, we might have another cosmological crisis on our hands. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is the right place. For the mainstream, the SNe results are ho-hum, since they only verify what we already "know", and are much, much less precise than the spectrographic measurements. The quasar result is probably not notable enough to be mentioned in the mainstream articles until it has been replicated by other groups. On the other hand, tired light theories are calling all of this into question, so it makes sense to look at all the different kinds of evidence available. (I'm not holding my breath for the next cosmological crisis, if there was ever a first one.) --Art Carlson (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In culture

The artist Carsten Nicolai created a series of works called "tired light" which thematizes this phenomenon. 78.52.97.154 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

literature has taken notice of published criticism

Major French journal Le Nouvel Observateur's Science has taken notice of Lorenzo Zaninetti and D.L.Mamas, see: http://olivier-4.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2011/04/19/le-pouvoir-de-l-imaginaire-remise-en-question-bizarre-vous-a.html these cited references should be included. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a typical way in which someone's work would be noticed in the scientific community and does not rise to the standards required for articles in Wikipedia. Blogs, like this, are simply not appropriate ways of verifying reliability. Additionally, a researcher has been waging an ongoing internet campaign to get his ideas onto Wikipedia, which should raise some red flags. He would be well-advised to get his ideas published in ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A if he wants to be noticed and taken seriously. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The misleading term blog here in French language context is referring to a regularly published commentary in a major French scientific magazine Science. I don't see where a researcher has waged any campaigns regarding wikipedia. Also, Lorenzo Zaninetti's work is cited by Science and should be mentioned here as well. Not all published physicists believe the redshift is due to expanding space. I here add to the article Zaninetti's published article reference. 71.98.132.209 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP posting above is presumably a researcher trying to get his work into Wikipedia. This is now being reported to WP:FTN and WP:COIN. Tiny minority ideas of current fringe physicists do not belong in this article which is about a notable historical concepts which has been falsified. 198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack a living person. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Crawford, Masreliez, Zaninetti, and Mamas are published in recognized journals and by wikipedia rules must be included in the section on criticisms. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Crawford is published in Nature, these are respected journals not to be censored by people who don't like what they say. 71.98.139.122 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 71.98.139.122 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Crawford is reference 15 which is published in Nature, perfectly acceptable reference not to be censored. 71.98.139.122 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nature papers from 1979 that have no citations, were roundly refuted that year, and are therefore not particularly related to the historical subject do not belong here. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Nature article was never refuted, and is directly related as a criticism of tired light. The other publications also. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It was refuted by Peebles in his cosmology text, for one. The rest of the publications are fringe journals with zero impact factor believed only by the cranky and the dying believers in Big Bang hatred. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Peebles never published a refutation in any journal, nowhere. And the other journals are recognized sources. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Peebles most certainly did publish a refutation in his cosmology text and it's referenced in this article. That's the sense in which this article needs to be written and understood. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A book is not peer reviewed. It is not a journal article. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Text books published by reputable publishers are peer reviewed. People don't bother publishing about tired light any more because it has been falsified and will stay that way until convincing observational evidence is shown otherwise. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Text books are not peer reviewed as are journal articles. People do publish tired light articles, you just censor them all. 96.254.154.3 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What a lark! Text books and journal articles are different beasts. When someone publishes a book that states in the text more-or-less definitively that tired light is falsified, that's a pretty strong indicator of the mainstream understanding of the subject. It then becomes the job of the itinerant fringe scientist to convince the community that the prevailing understanding is wrong. It is a tough, uphill battle, but it's not one that's supposed to be waged here. And it certainly doesn't help that the "tired light articles" that you say "people do publish" are all found in journals that are not watched by experts in the subject. I'd suggest, if you know any of these people who publish such articles, that you give them the friendly advice to engage the actual research community that deals with this subject rather than pretending and publishing their papers in out-of-the-way, low-impact, poor-reputation journals. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia fair and balanced ?

Significant numbers of scientists do not believe the big bang theory at all, as evidenced by all the signers at http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ etc. Tired light is the Achilles' Heel of the big bang believers, who are in complete panic to discredit any discussion of tired light. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sigantories of that statement are neither astronomers, cosmologists, nor regarded research scientists. Just sour grapes and a lot of time on their hands. A number of creationists signed that document too. It should be an embarrassment to the alt cosmology community that they included so many charlatans in that statement which is now 10 years old and has NOTHING to show for it. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Big names in cosmology signed it. Go look again. 96.254.154.3 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The "big names" are not so very big. All either unknown in the field, aging (or dead) cranks, or outright charlatans. Check adsabs if you don't believe me. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gold and Bondi are giants in cosmology. They signed. 96.254.154.3 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Both are dead. Science progresses one death at a time.140.252.83.241 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove this section on sight, please

This section [1] will be removed if it is reinstated. None of the cited examples are to mainstream astrophysics journals, nor have any of these examples received notice by the mainstream astrophysics community. Until they do, this section belongs excised from Wikipedia. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They are published in Physics journals because astronomers are too deeply invested in the big bang to let themselves consider alternatives; physicists are not constrained by such protocol. It's time for astronomers to now listen to physicists. Dr.Masreliez, Dr.Zaninetti, and Dr.Mamas are all physicists. Astronomers better get the wax out of their ears, because their big bang is nonsense right on the face of it. 71.98.133.113 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RGW. That's not what we're here for. These physicists who can't get published in normal venues don't deserve space on Wikipedia. Let them change the community's rejection of their ideas first, then they can come back. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is a normal venue published under the American Institute of Physics, see: http://www.aip.org/journal_catalog/soclist.html 71.98.136.234 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Prize winner Dr.Hannes Alfven said the big bang is a 'religion'. 71.98.133.113 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alfven is dead and Physics Essays is a fringe journal that has little to not editorial guidance, being controlled by a relativity denier. Just because AIP publishes it doesn't mean it's reliable. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alfvén may be dead but his heritage is not. I recall him as a most inspiring super-advisor to my master thesis work long time ago. And his ideas was certainly treated as "fringe", judging from his publishing problems with peer-reviewed american journals. / Kurtan (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alfven's cosmology ideas were of interest in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, they are a footnote to history. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alfven had the common sense to know the big bang theory is nonsense, and the big bang theory is still nonsense today, more so than ever before. They have simply piled more crap on top of more crap, it is all a house of cards.71.98.130.219 (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting opinion, but entirely irrelevant to this article. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute/Page Protection

As an uninvolved editor, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed consensus

Do not include articles that are unpublished on arxiv nor articles published in Physics Essays.

140.252.83.232 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is published by the American Institute of Physics. Physics Essays allows criticism of the big bang theory. Astronomers need to subscribe to it. 71.98.133.113 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can make out it is published by Physics Essays Publishing, not by the American Institute of Physics. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is published under the American Institute of Physics, and wikipedia is wrong to not accept their articles critical of the big bang theory. See: http://www.aip.org/journal_catalog/soclist.html 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What that says is that the AIP distributes that publication, which is saying something okay but I'm not sure what. It is not published by AIP, the small list at the top of that page is the list of ones published by the AIP. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The site says Member Societies and Co-Publishers. Recognized by the AIP. 71.98.136.234 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The AIP does not give this particular epigraph any endorsement. It just distributes it. The journal is wholly operated by relativity deniers. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays has had articles on different interpretations of relativity and apparent dilemmas, but Physics Essays does not 'deny' relativity as you falsely claim. 71.98.135.104 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense by people who don't even have a Wikipedia account? The AIP is just one institution in the USA, and Wikipedia is independent from it. Wikipedia isn't a free aid to AIP, except if there is a conspiracy going on to grab power away from Wikipedia (probably not, but anything is possible; anything must be done to protect Wikipedia from such abuse!). Wikipedia's rule is to include notable peer reviewed papers.

The consensus already exists (if it hasn't been changed recently): Wikipedia excludes Arxiv papers that are not peer reviewed, as well as peer reviewed papers that have not been cited by others in peer reviewed papers. There is no bias towards or against certain journals, for that would be anti-NPOV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources : even articles from journals that apparently exist to promote a particular view may be cited as representing a minority view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view prescribes that significant minority views must be mentioned.

Note in respect to the above that this article is about a class of non-mainstream theories, and thus about minority views; it's not appropriate to elaborate here more on mainstream opinions than is needed to make the reader well aware of it. Harald88 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This was resolved with the help of other Wikipedians who supported the idea that Physics Essays and other papers published in out-of-the-way journals should be excluded per WP:PSTS. The problem is that these papers were not cited by third-party sources. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tired light is not dead as wikipedia claims

Here are some recently published articles rejecting the big bang theory: http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 and http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1 Physics Essays is published under the American Institute of Physics and wikipedia should include them. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is published under the American Institute of Physics, see: http://www.aip.org/journal_catalog/soclist.html 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is distributed by their distributors, not published by the AIP. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The site says Member Societies and Co-Publishers. Recognized by the AIP. 71.98.136.234 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No one in cosmology reads this journal and there are no cosmologists who edit it. Therefore, it is not a reliable source for this topic. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be a section in wikipedia's article entitled 'Recent Models'. Wikipedia always permits new articles if published in journals which are recognized by the AIP. No reason to exclude these articles. 71.98.136.234 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no recent models that have been noticed by any mainstream astrophysicists. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And why should "mainstream" be given exclusive priority? / Kurtan (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a mainstream source. If we were writing a fringe science encyclopedia, we could wax eloquent about the unpublished and unsupported ideas of those who believe in wild ideas not supported by astrophysics. But the goal of Wikipedia is not to do that. At least, that's how I interpret Wikipedia:Five pillars. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about as mainstream as CNN. All the same leftist politically correct garbage. 71.98.133.220 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

ANY ARTICLE CRITICAL OF THE BIG BANG THEORY IS EXCLUDED FROM WIKIPEDIA OR CALLED NAMES. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 3 June 2011

Very minor formatting error. The heading that reads as == History and reception == has a space between the == == and the name, but the other headings don't have an extra space between the == == and the heading name, so the heading should read as ==History and reception==. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That should not affect the display of the article at all. I occasionally add spaces because I think it makes the titles more readable when editing, but I have never seen this as mattering in any particular wise. Am I wrong? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I use a script called Advisor.js that picks up small formatting errors like this. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 16:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is it really an error? Does it actually affect anything? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not an error but there's lots of pernickety people around on Wikipedia who provide a useful service cleaning things up. This sort of thing makes their teeth ache so I just let them get on with it. Dmcq (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The believe that, if anything, having a space is more widespread and standard on Wikipedia. However, as there was no opposition to this request, I have implemented. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Some fringe ideas are notable

It strikes me that if there is a fringe community pushing this sort of thing that may be notable in itself. Did New Scientist say anything about that petition that someone was going on about anyone know? Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the community is "notable" it's written about on non-standard cosmology. New Scientist used to have a journalist who was sympathetic to fringe science and was a friend of Eric Lerner who was able to get this junk published in that magazine in May 2004. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900-bucking-the-big-bang.html THe offending editor has since moved on and New Scientist has resumed publishing more critical takes on pseudoscience: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827873.100-parapsychology-lessons-from-the-fringe.html 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe notability would be derived from the push given by the fringe community as well as the press this recieves as a formerly proposed model and a model that has been discarded (for the obvious reasons). At the same time it is not neccessary to have sweaty religous fervor while discreding discarded models. I don't see it as really helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What press? There are, of course, the breathless reports of the credulous who want to show the world how the experts all got it wrong. I haven't seen much in the way of a consistent coverage of this non-controversy. If you'd like to demonstrate that "tired light" is somehow an ongoing topic of interest in the science press, please be my guest. As it is, very few of my astrophysics colleagues even know what this thing is, let alone what the "push" that's going on from the "fringe community" about it entails. This community, incidentally, apparently is made up of less than half a dozen people none of who seem to be able to publish in ApJ, MNRAS, A&A, etc. As far as the "religious" fervor, it's a little upsetting to see how long Wikipedia tolerates cranks promoting their wares before it gets noticed. I've been trying to get people to notice for a number of days now, and it seems that when people finally start noticing that there is an issue, they've decided to attack the person pointing out the problem rather than deal with the obvious promotion of nonsense. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't start turning this into a personal matter. No one is attacking you. Some fringe things should be covered in articles and others are just not noteworthy. Wikipedia is more concerned with things that grab some attention than being like a scientific institution and establishing any sort of truth. It does seem as though there isn't much fringe stuff anyway and nothing of any note in the last few years and that's all that needs to be established to not stick in anything about it. If there was some stuff that made a notable blip then there would have to be coverage. That's all that was being asked about. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia's aim to be an encyclopedia rather than an indiscriminate collection of knowledge is of note here. We aren't trying to make a "grab your interest" collection. I'm not sure what constitutes a "notable blip", but if the unpublished and out-of-the-way published monographs by relativity deniers about a subject that was discarded thirty or forty years ago is a "notable blip", I'm not sure how you can justify calling this an "encyclopedia article". 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is up to secondary sources to take note of what is interesting. We are allowed to give more weight to reputable sources and ignore things with very little weight or which don't appear in reliable sources, but otherwise in general it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that one thing is true or suitable for an encyclopaedia and another is not. That is why there are so many articles on things like television serials and Pokemon characters. Dmcq (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to fly in the face of WP:IINFO, but whatever. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

140.252.83.232 what are your reccomendations for this article? (Maybe reccomendations should be listed in the section entitled "proposed consensus" on this talk page.) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can get the ball rolling. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in its current form is actually pretty good, I think. What we need to avoid is becoming a WP:COATRACK for new ideas that haven't been considered carefully by the experts. Tired light deserves to be in the encyclopedia for its historical import. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not just its historical impact. Tired light is still a contentious topic still today, and the article tries to hide that. Just look at Ned Wright's homepage to see how tired light is still debated still today. 71.98.135.104 (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Some fringe cosmology ideas are controversial protoscience, and if properly referenced certainly notable at least among non-standard cosmology. But 140.252.83.232 has taken on his duty to blank all non-mainstream edits there as well. His remark above on "coatracking", I have detected in a similar case by former mainstream User:ScienceApologist, final comment in this thread, just further strengthening my view voiced at User talk:N5iln#unpublished non-mainstream. Mr Gearloose (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing editors. If you have a problem see WP:Dispute resolution otherwise see WP:NPA. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In view of Steve Quinn's request above, I took the liberty of voicing doubts on asking for improvements to the article from an IP-user, whose recommendations, if I am right, Wikipedia no longer finds OK. I do not think this is a dispute to solve your suggested way and as for WP:NPA I avoid using SA:s latest nick under jps, since it seems to invoke harassment. Thanks anyhow. Mr Gearloose (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The big bang is a religion

Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfven said the big bang theory is a 'religion'. Dr.Alfven should be quoted in the article. The big bang is fringe science par excellence, that has all the backing of hollywood, and astronomers line up like a flock of geese. 71.98.133.220 (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about "tired light". It is not about Hannes Alfven (who, as far as I know, never once commented on the subject) nor is it about the Big Bang except that the redshift-distance relation is a prediction of that particular model. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Astronomers better brace themselves. When this next generation of giant telescopes are operational, they will finally be able to clearly see those infant galaxies from the beginning of the big bang, to find that those infant galaxies are really old mature galaxies tens of billions of years older than their big bang. Egg will be on all astronomers' faces, and they will all go running back to look again at those tired light mechanisms. 71.98.133.220 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why people bother building telescopes, it would be so much cheaper just to ask you what they would see. By the way perhaps you could also tell us if the Higgs particle is a real thing or not andi f it is what energy it will be found at? Also could you help me with the results of races? just a couple of races and I'll be set up tidily. I find it very strange that people so often say things about others that describes themselves, why do you believe in tired light to the extent you believe a new experiment will show something totally at odds with what previous evidence has shown? Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone believe the universe was once the size of a nutshell, and is now expanding faster than the speed of light in all directions ? It is laughable, how can astronomers say such crazy things and keep a straight face. And there is no convincing evidence for it at all, contrary to all their claims. The big bang is a basket case. Wikipedia needs to include published alternative explanations for the cosmological redshift, because one of them will steal the cake. There should be a section in wikipedia's article entitled 'Recent Models'. 71.98.133.220 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that someone else should always 'steal the cake' first, that's what WP:Original research says in effect. We should never be in the advance guard with explanations. If what astronomers say currently is crazy then crazy is what Wikipedia will write about. That's it basically. Dmcq (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Published criticism of the big bang should be included. And no more excuses. 71.98.133.220 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I can point to "published criticism" of any topic around. In fact, there's this great site called http://www.crank.net/ where you can see examples of all of it. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that a while ago but it's worth going back to occasionally. The thing it doesn't show is the number of frauds around where people sell things with gobbledygoop like quantum entangled water or magnetic crystal vibration to the deluded who believe in such fruitloopery. Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven were still here, he would say it again, the big bang is a religion. More so than ever before. 71.98.130.219 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's super special. Are you in contact with Alfven's ghost? 140.252.83.232 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The big bang nonsense is today more insane than ever. Any child knows it's wrong. The king has no clothes. How so-called scientists can fall for such nonsense that the universe was once the size of a nutshell.. give me a break. 71.98.130.219 (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability rather than truth. As both you and 140.252.83.232 have noted Alfven is dead. We need a better source than your knowledge about what he would have said if he were still alive. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on pick-and-choose published articles. And is politically correct. Any article critical of the ridiculous big bang theory is out. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles explaining the Redshift with no expansion of space

Here are some recently published articles which explain the cosmological redshift with no expansion of space: http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 and http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1 Physics Essays is published through the American Institute of Physics, so wikipedia must include these articles even if they upset all those big bang fanatics out there. 71.98.129.84 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Still more references which doubt the redshift is due to expansion of space: http://www.americanscientist.org/authors/detail/michael-j-disney Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron Avril (2004), where the arguments of Ned Wright are refuted point by point. Masreliez C. J.; preprint pages 13-20 The Pioneer Anomaly, Astrophysics & Space Science (2005), v. 299, no. 1, pp. 83-108. 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not keep repeating any suggestion that Physics Essays is in any way checked or validated by the American Institute of Physics. They are distributed by the same distributors and that's all. Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Read their website it says 'published through the American Institute of Physics'. 71.98.140.77 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It says published by Physics Essays Publishing through the American Institute of Physics'. You missed out a few words. They are not published by the American Institute of Physics, they are an associated publisher which is distributed by them. Physics Essays do their own peer review and the American Institute of Physics is in no way responsible for anything that is published by them. Personally I support having journals where people can publish way out ideas, there's always the chance that one of them might have something in them, but Wikipedia is not the place for wacky fringe ideas unless they gain some notability. It is perfectly possible that the people in the AIP think like me about the publication and so are quite happy to give it a bit of support but they have not said they check it or agree with what it publishes. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

They are co-publishers. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read that paper about scaling space and time. It is even dafter than the ones in Physics Essays. At least the Physics Essays ons just try and do their stuff and leave out the problems like the decay rate of supernovas. That scaling one has us shrinking instead of the universe expanding and then says the density remains the same - however they forget that what matters is what we see and the density has decreased from our point of view so it isn't the same through time. I sympathize that the idea of a big bang is difficult but the scaling paper does not get round it, at best it just gets the log of time so 0 becomes minus infinity at the cost of making a lot of other things much more complicated. It's like saying the earth must be fixed and treating the rest of the universe as rotating round us every twenty four hours. It can be done but it doesn't lead to simplicity. Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is published through the American Institute of Physics. If the American Institute of Physics disapproved of Physics Essays' peer review process they would not associate themselves with it in such a manner. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should they disapprove of it? It's not up to them to go around doing that. Physics Essays is not published by them, it is published by Physics Essays Publications. The publishers are the ones setting the standards for a journal. Anyway their articles you listed simply don't correspond with the facts and ignore them. The interesting one is that one you pointed out above [2] which said it coped with the problems but obviously doesn't, I see it came from another publication Apeiron (journal). I just had a look at their site and they do seem a little more outré than Physics Essays. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is a think tank sanctioned by the American Institute of Physics. They are affiliated. If the AIP disapproved of it they certainly would not keep it on their official list of members and co-publishers. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics Essays is part of the American Institute of Physics, all money goes to the AIP, see here: http://physicsessays.org/contact 71.98.129.181 (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They use the distribution channel of the AIP. A distributor collects the money and then gives it to the publisher. Are you really saying that you want people to not use the same distribution channels if they don't fully agree with everything the other says? Why would the AIP do that to Physics Essays? It's not something I'd do. What people were saying above is that it is not a mainstream journal by any stretch of the imagination. Anyway what about the article from Aperion, are you really saying that is a good article refuting the objections? Because as far as I can see it is the only one that says it does. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't give the money back to Physics Essays, rather, AIP uses it for publishing and administrative costs. If they were just giving it back to Physics Essays then they would ask for checks to be made out straight to Physics Essays. Also, that Apeiron source is not alone, it is backed up by the other article published by Masreliez. 71.98.129.181 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A distributor is a single point of contact which is responsible for sales. They are like a shop, you don't give a shop a cheque made out to the original manufacturer. Yes the distributor will take its cut for what it does but that is the same as a shop. If you buy a magazine in a shop then it take its cut and then sends money back to the distributor, who in many cases is the same as the publisher of the magazine but for small publishers they normally share with a big one.

Anyway has Masreliez got the sort of stuff that he got into Aperion published somewhere reputable? Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look around and seemingly he's got it in [3]. It may be total rubbish but it is notable enough and I can see no valid objection under Wikipedia's policies for including that. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, will include the reference. 71.98.129.181 (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also include M.J. Disney reference, he is a top astronomer with the Hubble telescope. He says opinions like Ned Wright's could be wrong.12.184.176.57 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ap&SS is a problematic journal that has now stopped publishing pseudoscience like that of Masreliez. Since this particular article has received no outside notice, it doesn't belong in this article (nor is it particularly related to tired light as a concept writ large). Disney has some pretty unorthodox ideas, but the reference that people are attempting to push in says nothing about tired light. I removed the offending section with the inappropriate references and text that was not supported by the sources. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning: personal attacks on living persons are a Violation of Wikipedia rules. Do not do it again. 96.254.154.3 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The WP:NPA policy is about one editor attacking another. The WP:BIO policy is the one about Wikipedia articles about people. Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about that same User who was once again guessing who was posting what, and slandering them by 'outing'. 71.98.134.101 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the last comments were probably meant for another discussion above #Some fringe ideas are notable rather than this one. I don't know why the comment about a personal attack was put in for an edit to the article, might I suggest that such comments be placed more accurately. A person who speaks without others understanding is wasting their breath. Dmcq (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lubin and Sandage in a peer-reviewed journal vs. Disney in a magazine?

Dear Dr. Disney is known as a maverick who disbelieves most of the common understandings of astrophysics. He is not without his detractors, but, more importantly, his dismissal of the Tolman surface brightness test with the odd sentence, "Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift." is by no means a "dispute" with the Lubin and Sandage results. Disney is not in touch with the best cosmological structure formation and galaxy evolution models such as those associated with the Millenium Simulation which essentially show that galaxy evolution takes place in such a way to invalidate one of the main requirements of the Tolman test: namely that flux-limited galaxies at early times look like flulx-limited galaxies at late times. They simply do not, and this isn't just documented through Tolman test arguments, it's also documented through looking at stellar populations, spectral-energy distributions, and even cluster environments. Lubin and Sandage did a remarkable job of selecting the same kind of galaxies over a vast period of cosmological time and the fact that the test concords with an expanding universe model is not contradicted by Disney's protestations in a popular magazine. Therefore this sentence was removed.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Read Disney's article he speaks of 'us' and 'we' and 'our surprise' when describing those at the Hubble telescope project when they observed a contradiction to the Tolman test. Source must be included wikipedia rules. Disney is a top man at Hubble project. 71.98.134.101 (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If Disney thinks what he's saying is correct, let him publish his criticisms in a peer-reviewed journal. That's the appropriate venue. WP:PARITY asks us to exclude Disney's irrelevant editorializing about the surface brightness test. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

American Scientist is perfectly acceptable wikipedia source. Wikipedia does not work like so called peer reviewed journals. 71.98.134.101 (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Disney is being used to criticized peer-reviewed reports, it cannot be used in that fashion. Read the cited policy page. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense, what is the link ? 71.98.134.101 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

American Scientist certainly meets that criterion. 71.98.134.101 (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

American Scientist is not peer reviewed. That's an editorial, not a scientific paper. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not an editorial, it is a complete article in a perfectly acceptable source that meets all wikipedia criteria, but perhaps reports what you don't like to hear, but must be included by wikipedia rules. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No mathematical, statistical, or data-based analysis in that article. It is an opinion piece that does not stand in parity to Lubin and Sandage's published measurement that falsifies all tired light models. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney is clear, their observation contradicts Tolman, perfectly clear. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not a fact. Lubin and Sandage used data and presented the fact that galaxies in our universe follow the Tolman test. Disney's protestation to the contrary is all words and no data or mathematical/data-based analysis. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney presents an observational fact in blatant contradiction with Tolman. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Disney reports an anecdote based on his memory of something someone said to him. There is no evidence that people didn't think high redshift galaxies would be invisible to HST, that's Disney's fairytale. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Disney makes a statement of fact here published. You are not published 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The direct quote and only point of interest that Disney made is above. I am published, but that's neither here nor there. The rules are clear and poor content like that you're promoting should not be placed in Wikipedia. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney's observational facts must be included, wikipedia rules, and Disney is clear on his page 4 that Tolman is contradicted by observation. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Under what policy are we required to include Disney's observations? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

American Scientist meets all wikipedia criteria. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the American Scientist article would be okay, it needs to be properly described as a popular magazine article rater than a scientific paper though. Also it doesn't actually mention tired light that I can see. A bigger problem is the Masreliez ones, a couple seem okay as scientific papers even if other people haven't followed it up, the problem there as far as I can see is that they don't describe anything at all like tired light but the author seems to say it is a tired light theory. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree, at least without some convincing. I mean, I think you're spot on regarding how we could use the magazine if it covered the topic of this article somehow, but how could we use it if it does not even mention tired light without falling into OR? And 66.194.104.5, you'll have to be more specific--nothing in heaven or earth meets all of wikipedia's criteria. In general, we prefer peer reviewed articles for academic topics, but if Disney provided a good overview of tired light in the article, I could see using it, but that does not appear to be the case. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney clearly addresses Tolman, which is part of this article. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just had another look through wondering if the bit about redshift could be viewed as a reference to tired light, but even with the best will in the world I can't. It says there might be a problem - but it makes no indication that it considers tired light as any kind of solution. It's talk about problems isn't well based enough to be put here as a creditable second level thing about tired light. How about the Masreliez business though? Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is not expansion of space, then it is tired light of one type or another. That's how it is. Disney is directly relevant here. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tired light is any mechanism, other than expanding space, that could lower the frequency (energy) of a photon. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pull the other one. You can't seriously suggest that a theory that says rulers are shrinking and time is going faster corresponds with anything somebody looking up tired light would have been thinking of. They were thinking that the distance to far galaxies wasn'tr changing using our rulers, not some metaphysical ruler outside of everything. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is what big bangers are saying, that general relativity causes the cosmological redshift. Big Bang is based on so called general relativity. They are however all wrong; general relativity never should have been applied to the universe as a whole in the first place. 71.98.134.173 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And if you can find a reliable source, that says that explicitly, we might be able to include it. But we're not allowed by WP:OR to make jumps like "If it is not expansion of space, then it is tired light of one type or another" or statements like "general relativity never should have been applied to the universe as a whole in the first place". We're in the business of documenting what is said by others, not engaging in research. I have not looked at Masreliez, but can take a look at that later today if the world unfolds as I think it will. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the article, all the historical attempts, anything, anything that could possibly cause a redshift is called tired light theory. For the definition read the first sentence here, any process that could cause the redshift is called tired light, read the first sentence: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm71.98.134.173 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"...anything that could possibly cause a redshift is called tired light theory", do you have a reliable source for that? If so, we might be able to use it, if not, we can't. Please review WP:NOR carefully--we are not enabled by policy to make such judgements, and doing so is original research. Reading the first sentence, I see that the author (who appears to be an expert, but this is a personal page and those don't carry much weight), he says "Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law." Personally, I think that's a far cry from "...anything that could possibly cause a redshift is called tired light theory". The latter might be true, but what we need is something that conforms to both WP:V and WP:RS. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone would say this explicitly anywhere but anyone explaining the redshift without expansion of space would certainly be called a tired light mechanism.12.184.176.57 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So if I just take the Big Bang model and say instead the distance 'really' stays the same it's just that we are shrinking then that is a tired light theory? Even if there is no detectable difference? Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis doesn't have the expansion of space, but it is not tired light. See intrinsic redshift. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh really ? then how do they explain the cosmological redshift ? you are confusing intrinsic redshift with cosmological redshift. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is either expansion of space, or, tired light. Here is the quote making this clear: Following after Zwicky in 1935, Edwin Hubble and Richard Tolman compare recessional redshift with a non-recessional one, writing that they: "... both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles [... and] use of a static Einstein model of the universe, combined with the assumption that the photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect, which is linear with distance, and which leads to a decrease in frequency, without appreciable transverse deflection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.134.137 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please slow down

We basically have an edit war between various IPs, and I would suggest that people slow down a bit and talk about the desired edits more on the article's talk page. Otherwise, I think I might request protection. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

stop the hatchet job

someone at columbia university, no doubt a big banger, keeps doing a hatchet job on the article without first defending himself here 12.184.176.57 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I've chopped a bit out but left the list of people dissenting. It strikes me as strange the contortions they go to. I just had a look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Big_Bang as that sort of mindset seems to be the source of many strange pushes on Wikipedia but they didn't talk about tired light. They did have a citation to New Scientist about a load of people signing a petition about cosmology which is getting into the same area and the people pushing the tired light might follow up. http://www.conservapedia.com/Redshift says " However, creationist cosmologies also predict this expansion, so the evidence cannot be used in support of the Big Bang theory over creationist theories"so I can't hang the problems here on them then. Ah well one of my usual suspects innocent. Dmcq (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Professor M.J. Disney should be added in the section about dissenting scientists, he openly questions whether the cosmological redshift is actually caused by expanding space. see: Disney M.J.; http://www.americanscientist.org/authors/detail/michael-j-disney</REF> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.134.137 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq, thank you for your work on this. 71.98.134.137, where in the reference you provided is tired light mentioned specifically? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney of course does not use the derogatory term 'tired light', but you can see from the above quote of Hubble and Tolman, that if it is not due to expansion of space then it is tired light 'photons lose energy'. By the way, this important quote of Hubble and Tolman is in the article already. In fact none of those dissenting scientists use the derogatory term 'tired light'. Disney belongs in that section. 71.98.134.137 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That reference does not even mention redshift. It is a biographical note. Dmcq (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference you probably meant was Disney M.J. (2007), "Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?", American Scientist, vol. 95, no. 5, p. 383

It says 'the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift'. Omens with no proper citation to a scientific study count for squat.

Even so it might have been a reasonable citation had it said even that there was any sort of mention of anything similar to a tired light theory. There was none. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That Disney doubts that the redshift is due to expansion, means tired light. There is no other alternative. See the quote of Hubble and Tolman for this fact. Disney should definitely be referenced in the section on dissenting scientists. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney doubts the redshift is due to expanding space. The only alternative would then be tired light: See that Hubble-Tolman quote, they say clearly, if it is not due to expansion then it is tired light. So Disney clearly belongs in the section about dissenters. Fit him in there with a sentence naming him. 71.98.134.9 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Where in that article does he says he doubts expanding space? Where does he say he doubts redshift is due to expansion? Wikipedia needs definite statements rather depending on editors gut feel to interpret things widely. I don't see it. There seems to be too many steps which don't have a reasonable foundation in what you are saying. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney's page 4, he there says the big bang could all crumble, if the redshift turns out to not be caused by expansion, and he says more evidence is needed to prove expansion is real, he writes it on page 4: 'But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.' - So he is not convinced expansion is real. Also on page 4 he questions the Tolman test which is supposed to rule out tired light. Disney is clearly a dissenter. Add this reference to that section on dissenting scientists. 71.98.134.9 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He does not say he doubts it, he says getting more direct evidence is of paramount importance. And his omens do not look good about Tolman without any reference to an actual study is as I said before worth squat in this context when put up against things which actually use the actual figures and say the tired light ideas set one are ten standard deviations away from the actual figures. He doesn't say he supports tired light or a static cosmos or anything like that. He doesn't say he doubts cosmic expansion. He doesn't even mention tired light. May I point out to you that thinking there may be problems with something does not mean you doubt the whole business and embrace something without any good foundation whatsoever? If a see a picture looking like a person but with only one leg and you have been told people have two legs it does not mean they are a pogo stick. It can be either the definition of a person isn't quite as good as it should be or it might mean the picture is of something else entirely. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He doubts the big bang, just look at the title of his article where he calls the big bang a folktale, clear enough, he doubts it, so add Disney to the article's section about dissenting astronomers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.136.229 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a catch-all article for big bang doubters. It is about one very specific historical model meant to explain the Hubble Law. Nothing more. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the better sourced and accurate version

{{editprotected}}

Please restore this version of the article since only one itinerant pseudophysics researcher from Florida is supporting the other version and he has removed excellent sources such as Peebles and Silk while inserting unpublished, irrelevant, and downright incorrect sources in their stead.

Tiredlightishistory (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the lead, where edits had been made which seemed clearly to make things less good. However, many of the changes you want were not obviously improvements. Perhaps you could explain in more detail what your objections are. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you restored the Peebles reference in the lede. I had removed that earlier as I could not find support for that statement in the article, could you point me to where it does? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Peebles discusses the fact that the CMB spectrum falsified tired light on page 7. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific falsified models

In this section, what is meant by falsified models? Is this a term with a specific scientific meaning? If not, it appears to be very POV, unless sources use the phrase. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly POV but I'd be quite happy for the falsified to be removed. Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how it is meant? I mean, if it is just used to mean that the tired light models have not been validated by observation, I don't think it's a good way to phrase it. If, on the other hand, reliable sources use the term to say, for example, that data has been falsified, that would be different. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)d

Have you looked at falsifiability? Saying a theory has been falsified means the theory made specific predictions and those predictions have been found to differ significantly from what has been observed. That is exactly what the Peebles reference has shown. Is it that you would prefer a longer winded the predictions have been found to differ significantly from the measured figures? Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I was curious about, so it's fine as it is. No, it's long winded enough, I was just ignorant and confused. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I think I've come around to thinking it should be removed unless it is specifically needed so it shouldn't be used in that heading. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No less an expert on the subject than Tommaso Treu calls both the steady state and tired light models "falsified" in a lecture for his astrophysics course at UCSB: see page 16. If it's good enough for professional astrophysicists, why isn't it good enough for Wikipedia? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Wright, Peebles, and Treu seem to be a pretty iron-clad lock that the scientific community considers this model falsified. The CMB is probably the winner (as it normally is), but the surface brightness and time dilation tests don't hurt. I added these three names to the relevant locations. As to whether "falsified" belongs in the section title, that seems a bit more stylistic. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Petty bickering

Falsified is a very poor choice of words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.136.229 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Tired light" is a very poor choice of models. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No one believes in big bang nonsense but you. The man on the street is laughing at you. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because we all know how intelligent the man on the street is! [4]. Fortunately, most of them know that they aren't so smart. Unlike certain cranks. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not scientists

None of these works are reliable sources:

1. Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1
2. ^ Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1
3. ^ Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004)
4. ^ Masreliez C. Johan (2005), pretitle=print pages 13-20 "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108, doi:10.1007/s10509-005-4321-6, http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf pretitle=print pages 13-20
5. ^ Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-400, doi:10.1023/A:1002050702708

Neither are any of them scientists. Please remove the offending section which is lying about "recent controversy". Especially because none of the sources indicate: a) they are scientists or b) there is any controversy about this subject in the community that studies the subject.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll bring this up at RSN. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The only one who even comes remotely close is Lorenzo Zaninetti who is a lecturer at the University of Turin: [5]. However, he still published in Physics Essays which is essentially an outfit for publishing wild and crazy ideas and no one takes seriously. Wikipedia shouldn't be relying on such shoddy sources. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not scientists ? That is slanderous and a violation of Wikipedia rules. All three of them have PH.D.'s in Physics from major universities and you say they are not scientists ? What is a scientist to you, someone who believes in the big bang ? Someone at Columbia University, no doubt a big banger nut, will do anything to censor their published articles which explain the redshift as not caused by any hypothetical expansion of space. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pssht. If they were scientists, they'd be doing actual research instead of publishing in fringe journals. Mamas, Masreliez, and Zaninetti are unknown in cosmology. Ned Wright, PJE Peebles, Joe Silk, and Tommaso Treu are all giants in the field. We should include those who are recognized research scientists, not flies who are buzzing around the decaying remains of dead theories. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They are Ph.D. Physicists who explain the redshift with no expansion of space, no big bang at all, and are published in a journal that is published under the American Institute of Physics, and other journals. It is not up to you who is a big banger nut to censor them. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They apparently have no connection whatsoever with the research community, have no understanding of the CMB observations, time dilation, Tolman test, etc. They'd probably fail a basic astrophysics course if it came to it. People can opine about subjects that were hot fifty years ago, but that does not make them scientists. It can make them cranks, however. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you read their articles first ? And then why don't you try to publish a refutation against them ? Wikipedia works by publications, and not by you.71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When dead and dying ideas are ignored by the scientific community, it is hardly worth pursuing them in detail as the authors can be dismissed out-of-hand. That's how Wikipedia treats fringe proponents like yourself, at the end of the day, when they fail to get any attention. See WP:FRINGE. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not so dead and dying, still actively published today. You better listen to them. The big bang is hogwash nonsense. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the photos of the attendees at CCC2? [6] It looked like a convention for people who were soon to have their own funerals! 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture shows a pretty straightforward bunch of people as I might expect and even if they were as you said it would show noting about their work. Could you stop any silliness along these lines please. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain-a-diff

[7]

I did this because there are some clarifications needed about tired light. First of all, Joe Silk's book has a section on the subject that is of interest in particular because he points out that the models haven't been specifically falsified by the surface brightness test (supernovae type Ia light curves were not yet understood to be sufficiently uniform to guess that standard clocks would be available for the time dilation test). That gives a good segway between the 1950s interest and today's understanding of the subject.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Quasar time dilation

I removed a reference that said this:

While supernova light curve data are consistent with time dilation and rule out some static cosmologies, a 2010 comparison of quasar light curves at high and low redshifts did not show the expected evidence of time dilation, see Hawkins, M. R. S. (9 April 2010). "On time dilation in quasar light curves". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Bibcode:2010MNRAS.405.1940H. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x. ISSN 1365-2966. In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering time-scales from 50 d to 28 yr. Data from high- and low-redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The problem with this reference is that it is utterly irrelevant to supernovae. Quasars are not considered standard clocks and while the arguments relating to the Fourier transform of the frequency spectrum for quasar variability are perhaps of some interest to astronomers, they are utterly irrelevant to this page and the source makes absolutely no mention of tired light.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Contextualizing Crawford's Nature paper

[8]

Crawford's Nature paper, published in 1979, was not subject to falsification by the surface brightness or time dilation tests because observations were not yet sensitive enough for this (c.f. Joe Silk's book). However, there was other damning evidence regarding this, and the current constraints on the ISW make his mechanism totally unreasonable.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Tolman test is invalid because it does not take into consideration the dimming effects of cosmic dust. This criticism has been mentioned by professional astronomers. M.J. Disney noted this on page 4 of his article where he called the big bang a folktale. Brightness falls off as tired light theories predict, if one adds the effects of cosmic dust. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Show one paper that has indicated that Lubin and Sandage was wrong and quote the systematic effect errors in actual numbers rather than by hand-waving arguments from a popular science magazine. We'll be waiting! 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Professor Disney's article in American Scientist should be included in the wikipedia article here. He says it all. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought mathematics might be too hard for you. Maybe you could ask Professor Disney to do it for you. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The math is in all those articles you are trying to censor. And Professor Disney's article in American Scientist should be included in the wikipedia article here. He says it all: The big bang is a folktale, and the redshift could well not be due to expanding space at all.71.98.136.229 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the mathematical refutation of Lubin and Sandage in "those articles". Sorry this is so difficult for you to figure out. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You better study all those articles again. The arguments of Lubin are refuted. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Still can't come up with your own succinct mathematical statement on the subject, can you? That's okay. There are classes at your local community college that can help you brush up on it. We'll still be here when you figure it out. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you just tone it down please. This difference this article makes to the world is nada, why do you have to start on personal attacks over it? Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you teaching astrophysics courses? No? Well, I am and students do read this article. 2000 hits so far this month may seem like chump-change to Wikipedia, but when six of those hits are your students, you begin to take notice. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your students are waking up and you are embarrassed. All astronomers have egg on their faces with the big bang nonsense so don't feel bad. 71.98.136.229 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Unable to do those math problems still? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you both stay off the WP:Personal attacks please or you will get blocked. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is very strange, I wouldn't expect that number from 2000. Did you give a talk about tired light? Perhaps some people are tweaking you knowing it annoys you? Do they really think there is something to tired light? Or is there something more to it like those creationists who become geologists and then try and tell everyone the Grand Canyon was a result of the flood? Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no talk. It's just part of the history of cosmology, tis all. If you go back to other months, you'll see it's generally over 1000 per month. Your Grand Canyon creationist example is probably a closer one to what's going on. A fan of tired light cosmology and the subject appears occasionally on crankier websites. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about it I can see that's a reasonable number. If you are wanting to accuse another user of sockpuppetry then you should raise a request at WP:SPI. And I'll stick a warning on your talk page about WP:OUTING an retract those bits in your postings, it'll get you banned rather than just blocked if you continue. Dmcq (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This user IP-hops. How am I supposed to deal with that? SPI forms are for other situations it seems. Can you help? Additionally, are you saying it's problematic to say this is User:Licorne, or is it just problematic to use his real name? Because if you want me to stick to User:Licorne, I can do that. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, took your advice: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Licorne#Licorne. Let's see if it works. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

128.59.169.46 is Licorne and he should be banned for vandalizing the article. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's super special. Is that why User:66.194.104.5 labels you as such? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, got your number. Now go back to brainwashing your students with big bang garbage. They're all laughing at you. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe we were instructed to avoid personal attacks. Perhaps we should start? I guess WP:RBI applies. Maybe I'll just start reverting you and dispense with pretense of communication. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The way of dealing with persistent ips that hop is to protect the article from edits from ips so only registered users can do it, and even then they have to wait a little while, see WP:PROTECT. This is one of the plusses of registering a username and getting it autoconfirmed. Dmcq (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe you guys should just protect it forever so he gets the picture? I have no interest in registering. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You should be banned forever, wikipedia rules, do not censor published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay have asked for semi-protection of the article. I'm thinking should probably do it for the talk page too judging from the 'discussion' above. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's now semi-protected, which is great. Can you remove the content that User:Licorne inserted per WP:BAN? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Five months later, he's shown to be wrong

Is it right to include a paper by Crawford from 1979 that was five months later shown to be fundamentally flawed? [9]

128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

History out of wack

It appears that Alpher was responding to Browne in the 1962 editions of Nature, not the other way around as the article used to say. I fixed it: [10].

128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Age of precision cosmology

I added a reference so that people know when the Age of Precision Cosmology began. [11].

128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Undo this edit. Per WP:BAN and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne and the confirmation by an administrator that this is ban evasion seen here. More background on antecedents to this situation can be found here.

Thanks.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. For the record, though I didn't participate in any of the above conversation, 128.59.169.46 is generally correct about the status of tired light among astronomers and cosmologists: interesting from a historical perspective, but now fringe and ignored. The article as it stands does a good job representing this, I think. - Parejkoj (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are partial because you are an astronomer who works with the big bang theory. Restore the published sources immediately. You are violating wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF and WP:No personal attacks. I had left it as per WP:WRONG even though I thought it was silly. You now have another user who has said they think it should not be in. You can always register as a user and do some useful edits an come back. However if you start with accusations like this you won't last long on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The 5 sources should not be censored, restore the section on recent controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Restore section on Recent Controversy

Wikipedia's rules are that published sources must be included. Restore the 5 referenced sources in the section about recent controversy. Astronomers hate it because astronomers are heavily invested into the big bang theory, but Wikipedia's rules are that published sources cannot be censored just because astronomers don't like what they say in the published sources. Restore the 5 referenced articles by authors Mamas, Zaninetti, and Masreliez, and do not censor these 5 published articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, wikipedia's rules state that reliable, secondary sources should be cited. Do you have a link to where the wikipedia guidelines state "...that published sources must be included"? Because the page I cited directly contradicts your statement. All five of those papers are primary sources, and most of them are not from reliable sources. The article already has a number of secondary sources (e.g., textbooks and review papers), and what you claim is a "recent controversy" is not a controversy at all, since a controversy requires acknowledgement by an opposing party.

Also, I do not "work with the big bang theory," though I do test the validity of ΛCDM as part of my work. Haven't found any problems with it so far, contrary to your claims.

It looks like the above banned user (66.XX...) has switched IPs to continue spamming these talk pages. How does one deal with that? - Parejkoj (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are an astronomer, then you do everything with reference to the big bang, all your redshift and time scales go back to the big bang theory, so you are partial to it. Those 5 referenced articles are in perfectly good journals. If you don't like the title 'Recent Controversy' then include those 5 references under the section title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models'. 71.98.133.122 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The article talk page could be semi-protected too but it's better to avoid that so ips with a contribution to make can say something easily. I had wondered about that but I think we're better off just enduring more of the same before trying going down that path. Dmcq (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree, but if the bickering/ranting continues much longer, I fear we will have no choice. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3