This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History of Science Low‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005—2006) Archive 2 (2007—2008)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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} / _mine 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

{{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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]