| Revision as of 17:09, 2 January 2006 editIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:46, 2 January 2006 edit undoIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 edits Copy of entry misplaced on Talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| This article represents the ] and a ] of the ] article by ]. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of ] who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of ] proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the ] article. --] 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | This article represents the ] and a ] of the ] article by ]. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of ] who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of ] proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the ] article. --] 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is '']''. | :The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is '']''. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
| :*Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's ] policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy. | :*Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's ] policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy. | ||
| :--] 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | :--] 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I (]) have copied this entry directly from the page: | |||
| I don't have time for prolonged bickering about this topic. There is research published in professional astronomical journals that discusses the topic of intrinsic redshifts. Ian has linked to those articles. That alone is enough to justify the existence of this article. As for the writing of the article - that is something that can progress. I don't think it is unfair to make sure that the article states that the hypothesis of intrinsic redshifts is a speculative, minority view. However, there is a use in having this article as a reference to what an "intrinsic redshift" might be. | |||
| One of the difficulties is that there are a lot of different controversial redshift mechanisms and some of them may be "intrinsic" and some of them are not. For clarity it should be understood that the Hubble relation defines the cosmological redshift. Expansion of the universe is the accepted mechanism for cosmological redshift. Tired light mechanisms provide another attempt to explain cosmological redshift. | |||
| Intrinsic redshift specifically refers to variations in the observed redshift of individual objects (galaxies, quasars ... ) that vary from object to object such that two objects at the same distance might have vastly different redshifts. Note that "intrinsic redshifts" - if real - may be superposed upon the cosmological redshift. So properly speaking, anything that attempts to explain all of the observed redshift as cosmological (expansion, tired light) belongs in the main "Redshift" article - or an article titled "cosmological redshift". Any redshift mechanisms that are superposed upon the cosmological redshift defined by the Hubble relation would properly belong in the "intrinsic redshift" article. | |||
| I see no reason to provide any edits to the article until this issue of its existence is resolved. --] 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:46, 2 January 2006
Intrinsic redshift
This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is in progress.
- Claiming the article is based on one reference is false (that completely ignores the other 30+ references).
- Claiming the article is based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper" is false. The article referred to appears in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series"
- Claiming that the article is original research is false; Misplaced Pages says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done.
- Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Misplaced Pages says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.
- Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.
- Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.
- --Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I (Iantresman) have copied this entry directly from the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift page:
I don't have time for prolonged bickering about this topic. There is research published in professional astronomical journals that discusses the topic of intrinsic redshifts. Ian has linked to those articles. That alone is enough to justify the existence of this article. As for the writing of the article - that is something that can progress. I don't think it is unfair to make sure that the article states that the hypothesis of intrinsic redshifts is a speculative, minority view. However, there is a use in having this article as a reference to what an "intrinsic redshift" might be.
One of the difficulties is that there are a lot of different controversial redshift mechanisms and some of them may be "intrinsic" and some of them are not. For clarity it should be understood that the Hubble relation defines the cosmological redshift. Expansion of the universe is the accepted mechanism for cosmological redshift. Tired light mechanisms provide another attempt to explain cosmological redshift.
Intrinsic redshift specifically refers to variations in the observed redshift of individual objects (galaxies, quasars ... ) that vary from object to object such that two objects at the same distance might have vastly different redshifts. Note that "intrinsic redshifts" - if real - may be superposed upon the cosmological redshift. So properly speaking, anything that attempts to explain all of the observed redshift as cosmological (expansion, tired light) belongs in the main "Redshift" article - or an article titled "cosmological redshift". Any redshift mechanisms that are superposed upon the cosmological redshift defined by the Hubble relation would properly belong in the "intrinsic redshift" article.
I see no reason to provide any edits to the article until this issue of its existence is resolved. --DavidRussell 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)