Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 3 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)

• Keep. 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. --Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming the article is based on one reference is false (that completely ignores the other 30+ references).

This was not claimed above. Please strike it out or remove it. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming the article is based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper" is false. The article referred to appears in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series" and includes over 700 references itself, the majority being peer reviewed.

This was not claimed above. Please strike it out or remove it. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• 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. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)

However, this article is about categorizing a number of different ideas which have their own pages and explanations as novel representations of redshift mechanisms. That is what is original research. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• 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.

The subject is already treated on the redshift page. It was agreed in discussion there that a list such as this was not only unnecessary, it represented an inappropriate POV endorsement. As it is, your decision to write this article is the very definition of a POV-fork. You opted out of the redshift discussion and created a new article to deflect criticism. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• 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.

Anything worth salvaging in this article could easily be merged to Non-standard cosmology. However, I was talking about sources. --ScienceApologist

• 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.

The creation of this page as a POV-fork is technically a violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by my criticisms, which are also based on your comment on the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift#Article_for_deletion Talk page where you wrote "This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s"
• I have answered all your previous points elsewhere.
• --Iantresman 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Either rename and link from redshift, or merge. Motivation:

- I agree with ScienceApologist that it's apparently a POV fork. However, the cause of a POV fork is often insufficient accounting for that POV in the main article, and a quick look shows that the redshift article is lacking on a number of points, especially as the article he/she apparently refers to is titled "redshift" and not "cosmological redshift". I repeat here my earlier comments on the Talk page: this article certainly fills a gap (I learned something today thanks to it!) but to make it general and NPOV, it should be called "List of redshift mechanisms", and be linked from the redshift article, containing all notable past and current cosmological as well as non-cosmological redshift hypotheses. Such a page will be very useful as general reference, and free from any POV. Harald88 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed redshift mechanisms" could be adequately addressed on the non-standard cosmology page where a lot of these things come from. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The redshift article already (appropriately) deals with scattering redshift mechanisms, with most of the details (appropriately) left to the scattering article. An (appropriate) brief mention and link is made to the tired light article (although this seems to flicker a bit). The only theory that is not covered, but might be with a link, is Arp's 1997 hypothesis. --Art Carlson 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Misplaced Pages), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):

Terms

• Intrinsic redshift
• Non-cosmological redshift
• Non-velocity redshifts or Non-Doppler Redshift
• Anomalous Redshift or Discordant redshift
• Redshift quantization
• Neutrino redshift
• "Corrected" redshifts

Theories

• Halton Arp's theory
• Plasma redshift
• Greenberger's theory of "variable mass particles" who proposes a "decay redshift" . See also
• Pecker's photon-photon interaction But see
• Evershed Effect
• Urbanovich's external influences
• The Simkin effect
• Effect of Mass on Frequency (?)
• Ageing of photons by collisions with a hypothetical particle
• Interaction between incident transverse photons and light neutral bosons
• Photon radiation density and path length
• Photon-boson scattering
• Photon motion in the discrete space-time under the photon's own force field.
• Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity
• Inelastic transmission of photons in gases

Observations

• Solar limb redshift
• Anomalous shift from Pioneer VI

--Iantresman 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above list represents a ridiculous amount of original research amalgamation. Your list contains redundancies and points of view that are only relevant because you "say so". This kind of POV-pushing needs to be elimintaed from Misplaced Pages. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• 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. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
• I agree that there may be redundancies, and similar theories that can be combined. However they are not listed because "I say so", but because other people have said so I (hence the citations). This is not point of viewing since I have presented the information in an unbiased manner; it would be POV-ing if I put my own spin on the information.
• Joshua, with your expertise in astronomy, you might even be aware of some redshift theories that I have not included, and you are of course welcome to include them. And also correct others that I have misunderstood.

--Iantresman 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

twice keep on discussion page

(But why do they state it there instead of here where it belongs?) Harald88 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)