Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 28 January 2006

The misinterpretation of redshift

It is stated in the main article that "mechanism of tired light is not known" and the tired light is interpreted as photons losing energy on their way or photons lowering their frequency on their way, popularly known as "redshift". The problem is that photons don't really lower their frequency on their way and so the mechanism is an empty idea. If it does not exist it can't be known. It is similar to knowing the reason for God if there is no God.

Photons start their journey from the source with lower frequency for the reason of the Einsteinian time dilation at the source. Such thing happens in gravitational "redshift", not really a redshift but only an ordinary (gravitational) time dilation. The lower time rate at the source of light.

It turns out that the Hubble redshift is a similar thing, however not "ordinary" but "general" (graviatational) time dilation. It is not described in the scientific litarature because editors of scientific journals prefer to keep the big bang theory alive and it couldn't stand the competition with the Einsteinian "general time dilation" (conclusion of Einsteinian gravitation that I noticed already in 1985 but which proved unpablishable) and so the general time dilation is better kept not officially known as it might put a monkey wrench into big bang theory. That's why we can't put it into the official article.

The idea of this type of time dilation that has no Newtonian counterpart and so it is purely relativistic effect (originating in general relativity as a consequence of the principle of consrvation of energy) is explained (possibly adequately, if not then please ask for clarifications) in my article The general time dilation (relativistic redshift in stationary clouds of dust). This consequence of Einstein's theory, overlooked by Einstein himself, predicts many observations that puzzle big bang cosmologists as e.g. "accelerating expansion" of space, "anomalous" acceleration of space probes, and it may even predict the high "redshift" of quasars that would be identical with what Halton Arp proposed as an explanation for it however without that much faith in Einsteinian gravitation as shown by this author:-). Most importantly, unlike the big bang theory, it does not contradict any already known physics. However the lack of freedom of discussing those things officially forces us to discuss them on "discussion" pages if someone has some objections against existence of the phenomenon of general time dilation. If you have any objections please provode them after this section in the section titled "Objections against general time dilation". Jim 21:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

misleading sentence

Yes that tired light has no basis is stated but it's erroneous: it follows from standard mechanics that light that Compton forward scatters must redshift, assuming that the accepted laws of mechanics are valid. Thus "No physical mechanism for tired light has ever been demonstrated" is misleading and must be changed. Harald88 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

You'd have a hell of a battle on your hands with Witten, Hawking, Kaku and Greene just to name a few. Think you're up to the challenge? Jim62sch 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Objections against general time dilation

None so far?

The pages on the subject were deleted as original research sometime back. This link is therefore removed. --ScienceApologist 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw a similar reasoning in the paper by Zwicky; can you substantiate that that article by Jastrzebski doesn't simply explain it more? I have not yet read it. Harald88 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jastrzebski's main contention is that an non-symmetric metric can account for the expansion of space. He digs out a comment by Einstein to this effect that was further expanded upon by Zwicky, but misses the comparison to Zwicky's tired light. Since general time dilation was deleted in accordance with policy, there is no reason to keep it as a link (it is original research as it currently stands). --ScienceApologist 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

mechanism for Tired Light - Lyndon Ashmore

The most recent edit to this page ("A mechanism for Tired Light has now been put forward...") looks very much as though it was posted by the author of the reference in question, specifically attempting to advertise his own theory. This would seem to be counter to the intention and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I would recommend that the addition be removed, or modified to be a more neutral assessment of the link in question. Grey

Indeed, it can be neutralised as there has been a peer reviewed paper on Compton scattered tired light. I'll try to find it back. Harald88 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

BTW, according to whom does gas reflect photons, rather than preserving their trajectory? I don't know of a peer reviewed paper claiming such, and I dare say that I can see fairly well through air... Harald88 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a very precise statement. You can see through air because most photons pass through largely unaffected. In Compton scattering, however, the shift in wavelength in the scattered photon is related to the angle by which it is deflected. The shift is largest when the photon is reflected straight back, decreases as the angle of deflection gets smaller, and goes to zero when there is no deflection at all. So the problem with a tired light model using Compton scattering is that, if the wavelength is shifted, the light should be scattered by some amount (which would then blur the image), while if the photon's direction remains the same, there is no wavelength shift at all. Grey, 13:37, 23 December, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! But if I understand well, in pure Compton scattering, light cannot go straight at all, for there can be no scattering while going straight... However, on average, we *know* that light interacts with the air molecules, and that it goes straight without much blurring, while by the laws of mechanics it *should* give off energy to those molecules... Anyway, now that the argument is clear, please correct that sentence, or maybe I'll do it later (just have to think how to say it correctly). Harald88 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Compton scattering technically works fine all the way to a scattering angle of zero (with no energy lost), and actually, by the laws of mechanics, there should be no energy lost if it's not scattered, just as we see. In the case of interacting with air (for example) without scattering, what's happening on a microscopic scale is essentially a photon being absorbed and re-emitted (it's really more of a resonance process), resulting in a transmission delay but no change in the photon itself. If you don't get to it, I'll go over all of this after the holidays and see if I can clean it up a bit.

My textbook confuses "scattering" and "absorption-reemission". IMO, true bouncing at zero angle is no interaction at all, and can't explain refractive index. How can scattering at any other angles happen without energy exchange from the photons to the electrons? And if instead of the keyword scattering one flees to the keyword absorption, bremsstrahlung is to be taken into account. If there is a peer reviewed article that defends the idea that bremsstrahlung can be avoided in a collision, then indeed it might be argued that absorption and reemission can be envisioned to take place without loss of primary photon energy. If anyone here knows of a good review paper that would be great! Harald88 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel like there is an entire chapter on this subject in Rybicki and Lightman, but alas the book is eluding me at the moment. --ScienceApologist 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't push POV but come with sound arguments

Recently two people decided to replace facts by apparent misinformation, without any explanation on this page. A clarification as well as some comments on earlier discussions on this page would be useful to avoid an edit war. Harald88 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed version of my objections:

For the tired light hypothesis to fully explain Hubble's law, it must involve physical processes that are currently unaccounted for. - Tired light does not even partially explain Hubble's law.

Mechanisms for Tired Light have been put forward in several papers (Marmet, Carezani) in which photons lose energy by interacting with electrons and other particles in intergalactic space. - That's scattering, not tired light, and scattering causes blurring, among other things.

One alternative scatter model is claimed to predict Compton scattering with a higher accuracy than the original Compton model. - We don't have to report every claim that someone makes. If there is a significant problem with the accuracy of standard Compton calculations, that should be reported in the Compton scattering article.

According to standard theory, bremsstrahlung is radiated away at any collision with a charged particle such as an electron due to the acceleration, from which one may conclude that a very small energy loss should occur at each interaction. - So what? This statement is useless without any quantification and without any reference to the blurring that would be associated with significant scattering.

Some adherents even claim that such a model is able to explain the magnitude of the Hubble constant as well as the existence of the CMB . - Some significant group of adherents? Or one guy with a web site?

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

My objections were, in more detail:

- The article of Marmet is about absorption and reemission; if I remember well, the one of Carezani is also not really about scattering (please read first before criticizing!)

Absorption and reemission is scattering. This is the way it is handled in detailed radiative transfer. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

And what does that imply for your rejection of their articles? Show peer reviewed articles that disprove them or even refer to them and disagree, and we have a basis to omit them. Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- confusion between the concept of a redshift mechanism and a proposed explanation of cosmological redshift; your remark that the correctness of Compton theory doesn't matter for this article is obviously wrong, as it was part of the argumentation against tired light models in this article! Nevertheless, your suggestion to add Carezani's article to the Compton article may be a good idea.

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

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

I didn't say it didn't matter (although it doesn't). I said such theories should be dealt with appropriately in the primary article. Once that is done, a link there may be sufficient. --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Interesting, I did not know that, nor that it would be notably blurred. And so far I don't believe it; please provide a reference. Note however, that that is not directly relevant for the issue if the mechanism exists, or that no such mechanism is known as you claim... despite that we now discuss this mechanism that you make Misplaced Pages claim that it is not known. So how can we discuss it? Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- my further objection was the resulting scientific fraud by removing any trace of such mechanisms and next stating that no such mechanisms are known. "If the tired light hypothesis were to be true, it must involve currently unkown physical processes" is a downright lie. That goes beyond Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. I suppose that you didn't know because you have not read the references.

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

What is written by scientists in peer reviewed journals and based on sound physics, can in Misplaced Pages only be called ünknown" or "cranky" if you can refer to another peer reviewed article that debunks it. IMO. you are currently violating the most basic of Misplaced Pages requirements. Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, watch your language! (And remember to assume good faith.) We seem to disagree about the plausibility that some known physics can act in some unknown way. I still hold that to be implausible, or at least worthy of the designation "new physics". --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Physics that has been published in a peer reviewd journals a number of years ago, and that has never been rebuked can't be called "new physics" and certainly not be called "unknown", except insofar as people like you try to suppress it from being known! Harald88 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I trust I have helped clarify matters. I will now make a fair and neutral revert. --Art Carlson 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust that the result will be a great article that might even surpass the quality of other such articles in journals and textbooks.

I left a referral to a counter opinion about Hubble constant as well as CMB for the simple reason that, as far as I saw, there was no support at all for the claim of the article that "They do not account for the the black body spectrum or anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background". That claim is apparently unsustained and erroneous, but I regard that as "work in progress". If you like, we can remove both that claim and the reference to all non-peer reviewed papers.

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

Harald88 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, your advocacy of non-standard alternatives isn't based in scientific rationale but rather is based on rather far-flung explanations not currently accepted by any cosmologist. The policy on undue weight in the NPOV section demands that we do not give a platform for such nonsense. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I do not advocate "tired light" as a realistic alternative to Hubble shift -- although I could change my mind one day. Moreover, your continued sabotage on redshift to provide for interested persons an easy to find historical link to a known historical alternative as well as your claim that peer reviewed standard science mechanisms would be "nonsense" can't be considered as anything else but POV pushing. Thus: no thanks! -- reverse and POV dispute marking.

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

Your new stand is a new argument -- based on what? And I noticed that you "forgot" the POV banner... here an easy link for others to what this dispute is about:] Harald88 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Does "tired light" have to involve photons?

The opening sentence at present restricts the notion of tired light to photon theories. Presumably this is what Zwicky discussed, but couldn't one equally consider it for pure wave theories of light? The kind of thing I have in mind is Roberto Monti's hypothesis that the wavelength simply increases gradually in time as the amplitude decreases. No assumption of Compton scattering (or not necessarily) -- just slight dampling -- the kind of thing that happens to a water wave. A possible objection, though, is that with water waves the increase is, I gather, accompanied by an increase in velocity. This does not seem to be observed -- or is it? Caroline Thompson 10:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The velocity of water waves remains the same as it is determined by the medium. "Pure wave theories" of light don't exist anymore for a variety of reasons. Photons can be said to have wavelengths just like any other waveparticle. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As waves roll into a beach the velocity changes with depth, so the wavelength changes, too. What cannot change, except with an additional interaction like scattering, is the frequency. This, coupled with the constancy of the speed of light, is the real trouble explaining vacuum redshifts except by Doppler, expansion of space, or time dilation. I tried to point this out in the article, but it may not be clear enough. --Art Carlson 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing the depth of the water in some sense effectively changes the medium conditions for the water wave. I was under the impression that User:Caroline Thompson was referring to damping surface waves as in a pond of uniform depth where the wavelengths of waves increase as the wave gets further from the source. But now that I think of it, I seem to remember that this is effectively a diffusion effect due to viscosity, so maybe it's not velocity-independent either. Nutz. --ScienceApologist 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tired light this is not

Removed:

In recent years, new tired light mechanisms have been put forward (Marmet 1988, Carezani 1993), in which photons lose energy by interacting with electrons and other particles in intergalactic space. According to standard theory, bremsstrahlung is radiated away at any collision with a charged particle such as an electron so that a very small energy loss occurs at each interaction, which necessarily results in a redshift.

This isn't tired light, though the advocates have tried to make theoretical comparisons. This is a kind of "scattering" effect that is criticized mostly for other reasons. Tired light is independent of absorption/emission (that is, technically, scattering) processes. It was proposed by Zwicky as a new feature of photons -- truly new physics. These proposals are not of the same variety. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is right then the article is wrong, see further; but if you are right, the contents of that paragraph belongs in either the Redshift article or in the Redshift mechanisms article. Please back up your claim that "tired light" is not what the "tired light" article defines as such; and next correct its definition to make it only cover what it is, and not what it is not. The article would be largely wrong if you are right, as it now states:

"Tired light is the hypothesis that photons of light slowly lose energy as they travel through space. Various mechanisms to produce such a drop in energy have been proposed. Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would be expected to blur the images of distant objects, which is not observed."

BTW, that last sentence is unwarranted for the "scattering" process that you removed: it refers to another mechanism.

The initial paper by Zwicky is useful here. The idea proposed is that photons "get tired" not from a stochastic process but rather from an intrinsic property of the light. Nevertheless, people have claimed that scattering processes could do this, and this is discounted in the above paragraph correctly. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologist, you have been nagging to censor this information from this article just as you attempted to hide the whole tired light subject from the redshift article -- unmistakenly in order to make a strong as possible apology for a single POV about Cosmological redshift. This is part of a pattern, contrary to my attempts to help making Misplaced Pages the most informative and unbiased encyclopedia ever. You are now simultaneously trying to delete an exhaustive list of redshift mechanisms which should be linked to from the Redshift article. If your strategy to censor out a number of known redshift mechanisms from Misplaced Pages will be successfull, it can only lead to a POV notice on the Redshift article as well. Harald88 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor any information at all. I just want things covered appropriately in the correct articles. Marmet's ideas could be put on the non-standard cosmology page, for example. They don't belong here. You may need to reread the WP:NPOV guidelines in particular the information regarding pseudoscience and undue weight. Bogging down articles on subjects such as redshift with "alternative" ideas from discredited individuals such as Marmet is not inline with Misplaced Pages policy. We can cover his ideas well on the appropriate pages devoted either to him or to nonstandard cosmology. --ScienceApologist 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We both want to do that, I'm glad to see that we at least agree about something basic. Do you claim that the attempts to explain the Hubble shift with Tired light is not part of non-standard cosmology? Then why is it included there? And why do you find Zwicky's paper less "alternative" than Marmet's? You confuse science with pseudoscience, and NPOV with prejudice and bias -- but that is hardly surprising as the very name "ScienceApologist" is almost a contradiction in terms. Come up with a non-discredited, peer reviewed article that discredits his, and we have a basis for omitting it. BTW, I did not know that non-standard cosmology article until today. It may be a good idea to merge this article with that article. Harald88 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Historically, Zwicky's paper was/is much more notable than Marmet's. The point is that Marmet is slightly more "cranky" than Zwicky was and there are very few astronomers who take it seriously enough to address it in the normal fora. Marmet has considerable trouble publishing his cosmological fads there anyway. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, you apparently regard "Tired light" to be owned by astronomers. However, tired light is first of all a physical process, and not astronomical observation. I noticed a similar problem with redshift, where it took others a considerable effort to make it more general than cosmic redshift. Anyway, your inconsistency above about selectively including scattering only for negative comments while excluding what you call scattering because "it is not tired light" can't make me do anything else but revert again. Harald88 20:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an unreasonable revert. It isn't based on anything but your own POV. If you won't own up to this, we can get nowhere. Zwicky wrote the tired light paper and he proposed it as independent. That's the end of the story. --ScienceApologist 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is making the unreasonable reverts because of your intolerant POV, and the "reason" you give here isn't any good, avoiding all my requests about quality reasons instead of nonsense to exclude this information. As I explained, if what you state is correct (but I'm sure it isn't), then you'll have to delete much more of the remaining article (but of course you won't). Point. Harald88 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Quality reasons"? "nonsense"? "I'm sure it isn't"? Have you even read Zwicky's paper on the subject? Comments like this make me believe you haven't and are just here trumpeting your own perspective without bothering to take anyone else's into account. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at Zwicky's paper yes, and he proposed gravitational drag after mentioning some othr less likely mechanisms. I did not notice any mention of "tired light" for either that specific mechanism or the general category. In any case, you can't have it selectively both ways.

Here is an example of what I see as quality reasoning, after re-reading the paper by Carezani: His paper is, contrary to Marmet's, not based on standard theory and it doesn't really add anything to Marmet's except for citing and summarizing it; moreover, the Compton effect is not anymore mentioned in the article. Altogether that makes Carezani's paper rather unnotable. Thus I will remove reference to his paper.

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

Please do not remove the stub designation

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

ScienceApologist you are mistaken, and please don't try to tell me that what I see with my own eyes is not true. Just click on the right link and you understand that it is an open invitation for people to just start typing:

This astronomy-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

. Moreover, it's not a real stub; instead it's you who made the article into a fake stub. Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT remove the stub designation

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

The rationale was due to your removal of the sub that I added according to common sense, and which you did not recognize (see above). Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Cabal Mediation

Hey,

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

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

I would especially like to hear from User:ScienceApologist.

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

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

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

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

What is tired light

ScienceApostel argued:

"In terms of "tired light", I rely for the definition on the paper which proposed it: Zwicky, Fritz, 1929, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773-779."

-> Where exactly? I must have overlooked it.

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

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

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

I guess to be more specific, it is his point F which is his version tired light, generalizable to physical processes that can be parametrized by the metric components in the GR-equations. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. Then the article's claims about what tired light is have at the moment no verifiable basis (except for the websites which you reject!); thus we have no common basis for discussion of what belongs to the tired light category. Harald88 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He also wrote: "There are websites which claim that "tired light" is due to the interaction of light with matter (which is also known as scattering)."

-> which ones? They may have useful references.

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

Thanks, Harald88 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The page looked like "tired light" is a new kid's toy that you could order from the back of a comic book or off of a bazooka wrapper. But, given the silliness of the argument, maybe that's fitting. Jim62sch 01:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The page basically looked the same as now, only longer. Why the remark that the page "looked like a kid's toy"? There wasn't even an image or animation included. Harald88 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's the "Big Bang Blasted" graphic, with a simulated explosion. If one wishes to make a rational argument for tired light (or at least try to make one), doing so in a tabloid or advertising fashion certainly isn't going to accomplish one's goal (Actually, upon further review, the page looks like something from the National Enquirer). Jim62sch 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No graphics at all shows on my computer! There is currently only a few lines of text, and in the old version I haven't seen graphics either... Are you sure that you are commenting on the correct article? Harald88 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

Okay, I now realize that this article needs to be completely rewritten. We need to eliminate the scattering discussion, the novel interpretations, etc. I think the entire article should be rewritten. --ScienceApologist 03:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as nobody presents a verifiable, sufficiently general definition of "tired light", nothing can be done. Harald88 04:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

We might consider stubbing the article and starting from scratch. We know that tired light was proposed by Zwicky so that's verified. Everything else can be scrapped. What do you think? --ScienceApologist 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and stubbed it since there didn't seem to be any response. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have mixed feelings about it; but perhaps stubbing will attract the attention of someone who can give a few good references. Harald88 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm has to go from that stub: you contest the implied meaning of "Tired light". I do that now. Harald88 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Who is disputing the reference? Are you? --ScienceApologist 22:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Here above you wrote that you would remove all references except that of Zwicky; but you forgot to remove the reference of an article according to which Compton scattering was a proposed Tired light mechanism -- with which possibility you now strongly disagree. Harald88 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't proposed as a tired light mechanism. Compton scattering is mentioned as something that "in particular" would not work. The critique applies to tired light in general. Please don't edit on behalf of me. Either state your reasons for editting based on your own ideas or don't edit at all. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do as you said, and now you insist; moreover I can't interpret this as anything else but pure nonsense. Thus: no, your proposal to rework it into a stub that pushes your POV under a false pretension is not acceptable to me! Revert to old version. Harald88 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

References that conform to Misplaced Pages guidelines to the term "Tired light" are very welcome.

Hi Cobaltbluetony, why did you move it to here? That is not useful as it is already here above, and its purpose is that people will not repeat the error that was made in the first place by just typing ideas (as after your action people may do, for the "expanding it" link does not point to this discussion page) without first establishing what is meant with "tired light". Reinsert. Harald88 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement was not in keeping with an encyclopedic article, nor was it grammatically structured well. Discussions relating to the editing of articles should take place on the talk pages, not within the article itself. I took this concept, partly from my time here, and partly from Misplaced Pages:Avoiding_common_mistakes as a guide to content of articles, Deleting Useful Content.

Let me take a look at the discussions here, and see if I can think of a way to address the intent of the sentence I moved. Since it seemed to be useful to the article, but not in the right place, I moved it here. What it seems to indicate is that you need sourcing for this article. Other than that I have yet to discern the controvery, so give me some time to review. - CobaltBlueTony 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is actually an ongoing dispute as to what qualifies as a legitimate source. I contend that certain authors (Marmet, Carezani, and others) incorrectly incorporate tired light as an idea into their work to lend it legitimacy inappropriately. User:Harald88 contends that such a contension is effectively POV-pushing and has instead demanded that only peer-reviewed articles be included. I think that Tired Light should be confined to context of the original Zwicky paper (which doesn't actually use the term as it was coined later by other enterprising scientists) and as such there are certain websites (for example, by Ned Wright) which deserve inclusion since they are based on peer-reviewed papers about the subject. However, I would exclude Marmet's paper as being a red herring and actually about his own pet theory that is unrelated to tired light.

So we're left with a stub article and no agreement on what to use as a reference.

--ScienceApologist 17:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost correct: In the context of a good collection of references I did not ask for removal of Ned Wright's reference, which, BTW, suggests another definition of tired light than only Zwicky's "pet theory". And User:ScienceApologist forgot to mention that there was apparent consensus on what is meant with the term until he discovered that the current definition covers more than only rejected theories... Harald88 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The dabate about these authors seems in itself inexorably linked to the scientific process of studying and and writing about the topic on a professional level. I think we need a WikiExpert to help us document all resources to the extent that we can verify their legitimacy. If you can provide me with a list of the resources, I work for UPenn and can access professors who can clear up this debacle and help us pin down verifiable and reputable sources (whether or not the professors may agree with the conclusion therein). - CobaltBlueTony 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but at the moment, according to ScienceApologist, we have no good resource that defines "Tired light", while we should have several in order to define this article's boundaries. That's why we put up the request. According to him, the current description that "Tired light is the hypothesis that light slowly loses energy as it travels through space" is much too general. Harald88 18:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. Isn't making that statement and sourcing it sufficient? Is it the validity of the sources that is causing this to be questioned? - CobaltBlueTony 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing it is exactly the problem! Is our request for sources for the term tired light not clear enough? Apparently (I have not read them all), none of the sources that he accepts bothers to directly define the "tired light" concept, and his interpretation of the implied meaning differs from that of others.

Interestingly, I misunderstood that he disagrees with the current definition: the current definition turns out to be ambiguous, see below.

For the context, this is the article that he now completely rejects:

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

Harald88 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will let the Cabal process work its course, then. I would suggest that you exercise patience, therefore, and move on to another needed edit or something so you can clear your mind of the debates. IMHO ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

According to him, the current description that "Tired light is the hypothesis that light slowly loses energy as it travels through space" is much too general. -- I disagree with this portrayal of my position. I agree with the current definition, I just do not agree that it corresponds to scattering which demands interactions between light and matter. space can be defined as a vacuum with no matter whatsoever. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

What is a WikiExpert and how do I become one? --ScienceApologist 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a term I made up for someone who is good at determining sources; it's not a real term that I know of. But the above-mentioned cabal case should hopefully help to resolve your problems, if you give it time. - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, sorry about the delay on tired light, I have been preoccupied with a long mediation on the Jehovah's Witnesses page. I will take a look at the issues again. I was thinking about heading over to the library, maybe this weekend. It appears there is at least one book on the subject, so maybe that will give me some fresh insight. Thanks, SteveMc 05:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

correct template

Thank you for addressing your concerns for the main article using a Wiki template. This was exactly the proper direction to go, and adds both more good faith, as well as credence to the subject matter at hand, or at least your effrots to make it accurate and verifiable. Good job! - CobaltBlueTony 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The newly added template is indeed an improvement but does not accurately describe the problem, nor does it incite people to first consult this Talk page, as should be done... Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

unstub and add appropriate template

The current article misrepresents itself as a stub, and despite some clarification, it still incites people to just type away instead of consulting this Talk page.

IMO it is not standard practice to stub a disputed article, and in view of the Cabal mediation, it's more appropriate and informative to present the full article that ScienceApologist disputes, with a "Disputeabout|Topic of dispute" tag (I only found that one now!).

The topic of the last dispute is on what is generally understood with the definition of tired light, if it only implies the mechanism that Zwicky advocated or any mechanism that causes light to decrease in energy while in transfer. Harald88 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No comment? I'll make the improvement now, at the same time indicating a difference in definition (see . Harald88 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed unsourced "simplest" kind of tired light. I also removed the Marmet stuff which should be added in only if you can find a person other than Marmet (who is considered unreliable) that he is referring to an actual tired light mechanism. --ScienceApologist 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this "simplest" kind of tired light, who put that in? Please first send a message to the author and a question about it here, before deleting that interesting information! And note that it was me who put in your POV but still unsourced definition of Tired light.

Thus I repeat my request to you to source it, with the same possible consequence.

Your opinion that "Marmet is unreliable" won't do; no research is needed to verify that he refers to a tired light theory as defined by the sourced reference. Please stop amputating wikipedia's articles. Harald88 07:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Marmet is not making claims that are verifiable by anyone other than himself. This makes his work not ammenable for inclusion.

Here is a paper that discounts tired light, but assumes the definition originally provided. I'm going to reinsert the definition:

--ScienceApologist 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"I suppose that with "definition" you meant "equation". You already noticed that the quoted definition covers all proposed mechanisms that have light decreasing energy en route, and that's why you intended to suppress that definition. But good find of this new ref. You forgot to add it, I did that now.

I am still waiting for you to find support for the narrow definition of tired light that according to you is common. Harald88 18:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Marmet and tired light

Here is the section that is removed and the reasons for doing so. Please do not reinsert until these problems are addressed:

In recent years, new tired light mechanisms have been put forward (Marmet 1988), in which photons lose energy by interacting with electrons and other particles in intergalactic space. According to standard theory, bremsstrahlung is radiated away at any collision with a charged particle such as an electron so that a very small energy loss occurs at each interaction, which arguably results in a redshift.

• Does 1988 qualify as "recent years"? And does the paper in question refer to actual tired light mechanisms or is it just Marmet's posturing. In any case, the reference is questionable enough to be removed to this talkpage for someone to defend it if they would like.

It's quite recent yes, much more than the one by Zwicky and also long after your last reference. But you could have just edited it to "more recent years".

My point was that tired light is not a concept that enjoys current research. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

So, this sentence gives an incorrect impression of the situation. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It refers to a tired light mechanism as defined in the only cited definition in the article. I will wait until the end of the week for you to find a reference for your definition of tired light which I put in there for you, but which has been looking for support for two weeks now.

I think you are confusing definition with equivocation. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

definiton: A statement conveying fundamental character. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry. -> That's what I mean.

equivocation: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth ->, no, that's exactly what the article is trying to avoid. See AGAIN the guideline about it!

While you may mean this, the state of the article you support is far more equivocal than it is factual. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• photons lose energy by interacting... this applies to a lot of mechanisms that are not even admitted to be tired light. For example, those advocating for scattering as a form for redshifting do not always call such a mechanism tired light. By claiming that these are "tired light mechanisms" the article is claiming something unverified and, frankly, untrue.

Please read the article again: this has already properly been addressed as part of unstubbing, and please also read the in the related comment linked "Word Ownership" paragraph again.

Actually, it isn't addressed in the article. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the changes I made, it now gives your uncorroborated definitoin which I asked you many times to corroborate, as well as the cited one. Do you perhaps disagree with the guideline? Harald88 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is irrelevant. The point is that tired light is mostly described as an unknown mechanism. Scattering isn't normally considered a mechanism that works simply because the universe isn't homogeneous in baryons -- Marmet's cranky work notwithstanding. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Homogenous" is your unsourced claim and your cranky claim as well -- stop name calling. Nothing in the term "Tired light" suggests homogenous. Harald88 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The above criticism is meaningless it seems. Scattering is a different sort of mechanism from most of those proposed as tired light in the articles about the subject. --ScienceApologist 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• This inappropriately conflates bremsstrahlung radiation with scattering. They are different processes. Bremsstrahlung is the radiation due to collisions of charge particles. It is not the scattering or frequency shifting of photons. How radiation of a new photon results in a redshift of a photon passing through is anybody's guess, but this is an example of poor physics and is rightly excluded.

You must be very confused now, for it was I who, after some reflection, disagreed with Carlson that scattering is the appropriate term for forward re-emission, so thatI called it a different process and gave the exact description bremsstrahlung to avoid conflating it with scattering; while it was you who claimed:

This is a kind of "scattering" effect that is criticized mostly for other reasons. Tired light is independent of absorption/emission (that is, technically, scattering) processes

Thus, obviously you have not read it, as there is nothing to guess about it -- instead it's accurately described and calculated, on the assumption that with refraction a photon interacts with an electron inside the atom. Of course, if you can find a paper that claims that that mechanism is wrong, then that would be good to add -- the article is still rather short you know.

The process described by Marmet cannot be Bremsstrahlung. There's really no more succinct way to put it. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is Bremsstrahlung and also called so. Please stop judging what you haven't even read. Harald88 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be abundantly clear: Bremsstrahlung is radiation due to the acceleration of charged particles. It is not associated with a frequency shift for transmitting photons. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be very lear: Marmet associated it with radiation due to the acceleration of electrons due to interaction with photons in the refraction process. Harald88 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiation due to the acceleration of electrons is Bremsstrahlung... Ask any other physicist, or just read Bremsstrahlung... Harald88 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Bremsstrahlung is a classical accelerating electron treatment that is derived from electrodynamic formalism. If you are talking about photon interactions you necessarily invoke the reverse (in a sort of stimulated emission fashion). --ScienceApologist 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add this back to the articlespace. Misplaced Pages needs to have correct information and this information is clearly incorrect. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It happens to be correct information that at least one alternative to Zwicky's mechanism has been proposed by another scientist, and it is interesting for physicists. Now that I have addressed those issues I will put it back. Note that I regard it as harassment that you remove factual information because you have questions about it, I find that unacceptable. And please don't continue to try to impose your prejudices.

Harald88 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zwicky didn't have a mechanism. This information isn't factual. Please address the concerns directly. You are not responding to them. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I addressed all. I didn't look into the details of Zwicky's theory, as it is claimed to have been disproved, but I do remeber that he proposed different mechanisms the last one I understood to be called "Zwicky's ". Now you claim that something that didn't exist was claimed to have been disproved?! That would be a scam if were true! Harald88 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Mechanisms for tired light are considered usually to be unknown. Zwicky only parametrized the mechanism, he didn't propose any. What he did was describe the way a tired light mechanism would behave, he didn't propose an actual mechanism. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And please don't continue to try to impose your prejudices. -- What exactly would those "prejudices" be? --ScienceApologist 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN': you deleted the apparent mainstream and at least notable definition of tired light, and replaced it by your acknowledgedly unsupported understanding of the term; moreover, you removed again Marmet's mechanism while you have run out of excuses. Harald88 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you "yelling"? I don't know where you are getting the notion of "mainstream" and "notable" from. Do you have any sources that claim this? Do you have any sources that the "Marmet mechanism" was correctly categorized and described here? --ScienceApologist 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I started "yelling" as you appeared rather deaf! "mainstream" is always a guess, based on the representation in articles. Several cited articles conform to the cited definition in one of them, and none corresponds, as you know very well, to yours. About categorisation based on title meaning: I already explained that above by my referral to Misplaced Pages rules, but probably you missed it despite my referring to it twice or thrice... should I have yelled there as well? Harald88 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is venturing farther and farther away from that which is becoming of a Misplaced Pages editor. Please try to tone it down a bit. I am having a hard time trying to figure out what is wrong with the way the article currently is as I believe it to be an accurate description. This definition currently available conforms to all sources on tired light listed, even the ones that are cranky. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour of imposing your POV with help of opportunistic arguments is most inappropriate for Misplaced Pages; indeed you now silently (at least, I saw no comment about it) dropped your unsupported last objection against the article of Marmet on the meaning of "tired light". But you still confuscate the issue by suggesting that there are "cranky sources listed" (which?) that would according to you have a different definition than what appears to be the most common mainstream opinion among scientists.

With all respect and appreciation for your energetic efforts to write articles, you have built up quite a record of edit warring, as the comments on the arbitration page establish. Such pushy editing together with your smearing of scientists against whom you have a prejudice is certainly not appropriate for keeping civility, as the last sentence of WP:CIVILITY notes: It should be noted that some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without committing such a breach themselves.

Harald88 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" -- Cool Hand Luke.

Paul Marmet hardly needs to be "smeared" by myself and I'm not "smearing" him by removing references to his work from this article. There is a question of notability of arguments, I'd say, and tired light as a historical subject of interest is well-documented. My opinions of him and other pathological skeptics of his ilk are well-exposed on talkpages, but I try to remain as neutral as possible in the articlespace.

And what WP:RfArb are you refering to?

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

More tired light resources

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

And, what do you deem "indecent" about this one? ;-) Harald88 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the wink means that you are asking in jest. I don't see any "definition" of the sort I expect you are looking for at all. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A definition can be implied by the description in the introduction. That is quite often done, as it reads more pleasantly. Harald88 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, then the article as it curently stands conforms well to this definition. --ScienceApologist 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Start over

Aside from the business about Marmet, what are the problems (if any) with the current introductory paragraph? --ScienceApologist 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It imposes your definition that is in obvious flagrant disagreement with most quoted sources (even the ones that you didn't delete!).

Now I won't have time for some days, but I'll be back. Harald88 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction, I expressed myself too extremely above. More precisely, it is suggestive of ScienceApologist's personal narrow definition, and thus hiding the more general mainstream understanding which was he deleted: -- which is typical of most of his work, as attested by others on the mediation page. Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I left a response on your talk page (just now) about my slow responses; sorry. Regarding disputing a stub, I do not believe that is against Misplaced Pages policy that I can remember. I have seen disputes handled both by moving the disputed content to the talk page, and by placing a disputed tag on the main page with the dispute text. Right now, I think the article is fine as is. It presents the main definition of tired light, until the editors get something to add, I would not put it on the main page. MHO. SteveMc 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, you are fully right, we did handle it that way on his suggestion; but you overlooked that he had deleted nearly all of the article's contents including all references, and that no appropriate tags exist for such a situation.

about the definition: the disambiguation between his idea and that is expressed in most cited references, he conveniently deleted:

"Some scientist understand Tired Light to mean a mechanism caused by the fabric of Spacetime, while others use it as a general descriptor for a decrease of energy as the light travels through the cosmos. "

If you look carefully, you may notice that his new definiton is different again, suggesting again something else that is not inherent in the concept tired light: that according to the articles isotropy is necessary for light to "tire"... Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald88 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that isotropy is necessary, it's that if the isotropy of Hubble Law observations is to be believed then isotropy is a necessary condition on any tired light mechanism. There is no one that disputes this. --ScienceApologist 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You confused (as often) cosmology with physics. Apparently you think that all readers are only interested in Tired light cosmology and nobody is interested in tired light physics. But I'm among those, and I know others.

I think the article is quite alright now, except that more good references would be helpful. Harald88 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to a single reference that suggests that tired light might be observed on a less than cosmological scale? --ScienceApologist 02:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed this section for NPOV reasons

A more recently proposed tired light mechanism by Marmet (Marmet 1988) is original in that it has photons lose energy by interacting with the electrons in gas molecules, whereby bremsstrahlung is radiated away at the cost of the photon energy, but is just as dependent on the distribution of gas in intergalactic space; and any tired light mechanism can be distinguished from time dilated Doppler shifts.

This sentence, aside from being POV-pushing Marmet, also makes no physical sense. After all, bremsstrahlung is photon energy. This is the same thing as a scattering mechanism which is already listed. Singling out Marmet is unreasonable as many other nonstandard folks have proposed scattering mechanisms.

--ScienceApologist 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It can't be helped that not all editors understand everything that they report on, and they don't need to do so -- as long as they report in an unbiased manner without showing their POV! Above I even tried to explain this one to you as it's not difficult to understand. Bremsstrahlung is different photon energy, emitted by the electrons. If anything can be called POV pushing, it's your removing of mention of a physics paper because you, an editor, doesn't understand it. And I didn't single him out, I just happened to remember his paper when the Ashmore discussion came up and I knew that I had read about such a theory before, although I had forgotten what exactly (I had the idea that it was about Compton scattering, but that's inaccurate).

Another editor commented on my comments in the following discussion, I will repeat it here so that you understand that there is concensus about this: "In the case of interacting with air (for example) without scattering, what's happening on a microscopic scale is essentially a photon being absorbed and re-emitted (it's really more of a resonance process), resulting in a transmission delay but no change in the photon itself."

However, he overlooked in that comment the energy loss from Bremsstrahlung, that's what Marmet pointed out and subsequently worked out. I hope that it's clear now! It's in full agreement with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy that I include mention of that mechanism which is interesting for physicists.

This article is still very short. Thus, if you know of other such papers as well as eventual criticism, please add them. Harald88 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the article as it currently stands represents incorrect physics from a very basic standpoint. I have inserted the totallydisputed tag because you don't seem to be able to understand this. --ScienceApologist 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not able to understand that you could be as pretentious to claim to know better physics than other editors and cited physicists, while you even don't know that bremsstrahlung is not scattering. Harald88 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to be clear: the mechanism Marmet outlines does not conform to a "tired light" mechanism as initially described by Zwicky since the explanation doesn't apply across the entire spectrum. In particular, Marmet's explanation does not produce proportional shifts in frequency for radiowaves, for example. --ScienceApologist 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are here making a renewed attempt to narrow the definition of "tired light" down in precisely such a way that certain papers may be selectively omitted. However, the preferred "tired light" mechanism of Zwicky also does not predict exactly the same as the Doppler effect, and neither do scattering mechanisms. The only thing that such theories have in common, is that they propose mechanisms that might make photons loose energy while in transit -- which is precisely what the term "Tired light" means according to all the sources we have. Harald88 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Zwicky did not have a tired light mechanism. Zwicky only parametrized models that would cause photons to lose energy which is generally agreed upon by historians of science and astrophysicists who refer to "tired light" in their papers. Here is a quote from Cosmology: Historical, Literary, Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific Perspectives that illustrates this:

A third major cosmological model was proposed by Fritz Zwicky.... He suggested that the universe might not be expanding.... Zwicky did not hesitate to advance a theory requiring a new principle of physics. Indeed he perceived that requirement as an asset rather than a liability....

Since such models seems to be separate from scattering mechanisms currently proposed by nonstandard cosmology proponents including Marmet (which include such things as CREIL and the Wolf Effect) it seems hardly appropriate to include Marmet here as he is indicative of only one crank and their models aren't necessarily "tired light" as strictly criticized by scientists since Zwicky's first suggestions. If you can find a resource that refers to any of these mechanisms as tired light provide it here. I have provided resources (which you have rejected, I might add) that have described Zwicky's parameterization as tired light.

It's entirely your opinion that Marmet was widely considered to be a crank when he published that paper, as well as your suggestion that that paper itself is cranky. If so, no doubt you can find another scientific paper that targets it, just as has been doen with Dingle. That's the Misplaced Pages method. And I don't remember to have not reject your resources, quite to the contrary: most resources that you provided do either not exclude other mechanisms such as scattering, or they even positively include them. I also take note of the fact that twice you didn't react to mention of such mechanisms until I added Marmet's mechanism. Harald88 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Marmet reference

I just realized that the reference of Marmet's in this article does not refer to his idea as "tired light" (though he does refer to it being tired light elsewhere). I think this is a good indication that my position is correct and Marmet should be removed from this page to his own Paul Marmet page. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he? Where? And are you sure that Zwicky refers to it as "tired light"? If so, on which page?

And what about Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, should that also be removed from the special relativity page because in that paper he did not refer to his idea as "special relativity"? ... Harald88 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Marmet and Einstein seems like quite a stretch. Marmet is not considered a reliable source in the scientific community. And if the reference we are using is not admitting to being tired light then it's not accurate to describe it as such. --ScienceApologist 13:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you entirely missed the point. Now please show to be consistent and tell us where Zwicky called his theory "tired light" or try to delete that article to from the references, and also just try deleting Einstein's 1905 paper from special relativity with the argument that "the reference is not admitting to being special relativity". Harald88 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Others refer to Zwicky's idea as tired light: we've shown that in references. What we haven't shown is others refering to Marmet's idea as tired light. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a useful argument, if you accept the genral definition of tired light. However, I still looked into this as I would not consider Marmet's mechanism worth of mention if in literature nobody but himself refers to it. But it turns out, that Grote Reber and Andre Assis liked his theory (and, as a matter of fact, all call it "tired light"); Grote Reber actually co-authored an article with Marmet in a mainstream physicist journal. Thus I will add the reference to the co-authored one. BTW, I'm now reading it; possibly more is to be said about this.

PS: I did not know that Marmet was more an expert in these matters than is commonly admitted: he was director of a research lab in atomic and mol. phys., and next he did research in the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. Harald88 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Marmet is an atomic physicist, not a cosmologist. Reber is also well known for being outside the mainstream of cosmological understanding (even about tired light). Revert. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you finally acknowledged that Marmet was a specialist in the field that you, as Misplaced Pages editor, decared him "a crank"; and it may have escaped you that his paper must have been reviewed by other physicists. Your claim above amounts to stating that "Tired light is not mainstream, and therefore only outdated tired light models may be mentioned in an article about tired light". I will not even reply anymore to such arguments. Harald88 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Marmet's physics

I haven't read Marmet, but I don't see how his ideas (as I understand them from what has been presented here) can possibly be right. He says photons come in with frequency f1 and leave in the same direction with the lower frequency f2. The energy loss per photon is thus h*(f1-f2) and the momentum loss ish*(f1-f2)/c. If the momentum and energy is transferred to nonrelativistic particles of mass m (electrons) initially at rest, their final energy per particle is m*v^2/2 and their momentum is m*v. Equating the ratio of energy to momentum for photons and electrons respectively, we have c=v/2, inconsistent with (among other things) the statement that only a small amount of energy is transferred to the electrons. I don't want to do original research in Misplaced Pages, but if the physics is so questionable, that is another argument for not reporting on ideas that were forgotten after two people published on them 17 years ago. --Art Carlson 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do understand his idea, and that understanding enabled me to paraphrase it; and it's not forgotten either, contrary to Zwicky's. But more important is that he was an expert in that field; and what matters most for Misplaced Pages is that obviously other physicists understood his theory, since it was published in a respectable, peer reviewed IEEE plasma physics journal. And that same journal published an article that describes (I haven't read it yet) how that theory explains redshifts in the sun's chronosphere. Also other scientists such as prof Assis understand it, while it's quite possible that many cosmologists are less good in physics. WP:NPOV and ] have been made exactly with this kind of problem in mind.

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