| Revision as of 18:04, 1 December 2005 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,454 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:35, 1 December 2005 edit undoIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| By the way, no scattering processes are included anymore. They are not agreed upon in the scientific community to allow for full-band redshifts and therefore should not be included. --] 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | By the way, no scattering processes are included anymore. They are not agreed upon in the scientific community to allow for full-band redshifts and therefore should not be included. --] 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :I've reverted your changes Joshua. I'm sorry you didn't like the changes to the article. | |||
| :*Your description of me as a "nonscientist layman" is childish. | |||
| :*I have no made any "claims" as you put it. Every statement I have included is taked from peer-reviewed articles as required by the scientific process, and as suggested by Misplaced Pages policy. I suggest that your read it more thoroughly. | |||
| :*Redshift, as described by this article, is far more inclusive than your narrow viewpoint. | |||
| :*"Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts"<br> | |||
| ::I suggest that you get your head out of your as-tronomy text book, and read further afield. | |||
| :--] 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 1 December 2005
Old talk: from Red Shift, up to April, 2004, up to August 2005, up to Novemeber 2005 ---
Redshift and the POV of nonscientist layman Iantresman
As things have settled down a bit, I popped over here to see a terrible change to this article. Ian, claiming that the nonstandard redshift explanations are "non-Doppler" and the others are "Doppler" is not only incorrect, it belies an inordinate ignorance of the physics involved. You need to cut out your POV-pushing. Redshift is well described as the article stands right now. All that really needs to be done is relegate the non-standard explanations to POV-related articles. Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts as the four causes listed up front. The remaining ideas are outside of the mainstream and do not belong in the article. --ScienceApologist 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Science edit now complete. If anybody sees any errors or ambiguities, let me know. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, no scattering processes are included anymore. They are not agreed upon in the scientific community to allow for full-band redshifts and therefore should not be included. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've reverted your changes Joshua. I'm sorry you didn't like the changes to the article.
- Your description of me as a "nonscientist layman" is childish.
- I have no made any "claims" as you put it. Every statement I have included is taked from peer-reviewed articles as required by the scientific process, and as suggested by Misplaced Pages policy. I suggest that your read it more thoroughly.
- Redshift, as described by this article, is far more inclusive than your narrow viewpoint.
- "Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts"
- I suggest that you get your head out of your as-tronomy text book, and read further afield.
- --Iantresman 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)