Misplaced Pages

Talk:Redshift: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 1 December 2005 editIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 19:36, 1 December 2005 edit undoIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 editsm →Redshift and the POV of nonscientist layman IantresmanNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
:I've reverted your changes Joshua. I'm sorry you didn't like the changes to the article. :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. :*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. :*I have not made any "claims" as you put it. Every statement I have included is taken 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, as described by this article, is far more inclusive than your narrow viewpoint.
:*"Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts"<br> :*"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. ::I suggest that you get you head out of your as-tronomy text book, and read further afield.
:--] 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC) :--] 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:36, 1 December 2005

Template:FAOL

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 not made any "claims" as you put it. Every statement I have included is taken 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 you head out of your as-tronomy text book, and read further afield.
--Iantresman 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)