Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 3 May 2006

Citations required

• "In particular, many opponents of the Big Bang from Halton Arp to creationists to geocentrists have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe."

This requires three citations, one each referring to (a) Halton Arp (b) Creationists (c) Geocentrists, each specifying that redshift quantization is their reason to reject the standard account, etc.

• "Tifft's proposals are relatively unknown even among professionals."

• "Of the small number of instances known where independent corroboration of the phenomenon has been attempted, there has been no evidence for quantization of redshifts."

This appears to be contradicted by the two studies, now mentioned in background. --Iantresman 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings do not have the characteristics suggested by Tifft and his enthusiasts."

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Again, we need a verifiable statement that directly addresses Tifft's observations.

Don't be a dick

Ian, the article is under development. Don't be a dick and remove quotes when you can tag them with the uncited point. --ScienceApologist 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They weren't quotes, they were statements, and until they are verified, they are your own personal point of view. --Iantresman 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove them, as the article is still under development. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

SA just reverted most of the changes I had made in the intro. Why is not entirely clear, but he apparently thinks they are POV. Some examples:

• I explain what redshift quantization is about in the first paragraph and give the historical summary in the second paragraph. SA mixes them.
• I write: Since there is a correlation of distance and redshift as expressed in Hubble's Law. SA writes: Since Hubble's Law predicts redshift as an indicator of distance. Hubble's Law is simply the observation of a correlation. Predicts sounds like there something more and complicated behind it.
• I write: either of which would have serious implications for various standard cosmological models and alternative cosmological models. SA writes: Those who claim quantized redshift exist claim it to have implications for various standard cosmological models and alternative cosmological models. My formulation is less awkward and, I insist, accurate.

I think my version of the intro is better. --Art Carlson 13:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that it is important to note that this is a peculiar idea promoted by one individual for about 20 years before two catastrophists picked it up.

To make that part of the history clear would require another sentence, which perhaps should not be the third sentence in the article. --Art Carlson 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that including Tifft makes the definition understandable as a minority viewpoint. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The issue is that the prediction of Hubble's Law is what most who support the claimed observations insist on. It isn't simply the correlation but it is the acceptance of the law as observational fact that riles the anti-bangers.

I'd rather not get into what riles whom and what conclusions various parties draw. The correlation is all that matters here. How about this: Since Hubble's Law establishes redshift as an indicator of distance? The word "indicator" already implies that the relation may not be hard and fast. --Art Carlson 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A little better, but we need to be clear that quantizations of redshifts have no implications on the redshift-distance relation unless you assume that redshift is not a predictor of distance and that distances cannot be quantized. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think that quantization of redshift necessarily must have implications -- but this is subject to interpretation, I agree.

You would have to give up something dear to your heart, although I'm not sure whether I would rather let go of the redshift-velocity relation or the cosmological principle. --Art Carlson 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement starts from a strong premise and leads us to weak premises. So let's report exactly what the implications are rather than making vague pronouncements. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--ScienceApologist 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• What is this with catastrophists and creationists? This is an ad hominem argument. Ideas do not stand and fall on who supports them.

It's a fact, though, that the people most in love with quantized redshifts are catastrophists and creationists. An ad hominem description is perfectly legitimate. --ScienceApologist 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hubbles Law does not establish redshift as an indicator of distance, not does it predict it. It's a statement , and a hypothesis at best; in this respect it is no different from the quantized redshift observation.

In one fell-swoop, Ian reveals his sore lack of education in these subjects. One wonders why he continues to editorialize like this. It makes him look really silly. --ScienceApologist 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I said in my original draft of the introduction that "Quantized redshifts may have implications for various standard cosmological models and alternative cosmological models." Do you want citations?

No, I want a statement that actually conveys some information to the reader. --ScienceApologist 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--Iantresman 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)