" 

 == Continuation of material from Tired light talk page == 

 On the  tired light talk page, Jim has pursued some matters that are not appropriate for discussion on an article talk page, as set out in the Wikipedia  talk page guidelines. 

 Here is a copy of the exchange, for the record: 
 {| class=""messagebox collapsible collapsed"" style=""text-align: left"" 
 |+ 
 !align=""left""|Discussion from  tired light talk page. Hit ""show"" to view. 
 |- 
 |== Are we under attack by theists? == 

 My adits with Einsteinian model (of tired light) are gone. They lasted just a few minutes.  

 There is an interesting trend in gravity physics: articles that make no sense from point of view of physics may be and are published all over the palce. Once you show with legitimate math that matter can't be created out of nothing, even in gravitation, then your article becomes uninteresting to the public (as contradicting the Big Bang) and nobody prints it ""just to save vauluable space in a scientific journal"".  

 After 20+ years I'm beginning to be suspicious whether we aren't controlled by theists dreaming about the return of Dark Ages.  

 Otherwise why for 20+ years, despite that referees can't find a single error in my 6 page paper, it can't be printed? Actually it turns out to be ""not interesting to readers"" despite explaining, with Einstein's theory, things like conservation of energy in gravitation, Hubble redshift = c/(4.3 Gpc) (as observed), illusion of accelerating expansion of space (observed as predicted), ""anomalous"" acceleration of Pioneers (observed as predicted), even Arp's local quasars (possibly observed as predicted, but it is for Arp to tell).  

 We are supposed to be nice to theist and not making them feeling bad. Shouldn't they be nice also to us and let us to continue with our science, where violation of conservation of energy is not allowed. Not alowed at least until someone demostrates beyond any reasonable doubt with some legitimate experiment that it is possible and not by supressing any idea that does not fit the creation of matter from nothing?   

 :Please don't attack the motives of other editors. You added a section discussing your ideas, which were rejected by peer reviewed journals. Thees journals may be correct or incorrect in doing so, but under the policies of Wikipedia, such edits have no place on Wikipedia either. Either try to change the policies or try to get your article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, but don't edit articles with sections you know will be removed anyway, just to follow that removal with an attack on the motives of other editors. This is disurption of Wikipedia to make a point and will not be tolerated.   

 ::Hi Fram, You're not quite correct. (i) These aren't my ideas but only the conclusions of Einstein's general relativity. I just wanted to present them to the public guessing that the public might be interested. For this purpose, using Einstein's theory, I calculated in 1985 the amount of tired light in a stationary space which just turned out to be the same as observed. (ii) The results were not rejected but were not printed as not interesting to the readers (referees didn't report any error in my calculations — if there were the referees would gladly reported it). According to the editors of scientific journals the readers aren't interested in a fact that Einstein's theory explains tired light effect with the principle of conservation of energy. According to them the readers prefer to think that there is no such an effect as tired light and so the expanding universe hypothesis may be treated as the only possible solution. 

 ::For your information: I don't have any theory of my own, and right now I'm doing my PhD work on Einstein's theory. The referees of my paper agreed that my paper contained no new physics and that's why it didn't fit a scientific journal. I don't know why public is not interested that we have to have a tired light effect in a stationary space so I proposed a hypothesis (a title of this section) because this hypothesis explains why the tired light isn't explained by now, while old physics is enough to explain it (old Einstein's theory will do).  

 ::Questions to you: (1) Is supporting the principle of conservation of energy (pretty well documented in my opinion) against Wikipedia's policy? (2) How could I try to change this policy to include publication