Talk:Redshift/Archive 3

message: I devised an equation which is now posted on my website, because since 1958 I have not believed the Expanding Universe or Big Bang theories. It is an ordinary statistical decay equation of the kind used to describe radioisotope decay.	 
	 
It took until 1982 to develop it, through considerable experience and education, so it was not developed lightly. It is on the first page at http://www.mglewis.info/index.htm , toward the bottom. It is the ordinary partial differential wave equation with the insertion of a diffusion term which uses the Planck action quantum as the diffusion constant. 	 
	 
The resulting lifetime seems to agree with the observed red shift, and is in addition, within the range of half-life decay times measured for several radioisotopes, as well as being described with an essentially identical decay process. 	 
	 
The equation seems good enough to present it as a candidate for an intrinsic photon decay process in the Wikipedia entry on Red Shift. But a Wikipedia article must meet standards of brevity and clarity with which I am not familiar, and my writing is, uh, difficult. - Michael Lewis	 
	 
:Difficult writing can be improved by other Wikipedians. But the main Wikipedia standard you seem unaware of is described at this link: Wikipedia:No original research. I'm also skeptical at times of mainstream tax-supported science - in particular, the "social sciences" might better be described as a political correctness cult. But Wikipedia is intended to reflect prevailing opinions, not to change them. Has your theory been published anywhere other than your own website, or is it you against the world? Sometimes one guy is right and the world is wrong, but there are other places to promote such things. Art LaPella 15:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistical Decay

message: What are the values of z over the distance of the universe? After the first section z is never mentioned again.	 
	 
:z=0 is today. z=infinity is the fiducial singularity of the Big Bang. The farthest z that can be seen is the z=1100 CMB. Joshuaschroeder 20:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values of Z 

message: Since they are in use, why don't we mention and qualify the terms:	 
*Doppler redshift 	 
*Cosmological redshift 	 
*Gravitational redshift 	 
--Iantresman 15:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can mention them. We already define them in the article. Joshuaschroeder 16:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of terms

message: *Joshuaschroeder, The title of the article says "Redshift", not "Actually observed Redshift". The statement noted that it was theoretical, and I see no reason not to keep it.
*Presumably we should remove "cosmological redshift", since it has not been demonstrated in the laboratory, and we don't know whether it has been observed either.
--Iantresman 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said "demonstrated in the laboratory". This article should not be a dumpster for any huckster's fanciful suggestions. Joshuaschroeder 20:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Variable particle mass theory

message: I see that you have marginalised other redshift causes even more, by moving them to the bottom of the article.  Consequently I have put in a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. If it is accepted, there will be an opportunity to say more.  --Iantresman 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Request for arbitration is quite serious - are you sure there are no other avenues? Enochlau 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do regret having to go down this path, but feel it is a last resort. As mentioned on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration page, we have had discussions, and I feel that there are  infringements of Wikipedia policy that are fairly serious. --Iantresman 09:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On the one hand, you are quite correct, and I understand your perspective from an astronomical point of view. On the other, there are professional scientists in physics and optics (I have rerferenced at least three), who would disagree with astronomers marginalising their point of view. I have no problem with Doppler redshift, Cosmological redshift, and gravitational redshift, all having their own pages. But as a launching point for redshift in general, popularity and relevance to astronomy is not as important as explaining redshift as a general phenomenon which applies to more fields than just astronomy. --Iantresman 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Wolf Effect may produce full-spectrum, frequency independent, redshift. I have provided three peer-revieweed papers that back me up. I have emails from at least three authors confirming my understanding. And "may produce" does not mean theoretically contrived either. And since this is a page on Redshift, it should also include frequency dependent redshift. --Iantresman 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the papers you showed us did it indicate that the same effect would be seen for gamma rays and radio waves. Emails are irrelevent original research. Joshuaschroeder 19:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, this definitely should go on the dark energy page. Joshuaschroeder 18:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for arbitration

message: I notice that Joshuaschroeder has removed my information on "neutrino redshift" without any discussion. As a test suggested by a professional scientist in a peer reviewed article, and of direct relevance to redshift, I don't understand why it was taken out? I had written:
Neutrino redshift: Testing non-cosmological redshifts
Doppler redshift (due to movement) and cosmological redshifts (due to space expansion), will affect neutrinos in a similar way to photons. But non-cosmological redshift that may be due to energy-loss mechanisms, will affect neutrinos 
Chuck Gallo has suggested comparing the neutrino redshift of an object with its photon redshift. If they are similar, it would suggest the cause is due to Doppler or cosmological redshifts. But if they neutrino redshift is much smaller than the photon redshift, it would suggest that an energy-loss redshift mechanism  .
--Iantresman 19:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I told you that you could just put it on the nonstandard cosmologies page. Joshuaschroeder 19:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you deleted it without discussion. And then your "told me" (ie. without discussion). I would still like to know why a test between different kinds of redshift does not belong on the redshift page? --Iantresman 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a test for different kinds of redshift: it is a test to see whether the cosmological redshift is indeed behaving the same way for neutrinos as it is for light. The only reason to do this is in context of those who deny the cosmological redshift in the first place which is why it belongs on the nonstanard cosmology page. Joshuaschroeder 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point of view is noted. --Iantresman 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrino redshift

message: I've dummed down the introduction in an attempt to explain redshift to a wider audience. And I've added a pretty picture. --Iantresman 22:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction dummed down