Talk:Tired light/Archive 1

message: It is stated in the main article that "mechanism of tired light is not known" and the tired light is interpreted as photons losing energy on their way or photons lowering their frequency on their way, popularly known as "redshift". The problem is that photons don't really lower their frequency on their way and so the mechanism is an empty idea. If it does not exist it can't be known. It is similar to knowing the reason for God if there is no God. 
Photons start their journey from the source with lower frequency for the reason of the Einsteinian time dilation at the source. Such thing happens in gravitational "redshift", not really a redshift but only an ordinary (gravitational) time dilation. The lower time rate at the source of light. 
It turns out that the Hubble redshift is a similar thing, however not "ordinary" but "general" (graviatational) time dilation. It is not described in the scientific litarature because editors of scientific journals prefer to keep the big bang theory alive and it couldn't stand the competition with the Einsteinian "general time dilation" (conclusion of Einsteinian gravitation that I noticed already in 1985 but which proved unpublishable) and so the general time dilation is better kept not officially known as it might put a monkey wrench into big bang theory. That's why we can't put it into the official article.
The idea of this type of time dilation that has no Newtonian counterpart and so it is purely relativistic effect (originating in general relativity as a consequence of the principle of consrvation of energy) is explained (possibly adequately, if not then please ask for clarifications) in my article The general time dilation (relativistic redshift in stationary clouds of dust). This consequence of Einstein's theory, overlooked by Einstein himself, predicts many observations that puzzle big bang cosmologists as e.g. "accelerating expansion" of space, "anomalous" acceleration of space probes, and it may even predict the high "redshift" of quasars that would be identical with what Halton Arp proposed as an explanation for it however without that much faith in Einsteinian gravitation as shown by this author:-). Most importantly, unlike the big bang theory, it does not contradict any already known physics. However the lack of freedom of discussing those things officially forces us to discuss them on "discussion" pages if someone has some objections against existence of the phenomenon of general time dilation. If you have any objections please provode them after this section in the section titled "Objections against general time dilation". Jim 21:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A conspiracy theory, bad science and a misunderstanding of the Bing Bang v the laws of physics all in one?  Wow.  Jim62sch 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The misinterpretation of redshift 

message: Yes that tired light has no basis is stated but it's erroneous: it follows from standard mechanics that light that Compton forward scatters must redshift, assuming that the accepted laws of mechanics are valid. Thus "No physical mechanism for tired light has ever been demonstrated" is misleading and must be changed. Harald88 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have a hell of a battle on your hands with Witten, Hawking, Kaku and Greene just to name a few.  Think you're up to the challenge?  Jim62sch 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm...  Tired light theories may not be up to par as a cosmological explanation for the Hubble redshifts, but redshifting of forward-scattered light is a pretty well known phenomenon and drops ouf of the second law of thermodynamics (high energy photons lose energy, on average, when interacting with cold material).  An extreme case is the gradual scrubbing of energy from gamma rays as they propagate through a scattering medium.   Ancillary effects (like degradation of image quality or lack of observed time dilation in image sequences of distant objects) may eliminate tired light theories from the cosmological running -- but that should be called out, not simply an assertion that there is no physical mechanism to do the job.  zowie 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this assessment, except that I'm not sure that scattering can really be called "tired light" since Zwicky's proposal was really involving "other" physics that would be due to isotropy not observed in the distribution of baryonic matter in the universe in order to get a Hubble Law that worked in all directions through the same proportionality. We have a single statement about scattering in the current version of the page and I think that this is a good balance considering scattering is generally considered not a "redshift" mechanism and was not normally associated with tired light. See also the archived discussions on the Talk:redshift page which includes a detailed discussion of whether scattering should be on the page. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading sentence 

message: None so far?
The pages on the subject were deleted as original research sometime back. This link is therefore removed. --ScienceApologist 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a similar reasoning in the paper by Zwicky; can you substantiate that that article by Jastrzebski doesn't simply explain it more? I have not yet read it. Harald88 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jastrzebski's main contention is that an non-symmetric metric can account for the expansion of space. He digs out a comment by Einstein to this effect that was further expanded upon by Zwicky, but misses the comparison to Zwicky's tired light. Since general time dilation was deleted in accordance with policy, there is no reason to keep it as a link (it is original research as it currently stands). --ScienceApologist 00:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true that Jastrzebski's main contention is a metric. This is just a proposition accidentally coinciding with Einsein's. Accidentally, since Jastrzebski didn't know about Einstein's proposition while proposing the same thing. The main contention is that the curvature of space has it's "mirror image" in the rate of time dilation (the conservation of energy requires that their sum vanishes identically) which is called a general time dilation (for google). This is a purely Einsteinian proposition that Einstein didn't do since he lost interest in gravitation when matematicians started to explain it to him. So Jastrzebski just continued Einstein's explanation of physics of gravitation. It incidentally explains all the problems with Einstein's stationary universe in which we seem to live. If someone knows some not yet explained then I may explain them too, if someone is interested. It is just simple Einsteinian physics, a bit simpler than Newtonian and that's why it is better. The fact that it is unpublishable in scientific journals doesn't make it worse than the creationist Big Bang though. Jim 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections against general time dilation 

message: The most recent edit to this page ("A mechanism for Tired Light has now [1] been put forward...") looks very much as though it was posted by the author of the reference in question, specifically attempting to advertise his own theory.  This would seem to be counter to the intention and guidelines of Wikipedia.  I would recommend that the addition be removed, or modified to be a more neutral assessment of the link in question.
Grey
Indeed, it can be neutralised as there has been a peer reviewed paper on Compton scattered tired light. I'll try to find it back. Harald88 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I now found it back; will include with recycling Ashmore's text. Harald88 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification! But if I understand well, in pure Compton scattering, light cannot go straight at all, for there can be no scattering while going straight... However, on average, we *know* that light interacts with the air molecules, and that it goes straight without much blurring, while by the laws of mechanics it *should* give off energy to those molecules... Anyway, now that the argument is clear, please correct that sentence, or maybe I'll do it later (just have to think how to say it correctly). Harald88 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My textbook confuses "scattering" and "absorption-reemission". IMO, true bouncing at zero angle is no interaction at all, and can't explain refractive index. How can scattering at any other angles happen without energy exchange from the photons to the electrons? And if instead of the keyword scattering one flees to the keyword absorption, bremsstrahlung is to be taken into account. If there is a peer reviewed article that defends the idea that bremsstrahlung can be avoided in a collision, then indeed it might be argued that absorption and reemission can be envisioned to take place without loss of primary photon energy. If anyone here knows of a good review paper that would be great! Harald88 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like there is an entire chapter on this subject in Rybicki and Lightman, but alas the book is eluding me at the moment. --ScienceApologist 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mechanism for Tired Light - Lyndon Ashmore 

message: The opening sentence at present restricts the notion of tired light to photon theories.  Presumably this is what Zwicky discussed, but couldn't one equally consider it for pure wave theories of light?  The kind of thing I have in mind is Roberto Monti's hypothesis that the wavelength simply increases gradually in time as the amplitude decreases. No assumption of Compton scattering (or not necessarily) -- just slight dampling -- the kind of thing that happens to a water wave.  A possible objection, though, is that with water waves the increase is, I gather, accompanied by an increase in velocity.  This does not seem to be observed -- or is it? Caroline Thompson 10:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The velocity of water waves remains the same as it is determined by the medium. "Pure wave theories" of light don't exist anymore for a variety of reasons. Photons can be said to have wavelengths just like any other waveparticle. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As waves roll into a beach the velocity changes with depth, so the wavelength changes, too. What cannot change, except with an additional interaction like scattering, is the frequency. This, coupled with the constancy of the speed of light, is the real trouble explaining vacuum redshifts except by Doppler, expansion of space, or time dilation. I tried to point this out in the article, but it may not be clear enough. --Art Carlson 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the depth of the water in some sense effectively changes the medium conditions for the water wave. I was under the impression that User:Caroline Thompson was referring to damping surface waves as in a pond of uniform depth where the wavelengths of waves increase as the wave gets further from the source. But now that I think of it, I seem to remember that this is effectively a diffusion effect due to viscosity, so maybe it's not velocity-independent either. Nutz. --ScienceApologist 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does "tired light" have to involve photons? 

message: Harald88, please review the definition of stubs. It is not an open invitation for people to just start typing. Do not impose your own prejudices on articles. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not remove the stub designation

message: The rationale for removing the stub was opposed to Wikipedia:Stub definitions. The stub is appropriately applied. Please do not act in such a unilateral fashion. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale was due to your removal of the sub that I added according to common sense, and which you did not recognize (see above). Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do NOT remove the stub designation

message: Hey,
:FYI: User:Harald88 posted a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/4_01_2006_tired_light#Request_for_cabal_mediation.
:To all editors of this page:  please go to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/4_01_2006_tired_light#Request_for_cabal_mediation and post your position on this issue.
:I would especially like to hear from User:ScienceApologist. 
:User:Harald88 requests that I keep my response discrete, but I would like to hear further from the other users on this.  Thanks.
Many thanks, SteveMc 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does not need to be discrete, that is a misunderstanding. Thanks, Harald88 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Harald.  SteveMc 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Cabal Mediation 

message: ScienceApostel argued:
"In terms of "tired light", I rely for the definition on the paper which proposed it: Zwicky, Fritz, 1929, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773-779."
-> Where exactly? I must have overlooked it.
::? The paper itself describes tired light. I'm not sure what you are asking in this context. --ScienceApologist 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is his definition of that term, on which page. Harald88 15:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not on any page. The entire paper describes the idea. It is summarized here. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess to be more specific, it is his point F which is his version tired light, generalizable to physical processes that can be parametrized by the metric components in the GR-equations. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so. Then the article's claims about what tired light is have at the moment no verifiable basis (except for the websites which you reject!); thus we have no common basis for discussion of what belongs to the tired light category. Harald88 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well there's always Ashmore's nonsense. --ScienceApologist 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The page looked like "tired light" is a new kid's toy that you could order from the back of a comic book or off of a bazooka wrapper.  But, given the silliness of the argument, maybe that's fitting.  Jim62sch 01:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page basically looked the same as now, only longer. Why the remark that the page "looked like a kid's toy"? There wasn't even an image or animation included. Harald88 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it's the "Big Bang Blasted" graphic, with a simulated explosion.  If one wishes to make a rational argument for tired light (or at least try to make one), doing so in a tabloid or advertising fashion certainly isn't going to accomplish one's goal (Actually, upon further review, the page looks like something from the National Enquirer). Jim62sch 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No graphics at all shows on my computer! There is currently only a few lines of text, and in the old version I haven't seen graphics either... Are you sure that you are commenting on the correct article? Harald88 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is tired light

message: Okay, I now realize that this article needs to be completely rewritten. We need to eliminate the scattering discussion, the novel interpretations, etc. I think the entire article should be rewritten. --ScienceApologist 03:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as nobody presents a verifiable, sufficiently general definition of "tired light", nothing can be done. Harald88 04:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might consider stubbing the article and starting from scratch. We know that tired light was proposed by Zwicky so that's verified. Everything else can be scrapped. What do you think? --ScienceApologist 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and stubbed it since there didn't seem to be any response. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hmm, I have mixed feelings about it; but perhaps stubbing will attract the attention of someone who can give a few good references. Harald88 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  The reference to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm has to go from that stub: you contest the implied meaning of "Tired light". I do that now. Harald88 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I contest what implied meaning? --ScienceApologist 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is disputing the reference? Are you? --ScienceApologist 22:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here above you wrote that you would remove all references except that of Zwicky; but you forgot to remove the reference of an article according to which Compton scattering was a proposed Tired light mechanism -- with which possibility you now strongly disagree. Harald88 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't proposed as a tired light mechanism. Compton scattering is mentioned as something that "in particular" would not work. The critique applies to tired light in general. Please don't edit on behalf of me. Either state your reasons for editting based on your own ideas or don't edit at all. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't do as you said, and now you insist; moreover I can't interpret this as anything else but pure nonsense. Thus: no, your proposal to rework it into a stub that pushes your POV under a false pretension is not acceptable to me! Revert to old version. Harald88 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, let's remove all references. --ScienceApologist 23:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

message: Thank you for addressing your concerns for the main article using a Wiki template.  This was exactly the proper direction to go, and adds both more good faith, as well as credence to the subject matter at hand, or at least your effrots to make it accurate and verifiable.  Good job! - CobaltBlueTony 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newly added template is indeed an improvement but does not accurately describe the problem, nor does it incite people to first consult this Talk page, as should be done...  Harald88 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct template 

message: still no decent definition. --ScienceApologist 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, what do you deem "indecent" about this one? ;-) Harald88 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the wink means that you are asking in jest. I don't see any "definition" of the sort I expect you are looking for at all. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A definition can be implied by the description in the introduction. That is quite often done, as it reads more pleasantly. Harald88 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, then the article as it curently stands conforms well to this definition. --ScienceApologist 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More tired light resources

message: The mediator has posted an initial response and additional questions to clarify the dispute at Mediation Cabal: Tired Light. SteveMc 00:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator questions 

message: Again the same old confused mix-up: 
"mechanisms (including some proposed by Paul Marmet) are compared to tired light in their mechanistic typology. Cosmologists consider such nonstandard cosmologies..." confuses physics with proposed cosmologies that may be defended, based on knowledge of such mechanisms. A redshift mechanism is not a cosmological model! Harald88 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The implications of Marmet's work is that the standard cosmological model is wrong. Although his work does not represent an entirely new cosmology but only a part of one, it is sufficiently separate from the standard cosmological explanations to warrant such a descriptor. We can reword. --ScienceApologist 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redshift mechanisms are not cosmology 

message: Someone added a lot about a "coherent optical effect"... it apparently is about some kind of redshift, but it's unclear to me what it has to do with Tired light. Harald88 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As more was added without any comment here, and the issue of relevance remains unclear, I now moved it here below for explanation by the author. Harald88 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coherent optical effect? 

message: [copied from elsewhere:]
Hi, I'm seconds before switching off my computer, so this issue has to waot a bit, BUT there's something unsatisfactory with narrow understanding of obsolote. Also note, that the article Superseded scientific theory isn't that consistent, compare the handling of Flat Earth. --Pjacobi 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, the "flat earth" used to be a popular concept in ancient times, that has been almost universally abandoned; it's supported in no recent scientific journal article. Thus it has become "obsolete". And if you disagree with the article that defines the concept "obsolete", please work on that article first... Harald88 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat. "Obsolete"? 

message: (Copied from personal page -- iantresma)
Sorry , i shouldn't have used the word badly in my edit summary. It's just 'alternative to redshifts' is confusing as you mean current, accepted redshift theories. my apologies. -- maxrspct in the mud  17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are quite correct that "the vast majority of physicists and astronomers accept the conclusions of various studies that such an effect does not account for cosmological redshifts.", this does not take into account recent research. I full accept that everyone dismisses Zwicky's tired light, and perhaps many others. But I have no idea whether cosmologists have read, perhaps, all the papers from the last 5 years, and commented on them; it would be misleading and unfair to cosmologists to suggest that they have precluded all recent tired light theories. --Iantresman 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tired light

message: Ian, do you have any reason to believe that the two hypotheses you just included are notable enough in the field to warrant special inclusion as you made them out to be? --ScienceApologist 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I did a little more research. The first reference Ian includes is well-cited in the journals. The second is not. I propose we remove David Crawford's hypothesis as being non-notable and basically an alternative cosmology advocated by a single person bordering (slightly) on original research. --ScienceApologist 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tired light is already acknowledged to be a minority field. Consequently any new theory is even more minority... but very relevent to anyone studying the field. Crawford may be unknown, but his paper is peer reviewed, and of interest to anyone wanting more information on tired light. --Iantresman 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is basically not cited in other papers or in the mainstream while the other works you included are. Notability is an important qualification. Just because something is peer reviewed does not automatically mean it should be found in the article. While I'm sure Crawford's ideas are interesting to some people, they are fundamentally not important as can be seen by the fact that he has very few citations. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No. They are peer-reviewed and represent current investigation into the subject. Peers, people who are more expert than you and me, have decided that their work is notable enough to publish in mainstream journals. To everyone who is in this field, these people are very notable. One tiny section mentioning these people work is quite proportional to their notability in the field of tired light.  --Iantresman 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review != notability as per earlier discussion. --ScienceApologist 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current additions

message: A few of you think that only readers who are interested in cosmology or plasma cosmology will be interested in this article; however, that's erroneous, as one  cited article shows and as I can attest myself: I care very little about cosmology or plasma cosmology, my main interest is physics. Please motivate why you want to scrap the category that points for people like me to this highly interesting physics article. Harald88 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm mostly interested in '''physics''' - thus cat! 

message: I was looking for a dispute that remained on this page. I couldn't find one. I removed the tag. If any still has a dispute, put the tag back up and let it be known. --ScienceApologist 12:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

message: In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Redshift I wrote about Ari Brynjolfsson's and my own theories regarding redshift of light in plasmas which are so diffuse that the average inter-particle spacing exceeds the coherence length of the light.  Maybe such theories should be mentioned as modern tired light theories, to distinguish them from those which were developed and abandoned in the first half of the 20th century. Robin Whittle 04:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any critical review of Brynjolfsson's ideas? --ScienceApologist 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia does not require critical reviews, only verifiable reliable sources. --Iantresman 13:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, but critical reviews of a subject are one of the ways to determine the notability of a topic. Certainly, singular proposals by lone researchers are not generally considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Robin, they don't need to be mentioned as modern since Einstein's theory of tired light is the most modern of them all (read Einsteinian model subsection, if you managed to do it before some BB guy makes it a history - then read the history). Jim 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma redshift theories