Talk:Redshift/Archive 8

message: Now, this one is tricky. User:Harald has made the change appealing to NPOV, but I think it's probably more an issue of accuracy. Is it accurate to state that current models of cosmology and the FLRW metric predict the Hubble Law? In the sense of an exposition on the subject of the Hubble Law, absolutely. In the sense of the historicity of the subject, absolutely not. I was assuming that the article had a tone of the former and not the latter. What do others think? Is it misleading to claim that these ideas predict the Hubble Law when the word "predict" can mean two different things? Is there a better word that is stronger than "describe" that can convey the meaning we're trying to get at here? --ScienceApologist 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pressed the Send button before choosing the motiovation; yes I agree it's a matter of accuracy, but neverheless in a possibly propagandistic way (its use may well stem from propaganda for theories, for "predict" sounds great). Thus I had a similar tricky hesitation about how to phrase the motivation. Of course, if it has been shown that the Hubble law was a non-obvious outcome of the current model when it was drafted, then it's an achievement for which "predict" may be appropriate (although still inaccurate). And I also agree that "describe" is a bit weak; "correctly describe" is maybe better, but a bit long. Harald88 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The obviousness of the prediction/description is not relevant to our discussion as that isn't part of what makes something predictive. I think the real issue is one of causality -- it definitely did not happen that someone predicted Hubble's observations beforehand. (No one had the foresight to look at the normalized time derivative of the scale factor and ask what might happen if a photon signal experienced the time dilation associated with this.) But this doesn't mean squat in the narrative of science which puts effect before cause all the time (perhaps because scientists are such gleeful revisionists as the scientific method allows one so easily to correct past errors). In any case, we need a word to describe this. How about "prescription" or "dediction"? (Upon writing this, I really wish the latter was a word. Too bad neologisms are frowned upon, eh?) --ScienceApologist 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prediction vs. description

message: This section did not contain content relating to Redshift as a topic, so it was moved to Talk:Redshift/See Also Dispute June 2006 in an effort to refactor this talk page and improve its readability.  Please move all talk about See Also policies and the creation of See Also lists there. Flying Jazz 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I'm interested that Ian was confused about the fine-structure constant reference which is directly applicable to the discussion about the spectroscopic signature of single sources. Do people find the current wording unclear? Would anybody like to suggest an alternative? --ScienceApologist 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many other examples in the article where a non-scientist would be "confused". The very first sentence: "In physics and astronomy, redshift is an observed increase in the wavelength and decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared to that emitted by the source." Do you know any non-astronomers? Your parents? Give them a call, and read them the first sentence. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be technical stuff in the article, only that you have to (a) define terms first (b) provide real-world analogies and examples, etc etc. --Iantresman 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any alternative suggestions? --ScienceApologist 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few, which I'll plan to suggest once the trivial matter of redshift quantization is resolved. --Iantresman 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fine structure constant confusion?

message: *I put all the equations in a single table, I think it improves the layout, and lets readers see the relationship between all of them.
*I added a table of interpretation of the value if z; I'm sure I don't need to ask, but could you please check it for accuracy.
*I added a final paragraph on z as a constant. A single measurement will not determine whether z is a frequency-independent, and in practice, either it is assumed to be frequency-independent, or it is found to be? Is this accurate?
:I have never seen someone who has measured redshift using a single feature. In practice, one looks at an entire spectra and then fits the shift. I removed this paragraph for discussion below. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I realized that the z=10 galaxy mentioned in this very article (aside:I don't believe this measurement. The line was supposed to be asymmetric in the opposite direction according to the paper that made the measurement!) was done with a single line that was claimed to be lyman-alpha because of the context. So, I guess there are always people that will try to stretch these things. --ScienceApologist 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The relative change in wavelength z

message: Any outstanding problems with this page that would prevent it from being renominated as an FA? --ScienceApologist 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I have a some more to suggest, but am getting side-tracked on other issues. --Iantresman 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please hold off for another few weeks.  I'd like to take a look at the article with "fresh eyes." Flying Jazz 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready for FA?

message: I am inspired by ScienceApologist's addition of this sentence to the article on Redshift quantization, to add the comment.  I am happy to discuss its inclusion and motive as it applies to BOTH articles. --Iantresman 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't belong on this article because redshift quantization doesn't belong in this article. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catastrophists, creationists, and even geocentrists

message: I've restored this section. Flying Jazz removed discussion he felt concerned redshift quantization. This section is SPECIFICALLY about criticisms of redshift, as indicated by all the statements and sources.
*I've discovered a significant and notable source of criticism on redshift, which I think we should consider including the article. The source is impeccable, and it notes many critics. The source mentions:
*"... many opponents of the Big Bang including Halton Arp" and indeed there do appear to be hundreds of such critics .
*The source also mentions creationists critics, and its primary source does indeed make extensive comments on redshift (there are also a few comments on redshift quantization, but they are not relevent here). A second creationist source provided, also has an associated paper  that also criticises redshift.
*It is estimated that there are some 100+ million creationists in the USA alone, and this must represent a significant view.
*There's also a reference to a group called modern geocentrist, where I note an associated critical paper also on redshift .
*I am a little reluctant to use Web sites as sources, but the empeccable source noted above, seems ok with it. I note that the Cosmological Statement was published in the reputable New Scientists, which I suspect felt that the reliability, and credibility of the original signaturees was notable. About 200 of the other signers all appear associated with academia.
*It does seem odd that we don't have a section on Redshift criticism when there are so many critics. --Iantresman 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not refactor that post because I felt it concerned redshift quantization.  I refactored that post because it was uncivil and detached from the Redshift article as a topic.  It was uncivil of you to misapply ScienceApologist's post in the Redshift quantization article in this way as if it were a justification for you to list a series of bulleted points that continue your uncivil behavior of disrupting Wikipedia by preventing other editors from focusing on individual detailed topics.  If you want a "redshift criticism" section then propose one in a way that other editors can understand and respond to so that the community is stronger and more good editors post here.  Don't write a bunch of bullet points that are only connected to each other in your mind and then write "It does seem odd that we don't have a section on Redshift criticism."  We cannot read your mind and we're getting sick of trying.  Please, please stop making these lists of bullet points that all say something different and baiting and provocative and just write ONE THING about what EXACTLY you want in the Redshift article so we can try to rebuild the community of editors that used to post here before your behavior spiralled out of control and took the talk page down with it. If you want to change the article, write about how you want to change the article and leave out this nonsense.  Flying Jazz 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  Scratch nearly all that.  I didn't refactor that post at all.  ScienceApologist did.  That was a mistake.  SA, you should not be refactoring the talk page when you are the target of incivility.  The post should have been refactored, and probably would have been eventually, but you shouldn't have done it, and you shouldn't have done it so soon after it appeared.  You, SA, are contributing to the confusion and nonsense here, as usual.  See Wikipedia:Refactoring and my concerns about refactoring getting out of hand. Honestly, you two deserve each other. Flying Jazz 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redshift criticism (refactoring confusion)

message: My inability to decide about this is a result of wanting redshift quantization mentioned at redshift because of point 9, but still wanting to do this "properly" in terms of treating a science concept like a science concept.  I don't buy SA's argument for exclusion, but I recognize my previous position was ill-informed and of course I no longer want redshift quantization mentioned only in the same sentence with tired light and intrinsic redshift.  With some skill (that I don't have but that I know exists), it should be possible to include enough context for redshift quantization in the article to properly indicate the actual prominence of redshift quantization in physics and to refer the reader to the redshift quantization article for details.  As for all the other redshift distortions and their technical details, it is possible to let the reader know there is much more to the story without revealing the story. Flying Jazz 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very interesting proposal. I would love to see what this would look like. I'm all for setting up a workshop to work this out. --ScienceApologist 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further debate (only about the context for inclusion/exclusion of redshift quantization in the redshift article)

message: *Mere mention of redshift quantization in a creationist publication does not imply support by all creationists. If the Economist magazine runs an item on gay rights, do we assume that all Economists are gay?
*Every reference we cite is based on the content of the article, not on whether Tifft, or Napier was a creationist (it would be an ad hominem to suggest it was relevent). I can find nothing which suggests that Tifft or Napier set out to find data supporting or not supporting the big bang. The closest texts I can find, is that IF there is redshift quantization, then there may be implications for big bang cosmology.
*The verifiable facts are: (a) there was observational evidence to support it, (b) there is currently evidence which some authors claim is inconsistent with it, and (c) evidence which some authors claim is not inconsistent with it. This summary is verifiable (refactored by Flying Jazz 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody disputes your first comment.  I think your second and third comment belong in Talk:Redshift quantization.  Not here. Flying Jazz 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further debate (additional comments by Ian about redshift quantization)

message: I moved the useful "observational" information from "Overview" to a new section called "Observing and measuring redshift". The existing section "Quantifying and interpreting redshift" naturally follows on as a sub-section. --Iantresman 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview change

message: We once had more on the relativistic Doppler redshift. It was removed because editors other than myself believed it was too cumbersome and not illuminating enought to include. The problem is that the v used the formulae is not the same v as appears in the Lorentz factor. The relationship between them is that the "redshift" v is the velocity in the line of sight (or the velocity of the Lorentz factor multiplied by cosine of the angle between the motion and the line of sight). The formula Ian put up had the two velocities switched. --ScienceApologist 14:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, perhaps the fuller equation can go in the ariticle on Relativistic Doppler effect. --Iantresman 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's technically already there, just substitute in for the ratios of the frequencies 1 + z. --ScienceApologist 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going way back in time

message: ScienceApologist, can you clarify the following:
*Doppler redshift is due to Galilean transformation (ie. due to movement)?
::yes. --ScienceApologist 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relativistic Doppler effect is due to a Lorentz transformation. --ScienceApologist 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In actuality, this redshift is due to a general relativistic transformation associated with the FRW metric. --ScienceApologist 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: yes. The metric that is used is the Schwarzschild metric for a stationary mass.--ScienceApologist 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, it's ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 --ScienceApologist 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: yes. --ScienceApologist 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the Galilean transformation have a name, formal or descriptive? Thanks. --Iantresman 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By this, I assume you are asking if the metric associated with the Galilean transformation has a name. The metric is in fact the Euclidean metric. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: yes. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frame transformations

message: This article states under Gravitational redshift: This letter has been considered to be the first prediction of gravitational redshift.
As time dilation is not the same as light speed or light intensity, the association is incorrect and can only lead to confusion. The source that makes that erroneous claim isn't mentioned while that's obviously required; and apart of that, the whole passage is in fact irrelevant for this article; it may be appropriate for event horizon. Harald88 09:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was me who found details of the letter. Whether it is considered the first prediction of gravitational redshift, I don't know. That some people had considered it so, I read somewhere. I shall defer to the widsom of the other editors --Iantresman 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can trace back which journal had considered it so, it may be still be worthy of mention in the event horizon article. Harald88 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This book says that the Gravitational redshift was predicted by Michel and Laplace, with a more detailed explanation here and here. --Iantresman 10:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those cites are to the first prediction of the Schwarzschild radius. The book does not claim that Michell/Cavendish suggested a gravitational redshift. LaPlace is usually credited with being the first to theorize an object like a black hole, but the correspondence of Michell and Cavendish do seem to come in second place. --ScienceApologist 10:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michel's letter 

message: * Well done ScienceApologist, another unilateral decision; you final got the heretical tired light and intrinsic redshift out of the main article, but you forgot the Wolf Effect. If you make the font size of the footnotes even smaller, you can make sure that no-one can even see the words "tired light" and "intrinsic redshift". I shall look forward to your next article in Pravda. --Iantresman 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua certianly engages in a lot of conduct unbecoming a sysop, guess this is just more proof that he's unfit for the job--F.O.E. 06:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intrinsic redshift

message: The article is more concerned with the observation of redshift, of the theory of redshift? Presumably the latter is more conjectural? --Iantresman 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While one can divide scientists into observationalists and theorists, this particular subject doesn't really separate out that cleanly into the two categories. Observing a "redshift" can only be explained through appeal to some theory. That's one of the constraints of astrophysics, our captive audience can't ever see behind the curtain so we have to be clever in how we look for the mechanisms. --ScienceApologist 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation vs theory

message: I've replaced the statement "Alternative hypotheses are not generally considered plausible" which is subjective and dependent on who you ask.
The new statement accurately reflects the number of verifiable published papers on alternative hypotheses (600+ is not insignficant), and a number of scientists and engineers who have acknowledged that they consider alternative redshifts to be plausible. Again 200+ scientists and engineers is not insignficant. --Iantresman 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the new statement violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It has been reverted. --ScienceApologist 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *How many peer-reviewed papers and scientists discussing alternative redshift theories, exceeds Undue Weight? --Iantresman 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article as currently written we have a decent coverage for alternatives with respect to their prominence. --ScienceApologist 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's not what I asked. How many peer-reviewed papers and scientists discussing alternative redshift theories, exceeds Undue Weight?  How do we independently assess it, rather rely on your perspective --Iantresman 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question you asked is meaningless for our discussion. There are no hard-and-fast rules in Wikipedia. We are human editors, not computer programs. --ScienceApologist 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *It currently seems that you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes Undue Weight. I'd like your description of how others may judge what exceeds Undue Weight. I have read Wiki's policy on Undue Weight several times over, and I think I have grossly misunderstood it.  --Iantresman 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative redshift theories

message: ScienceApologist, I still do not know how to assess undue weight. You're able to decide what fails Undue weight, but unable to explain what doesnt't. --Iantresman 11:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight