Talk:Redshift/Archive 5

message: ===Frequency-dependent redshifts===
There are also a number of causes of frequency-dependent redshift of spectral lines. This use of the term 'redshift' is in less common usage, and will not be discussed further in this article. They include Brillouin scattering  ,
Compton scattering ,
Raman scattering 
Wolf effect ,
and other theories such as tired light theories 
These redshift mechanisms are sometimes called non-Doppler redshifts , non-Cosmological redshifts , or intrinsic redshifts .
''
This section was removed as the statements made about the citations are not verified. --ScienceApologist 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing section removed

message: ::The terms "general" and "specific" are tricky here. On the one hand (maybe Ian's hand), there are more phenomena that can be related to a less rigorous definition of redshift (the qualitative observation or the ratio) than there are phenomena that can be related to the more strict definition (the proportionality), so the less rigorous definition is more "general." On the other hand (maybe ScienceApologist's hand), the less rigorous definition doesn't apply at every wavelength, so in this mathematical sense, it is more "specific" and only people who use the proportionality are using the "general" case. I think it's best to avoid the terms general and specific entirely in a situation like this. Flying Jazz 04:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: general and specific

message: In astronomy, redshift is most often used, but "red shift" is also acceptable. What is it like in chemistry? Do the chemists use "red shift" or "redshift" more often? This is of vital importance to the disambiguation. --ScienceApologist 02:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a chemist, but I believe the situation there is the reverse, that "red shift" is most common but that "redshift" and "red-shift" are acceptable alternatives.  Dragons flight 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can gather this is true. So perhaps the disambiguation should go on the Red shift page instead of here? We already link to this page at the top of the article. We can just make it clearer that this is the redshift associated with astronomy. --ScienceApologist 04:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Red shift or redshift?

message: I just found the RFC associated with this page.  A really good place to announce such things, and ask for help, is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.  That is the place where most of the physicists hang out, and in particular, the people with the PhD's. However, you don't need a PhD to participate -- its just a good place where physics topics can be discussed and announcements/requests can be made.  linas 06:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics]] 

message: Since there are policies regarding the inclusion of extreme minority positions at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#undue weight and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" and according to the suggestion of User:Flying Jazz above, the section on non-standard cosmologies has been removed. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not take actions in my name. It is uncivil. I agree with your action, but it is something I would not have done immediately without further discussion first. In the future, say something like "I agree and did this" instead of the sneaky nasty passive "according to the suggestion of...this has been done." Flying Jazz 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you endorse my actions, I just was inspired by your comments. I take full responsibility for my own edits. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An absolutely appalling unilaterial decision.  It makes a mockery of "Request for Comments". And to suggest that it is taken regarding Wikipedia's "neutral point of view", is a joke when the very first line of the policy says that articles should be written "representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias."  The article now implies that there are NO minority views, and that non-cosmological redshifts are not even considered by anybody. Stalin would have approved. Disgusted. --Iantresman 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removal

message: "Untrivial redshifts - A bibliographical catalogue" (1981) by Reboul, H. J. in Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, vol. 45, July 1981, p. 129-144.
Seven hundred and seventy-two coded references, covering 70 years of study of anomalous, i.e., untrivial redshifts (NTZ), are presented. Definitions are given for trivial Z and for the classical theories, and lists are presented for 17 classes of NTZ and 19 classes of unclassical theories. [Full abstract | Full text]
Quote from article: "We arbitrarily define as trivial a redshift which can be easily explained by a combination of the three following effects: Doppler,  Schwarzschild, Friedmann." [Do we mention Schwarzchild or Friedmann?]
Summary
Number of classes of nontrivial redshift: 17+19 = 36  (excluding the Wolf Effect).
Number of references acribed to gravitational/classical explanations ~210
Number of peer-reviewed references supporting iantresman's position = 500+ (edited from 700+ 19:35p)
Number of peer-reviewed references supporting Joshua Shroeder (ScienceApologist)'s position = Zero
:What a horrible and biased summary. I think this about closes the case on our dealings with Ian. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 750 Peer-reviewed "Untrivial Redshifts"