Talk:Redshift-space distortions

Redshift Space Distortion[edit]

Since this article talks about both types of redshift space distortion should this page be renamed 'redshift space distortion'? Korandder (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar rays[edit]

Isn't the phenonemon where you can see the sun shining through the trees also called "fingers of god"?

Perhaps colloquially, but those are official referred to as Crepuscular rays. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax[edit]

I'm a bit confused... it sounds like this phenomena is similar to the effects of Parallax, such as how meteors always seem to fall in the same direction? Er, assuming I'm right in calling that "parallax". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there are no similarities between the fingers of God, parallax and meteors. Parallax is the effect of an object appearing to change position (relative to the background) depending on the position of the observer. In astronomy, this effect manifests itself when viewing nearby stars. They move relative to background stars depending on where Earth is in it's orbit when the observations are made. I'm not sure exactly what you refer to when you're talking about meteors falling in the same direction. If you're talking about a meteor shower then all the meteors fall in the same direction because they are all debris from the same object and so are all travelling in the same direction. AstroMark (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images?[edit]

My only concern when this started - there is no damn image! The image was removed! I changed the paragraph to reflect as much, however creatively. The responsibility probably doesn't rest with the person that deleted the image, since there were other issues involved with that. The guy that reverted my changes, however, is plain wrong. If he cared enough to do anything, the least he could have done is give the article MORE sense than my meager attempt, not less. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.32.140 (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The paragraph is clearly describing an image which is no longer there and therefore the paragraph is useless. AstroMark (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where can i find this image. i have a slightly critical view on physics, as it is currently practiced, so the talk page is mostly where it's at for me. I prefer Britannica for it is impartiality. That beauty plays a role in physics,... that's for another time and another pint.

please if you have the picture i'll get someone to write the script to replace it as it is removed. these guerillia tactics are only warranted if you are up against a bunch of incalculable reactionaries. Ever found a man on the street, showed him a phyics page from wikipedia and asked him if he knew what it was about? exactly, on these topics this is not an encyclopedia, or someone is still walking circles in CERN living on sardines trying to find the door out in the dark... 188.207.115.167 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Redshift-space distortions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]