Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrinsic redshift: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:07, 3 January 2006

Intrinsic redshift

This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is in progress.

Claiming the article is based on one reference is false (that completely ignores the other 30+ references).
Claiming the article is based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper" is false. The article referred to appears in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series" [1] and includes over 700 references itself, the majority being peer reviewed.
Claiming that the article is original research is false; Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Wikipedia says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.
Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.
Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.

--Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either rename and link from redshift, or merge. Motivation:

- I agree with ScienceApologist that it's apparently a POV fork. However, the cause of a POV fork is often insufficient accounting for that POV in the main article, and a quick look shows that the redshift article is lacking on a number of points, especially as the article he/she apparently refers to is titled "redshift" and not "cosmological redshift". I repeat here my earlier comments on the Talk page: this article certainly fills a gap (I learned something today thanks to it!) but to make it general and NPOV, it should be called "List of redshift mechanisms", and be linked from the redshift article, containing all notable past and current cosmological as well as non-cosmological redshift hypotheses. Such a page will be very useful as general reference, and free from any POV. Harald88 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redshift article already (appropriately) deals with scattering redshift mechanisms, with most of the details (appropriately) left to the scattering article. An (appropriate) brief mention and link is made to the tired light article (although this seems to flicker a bit). The only theory that is not covered, but might be with a link, is Arp's 1997 hypothesis. --Art Carlson 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Wikipedia), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):

Terms

Intrinsic redshift [2]
Non-cosmological redshift [3]
Non-velocity redshifts or Non-Doppler Redshift [4]
Anomalous Redshift or Discordant redshift [5]
Redshift quantization [6] [7] [8]
Neutrino redshift [9]
"Corrected" redshifts [10]

Theories

Halton Arp's theory
Plasma redshift [11]
Greenberger's theory of "variable mass particles" who proposes a "decay redshift" [12]. See also [13]
Pecker's photon-photon interaction [Pecker, J. C., Roberts, A. P., and Vigier, J. P., 1972, Non-velocity redshifts and photon-photon interactions: Nature, v. 237, p. 227-229] But see [14]
Evershed Effect [15]
Urbanovich's external influences [16]
The Simkin effect [17] [18]
Effect of Mass on Frequency (?) [19]
Ageing of photons by collisions with a hypothetical particle [20]
Interaction between incident transverse photons and light neutral bosons [21]
Photon radiation density and path length [22]
Photon-boson scattering [23]
Photon motion in the discrete space-time under the photon's own force field. [24]
Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity [25] [26]
Inelastic transmission of photons in gases [27] [28]

Observations

Solar limb redshift [29]
Anomalous shift from Pioneer VI [30]

--Iantresman 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * '''Delete.''' The [[redshift]] article already (appropriately) deals with scattering redshift mechanisms, with most of the details (appropriately) left to the [[scattering]] article. An (appropriate) brief mention and link is made to the [[tired light]] article (although this seems to flicker a bit). The only theory that is not covered, but might be with a link, is Arp's 1997 hypothesis. --[[User:Art Carlson|Art Carlson]] 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 ::The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Wikipedia), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):
@@ Line 53: / Line 52: @@
 ::--[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-I, ''Ari Brynolfsson'', find that Ian Tresman's article on “Intrinsic Redshift” is good and very neutral. It does not advocate anything and reports the facts.  I was therefore surprised to read this morning that ScienceApologist wants to consider its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy! I find also that the use of a “fringe scientist” for any one that disagrees with some of the absurdities in the contemporary Big Bang cosmology improper.  I believe that the use by Ian Tresman of “Intrinsic Redshift” was dictated by the fact that most of the processes he mentioned are more likely to work where the densities are high, such as those found very close to stars, galaxies and quasars.  Such redshifts are properly called intrinsic redshifts.  The use of “Alternative Redshift Theories” for “Intrinsic Redshifts” is possible, especially, when people like ScienceApologist think that only Doppler like redshifts and/or expansion of the Universe can explain the cosmological redshift.
-Plasma redshift (see arXiv:astro-ph/0401420) is special in that it shows that only very hot and sparse plasmas produce the “plasma redshift”.  The plasma redshift cross section was, therefore, easily overlooked in the past, as it does not apply to ordinary laboratory plasmas.  Plasma redshift applies to the coronas around the Sun, stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters.  It produces significant redshifts that are properly called “intrinsic redshifts”.  In each case it is important that the photon energy lost in the redshift turns into heat in the plasma.  For example, it is the main cause for the steep temperature rise in the transition zone to the solar corona.  The plasma redshift starts exactly in the transition zone, and results in the steep temperature increase.  In addition, the plasma redshift explains the cosmological redshifts.  This is possible, because the photon energy lost in the plasma redshift heats the sparse intergalactic plasma.  Before we knew about the plasma redshift, the physicist had no means of heating the intergalactic plasma.  They were therefore forced to assume that it was very cold.  This contradicted many observations. They even had no means of heating the relatively dense coronas around galaxies and galaxy clusters.
-The interesting fact is that the same plasma densities and plasma temperatures that are predicted by the good fit to the magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SN Ia, also explain the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).  The densities and temperatures of the intergalactic plasma explain both the blackbody temperature and the uniformity of the angular intensity.  These plasma densities and temperatures also result in the right intensities of the cosmic X-ray background.  No adjustment parameters such as “Dark Matter” and “Variable Dark Energy” are needed to explain the observations.
-It is misleading to call plasma redshift a “tired light theory”, because it has many characteristics that are not found in the “tired light theory”.  Ari Brynjolfsson.