Talk:Tired light: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 144:

::''"Tired light is the hypothesis that photons of light slowly lose energy as they travel through space. [...] Various mechanisms to produce such a drop in energy have been proposed. Scattering by known mechanisms from gas or dust does not reproduce the observations. For example, scattering by any mechanism would be expected to blur the images of distant objects, which is not observed."''

::BTW, that last sentence is unwarranted for the "scattering" process that you removed: it refers to another mechanism.

:::The initial paper by Zwicky is useful here. The idea proposed is that photons "get tired" not from a stochastic process but rather from an intrinsic property of the light. Nevertheless, people have claimed that scattering processes could do this, and this is discounted in the above paragraph correctly. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::Apologist, you have been nagging to censor this information from this article just as you attempted to hide the whole tired light subject from the redshift article -- unmistakenly in order to make a strong as possible apology for a single POV about Cosmological redshift. This is part of a pattern, contrary to my attempts to help making Wikipedia the most informative and unbiased encyclopedia ever. You are now simultaneously trying to delete an exhaustive list of redshift mechanisms which should be linked to from the Redshift article. If your strategy to censor out a number of known redshift mechanisms from Wikipedia will be successfull, it can only lead to a POV notice on the Redshift article as well. [[User:Harald88|Harald88]] 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not trying to censor any information at all. I just want things covered appropriately in the correct articles. Marmet's ideas could be put on the [[non-standard cosmology]] page, for example. They don't belong here. You may need to reread the [[WP:NPOV]] guidelines in particular the information regarding pseudoscience and undue weight. Bogging down articles on subjects such as redshift with "alternative" ideas from discredited individuals such as Marmet is not inline with Wikipedia policy. We can cover his ideas well on the appropriate pages devoted either to him or to nonstandard cosmology. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)