Talk:Tired light

Early mature Quasar Contradicts the big bang theory

Wikipedia should allow published alternative explanations for the redshift, without expanding space. The big bang theory is contradicted by observations. see link. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions 71.98.132.136 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The link does not say that the big bang theory is contradicted by this observation. Nor does this link have any relevance whatsoever for tired light theories. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly contradicts the big bang, by presenting a Quasar older than the big bang. 71.98.135.144 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Too bad Wikipedia censors published articles

This is archived because the person posting it is banned. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Heaven forbid that the astronomy students at Columbia University could discover those five articles that refute the big bang theory. The professors at Columbia would not like that now would they ? Better be sure the five articles never get into Wikipedia anywhere. 12.184.176.57 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Add a new section 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models'

This is archived because the person posting it is banned. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A new section should be added to the article under the title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' where these five referenced articles should be cited, the authors being all Ph.D.'s in Physics: 1) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1 2) Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 3) Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004) 4) Masreliez C. Johan (2005), pretitle=print pages 13-20 "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108, doi:10.1007/s10509-005-4321-6, http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf pretitle=print pages 13-20 5) Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-400, doi:10.1023/A:1002050702708 This will add some neutral balance to the article. 71.98.133.122 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Apparently, the banned editor is User:Licorne. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If so, it is not the only banned editor! It should be noted that the initiating one, who has made substantial contributions to the text under several IPs is the now blocked and identified user 128.59.169.46 (talk) also using 140.252.83.232 (talk) and 140.252.83.241 (talk). The least this calls for is adding the new section requested,'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' and most likely also other revisions. 77.219.181.190 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) /User:Mariguld Are you evading your block? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Since when does wikipedia not accept pertinent published references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.5 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC) WP:SCIRS. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Astrophysics and Space Science is published under Springer, and Physics Essays is published under the AIP. Wikipedia simply refuses any articles that contradict the big bang religion. 71.98.135.144 (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Nuujinn and other administrators should be aware of pertinent research on the IP-issue at stake and take neccessary steps instead of harassing an innocent victim. 77.219.176.32 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) The last sentence in the article says tired light proposals are "all but absent" from the scientific literature, which is admitting there do exist tired light proposals. The five sources above should therefore be cited as examples of published tired light proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.129.251 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC) They aren't in good enough journals. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC) You mean they aren't in big bang journals. 71.98.129.61 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Any pertinent papers to be added or deleted?

I have not looked at this article for a long time, but I notice traces of debates with unreasonable (not in line with the rules) requests to insert or remove references to articles, and new editors. I guess that this is such a small topic that most relevant papers (or one per author) can be mentioned. To those who were involved recently, are there any notable papers about "tired light" concepts that are not referred to, or, inversely, unnoticed papers that are still referred to? Harald88 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because few people read it doesn't mean it is okay to turn it into a rubbish dump of crankery. There's a couple by Masreliez which have been published which use the words 'tired light' but describes a metric expansion of space as far as I can see except they phrase it to say the space doesn't expand - things in it shrink, and uses it to explain the Pioneer anomaly which has been pretty much fully explained anyway. Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Turning it into a rubbish dump or into a propaganda piece are both forbidden, for the same reason. So thanks, I'll take a look. Harald88 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I now had a quick look at those papers, and one of them is cited by someone else. I don't think that that warrants a discussion of his ideas. Nevertheless, I recall that there were other alternative hypothesis that also were called tired light. Together that bunch of alternatives is just notable. So, it will be appropriate to add a short section, for example "Alternative tired light hypotheses" in which passing mention is made of those attempts that so far had little impact. Harald88 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please workshop it in talk if you think you can assemble something that will pass the muster. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Harald, there should be a short section on published alternative models. The article already says in the very last sentence that some published alternative models do exist, so show them in a section. Why should we hide them? 71.98.129.155 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll try but not sure if I can find the time in the coming two weeks...

But I now notice in the last section "fringe researchers" - what the hell are that?? I work in research and it's not a term used by scientists, as it sounds just like racist or name-calling. That's inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

PS. I now checked who one of those "fringe scientists" was: a teacher of the Astrophysics Department of the School of Physics, University of Sydney! So it's not merely name-calling, but even misleading. The POV of the last section is put on in such a thick layer that it just drips off. Harald88 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See fringe science. I'm afraid I get the impression some of the stuff in areas related to here may by a branch of creationists who have a thing against the theory of Relativity because they think it inspires moral relativism, that would be pseudoscience. We should just go by the peer reviews so the problem is mostly not our business though of course if it does seem nutty we should check it really is a good source. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Harald88 has a point. We use the terms fringe science in our discussions, and I think it's a appropriate here, but barring a reliable source using the same term, I think it best we avoid using the term in the article. I've recast the last paragraph, please double check it to make sure I haven't introduced errors. I think that last clause should be deleted unless we a source for it, so I tagged it. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

They seem very reasonable. No need to stick in a fringe qualifier unnecessarily. Saying something is fringe really needs a citation saying something like that. Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's better and much more encyclopedic. However, I think that it's still not really good, but as talk about that section is a slightly different topic I started with a new header. Harald88 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tired light is absolutely fringe science at this point, and not considered credible by any but a tiny number of physicists and astronomers. Here's a citation from ScienceNOW in 2001 to that effect:

Measurements of the cosmic microwave background put the theory 
firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago; still, scientists 
sought more direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.

There's also a nice quote from Ned Wright at the end of the article. I've reverted the recent changes, but not added the article, as I'm not sure where best to work it in. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good find, that's exactly the kind of secondary source we need. I'll see about working it in later once I've had a chance to read the article, if you don't beat me to it. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. I added the quote to the end of the article in place of the nebulous "all but absent" line and referenced it in the intro as a source for the fact that the idea is lately consigned to the fringes. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think in the lead though it is enough just to say it hasn't been supported by observational evidence without labouring the point that it is fringe now. The fringe citation is fine in the paragraph in the main article about where it all is now. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I already made clear, "fringe scientist" isn't a proper nor a neutral descriptor - "fringe scientist" doesn't exist in serious literature (no, it does not have the same meaning as "fringe science"!). I'll correct it to "fringe physics", or better, as now a whole sentence about the "fringe physics" qualifier has been added, to "tired light models" . Harald88 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading, apparently erroneous last section

I checked up on the last referenced claim of the last section. To my astonishment I found a follow-up article by the same author (as it seems, with an improved theory) in a high quality physics journal, that itself was again referenced (according to Web Of Knowledge) in 8 articles of which I copy some titles that in turn have been cited hereunder. Evidently the claim of that section is not supported by the facts. Harald88 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Title: The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe

Author(s): Sorrell Wilfred H. Source: ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE Volume: 317 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 45-58 DOI: 10.1007/s10509-008-9853-0 Published: SEP 2008 Times Cited: 3 (from All Databases)

3. Title: Curvature pressure in a cosmology with a tired-light redshift

Author(s): Crawford DF Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS Volume: 52 Issue: 4 Pages: 753-777 Published: 1999 Times Cited: 2 (from All Databases)

4. Title: THE QUASAR DISTRIBUTION IN A STATIC UNIVERSE

Author(s): CRAWFORD DF Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 441 Issue: 2 Pages: 488-493 DOI: 10.1086/175375 Part: Part 1 Published: MAR 10 1995 Times Cited: 4 (from All Databases)

6. Title: A STATIC STABLE UNIVERSE

Author(s): CRAWFORD DF Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 410 Issue: 2 Pages: 488-492 DOI: 10.1086/172765 Part: Part 1 Published: JUN 20 1993 Times Cited: 6 (from All Databases)

7. Title: A NEW GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION OF COSMOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

Author(s): CRAWFORD DF Source: ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL Volume: 377 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-6 DOI: 10.1086/170330 Part: Part 1 Published: AUG 10 1991 Times Cited: 6 (from All Databases)

---

Sorry, which paper exactly are you referring to and which claim exactly are you saying is refuted? Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Harald88 is trying to say that the refutation of Crawford's theory in Nature was subject to a later rebuttal. But Crawford's attempt to rebut Beckers and Cram was not published in Nature, and as far as I can tell that's the last time that Nature ever entertained a tired light notion. Interestingly, Charles Seife, it seems, referenced a "one-two punch" that essentially removed Crawford and the rest of the tired light fans from the mainstream journals circa 2001. Crawford hasn't had a paper published in a normal astrophysics journal since 1995 and it doesn't look like the others have been successful in getting any paper published during the 2000s in anything but AP&SS which changed its editorial policy in 2008 to avoid a lot of fringe physics. Now they're really struggling for recognition. See, for example, Crawford's foray into the way-out-there Journal of Cosmology: [1]. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. The last section suggests (at least, it gives that impression to me!) that apart of a theory by Crawford that was rebutted in 1979, practically no alternative theory has been published in serious journals; and certainly no newer, corrected model by Crawford. Harald88 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no serious astronomy journals today, they are all fairy tales who believe in the big bang, it's their Santa Claus. 71.98.137.180 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentient and self-aware narratives? Meta-mythologies? This is quite the post-modern novel under construction here. 77.103.132.143 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Section leaves one hanging

This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The last section ends by saying tired light models are all but absent from the literature, which leaves one asking for some references to those models, at the very least. 71.98.128.187 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Well that looks like what Harald88 is fixing up with something not quite so old, see just above. Can't say I feel myself panting with excitement when I read a statement like that but to each their own. :) Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, it appears that there is activity in the area, but that it has died down to a handful of researchers. I think that is to be expected, science is not so uniform as one sometimes assumes. I found this somewhat interesting in tone. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC) And of course we have an article on Otto Rössler. Interesting in tone - that's a good one! Thanks ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't jump all over myself yet with this excitement over fringe physics. Horse's mouth claims about wild ideas are only interesting in hindsight. For every 1000 of these claims there may be one or two which actually end up being worth anything. The rest get consigned to the dustbin of history and per WP:CBALL, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, we aren't equipped to figure out which ones will be of interest to us ahead of time. Short of writing a ridiculous tome that addresses every last minor tired light fan available, I think we're best just describing the marginalized state of the discussion with the Charles Seife quote and leave it at that. This isn't Fringe-pedia. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Charles Seife has no training in astronomy. He's just a writer. 71.98.140.218 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC) That's why we say he is a science journalist and not a scientist. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC) He is not a science journalist, he is a freelance science writer, and a layman, see his wikipedia page. 71.98.132.103 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC) "Charles Seife is an American author, journalist and professor," says his Wikipedia page. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC) And Writer it says. He is a layman. 71.98.132.103 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Seife should not be quoted in the article, he is a layman. 71.98.132.103 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC) We should be clear on what we're about. We're not interested in whether the Big Bang or Tired Light is true, but rather in documenting the subject. What we are generally lacking are secondary sources that discuss the development/history of Tired Light. Rössler's notable by our lights, so including some information from him, attributed, may be appropriate. Seife is a journalist, and we accept those as reliable sources in general. I haven't looked at his work yet, but let's not get bogged down in whether or not the theories is right or not. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC) It is certain a tired light explanation will prevail, because the big bang is absurd nonsense. 71.98.135.222 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC) 71.98.XXX.XXX looks like the same banned user that was causing trouble earlier this year. Engaging with him/her is not productive. - Parejkoj (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Don't bury your head in the sand. Observations of extremely redshifted early mature quasars flatly contradict the big bang, see the above section on this. And those early quasars are rich in heavy elements, again refuting the big bang. 71.98.129.249 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Your belief that the big bang is wrong seems fanatical to me. Is there some reason besides the evidence you believe you have for wanting it to be wrong? Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The big bang fairy tale has retarded by a hundred years real astronomy. 71.98.134.33 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC) You do realize that it is not part of Wikipedia's remit to push something that is not generally accepted? It is an encyclopaedia, not a science journal. You need to publish papers in peer reviewed science journals to change the status quo. If they are idiots and won't accept the truth as you see it I'm afraid we cannot do anything about that. They are the reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Suppose I found some papers in a non-peer reviewed journal that said water was a very soft jelly and only seemed a liquid because of earth's gravity. Now suppose this had actually been discussed in a peer reviewed journal and they said they had no evidence of anything like that and water seemed to behave like a liquid even in space. How much weight should be placed on the papers saying it is a jelly? Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The big bang nuts will all end up with egg on their faces, and will look like complete fools, the king has no clothes. 71.98.134.33 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC) When that happens we will document it. However we don't make the news. I await that time with bated breath. Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Let's see you explain how there are indeed quasars, mature objects already billions of years old, that date from the beginning of the big bang's timeline. The quasars are observed to have heavy elements as well. This alone kills the big bang theory. Let's see you explain it to us here. 71.98.134.33 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Not our job, we're writing an encyclopedia. Tell you what, go off and write an article for a reliable journal or two, swing some big name scientists to your opinion, create enough of a furor that it gets in the news, and we're write about that here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The Science reference desk is the place to ask questions. It doesn't sound to me though that you want an answer. Dmcq (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC) You go ask them. They can't answer, I assure you. 71.98.137.147 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory

This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh my, how embarrassing ! Ancient galaxies contradict the big bang theory. http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/ Ancient quasars also contradict the big bang theory. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions So when will the big bang nuts give it up ? The big bang is just a fairy tale, just like Santa Claus. It's high time to look closely at alternative explanations for the redshift. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Tired light is not mentioned in those. Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC) A tired light explanation for the redshift is the only alternative when the big bang is discarded. So Wikipedia should make mention of published tired light explanations for the redshift, and no longer try to ignore them. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) We don't make deductions here on Wikipedia, we summarize what the sources say. If you'd like to point those out in the talk of an article about the early cosmos or the composition of stars they might be relevant to improving them. Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The ancient galaxies and quasars in those two articles contain heavy elements, which contradicts the big bang, because according to the big bang only hydrogen and helium existed at that early time. Heavier elements require billions of years and indicate that those galaxies and quasars are therefore billions of years older than the big bang, which is a blatant contradiction of the big bang theory. Tired light is the only possible alternative, as Hubble admitted himself. So Wikipedia should not be ignoring published tired light models, and mention them in the article. 71.98.136.237 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC) As has already been explained to you, heavy elements should be rare near the beginning of the big bang, NOT non-existent. Nothing about their presence contradicts the big bang. Nothing about that says that they must be older than the big bang itself - and if it did, it would be proper scientific method to conclude that the big bang happened earlier than previously believed, not to throw it out entirely. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with tired light models.Farsight001 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) The science reference desk is the place to ask questions at WP:RD/S. This talk page is for improving the article. The links you provided say nothing about tired light. Dmcq (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC) There should be NO heavy elements at the beginning of the big bang, NONE, but there are now observed early galaxies and quasars that do have heavy elements which fundamentally contradicts the big bang. Edwin Hubble said that with no big bang then there MUST be a tired light explanation for the cosmological redshift. So wikipedia should not ignore them but include published tired light models. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Please review WP:NOR, it is fine that you think this, but we cannot use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC) The idea that there should be no heavy elements in the beginning of the big bang has no grounds in reality or science and is found in no educational textbook. You have, frankly, pulled such a notion from your own ass.Farsight001 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC) You know absolutely nothing about the big bang theory. According to the big bang, quarks appeared, then later hydrogen, but heavier elements not until billions of years later. That is why they are embarrassed by the two articles: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/ 71.98.135.146 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussing the Truth, please cease this line of discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC) With these blatant contradictions of the big bang hypothesis they are forced to consider alternative tired light models for the cosmological redshift, and wikipedia should not ignore those published tired light models. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Even if an acknowledged expert on astrophysics came along and said all this we could do nothing with it. Before something can be used in Wikipedia it needs to be in a WP:reliable source. They would have to write a paper and get it peer reviewed or otherwise get it published by a reliable publisher. That is written into our basic policies. You can see a summary of the principles of WIkipedia at WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC) BTW the time they are talking about is two billion years after the big bang, not at the big bang itself. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Two billion years is not long enough, read the articles, it is a contradiction of the big bang, a contradiction that so-called mainstream astronomers will simply ignore, because the big bang is a multi-billion dollar industry. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) This discussion does not contribute to improving the article because tired light is not mentioned in those links. Only discussion which might contribute to improving the associated article is allowed as per WP:TALK. This is not a forum for general discussion. You can ask questions at the reference desk but that's the closest to where editors personal opinions and queries are allowed. Why don't you put your ideas on some science discussion forum instead? They're not doing any good here. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) As I said above, User:71.XX.XX.XX is a previously banned user with a history of trolling this, and other, cosmology articles. Engaging with him/her is entirely non-productive. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Here is a galaxy less than one billion years after the hypothetical beginning point of the big bang, and already there are heavy elements, this kills the big bang theory, stars are not formed and die in that short amount of time to have created heavy elements, these ancient galaxies are thus older than the big bang which kills the big bang theory. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Abundant_Carbon_in_the_Early_Universe_999.html 71.98.136.218 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC) For the umpteenth time, nothing about the big bang says that there should be no heavy elements. they would be uncommon, but not non-existent. Hence none of these articles you continue to post do anything to contradict the big bang theory. Let the grown ups talk and go back to skulking under your bridge.Farsight001 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC) You know nothing about the big bang theory which clearly states that the universe started only of hydrogen, with heavy elements only forming after a first generation of stars, which requires billions of years. This early galaxy contains already heavy elements, making it older than the big bang, which kills the big bang theory. 71.98.142.5 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Really? It "clearly" states this? Where? In what textbook? What official definition says this? I'll tell you. None of them. Cut the bullcrap. We are not fooled. Go bother someone else.Farsight001 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC) ANY SOURCE on the big bang says this. ANY ONE. Go do some reading. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Don't bother yourself about it. They've been told we can't do anything with stuff like that here unless it says 'tired light' in it and is in a reliable source. Any arguments about truth are beside the point. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC) My point is that with the big bang having serious contradictions like this with observations, that published tired light models should not be simply ignored by wikipedia. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC) How are you not getting this? Your point is SHIT. It is false, untrue, has no basis in reality, is not claimed by scientists as you say, a lie, misinformation, disinformation, deception, gibberish, meaningless, etc, etc, etc. Get the picture? Wikipedia is not going to stop ignoring tired light models just because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Farsight001 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC) The IP was similarly disruptive, and similarly failed to understand what their sources were saying, at Talk:Big Bang. I suggest collapsing the thread and moving on (and taking appropriate action if they continue disruption). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Also, if Parejkoj is correct about them being a banned user, and if the ban is still in force, then it's time to head over to WP:SPI and report this as an IP-sock. A rangeban will likely follow if this is the case. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) We don't ignore tired light models. It is just that the 'contributor' is not contributing anything we can use. Wikipedia does not publish the thoughts of anonymous people who just say something is wrong. It needs citations to peer reviewed sources. Otherwise it would be just a pile of worthless junk from crackpots and no use to anyone. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC) A new section should be added to the article under the title 'Recently Proposed Redshift Models' where these five referenced articles should be cited, the authors being all Ph.D.'s in Physics: 1) Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004) http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO3PDF/V11N2MAS.pdf 2) Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-447. http://www.estfound.org/planets2.htm 3) Masreliez C. Johan (2005), preprint http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108. 4) Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 5) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1 This will add some neutral balance to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Banned user warning: 71.xx.xx.xx is a formerly banned user who trolls cosmology articles. See the collapsed sections above (where this request to include papers by Masreliez was posted almost verbatim), nearly all of the recent archive, and Licorne's Sockpuppet investigation archive. Engaging with him/her is useless. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Here is a tired light article published in Astrophysical Journal, it should be included also: 6) LaViolette P. A., 1986. Is the universe really expanding? Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, Vol. 301, p. 544-553. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Here is another to include: 7) Accardi, L. et al, Physics Letters A 209, A third hypothesis on the origin of the redshift: application to the Pioneer 6 data, p.277-284 (1995) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960195008683 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC) That first one one by LaViolette definitely looks okay. Haven't checked the second as I have to go off now but you do know the Pioneer anomaly has been perfectly well explained so something that explains it would in fact predict something which isn't there and so the prediction is evidence against any such theory? Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC) The first lot of references are in places that let anything through and are very problematic. It seems a bit silly to want the Pioneer ones in but I believe the Accardi article would also count as coming from a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with the first lot of references. Physics Essays is a think tank published under the American Institute of Physics. Any articles published there must be defended and defendable. 71.98.133.88 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I think 'speculative' covers Physics Essays remit fairly well 'Physics Essays dedicates itself to the publication of stimulating exploratory, and original papers'. Wikipedia on the other hand is an encyclopaedia where things are described with WP:DUE weight. Physics Essays has very low impact, it is barely detectable in physics citations, and putting in references to it is generally considered a sign of a fringe idea in Wikipedia. There is no right to publish every single last bit of stuff on something in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Well then how about Accardi ? Put him in the article at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC) The article is wrong to say 'in speculative journals' because Accardi is published in mainstream journal 'Physics Letters A' and his article must therefore be included as a reference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.133.88 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

photon aging

I just reverted an addition to the lede labeling tired light a synonym to photon aging after taking a quick look at google. It doesn't seem like they are exact equivalents, but I could well be wrong, so I'm bringing it up here. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if it is somewhat similar it could be dealt with here too and just have tired light and photon ageing to not say they are the same. It hardly seems worthwhile to have another article so perhaps include but distinguish? Just had a look and couldn't make out anything notable myself to form an opinion from. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a concept that is discussed at all anywhere, I cannot find it. The one obscure German-language reference was to a book about wild extensions to quantum mechanics. Checking the formal literature, I find absolutely no mention of the term. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced reference or missing body text

Ref 11 is to the Goldhaber paper on time-stretch parameterization of supernovae but is linked to the section of text on the Tolman Test which is entirely different. Can someone add some text explaining the Goldhaber result (the curves are stretched because the SN gets farther away during the outburst or equivalently is time dilated) and perhaps also link this paper which provides the same evidence but using quasars: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191 George Dishman (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

New Alternative-Explanations Seem to Succeed In Satisfying Two Of the Criteria

In the main article the criteria that: any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:(i)admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band; not exhibit blurring, follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe), and explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.

A paper recently published in Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 7, 2013, no. 18, 867, titled: "Four Alternative Possibilities that the Universe May not be Expanding" by Hasmukh K. Tank, explains that: " Alternative interpretations of cosmological red-shift are generally rejected on the ground that ‘tired-light-interpretations’ are inconsistent with the observations of time-dilation of super-nova-light-curves; but those curves are time-domain-representations of amplitude of light. These curves can be Fourier-transformed into wave-number-domain, and it is this 'band of waves'that propagates in inter-galactic-space, and reaches us after millions of years. These Fourier-transformed-components, being electromagnetic-waves, get red-shifted by any mechanism that can cause spectral-shift. Thus, time-dilation of super-nova light-curves is not different from red-shift of light due to any mechanism. With this explanation,this letter presents five new possible-mechanisms for the ‘cosmological red-shift’ 2. In the conclusion we find an explanation for the recently-observed non-linearity as follows: "Interesting difference between the standard Doppler-shift-interpretation and the proposed new one here, of branching-out of input-energy into gravitational and EM-waves, is: that after every unit-distance, say one light-year, the red-shifted-frequency f becomes the new input-frequency f0 for the next unit-distance; making the red-shift-distance-curve non-linear, as observed by Perlmutter and Riess; like the telescopic-railway-fare, or like the reducing piano-frequency which gets divided by 1.104 with every key. As soon as ‘cosmological-red-shift' gets understood as a propagation-property of light then ‘gravity’ can be understood as due to ‘cosmological-red-shift-effect’ on the photons exchanged between the particles. Therefore, it will be interesting for the experts to consider these possibilities in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.103.145 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 123.201.103.145 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert banned user

Banned User:Licorne posting as 96.228.244.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting WP:FRINGE-cruft by Dean Mamas into this article (among others). Per WP:DENY, I recommend reverting this diff: [3].

jps (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked per WP:SPI results; sockpuppet rants also removed. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible fringe theory

I had reverted this edit by User:Tiredlight as being particularly fringe, even for a highly-theoretical article such as this one. It has subsequently restored by an IP editor (presumably the original contributor while logged out). I won't remove it again, but did believe it was worth noting here so that others with more knowledge and expertise about this topic can evaluate whether this information belongs in the article, the journal cited does meet WP:RS, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

- Does not seem fringe. One argument to support that it is fringe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.14.211.124 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean "unofficial"?

Opening section.

I commend the author for taking the time to create this entry. My only gripe is that the opening section is weak in explaining why Tired Light was rejected, then it becomes a treasure hunt to locate the reasons in the body of the article. The idea that scattering by gases/dust would change the colour of the distant light also makes no sense. There was a notion of tired light which held that it was a cosmological thing, where the light loses energy simply by traversing many light years of empty space. Hard to find minds to check out a failed theory, but Tired Light was pretty good, and needs a stronger refutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.126.253 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair critique, but it is unfortunately contaminated by present argumentation. When it was first proposed, it was a serious proposal which could have been "new physics" inasmuch as expansion itself was "new physics". The refutation of tired light came with a look at certain auxiliary effects which are natural results of the expansion of the universe but would have to be re-explained if tired light were truth, thus Occam's Razor cuts away the epicycles, as it were. Yes, that's the story in the mainstream literature. However, the fringe literature has firmly taken over the idea at this point and the more common explanations are those which invoke scattering or known physics to achieve the same effect (presumably hoping to overthrow redshift-distance relationships as being due to GR). That's the current position and it's hard to reconcile the two different approaches except that they result in the same phenomenology. A detailed explanation of this really does require digging further, so I don't see an easy way to deal with this in the intro. jps (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Tired light" unfairly demeaned?

I think the article is too critical and demeaning of "tired light", in comparison with other concepts. I find it ironic that "tired light" is considered "speculative" and "ad-hoc", while inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter are more or less mainstream science. I'm not saying "tired light" is valid. "Tired light" seems quite speculative and ad-hoc to me. But no more so than inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter. Based on my understanding of science and history, I believe that 20 years from now, people will look back at the current state of ignorance and shake their heads in amusement, not so much at the ignorance but at the glib acceptance of ad-hoc baseless explanations, especially dark energy and inflation theory. I believe the current crop of physicists and astronomers "strain at a gnat (tired light), but swallow a camel (inflation theory, dark energy, dark matter)". In summary, I find it odd that the article beats up on "tired light" while equally speculative concepts are basically given a pass in Wikipedia articles. 71.35.176.10 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Physical Review article questions the big bang and proposes a Tired Light model. 47.201.179.7 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC) http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/344-14-pdf-dean-l-mamas-an-explanation-for-the-cosmological-redshift.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RGW-type complaint. Sorry. Wikipedia is not the place to fix what you think is a problem with the way modern scientific ideas have developed. Including speculative proposals as citations may be okay. But if you want to fight the current crop of physicists and astronomers, go to your local college or university and do so there. Not here. jps (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

OK then please go ahead and include these speculative citations in the Wikipedia article. Do it. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just figured out who you are. I'll be asking for yet another block. Don't you get tired of this? jps (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You're an Astronomy teacher, why don't you tell your students for once that everything you have taught them about the big bang, black holes, wormholes etc is pure BULLCRAP. Media driven, and Einstein wrapped, BULLCRAP. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Optical doubt

When going out from a more refringent medium to a less refringent medium, Light diverges from Normal, this is why objects under water look closer and in a different place as we would see it inside air, and in the same time, the light speed is slightly increased, there's no such a thing as an 'absolute' speed of light, as Vladimir Illich Lenin interpreted wronlgy in: 'Materialism and empiriocriticism', a 1909 book against the Russian followers of Ernst Mach, or 'Machists'. We know that 'specific gravity', matter density, changes from one region of the universe to another, the Solar orbit around center of Galaxy crosses every 30 million years or so one of the Galaxy arms, resulting in a rain of planetoids and meteors on our planet, same as it happens twice a year when the Earth crosses the ecliptic plane, 'star rains', some mass extinctions resulted from these Galaxy arms crossings, so, as light comes to us along the universe: can we expect changes in its speed and direction from going through sites of higher or lower refraction, and can this affect the models of matter amount and distribution, also concepts about the expansion, and fate of universe? References about the subject? Thanks, regards. Salut +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is well-understood in studies of the ISM and IGM. The effect is minimal when talking about cosmological distances in any given random line of sight. However, in directions where there happens to be high column density, thinking about the index of refraction (which sometimes goes imaginary or negative(!)) is of astrophysical interest. An augmented discussion of this would be nice to read, but it would be largely original research and so not appropriate for Wikipedia. Pitch it to Scientific American perhaps? Or just write a nice blog entry. jps (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Josep Comas i Solà, a Catalan astronomer who worked in Barcelona, claimed in 1933, inside a divulgation book on Astronomy, published by: 'Editorial Labor', that he thought having proved the Doppler theory for Redshift being wrong, -at least partly-, and attributed Redshift to clashes between photons during the travel from its sources to us, that would yield a lower energy, lower frequency, closer to red, secondary radiation; photon to photon crashes having more chances to occur with a longer distance traveled, hence the greater: 'Shift to Red' in galaxies or light sources more apart from us. Besides appearing close to the: 'Tired light' concept, this reminds the description of: Breit-Wheeler process, of around same times, for which only recently some evidence seems was found. Regards, Salut +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's in the class of tired light theories. I'd be interested to know what his "proof" opposed to the Doppler interpretation would have been. My guess is that is would be related to confusion over metric expansion of the universe which still causes confusion up to today what with its counter-intuitive isotropy. Of course, his proposal would cause blurring as well. When your redshifts are far less than 1% (as they were in 1930s), this effect wouldn't be at all noticeable. Today we've got them deep pictures. jps (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No Censorship!

An exhaustive Survey of past and present tired light research and models has been published by Martín López-Corredoira who has published hundreds of articles in top journals, he has excellent notability https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8

Martín López-Corredoira's Survey should be included in the article, and not censored. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8

Note also, Foundations of Physics is not a fringe journal. Foundations of Physics past editorial board members (which include several Nobel laureates) include Louis de Broglie, Robert H. Dicke, Murray Gell-Mann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Reference to include in this Wikipedia article is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We can tell you really like nonstandard cosmologies, but Wikipedia is not a place for advertising your favorite thing, it must be notable, reliable, and in proportion to its prominence in the field. López-Corredoira's article reads like a high school term paper, not a scientific journal article: I'm skeptical that it underwent any significant peer review at all. Is there any evidence of its notability in secondary sources? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove the Charles Seife Quote

Charles Seife has no degrees in astronomy nor physics, he is merely a writer, and no expert in the big bang theory, so this quote of Seife must be deleted from Wikipedia:

Please remove it:

..science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 

Being an astronomer is not required to write about fringe theories. There was no consensus to remove this. Restored because there was no consensus to remove the content. On the contrary: [4]. - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne/Archive#04 January 2018, and re-opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne. - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No Balance to the Article

This quote of Dr. Disney should be included in the article, see https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3351.pdf 47.201.190.53 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Illustration to Tolman surface brightness test used looks wrong

We know, since 2008, that we will not see many dimmer stars (first red, then yellow, and so on) after certain distance, because of their low luminosity, so left part of illustration is incorrect: we are not able to see these stars just because less than 1 photon is received by telescope, not because they are not there. Upgrading of telescope diameter allows us to see more stars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlisivka (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Whom are you trying to convince?

Why is Seife, who is not even an astronomer, quoted twice, first in the Intro, and again at the very end ? With no credentials Seife is just a media propagandist who should not be quoted here at all in a scientific article of Wikipedia. 47.201.187.246 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article (WP:LEAD), as such, it should usually already be in the body to also be in the lead. As for the author and source, please read this talk page's archives. —PaleoNeonate – 08:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove the Psuedoscience label

It is wrong to label Tired Light fringe theory which links to Psuedoscience when serious physicists such as Pecker at the CNRS, Vigier at the Poincaré Institute, and others have published possible tired light mechanisms, see the links. Also, serious Cosmologists such as Disney would call the big bang theory a psuedoscience, the Disney quote should be included here in Wikipedia. see: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3351.pdf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987IAUS..124..507P 47.201.178.246 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is that an unreviewed preprint with no citations, and an IAU proceedings note make this not-fringe? Huh. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a scarecrow argument. Obviously he is saying that a theory can be fringe without being pseudoscience. This is true.2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

fringe theory which links to Psuedoscience Your objection is that this article (Tired light) links to an article (Fringe theory) which links to an article (Pseudoscience) which in turn has no sourced connection to this article? How is that a problem? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

James Webb Telescope destroyed the big bang

The James Webb deep field photo proves the universe has always looked just as it still looks today with massive spiral galaxies, so no big bang. Wikipedia must now start embracing tired light models which are the alternative to the now defunct big bang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.188.45 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If they embrace it, Wikipedia will embrace it. Not sooner. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)