| Revision as of 15:05, 2 January 2006 editHarald88 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,586 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:48, 2 January 2006 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,630 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :: Oh, and it is generally believed that Doppler is the only (or at least the main) cause of Cosmological redshift. Obviously, "Cosmological redshift" ''is'' a redshift, it can't be a cause of redshift! ] 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | :: Oh, and it is generally believed that Doppler is the only (or at least the main) cause of Cosmological redshift. Obviously, "Cosmological redshift" ''is'' a redshift, it can't be a cause of redshift! ] 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| PS I just read an article commenting on Wolf redshift, and I agree with Art that "intrinsic" is a misnomer, just as for tired light. IMO it would make more sense to call it "List of redshift mechanisms", as appendix to the article "Redshift". ] 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | PS I just read an article commenting on Wolf redshift, and I agree with Art that "intrinsic" is a misnomer, just as for tired light. IMO it would make more sense to call it "List of redshift mechanisms", as appendix to the article "Redshift". ] 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s doesn't cut it as a rationale for including the article. The article is Original Research and a POV-fork and will go. Please see the AfD page. Thanks, --] 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:48, 2 January 2006
What is this article about? "Intrinsic redshift" implies (to me) a redshift associated with a particular object, as opposed to mechanisms that apply to all sources in the neighborhood. In that sense, the gravitational redshift is intrinsic, tired light is not, and scattering may or may not be, depending on the location of the scattering medium. The alleged synonyms each have their own problems. I don't understand Reboul's table at all. In short, I am deeply unhappy with the content of the article, and question whether it should exist at all. --Art Carlson 11:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a problem with definitions. The article is about published redshift theories that are not Cosmological, Doppler, and Gravitational, of which there are many. I have seen all manner of loose terms, such as:
- "Non-Cosmological", which could mean also Doppler or Gravitational, but in fact means none of these.
- Intrinsic, which as you say, could mean Gravitational, but does not.
- Anomalous, which could just mean "unusual".
- So what term do we use to lump together all redshift theories that are not Cosmological, Doppler, and Gravitational? I chose "Intrinsic redshift" out of several possibilities, all of which are not precise. I hoped that the article definition would clarify the term.
- Reboul's table obviously needs clarification, but esentially, he categorised intrinsic redshift theories. The first column of his table refers to the object in which a redshift was measured, the second column, the type of study, and the last column, the category of theory.
- Should the article exist? Definitely. It shows that other theories are considered (or have been considered) for explaining redshift. I'm not claiming that any of these are correct. But as Reboul found, several hundred peer-reviewed papers to 1981 have at least discussed other theories.
- --Iantresman 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- If the article is called "intrinsic" redshift, it should have at least one reference to an article or book that calls it as such. Ian, you say that you saw it somewhere; please include the reference.
- Oh, and it is generally believed that Doppler is the only (or at least the main) cause of Cosmological redshift. Obviously, "Cosmological redshift" is a redshift, it can't be a cause of redshift! Harald88 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
PS I just read an article commenting on Wolf redshift, and I agree with Art that "intrinsic" is a misnomer, just as for tired light. IMO it would make more sense to call it "List of redshift mechanisms", as appendix to the article "Redshift". Harald88 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s doesn't cut it as a rationale for including the article. The article is Original Research and a POV-fork and will go. Please see the AfD page. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)