Talk:Dynamical friction of photons

Dynamical friction of photons is a theory proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 to explain cosmic redshift as a form of "tired light" (^ Zwicky, F. (10 1929), "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space") It was quickly disproved as a mathematical error by Arthur Stanley Eddington, and was acknowledged by Zwicky (Zwicky, F. (1929), "On the Possibilities of a Gravitational Drag of Light", Physical Review 34 (12): 1623–1624)

Jim, you are not a primary resource of published information if you post something on a website. Addendum - You are also the only source using this to explain Pioneer 10 and 11. Provide another source.

~ Subsound ~ 21:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what I found when I went looking for dynamical friction of photons. I agree that the page should be deleted; failing that, it should be rewritten to bring it into accord with the scientific consensus.TallMan (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a real physicist in the house? Тy Ahoy! 22:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted due to questionable references, unsupported ideas and general bullshit. Could be an essay if auther cares. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 22:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * doesn't he have enough already? Тy rannosaurs 22:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a rapidly growing body evidence why no one listens to him. ~ Subsound ~ 22:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We have here a clear case of faith over reason. And RW was supposed to be directed by reason rather than faith. That's why I started to push Einstein's theory here since every other wiki is already overtaken by creationists. Or crypto-creationists as you. Can't you guys assume just for a moment that the universe is Einstein's? Eternal, never created? As all signs tell us already. Look at the results of "Gravity probe B" with its "frame dragging". Unheard of in Zwycky times. Don't you see similarity to Zwycki's idea? Are you so lerned in physics that you can tell with 100% certainty why Zwicky failed and that I don't know? JimJast (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are any grownups in the house? JimJast (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sub, there are no other sources since cosmology is not a science yet. Astronomers don't treat it seriously. There is too many idiots acting in it. Just look at 1973 "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, with its differences to real science. JimJast (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC) Checking the article, I confirm that there are no citations that are not JimJast-in-origin. So it sure seems like everyone was right when the consensus formed here to delete it.  It should stay deleted.  Sorry, Jim - you can't just make things up and try to present them as agreed fact.  Knock off the recreation.-- 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck's sake, not this loony again. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 13:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)