Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/7/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not at all saying that criticisms should be omitted, or a neutral
>> point of view abandoned. But their consolidation into separate
>> "Criticisms" sections is generally undesirable, I would say.
>
> That's more of a question of style than substance, and I agree with
> most of your points. However, "Criticism" sections are definitely
> easier to write than a well-consolidated article. It takes a lot of
> skill to avoid an article that reads like a constant back and forth.
It may be a question of style, but stylistic choices can have
significant and sometimes seriously damaging effects on substance. That
particular path may be easier, which is in fact part of the problem.
When an article starts down a long road that leads to an undesirable
product, it is difficult to back things out and frequently makes more
sense to start from scratch. That's the approach I've had to take on
several occasions. Taking easy shortcuts will never get us good
encyclopedia articles.
It does take some skill to rebuild an article so that things go in the
right direction afterwards. Unfortunately, there seems to be a
considerable shortage of that skill in the community.
--Michael Snow
---- Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to apologize for suggesting that Julie Harding is on
> crack. The term was an unfortunate choice of metaphors to express my
> concern that Ms. Harding's posts were incoherent and nonsensical. I
> have no reason to believe that Ms. Harding is currently or has ever
> been using crack, any other form of cocaine, or any other drug that
> was not prescribed by a licensed medical professional. My sincere
> apologies if my previous e-mail led anyone to think otherwise.
>
> Best,
> Phil Sandifer
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thank you for your formal apology. I am to assume that someone spoke to you about your behavior. Right now I am enraged. I just spent over six hours editing the front page issues for you guys and for some reason, your program wouldn't take it from me. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Well, I just edited a whole section for you! Goodnight
----redhawk1972
(Note. In the first copy of this letter links were placed inadvertantly
making it impossible to read. I cleaned them up and am resending this. You may
delete #3)
In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wikipedia(a)philwelch.net writes:
"I don't know anything about cosmology. I do know something about
bias--since you are biased towards plasma cosmology, perhaps
neutrality is perceived by you as a negative bias? I know that
Wikipedia tends to avoid giving undue weight to non-standard theories."
Hi Phil;
Your reply is reasonable and adult like. Thanks for that. However you
seemed to have selected parts of my letter and ignored the important (to me)
parts. Rather than further confuse the issue, allow me to take it one point
at a
time.
My main concern is Hubble's regard for redshift. Cosmological redshift is
one of the three legs that the big bang theory is based on. The standard
theory has it that this observed redshift is Doppler induced, i.e., the
faster a
star is receding, the more it's light is shifted toward the red. They know
the
light has been shifted because certain spectral lines, frequencies which
absorb energy, are found to have been shifted. Thus they can tell the red
light
was actually a different frequency (color) when it started out.
In your article about Hubble, it is written and I quote
"Edwin Powell Hubble, 1889–September 28 ,1953 was an American
astronomer , noted for his discovery of galaxies beyond the Milky Way and
the cosmological redshift. Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue that
the red shift of distant galaxies is due to the _Doppler effect induced by
the expansion of the universe. He was one of the leading astronomers of
modern times and laid down the foundation upon which physical cosmology now
rests."
They key phrase here is "Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue that
the
red shift of distant galaxies is due to the _Doppler effect induced by the
expansion of the universe."
This is simply not true.
The controversy revolves around the "cause" of this redshift. Remember
that
while the redshift has in fact been observed, the "cause" for the redshift
is theoretical. (It was achieved by adding "c" the velocity of light to
the
original equations) The big bang theory ASSUMES the redshift is Doppler
induced and THEREFORE indicates velocity much like the train whistle changing
in tone as it passes by you.
In the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, in a paper on
the Centennial Celebration of Hubble's birth, A. Sandage writes that Hubble
himself did not consider redshift as an indicator of expansion, Sandage
wrote:
"Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large
departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on
the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real
expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the
redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count
data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift
correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his
writings he maintained this position, favoring (or at the very least keeping open)
the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift
"represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is
emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to
the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in
his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to
Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper
which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953). "
<ref>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html</ref
>
Also in
Hubble’s 1937 book (The Observational Approach To Cosmology) "Hubble
himself made it clear that he was very uncomfortable with the ‘recession factor’
being attributed to him as ‘The Hubble Expansion’." If one just sticks to
the facts, Hubble concluded, "There is no evidence of expansion and no
restriction of the time scale, no trace of spatial curvature..."
Therefore it is clear that Hubble DID NOT argue that redshift meant
expansion. The truth is that Hubble argued just the opposite, that the
redshift was caused by an unknown (at that time) mechanism. And Wikipedia is
incorrect
stating otherwise.
It was the later cosmologists that argued that redshift meant expansion,
not
Hubble. Your encyclopedia states in the Hubble section "Hubble's law is
the
statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from
distant is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by
Edwin Hubble
and Milton Humason in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations.
It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space
paradigm and today serves as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence
in
support of the ."
(In the above statement which sounds true, the incorrect part is "...the
first observational basis...
It was assumed, not observed.)
There is a modern twist in the story line. In the 197o's William Tifft
observed that the light coming from distant stars and galaxies is
"quantized." It
has periodicity. This observation has been verified and confirmed many
times over. It is considered inconsistent with expansion since expansion would
blur out the spectral lines. (An alternative explanation favored by
creationists often cited by some is that the earth is at the center of the
Universe...)
Now, If I were to go to your articles which make the statement that Hubble
proved expansion, the inclusion of this comment by Hubble as reported by
Sandage would not be accepted. It was reverted out of the redshift
article, with
no explanation, reverted out of the alternative cosmology article with the
explanation that it is already in the plasma cosmology article, and was
reverted
out of the plasma cosmology article with the explanation that it is of
historical interest only.
So, Hubble did not believe that redshift meant expansion, but as the story
filters down it becomes just the opposite, in some places (elsewhere)I have
read something like "Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding."
The controversy does not exist only in Wikipedia. While it is favorite
characterization by the big bang folks to regard alternative cosmological
theories as "fringe theories" there are many notable figures who have
disagreed with the big bang conjecture. One is Halton Arp, who was forced to
move to
Germany to continue his studies. His works shows that spatially correlated
galaxies have vastly different redshifts
My complaint is that the plasma cosmology article is populated by big bang
advocates with their obvious to me bias toward their theory, a bias which
they
frequently acknowledge. It doesn't seem right to me that one advocating a
certain viewpoint can edit the opposing viewpoint in a disparaging manner.
And
when it comes to deleting evidence that runs contrary to their belief, then
we have a new area of concern. Something akin to a janitor rewriting the
equations on the blackboard at night.
Point two. I did not start this warring. I started out in good faith with
good intentions. But I was insulted, threatened, intimidated, reverted,
blanked, ridiculed and called just about every name in the book. (I don't
understand why some think calling names is effective, it only speaks about
the name caller) I am used to dealing with professionals and professionals
do not talk in the manner I have come to know here. It almost seems like the
people, some
of them anyhow, are college kids with nothing better to do inbetween
classes.
Professionals do not resort to ad hominum attacks for any reason. That is
because an attack on the person only indicates that attacker has no better
argument going for him. It is an admission of failure. I am not going to
simply
lie down and take it for the sake of civility because I have seen very
little of that here. I will suggest that your organization consider
creating a
Wikipolice with the sole purpose of infiltrating articles in order to
ferret
out those admins who are effectively rotting away what was originally
probably
one of the best ideas anyone ever thought of. It is very dangerous to
assume
that everyone is doing the right thing, especially when the operating
philosophy is something like the first comment I heard from this list "A
good
Wikipedian can do as he damn well pleases"
Tommy Mandel
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever
that it is not utterly absurd. " – Bertrand Russell
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5 May 2006 at 12:57, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > It just doesn't seem fair to delete an article on one school of a
> > given type while keeping others. And I suspect "notability" there is
> > very much dependent on the social milieu of the voters...
>
> So you are saying there is no difference between Eton and Sacred Heart
> school, Nowheresville
There are some categories of things where having a complete set of
articles on them would seem to be a net benefit, even if some of the
members are of relatively questionable notability. One of them is
the set of cities, towns, villages, hamlets, etc.; for the United
States, these were filled in a long time ago by a robot, and having
such gazetteer info handy can be useful even if some of the places
are pretty marginal. Many of those geographical entries have since
been fleshed out into well-done articles, but even the ones with just
the raw data can be useful. Doing a similar thing with the places
(however minor) in other countries would be a positive step even if
some might call it "geocruft".
Similarly, it's good that there's an article on every one of the
popes of the Catholic Church, even though some of the early ones have
a pretty much complete lack of info about them personally or about
any notable things they might have done while in office (if any).
I don't know whether schools are one of the things that falls into a
similar situation, but there may be some who believe so.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 5 May 2006 at 13:26, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
> As if common anti-islam bias among the editors weren't enough,
> even administrators, who outed themselves as free speech extremists
> on the Image-Display talk page, which has been created for this
> content dispute, abuse their administrator privilege by simply
> blocking editors they disagree with.
"Free speech extremists", huh? Extremism in defense of liberty is no
vice... :-)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 4 May 2006 at 18:15, "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> I certainly don't know modern art when I see it. In fact, I think
> there is a lot of disagreement over what modern art is.
I have a vague, stereotypical, and probably decades out-of-date
impression of what "modern art" is, but I have no clue whether it has
anything in common with what the art world actually uses the term to
refer to, if they actually still use the term at all.
I generally think that giving labels like "modern" to things is a bad
idea, since such a label is intrinsically relative. If some
particular type of art was labeled "modern art" in the 1950s, should
it still carry that label 50 years later when it's not quite so
modern? Is the sort of art the avant-garde is making now
"postmodern"? What comes *after* postmodern to reflect the
generation after *that*? Post-postmodern? And then there's "retro",
reflecting art, culture, and design that intentionally goes back to
an earlier era... but you've got a lot of earlier eras to choose
from, so that doesn't really designate a particular one.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wikipedia(a)philwelch.net writes:
I'll be square with you: we tend to be
dismissive of people who offer complaint #2 because most of them are
kooks. Proving you're not a kook requires calmness, civility, and
refraining from being as much of a prick as you're being right now.
Hi Phil;
In my preceding letter I presented the requisite evidence that Hubble did
not discover/believe/endorse/support the assumption that redshift means
expansion. I presume that the necessary corrections will be made in Wikipedia and
other publications which depend on Wikipedia research.
Being regarded a prick in this situation is an honor. Thank you for that.
Very often there is a fine line between a kook and a visionary. This is
especially evident in cosmology witness Galileo, who was blocked from the church and
Bruno who was burned at the stake for harboring views which have since been
accepted. Keep in mind that Ptolemy was once regarded as the supreme
authority on cosmology, and at that time all others were considered kooks. Indeed
science is replete with visionaries who when they first presented their ideas
were regarded as kooks.
The big bang cosmological model is extremely important as it forms the basis
of a vast amount of scientific research in the Western world. But, as
stated therein, and supported by the observations of Thomas Kuhn in his book "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions", the viewpoint is based on fear of
retribution rather than pure science. The details are in the letter.
I would just like to add something not mentioned in the letter, or Wikipedia
for that matter. While the entire scenario of the big bang depends on a
Doppler interpretation of the redshifted light coming from galaxies, the
observation of periodicity or quantized (jumps) light is definitive evidence
falsifying the Doppler interpretation. Much if not alll science depends on
interpretations. In many cases there are two interpretions available to explain an
observation. In the case of jumping light (my simple word) one interpretation
is that the earth is at the center of the Universe, and the galaxies are
spaced in layers much like an onion. Believe it or not this interpretation is
often used by the Creationists. The other interpretation is that the redshift
is an intrinsic property of the photon/medium. As I stated earlier,
expansion, if it existed, would blur out these jumps, and the fact that they can be
detected is observational evidence that expansion is not a fact. And
without expansion, there is not need for a big bang, no need for a beginning coming
from nowhere, no need for an Inflation that suspends the laws of physics, no
need for the yet to be seen Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Black holes.
And I do realize that the impact on Western science would be profound,
Professors would lose their jobs, texts would have to be rewritten, and in general
science would have to be retaught. Not to mention Wikipedia would have to
be corrected...
I present here an excerpt from the letter to be found at
_http://www.cosmologystatement.org/_ (http://www.cosmologystatement.org/)
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are
the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal
contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big
bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to
new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between
theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without
the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth,
isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be
no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in
the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of
microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth
despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory
predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density
20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's
explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the
theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is
billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions
that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by
the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit
observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the
old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of
epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the
history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both
hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other
alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos,
including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure,
the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies
increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were
subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not exp
lain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their
development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding.
Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and
examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.
Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in
cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists
learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard
big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost
them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged
right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So
discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy
distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing
dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
The letter has been signed by over five hundred (500) parties.
I am not the only one...
tommy mandel
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 19:54:37 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >we'd love to have your corrections and
> >improvements, and you don't need a funny user name to do that. Hell, I
> >don't. And David Gerard certainly doesn't
>
> Oh damn.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I just spent all day editing a whole section for you Guy. Your system would not save it for me. It had to have been at least six hours. God, I'm tired. Why did I do it? My love for English and writing and boy were there a lot of mistakes! Yet, se la vi. Snowspinner apologized, so I don't have to report him for cyber-abuse. Your cite is filled with it though. Today, I was referred to as: "Boobs." You are going to lose a lot of very talented people at the rate you're going.
P.S. The attachment is just a Goodbye picture of me. Maybe if you try, you can find and save the whole section I edited today.
----redhawk1972
In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
wikipedia(a)philwelch.net writes:
I don't know anything about cosmology. I do know something about
bias--since you are biased towards plasma cosmology, perhaps
neutrality is perceived by you as a negative bias? I know that
Wikipedia tends to avoid giving undue weight to non-standard theories.
Your reply is reasonable and adult like. Thanks for that. However you
seemed to have selected parts of my letter and ignored the important (to me)
parts. Rather than further confuse the issue, allow me to take it one point at a
time.
My main concern is Hubble's regard for redshift. Cosmological redshift is
one of the three legs that the big bang theory is based on. The standard
theory has it that this observed redshift is Doppler induced, i.e., the faster a
star is receding, the more it's light is shifted toward the red. They know the
light has been shifted because certain spectral lines, frequencies which
absorb energy, are found to have been shifted. Thus they can tell the red light
was actually a different frequency (color) when it started out.
In your article about Hubble, it is written and I quote "Edwin Powell Hubble
(_November 20_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_20) , _1889_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889) –_September 28_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_28) , _1953_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953) ) was an _American_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) _astronomer_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer) , noted for his discovery of _galaxies_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) beyond the _Milky Way_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way) and the cosmological _redshift_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift) . Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue that the red shift of distant
galaxies is due to the _Doppler effect_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) induced by the expansion of the universe. He was one of the leading
astronomers of modern times and laid down the foundation upon which _physical
cosmology_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology) now rests."
The controversy revolves around the "cause" of this redshift. Remember that
while the redshift has in fact been observed, the "cause" for the redshift
is theoretical. (It was achieved by adding "c" the velocity of light to the
original equations) The big bang theory ASSUMES the redshift is Doppler
induced and THEREFORE indicates velocity much like the train whistle changing in
tone as it passes by you.
They key phrase here is "Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue that the
red shift of distant galaxies is due to the _Doppler effect_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) induced by the expansion of the universe."
This is simply not true. In the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society
of Canada, in a paper on the Centennial Celebration of Hubble's birth, A.
Sandage writes that Hubble himself did not consider redshift as an indicator of
expansion, Sandage wrote: "Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m)
distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the
effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the
redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no
motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble
believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial
curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very
end of his writings he maintained this position, favoring (or at the very
least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that
the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This
viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply
(Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by
McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational
Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published
scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953). "
<ref>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html</ref>
Also in
Hubble’s 1937 book (The Observational Approach To Cosmology)-- "Hubble
himself made it clear that he was very uncomfortable with the ‘recession factor’
being attributed to him as ‘The Hubble Expansion’." If one just sticks to
the facts, Hubble concluded, "There is no evidence of expansion and no
restriction of the time scale, no trace of spatial curvature..."
Therefore it is clear that Hubble DID NOT argue that redshift meant
expansion. The truth is that Hubble argued just the opposite, that the redshift was
caused by an unknown (at that time) mechanism. And Wikipedia is incorrect
stating otherwise.
It was the later cosmologists that argued that redshift meant expansion, not
Hubble. Your encyclopedia states in the Hubble section "Hubble's law is the
statement in _physical cosmology_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology) that the _redshift_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift) in light
coming from distant _galaxies_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) is
_proportional_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)) to
their distance. The law was first formulated by _Edwin Hubble_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble) and _Milton Humason_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Humason) in _1929_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929) after
nearly a decade of _observations_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations) .
It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space
paradigm and today serves as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence in
support of the _Big Bang_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) ."
(In the above statement which sounds true, the incorrect part is "...the firs
t observational basis... It was assumed, not observed.)
There is a modern twist in the story line. In the 197o's William Tifft
observed that the light coming from distant stars and galaxies is "quantized." It
has periodicity.
This observation has been verified and confirmed many times over. It is
considered inconsistent with expansion since expansion would blur out the
spectral lines. (An alternative explanation favored by creationists often cited by
some is that the earth is at the center of the Universe...)
Now, If I were to go to your articles which make the statement that Hubble
proved expansion, the inclusion of this comment by Hubble as reported by
Sandage would not be accepted. It was reverted out of the redshift article, with
no explanation, reverted out of the alternative cosmology article with the
explanation that it is already in the plasma cosmology article, and was reverted
out of the plasma cosmology article with the explanation that it is of
historical interest only.
So, Hubble did not believe that redshift meant expansion, but as the story
filters down it becomes just the opposite, in some places (elsewhere)I have
read something like "Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding."
The controversy does not exist only in Wikipedia. While it is favorite
characterization by the big bang folks to regard alternative cosmological
theories as "fringe theories" there are many notable figures who have disagreed with
the big bang conjecture. One is Halton Arp, who was forced to move to
Germany to continue his studies. His works shows that spatially correlated
galaxies have vastly different redshifts
My complaint is that the plasma cosmology article is populated by big bang
advocates with their obvious to me bias toward their theory, a bias which they
frequently acknowledge. It doesn't seem right to me that one advocating a
certain viewpoint can edit the opposing viewpoint in a disparaging manner. And
when it comes to deleting evidence that runs contrary to their belief, then
we have a new area of concern. Something akin to a janitor rewriting the
equations on the blackboard at night.
Point two. I did not start this warring. I started out in good faith with
good intentions. But I was insulted, threatened, intimidated, reverted,
blanked, ridiculed and called just about every name in the book. (I don't
understand why some think calling names is effective, it only speaks about the name
caller) I am used to dealing with professionals and professionals do not talk
in the manner I have come to know here. It almost seems like the people, some
of them anyhow, are college kids with nothing better to do inbetween classes.
Professionals do not resort to ad hominum attacks for any reason. That is
because an attack on the person only indicates that attacker has no better
argument going for him. It is an admission of failure. I am not going to simply
lie down and take it for the sake of civility because I have seen very
little of that here. I will suggest that your organization consider creating a
Wikipolice with the sole purpose of infiltrating articles in order to ferret
out those admins who are effectively rotting away what was originally probably
one of the best ideas anyone ever thought of. It is very dangerous to assume
that everyone is doing the right thing, especially when the operating
philosophy is something like the first comment I heard from this list "A good
Wikipedian can do as he damn well pleases"
Tommy Mandel
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever
that it is not utterly absurd. " – Bertrand Russell
In a message dated 5/5/2006 9:32:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au writes:
Do you ... actually *contribute* to Wikipedia? The image you present
here is of someone who stumbled across Wikipedia, started editing
articles in a manner that conflicted with our neutrality policy without
really knowing what on Earth you were doing, got pissed off (still
without learning what was going on), showed up on the mailing list
repeatedly asking the same ignorant question (and, when it was answered,
repeatedly, still failed to understand anything), and has since just
hung around like a bad smell, occasionally sallying forth to spray mucus
onto the list and pretend it has any value.
Please, mate, *try* editing Wikipedia. *Try* getting along with other
people. *Try* working out how our core policies interact and how we
work to write the encyclopaedia. You might just find, if you're willing
to put in the effort, that you actually like it. And if you don't ...
well, what are you doing here?
Have you ever given even a thought to those of us who read your
encyclopedia? How come I never once heard the word "reader"? Could it be because the
thousand or so hits a day are from editors only?
I have been on the Internet since Win 1.0, I have two websites of my own,
and was the creator and webmaster for seven years of an international systems
website. I was editor in chief of a University newspaper, editor of my own
newsletter, created two of my own journals and have a paper "Operating principle
of the Universe" in press at a peer reviewed science journal. I happen to
love science and spend my spare time researching.
I "stumbled" across Wikipedia looking for information on Plasma cosmology
via Google. I was astounded at your so-called neutrality. Not only did the
article define plasma incorrectly, the POV was obviously biased against plasma
cosmology. Not to mention the very poor writing. So I really thought that one
could make the necessary corrections but guess what? After spending an evening
posting the corrections, they were simply reverted.
So did you research my complaint? Or did you just assume that because I
complained I had to be in the wrong? Why would I conform to your system? To
conform to your system is to present a POV that is NOT neutral but is slanted
toward the perspective of those who have nothing better to do than edit
articles.
Well, it turns out ladies and gentlemen, that the plasma cosmology article
is dominated by the big bang advocates. I found it impossible to post
anything which would suggest that there is a controversy about cosmology. Indeed,
along with me was a plasma cosmologist who wrote the book "The Big Bang Never
Happened" but he too was reverted until he finally went away. The lone plasma
cosmology advocate was threatened and demeaned and he too is now quiet.
I have been insulted repeatedly, for which BTW, I never returned fire.
(Knowing full well what happens when one does that) This group of big bang
advocates have essentially cleaned all the related articles about cosmology of
any evidence that suggests that there is a controversy. Removal of critical
evidence in some cases is a crime, in most cases it is not ethical. In all
cases it is deceptive. According to them most cosmologists have discredited
alternative cosmologies. Yet if one really does examine the evidence, it is the
big bang theory that has been discredited. Interesting, because Plasma itself
is not a theory, it makes up 99% of the Universe and is as real as
electricity. Which, incidentally, is how they defined plasma to begin with.
I confined my subsequent efforts to the talk pages, never fell for the
revert trick, and when they started to remove stuff I wrote on the talk page, and
I suggested that if they did that in the real world they would be taken to
court, they blocked me. Twice.
When I came to this list, and stated my problem, the first reply was "A good
Wikipedian can do what he damn well pleases." What in the hell is that? And
the subsequent replies were yes and yes and yes. The only rational reply
came from a newbie who suggested that when an opponent edits the opposing
article, a negative edit is not ethical. But that was the end of that.
Does Wikipedia have any notion of what ethical behavior is? When a campaign
manager tried to edit the opponent's page he ended up resigning. That's the
real world guys.
So you are a private company, and you can do as you damn well please. (Why
the .org?) Tell Enron that. But some day it is going to come back and bite
you big time. There may well be newspapers who have planted "editors" with
selected (correct) information and are compiling the actions of your admins as
we speak. You should do that too.
Your encyclopedia is not "free" it is run by the powers to be, You joke
about the "cabel" but what do you do about it? You support each other as if an
admin can do no wrong. You have no control of the admins, and they don't
expect any. You have no ethics program in place. There is no such thing as
ethics in Wikipedia. Ethics is a joke.
Your whole private system is becoming a joke. Serious researchers do not use
Wikipedia, but the children do. And it is the children that will suffer. Our
future is at stake and you all think it is a joke.
In the real world, the police are not above the law. They have to stop at
red lights just like the rest of us. They cannot steal just like the rest of us.
They are expected to set examples, their standards of conduct are actually
higher than the rest of us. And they are accountable to the rest of us. But
in Wikipedia, the police are accountable to no one. They can and do form
groups which support each other.
They can insult, intimidate, and "do as they damn well please." Wikipedia
is not honest. And it is not "mature." The kind of writing I read here would
not last a single day in the real editorial world.
So you can call me incompetent and pathological and disruptive and ignorant
all you want, and you can delete my rantings too, but actually you are
projecting your faults onto me and the likes of me. Oh, you have no faults, sorry.
I see, the "stench" you smell is coming from me. Well, there is a cancer
in your private business, and unless you cut it out, it will continue to grow
until one day you will die. And, no, that is not a legal threat. I have no
interest in taking you to court. But I will spend a lot of time telling the
truth.
I am not saying that everyone is corrupt. Nor am I suggesting that most are
corrupt. But my experience with Wikipedia has been corrupted by only a small
number,& and judging from the communications on this list, for example,
nothing is or will be done about it. No wonder someone suggested that real names
never be used. I regret that I have stated mine.
No, I am not pissed off, I am scared shitless...
Tommy Mandel
PS. Just in case someone is interested in the problem, I have included
below a transcript of part of the problem. The problem is that it is often said
(elsewhere) that Hubble proved the expansion of the Universe hence,
extrapolating backwards, the Big Bang theory. But in fact Hubble DID NOT prove
expansion, he opposed the idea. Expansion comes from the assumption that redshift is
Doppler caused an assumption that he did not agree with until his dying day.
So when I tried to insert the following, it was deleted out. This is my
serious attempt to work with Wikipedia -
"The Doppler interpretation of the observed redshift is not without
controversy. Non-standard cosmological theories dispute the Doppler assumption of the
redshift, claiming instead, that the redshift is caused by intrinsic
properties of interactions of light with matter. Supporting this conjecture,
observations by W. Tifft show that the redshift has a periodic or quantized aspect
which is not consistent with
expansion.<ref>ttp://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf </ref> Previously, it has also been reported in the
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, by A Sandage as his Centennial
Celebration of Hubble's birth, that Hubble himself did not consider redshift
as an indicator of expansion, Sandage wrote: "Hubble concluded that his
observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry,
provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was
calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction
is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown
cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result
concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no
recession. "
<ref>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html</ref> The controversy remains to be resolved. "
Then they deleted it out, from the big bang page, from the alternative
cosmology page and from the plasma cosmology page. This is how it went on the talk
page.
Hubble's opinion
What is the point of including in the article Hubble's opinion of the origin
of the Hubble relation? An interesting bit of historical color? Argument from
authority? Considering the progress in observational and theoretical
cosmology in the last 70 years, it can hardly be considered relevant for the
scientific argument, particularly since his objections appear to be philosophical,
not observational, i.e. he just didn't like the idea of a finite-age universe.
--_Art Carlson_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Art_Carlson) 14:34, 21
April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, and would not object to its removal based on that
argument. --_Iantresman_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iantresman) 15:02, 21
April 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it has been stated in many places that "Hubble proved the
Universe is expanding" when in fact Hubble did not believe that. And what you
call historical color is also called prior research. And what you call
argument from authority is called verifiable research. And he did not base his
opinion on philosophical grounds. So all your arguments are misleading and
baseless and very suspicious as to motives _Tommy Mandel_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
To start, Doppler redshift is not an observation, it is an assumption. Hubble
did not agree with the standard assumption. Second, many cosmologists do not
agree with the standard view that the redshift indicates expansion. While
early attempts to account for the redshift were fruitless, recent research such
as the CREIL effect can account for redshift. Thirdly, mentioned or not by
other cosmologists, Tifft's findings are observations that are not consistent
with expansion. Therefore, it is likely that redshift does not have a
significant Doppler component. If this turns out to be the case, then Hubble's
thinking is on the mark and thus relevant to the upcoming change in thinking.
Especially when it is being claimed by many that "Hubble proved expansion."
Lastly, if you read Sandage's account, philosophy does not enter into it. _Tommy
Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit)
05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with Plasma cosmology. Revert.
--_ScienceApologist_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist) 06:02, 22 April
2006 (UTC)
Are you certain about that, Joshua? There is an established body of knowledge
which is essentially saying that the redshift is not caused by the assumed
Doppler effect. Of course, as a big bang supporter, you realize that if this
is true, then the big bang theory is no longer a viable theory. And then
Plasma cosmology would rise to the occasion and become the theory of choice.
Recall that Doppler redshift was not observed, it was added to Hubble's original
equation by including "c" the velocity of light. This is what Hubble couldn't
agree with, that by doing so a relationship between distance and expansion
was established.
I would also like to remind you, that intrinsic redshift is indeed a property
of plasma. Essentially the evidence is indicating that the redshift is
caused by interaction with plasma, although most cosmologists prefer to use the
generic term "matter." Certainly you are aware that when matter is heated, by
the center of a galaxy for instance, it becomes ionized, i.e., plasma?
At any rate, Hubble's opinions belongs to "prior research" which all of
science is committed to. _Tommy Mandel_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add, that in the real world, it is being stated over and over
that "Hubble proved" the universe is expanding. This belief that Hubble
"proved" expansion is not true. The relationship was assumed, not observed. As
evidence, I submitted Hubble's true beliefs, which you then discarded. One
would expect an encyclopedia to be informative about such situations. However, a
serious researcher probably would not depend on Wikiinfo, nevertheless,
students find it convenient, and there will be a price to pay if this encyclopedia
promotes a theory which in the future will be shown to be false. I am not
sure of the legal implications. Much depends on "intent to deceive" as well as
the actual act of deception. The promotion of a theory which in the end is
false, is indeed deceptive to start with. If it was purposely done, then the
intent to deceive is also present. It is possible then, for Wikipedia to be
sued by some party who can show she or he was injured by the deception. And in
the case of the big bang theory, there are plenty of those.
_Tommy Mandel_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. If that isn't a legal threat, it's dancing on the edge. _Art LaPella_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Art_LaPella) 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out that if Wikipedia knowingly publishes false information and
thus can be sued by those who are injured by that false information, even if
Wikipedia is a third party, is not a threat, it is a warning. I would, if I were
you, be very careful
_Tommy Mandel_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This is definitely a legal threat. You were warned before. I have notified
the administrator who blocked you before for such behavior and we'll see what
he says. --_ScienceApologist_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist) 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also spurious one, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
(Then I was blocked for a week. The first time was because they removed my
evidence from the talk page that they are big bang supporters, leaving only
the links, which incidentally do not lead to the actual quotes)
While you had me blocked for warning you, a campaign manager resigned
because he edited the opponents Wikipage. _Tommy Mandel_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Life is more dangerous, but it is not the fault of all those persons who
are malignant (by nature), as it is the outcome of the many more who remain
quiet waiting to see what will happen" Albert Einstein