(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
In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
"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
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
star is receding, the more it's light is shifted toward the red. They know
light has been shifted because certain spectral lines, frequencies which
absorb energy, are found to have been shifted. Thus they can tell the red
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
They key phrase here is "Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue that
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
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
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
"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). "
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
It was the later cosmologists that argued that redshift meant expansion,
Hubble. Your encyclopedia states in the Hubble section "Hubble's law is
statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from
distant is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by
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
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
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
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
no explanation, reverted out of the alternative cosmology article with the
explanation that it is already in the plasma cosmology article, and was
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
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
frequently acknowledge. It doesn't seem right to me that one advocating a
certain viewpoint can edit the opposing viewpoint in a disparaging manner.
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
of them anyhow, are college kids with nothing better to do inbetween
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
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
Wikipolice with the sole purpose of infiltrating articles in order to
out those admins who are effectively rotting away what was originally
one of the best ideas anyone ever thought of. It is very dangerous to
that everyone is doing the right thing, especially when the operating
philosophy is something like the first comment I heard from this list "A
Wikipedian can do as he damn well pleases"
"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
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: