(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