[WikiEN-l] Ha Ha Ha you are so funny Jimbo!! # 3

[Thommandel at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
wikipedia at 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