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

Sun May 7 17:54:28 UTC 2006

(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 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."

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 at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,  visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l