Talk:Big Bang: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Pettitt No edit summary |
imported>Thomas Simmons (→Hubble) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dust-star-nasa.html may be of some relevance to this article! --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 19:06, 8 January 2008 (CST) | http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dust-star-nasa.html may be of some relevance to this article! --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 19:06, 8 January 2008 (CST) | ||
==Hubble== | |||
Re: Hubble, however did not believe that the red shift was proof of expansion, which did not accept until his dying day, believing instead that the observed red shift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". | |||
is based on the section of the source cited which says: | |||
*"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, favouring (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)." | |||
The citation supports the first part of the statement - did not believe that the red shift was proof of expansion. However, the citation does not goes as far as saying he did not believe it. The source is at some pains to show that Hubble was secretive and not given to showing his cards till he was sure of the hand he was dealt. | |||
Rewrite | |||
*Hubble, however did not believe that the red shift was proof of expansion, favouring instead the model that there was in fact no actual expansion and the observed red shift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 02:49, 13 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:49, 13 April 2008
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dust-star-nasa.html may be of some relevance to this article! --Robert W King 19:06, 8 January 2008 (CST)
Hubble
Re: Hubble, however did not believe that the red shift was proof of expansion, which did not accept until his dying day, believing instead that the observed red shift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature".
is based on the section of the source cited which says:
- "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, favouring (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)."
The citation supports the first part of the statement - did not believe that the red shift was proof of expansion. However, the citation does not goes as far as saying he did not believe it. The source is at some pains to show that Hubble was secretive and not given to showing his cards till he was sure of the hand he was dealt.
Rewrite
- Hubble, however did not believe that the red shift was proof of expansion, favouring instead the model that there was in fact no actual expansion and the observed red shift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.--Thomas Simmons 02:49, 13 April 2008 (CDT)