Jayjay
January 1, 2004, 10:40 AM
I'm looking for information on the following quote:
Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.
- Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (1937)
I bumped into this in an AiG article titled Cosmologists Can’t Agree and Are Still In Doubt! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0814_cosmologies.asp) by John Hartnett and saw it recently used by Socrates at TheologyWeb. A google search revealed that Robert Gentry used this quote in the following form:
Discovery of a Nearby Universal Center Is the Smoking Gun Signature of GENESIS that Overturns Big Bang's Cosmological Principle (http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-7-unicode.htm)
Instead of an open-minded approach to this possibility, Hubble's 1937 book reveals a strong bias against it [2], "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, . . . . The hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome, . . . But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs" (pp. 50-51). Later he added, "Such a favored position . . . is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity" (p.58-59).
Okay, here it looks like Hartnett (or whichever source he was using) conveniently forgot to mention that the quote was cobbled together from bits and pieces spanning 8 or 9 pages. I was wondering if anyone has actually read the original, or can confirm or deny whether this quote accurately reflects Hubble's ideas or if it's just another example of creationist quote mining?
* * *
Regarding Hartnett's article, I also have an unrelated question. He claims that:
The claim of the big-bangers that Gamow successfully predicted the CMB temperature in 1948 with a value of 5 K (later in the 1950s raised to 10 K), is undermined by the fact that McKellar successfully predicted a 2.3 K temperature, in 1941, from observation of absorption lines caused by quantum mechanical features of rotating diatomic interstellar molecules. Remember it wasn’t until 1965 when Penzias and Wilson discovered the radiation pouring in from the cosmos. Gold had argued in 1955 that thermalization of starlight would occur but never did the calculation which would have produced a temperature of 2.78 K.
I recall that McKellar never predicted a temperature, but rather measured it, and this measurement was interpreted as ambient starlight inside galaxies (because the method did not allow measurement in a dark background). Am I correct? What about Gold's alleged "calculation", what was it based on and if he never actually did it then how do we know the result would've been 2.78? I don't think I can trust Hartnett to be honest about that one either.
Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.
- Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (1937)
I bumped into this in an AiG article titled Cosmologists Can’t Agree and Are Still In Doubt! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0814_cosmologies.asp) by John Hartnett and saw it recently used by Socrates at TheologyWeb. A google search revealed that Robert Gentry used this quote in the following form:
Discovery of a Nearby Universal Center Is the Smoking Gun Signature of GENESIS that Overturns Big Bang's Cosmological Principle (http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-7-unicode.htm)
Instead of an open-minded approach to this possibility, Hubble's 1937 book reveals a strong bias against it [2], "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, . . . . The hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome, . . . But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs" (pp. 50-51). Later he added, "Such a favored position . . . is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity" (p.58-59).
Okay, here it looks like Hartnett (or whichever source he was using) conveniently forgot to mention that the quote was cobbled together from bits and pieces spanning 8 or 9 pages. I was wondering if anyone has actually read the original, or can confirm or deny whether this quote accurately reflects Hubble's ideas or if it's just another example of creationist quote mining?
* * *
Regarding Hartnett's article, I also have an unrelated question. He claims that:
The claim of the big-bangers that Gamow successfully predicted the CMB temperature in 1948 with a value of 5 K (later in the 1950s raised to 10 K), is undermined by the fact that McKellar successfully predicted a 2.3 K temperature, in 1941, from observation of absorption lines caused by quantum mechanical features of rotating diatomic interstellar molecules. Remember it wasn’t until 1965 when Penzias and Wilson discovered the radiation pouring in from the cosmos. Gold had argued in 1955 that thermalization of starlight would occur but never did the calculation which would have produced a temperature of 2.78 K.
I recall that McKellar never predicted a temperature, but rather measured it, and this measurement was interpreted as ambient starlight inside galaxies (because the method did not allow measurement in a dark background). Am I correct? What about Gold's alleged "calculation", what was it based on and if he never actually did it then how do we know the result would've been 2.78? I don't think I can trust Hartnett to be honest about that one either.