Changes

|accessdate=2012-10-14

|accessdate=2012-10-14

|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaOyy3WfWk

|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaOyy3WfWk

|quote=He also discovered that the universe is expanding. ... Some people think that Hubble is famous because here was a bunch of coffee stains at piece of graph paper and he was able to draw a straight line through it.}}</ref> and although astronomers today can indeed point to places in the universe where the redshift of the galaxies appears to be a linear function of their distance{{#tag:ref|In 1958 G.O. Abell et al. published ''Catalog of Bright Cluster Galaxies'' that is considered for being a perfect support for Hubble's law coherence between predictions and observations. Berlinski however points out that this is unsubstantiated as Abell in fact used [[circular reasoning]], i.e. the conclusion was already stated in the premises that cluster's "redshift were proportional to their distance."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>|group=note}}, there is also a disturbing evidence that this linear relationship does not describe the facts entirely.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> After they have studied the evidence for galactic recessional velocity over the course of twenty years, I.E. Segal and his associates argued in their paper ''Statistical invalidation of the Hubble law'' that the representation of the redshift-distance relationship as an empirical fact was uncritical and premature. Observed discrepancies ''"have been resolved by a pyramid of exculpatory assumptions, which are inherently incapable of [[Circular reasoning|noncircular substantiation]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Statistical invalidation of the Hubble law|author= I. E. Segal|publisher=Proceedings of the National Academy of Science|date=November, 1980|pages=77(11): 6275–6279 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC350265/|accessdate=June 9, 2013|quote=In the absence of independent validation of a variety of ancillary hypotheses that have been adduced in connection with the linear law, it seems necessary to conclude that the Hubble law lacks an objective statistical foundation.}}</ref> The discrepancy between hypothesis and observed facts pertains mainly to [[quasar]]s with respect to which Maarten Schmidt discovered in 1960 that their spectral lines were shifted massively to the red. If Hubble's law were correct, quasars should be unrealistically far away at the boundaries of observable universe or even beyond it.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> There were two properties of quasars that were difficult for astronomers to understand within the framework of the expanding universe theory<ref name="BB never Happend"/>:

|quote=He also discovered that the universe is expanding. ... Some people think that Hubble is famous because here was a bunch of coffee stains at piece of graph paper and he was able to draw a straight line through it.}}</ref> and although astronomers today can indeed point to places in the universe where the redshift of the galaxies appears to be a linear function of their distance{{#tag:ref|In 1958 G.O. Abell et al. published ''Catalog of Bright Cluster Galaxies'' that is considered for being a perfect support for Hubble's law coherence between predictions and observations. Berlinski however points out that this is unsubstantiated as Abell in fact used [[circular reasoning]], i.e. the conclusion was already stated in the premises that cluster's "redshift were proportional to their distance."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>|group=note}}, there is also a disturbing evidence that this linear relationship does not describe the facts entirely.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> After they have studied the evidence for galactic recessional velocity over the course of twenty years, I.E. Segal and his associates argued in their paper ''Statistical invalidation of the Hubble law'' that the representation of the redshift-distance relationship as an empirical fact was uncritical and premature. Observed discrepancies ''"have been resolved by a pyramid of exculpatory assumptions, which are inherently incapable of [[Circular reasoning|noncircular substantiation]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Statistical invalidation of the Hubble law|author= I. E. Segal|publisher=Proceedings of the National Academy of Science|date=November, 1980|pages=77(11): 6275–6279 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC350265/|accessdate=June 9, 2013|quote=In the absence of independent validation of a variety of ancillary hypotheses that have been adduced in connection with the linear law, it seems necessary to conclude that the Hubble law lacks an objective statistical foundation.}}</ref> The discrepancy between hypothesis and observed facts pertains m D>ICK children SUCK D.ick ainly to [[quasar]]s with respect to which Maarten Schmidt discovered in 1960 that their spectral lines were shifted massively to the red. If Hubble's law were correct, quasars should be unrealistically far away at the boundaries of observable universe or even beyond it.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> There were two properties of quasars that were difficult for astronomers to understand within the framework of the expanding universe theory<ref name="BB never Happend"/>:

* If one trends apparent brightness against the redshifts as for galaxies, the result is unexpected diagram with scattered points instead of smooth curve as it is the case of galaxies: This seems to indicate that the quasars do not follow the Hubble law as do the most other objects and there is no indication that they are at their proposed redshift distances. It is argued that if Hubble would have these data at disposal first, he would never conclude that the universe is expanding.

* If one trends apparent brightness against the redshifts as for galaxies, the result is unexpected diagram with scattered points instead of smooth curve as it is the case of galaxies: This seems to indicate that the quasars do not follow the Hubble law as do the most other objects and there is no indication that they are at their proposed redshift distances. It is argued that if Hubble would have these data at disposal first, he would never conclude that the universe is expanding.

* The second property was that quasars are very small compact objects sometimes only a light year across so that if they are at their proposed redshift distances, they must be the brightest and most energetic objects known to astronomers. So energetic that in fact non-testable and almost [[metaphysical]] mechanism must be applied to explain the [[phenomena]].  

* The second property was that quasars are very small compact objects sometimes only a light year across so that if they are at their proposed redshift distances, they must be the brightest and most energetic objects known to astronomers. So energetic that in fact non-testable and almost [[metaphysical]] mechanism must be applied to explain the [[phenomena]].