Talk:Edwin Hubble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions re disposition of his remains[edit]

The previous discussion was in two sections; rather than thoroughly refactor, i'm at least bringing the two sections together as sub-sections under a single section.
--Jerzyt 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Bad things)[edit]

what are some bad things about this guy?!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2005

Well, he's distantly related to me. But that's not really his fault. --Angr/comhrá 20:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • According to Bill Bryson's A_Short_History_of_Nearly_Everything, a couple of his achievements before his scientific part of the CV are a lie. Also his body was never buried since his wife refused to have a funeral, and nobody know what happened to it. So what is true now?
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2005
    The following sig was appended at the indicated time by the indicated reg'd user. While the user-creation log was started too late to show the creation of that user, WP records seem consistent with Tah having started that account in the 50 minutes after the same person made the IP's 1st (& to date only) contrib, and then accurately claimed to be the same person.--Jerzyt 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    --tokyoahead 6 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
    • As Hubble was a dedicated scientist it is entirely possilbe and maybe probable that he donated his body to science. The nearest Medical Schools at the time were at USC and UCLA. I will try to research this.
      --T.E. Goodwin 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Curently, there are several more medical schools in the Los Angeles area, but it is possible that they had not been founded as early as as 1953 - though that is doubtful. However, I am sure that the medical school at UC-Irvine in Orange County is newer than 1953. There are several private medical schools in the Los Angeles area now. (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Bryson wasn't (at age two) there even for his death, so he owes us a reference that is so far not in evidence.
      --Jerzyt 03:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unmarked Grave[edit]

I created the Category "People buried in unmarked graves" just for him and Crazy Horse! I think this a good category to have. "People whose graves intentionally cannot be located" seems like a bit wordy... any suggestions, then? The Dogandpony 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

People whose remains have an unknown fate? "People buried in unmarked graves" is appropriate for, say, Mozart, because we know he was buried in one. But with Hubble, we (apparently--no sources are cited for this claim) know he wanted to be buried in an unmarked grave, but that doesn't mean his wife went through with his wishes. She never said what she did with him. Angr (talkcontribs) 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Even though its just conjecture, couldn't you assume his wife had him buried in an unmarked grave? I mean, it seems clear that she just didn't tell anyone because they would eventually erect a monument for a person so famous.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2006
No, you couldn't. It's just as easy to assume (and IMO more plausible) that she had him cremated and then scattered his ashes. But so long as we don't know for sure, we can't say anything about it one way or another. Angr (tc) 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that nobody has thought of researching his Los Angeles County Death Certificate. It is a matter of public record what disposition was made of his body along with the cause of death.T.E. Goodwin 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


At Italian version of the Hubble photo is marked as pulic domain. If it's so, we should upload to the commons.-- 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The preceding sig is the original sig, matching the edit history entry, for the contrib it follows; it is restored to that state, reverting its conversion into the following sig & time stamp (which have struck thru and incorporated here: "Harp 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)", which was placed by that reg'd user at that time -- i.e., 2 minutes later. It is to me quite plausible, in view of that timing, and of relationships in the subjects and summaries, that all of that IP's contribs were by the person controlling the acct User:Harp. But that is not at this time a confirmed fact, and IMO documenting the claim that it is a fact in the former manner undercuts our standards of verifiability of attribution.
--Jerzyt 06:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang Credit[edit]

"This discovery later resulted in formulation of the Big Bang theory by George Gamow and Fred Hoyle." Is this inacurate? If you click on the link for Fred Hoyle it tells you he was opposed to the Big Bang theory. He did give it the name, but it seems a little generous to give him credit for a theory he merely named and then fought his entire life. --I would put my name, but I don't have an account.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07 & :58, 25 April 2006

Actually neither Gamow or Hoyle formulated the Big Bang Theory. The theory was originally proposed by Georges Lemaître. Gamow developed the theory in more detail and predicted the microwave cosmic background radiation and Hoyle was a vocal opponent of the Theory. Ironically, Hoyle was responsible for the name of the theory, but he meant it as a derisive comment on the theory... It must have haunted him the rest of his life to constantly hear people use his name for a theory he despised. Anyway, I am going to correct the article. Bill McHale 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have a quick question, I understand that Friedman came up with the solution to GR that showed that the Universe must be expanding or contracting. However, reading the other wikipedia articles on the Big Bang and on Friedman, as well as other research, I don't see where he actually suggested the idea that the universe started as a 'primordial atom' as Lemaître did. I have no problem with crediting Friedman, but I would like to see some more substantial evidence. Anyone? Bill McHale 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of galaxy discovery?[edit]

The 1925 article claims that Hubble made his announcement on 1st January of that year, while this article claims 30th December 1924. GreyKnight 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry in 1925 was incorrect and I've removed it. For confirmation see 1924 in science and December 30. --Bruce1ee 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he overdid it on New Year's Eve and forgot he'd already announced it. ;-) GreyKnight 07:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hubble's paper was indeed read at the joint meeting of the American Astronomical Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science by Henry Norris Russell on January 1, 1925. Hubble was not present. See "Thirty-Third Meeting of the American Astronomical Society." Popular Astronomy 33 (1925): 158-68; 246-55; 292-305. (Submitted by Marcia Bartusiak)

Ernst Opik used an early version of the Tully Fisher Relation in his 1922 paper in which he estimated the distance of M31 to be outside our Galaxy. Since his paper was released before Hubble's, why is he not credited with the discovery? Samwedge (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Of course, Hubble wasn't working in isolation and the idea that spiral nebulae were other stellar systems existed before his work. I had a look at the paper by Opik and it seems that he used some arguments based on the virial theorem to get a distance and mass for M32, from which he concluded that it was outside our galaxy (in agreement with previous estimates, although he doesn't say by whom) and likely to be a 'stellar universe'. Hubble, on the other hand, was the first to observe individual stars in spiral nebulae and thus prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were external galaxies, which I suppose is why he gets the credit. Cosmo0 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

citation needed[edit]

I marked a probably erroneous claim according to which Hubble "was one of the first to argue that the red shift of distant galaxies is due to the Doppler effect" with request for citation. I also added a ref. plus link to his famous 1929 paper. See also the citation in [1]. Harald88 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In view of the lack of response and also the discussion below which suggests rather the inverse, I'll now remove that claim as per WP:CITE. Harald88 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Being that I just got to the table I will offer what I have at hand. In Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything he notes that he wasn't the first to state this fact but was essential to its understanding. Bryson said Hubble was trying to work out the size of the universe using Mt. Wilson's 100 inch telescope and by the early 1930's Hubble worked out that all galaxies are moving away from us. Speed and distance proportional. Ho = V/D. Whether all of that is true or not... beats me. But come on, that's a heck of an equation. I wish they had taught me that in High School. I'll bet it would have been the one, the singular equation, that I remembered. Source: A Short History of Nearly Everything, illustrated edition, page 163. JohnCub 00:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hubble's opinion about redshift[edit]

In addition, I notice that although this article is about Hubble, not Hubble's opinion about the interpretation of redshift is discussed but Einsteins opinion. I propose to dig up a reliable source about Hubble, and to replace Einstein 's opinion by Hubble's opinion in this article on Hubble (if lacking in Einstein, Einstein's opinion may be added there).

I now found back a Wikipedia citation about this matter:

'Hubble himself, however, did not believe that the redshift meant expansion. "To his dying day", Sandage tells us in his presentation at the centennial celebration of Hubble's birth, "Hubble did not accept that redshift meant expansion." Instead he thought it was due to some unknown cause.- '

I note that the above reference may serve as a good source for this article as a whole, but it's a misreference to the cited phrases(!) In the above article the author simply shows that he doesn't know this fact, leading him to ask why Hubble's writings show 'a lack of discussion of how the expansion relates to "beginnings" and why the lack of emphasis on [..] the age of the model [..] it is surprising to see none of this in Hubble's writings. '

-> What could have been the correct source of the citations above that answered Sandage's questions?

Harald88 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Following I have copied the correct test from Sandage's Hubble celebration paper here. Around 32 paragraphs in.

Copied from

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).

I mentioned this in the redshift article but I believe it was subsequently deleted and since I have been accused/implied of POV pushing ("mad ravings of a lunatic POV crusader") by the community and administration. But they have nothing to say about those accusations by some of your fellow editors. Finally, my edit mentioning what Sandage said was considered "nonsense" and "Irrelevant" by your most admired editors. I'm grateful that you finally got around to mentioning Hubbles opinion in the Hubble article.

Tommy Mandel 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the exact quote - for sure everyone agrees that Hubble's opinions are relevant in an article about himself. And I had not remarked those remarks of Sandage as I only looked in his section on redshift.
But now it's my turn to be mystified by Sandage: how could he, in the same article, explain why Hubble didn't favour the expansion interpretation, and still wonder why Hubble didn't discuss the relation between expansion and the beginnings? Do I miss something here?
Harald88 14:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that Sandage believed in expansion and was wondering why Hubble disn't. But that is just a hunch. Tommy Mandel 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hubble was an observationalist, not a theorist. He didn't take much stock in the abilities of the mathematical physicists to develop consistent explanations based on the physical principles of terrestrial mechanics. Even though Einstein's relativity was confirmed by the Eddington expedition, privately Hubble remained skeptical of general relativity (as did many other scientists who found the mathematics daunting). When Einstein famously visited Mt. Wilson, Hubble kept his skepticism to himself and did acknowledge that Einstein's work seemed to fit his data even if there may have been alternate explanations. There is a famous picture of Einstein and Hubble at Mount Wilson that should be in the public domain. I encourage somebody to dig it out and post it here. --ScienceApologist 16:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; if you can provide another reference, that would be very useful!
Currently we have:
Harald88 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Decent start. You can continue by Googling Hubble. There are a number of good biographies on-line. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You commented and next put your similar own opinion in the wikipedia text:
"While Hubble maintained skepticism regarding the expansion interpretation, he never outright rejected it as seen in his letter to de Sitter."
I have not seen such an argument in a paper, it's almost certainly your (erroneous) original research. The article did not state that he "rejected" it. His letter to De Sitter was before his research based on which he took a more outspoken stand, as explained by Sandage and also in the article, but which you edited in such a way that that fact was obscured. Please don't do that again. Harald88 17:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is you who are reading between the lines of Sandage's paper. Read the original papers. They are clear that Hubble was just skeptical. --ScienceApologist 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "read between the lines" but actually copied his lines into the article and then reworked them into a paraphrase. If you disagree, we can simply quote that according to Sandage, 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. Harald88 07:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting play on words, first it was that recession velocity increased in proportion to the distance between galaxies, and when that didn't work, then it was modified to velocity increases in proportion to the space between galaxies. All this, yet gravitaionally bound objects show no expansion as evidenced by stable orbits. Come on, either all space is expanding or no space is expanding. Tommy Mandel 20:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All space is expanding, but bound objects see the expansion as an unmeasurable correction to the coordinate forces holding them together. Thus galaxies do not expand but the space between them does. --ScienceApologist 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept that. Space is space whether it is inside or outside a galaxy. What you are really saying is that observations indicate that expansion cannot be detected at the local level (so therefore it must have somehow been corrected out). Seems to me that expansion affects the physical in some ways and in other ways it has no effect. Remember that "space" is variously known as a scalar field, and this scalar field is everywhere. YOu are going to have to do a lot better convincing me that gravitaionally bound objects are immune to expansion other that a supposed "unmeasurable correction" Tommy Mandel 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hubble did not accept that redshift meant expansion." Instead he thought it was due to some unknown cause."

On the scale of the galaxy (which is some 100 kiloparsecs) the expansion of space accounts for velocity of 7.2 meters per second. That's a correction on the orbital velocity of the galaxy of 300 kilometers per second. So you're looking at a difference of 2.4%, well witin the uncertainty of the velocity (+/- 10%) --ScienceApologist 03:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. Please keep focussed on Hubble, this article is not about Big Bang theory or alternatives but about Hubble's discoveries and opinions as well as what has been published about him. If any editor disagrees with Hubble's opinion or Sandage's opinion about Hubble, that's not relevant for the article. Even if Hubble believed that there is live on Mars, that is something to state and not to try to argue to the readers that he was right or wrong. Harald88 07:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hubble's opinion was that the redshift-distance relation represented a new phenomenological development for our universe and he maintained a level of skepticism regarding the expansion model. However, if you read the Sandage article it is clear that Hubble was simply skeptical, he didn't dismiss the expansion model outright. Even after he executed his galaxy counts and published the paper that stated the data was inconsistent with an expanding universe, Hubble still did not come out and say that he "didn't believe in an expanding universe" but rather stated that his observations seemed to contradict the model. There is a big difference between maintaining skepticism regarding the expansion of space and saying that Hubble didn't believe in the expansion of space. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Your use of language is definitely incompatible with mine, as the negation of "Hubble didn't believe it" can only be that Hubble believed it, which is in direct contradiction with "Hubble maintained skepticism". Nowhere was written in the article that he "dismissed the model outright". Thus, as discussed above, I now replace it by the full citation about which no argument is possible. Harald88 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Searching for something else I got the following result from library of congress, which may interest people concerned with Hubble's views on expansion:
Author: Hubble, Edwin Powell, 1889-1953.
Title: The problem of the expanding universe, by Edwin
Hubble ...
LC Call No.: Q11.S66 1942
--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

birth day[edit]

Hubble says that he was born on November 20. Nasa say so too, but his biography sight says its the 29th. His obituary lists his birthday as November 20.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulu (talkcontribs) 03:57, 21 November 2007

Google finds many references to his birthday being November 20, but the only site that gives November 29 is almost a word-for-word copy of the one mentioned above. The consensus seems to be that the former is correct. Of course, many sites may use Wikipedia as their primary source, which would skew the statistics. Incidentally, I'm not convinced the first link was actually written by Hubble - it looks fictional to me. Cosmo0 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Practicing Law[edit]

I hate to rush right in and demand a citation to his practicing law but I have it on good authority that while he told people he was practicing law he was actually doing the High school teacher / basketball coach gig. My source is the book A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson page 160 of the Illustrated edition (Chapter 8 - Einstein's Universe, a few pages from the end of the chapter).

Is it appropriate to quote the text? Copyright law, much like astrophysics, is not my forte. Oh, and making those funny marks over the e's. That's not my forte either.  :P

Anyway, I figured I'd bring it up in case anyone could provide a citation. JohnCub 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In 1913, Hubble returned from England and was admitted to the bar, setting up a small practice in Louisville Kentucky...[2]

He studied law as a Rhodes Scholar at Queens College in Oxford, England. A year after passing the bar exam, Hubble realized that his love of exploring the stars was greater than his attraction to law.[3]

But this is from the American Institute of Physics and is probably pretty reliable:

After three years at Oxford, Hubble returned to his family home in Louisville, Kentucky. He taught physics and Spanish at a high school and also became a member of the Kentucky bar, but never actually practiced law.[4].

So in summary: we know that he was definitely qualified to practice law in Kentucky, but he probably didn't practice much, if at all. Cosmo0 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with lead[edit]

This article does not have a lead section consistent with WP:Lead which says that the lead section of an article should be a short summary of the most important topics discussed in an article. In particular for an article on an important scientist, the lead should clearly state why he/she was an important figure. See the leads for featured articles like Alfred Russel Wallace, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Galileo for examples. It should not be necessary for me to read beyond the lead to know that he was the first to discover that there were other galaxies beyond the Milky Way or responsible for Hubbles law that describes the expansion of the universe. Other than the first sentence, the material currently in the lead should be moved to a section labeled biography (again see the other articles on scientists I mentioned). I would try and fix it myself (and I still might) but I really don't have ideal sources (just the ubiquitous Bryson) to be working this article. Otherwise it looks like it is shaping up nicely.Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized the article and moved the biographical material from the lead to a separate section. The lead may be a little short now, but it is a start.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd sentence[edit]

Text says (section Redshift increases with distance, para 3):

Today, the 'apparent velocities' in question are considered to be artifacts of a coordinate transformation that occurs in an expanding space. Light traveling through stretching space will experience a Hubble-type redshift, a mechanism different from the Doppler effect.

Isn't that a confusion of human abstractions, coordinates, and reality: space/vacuum? I would rather say:

Today, the apparent velocities are considered to be caused by the expansion of space between objects that are, by themselves relatively immobile towards their own local space and neighborhood.

Said: Rursus () 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted this page[edit]

I reverted the last edit to this talk page as it appeared to be graffiti with no content.

Link to PhD Thesis[edit]

I've inserted a link to Hubble's PhD Thesis at I put the link inline - I think it should be in the notes or references, but haven't got the hang of that yet, so I'll be happy if someone fixes that.

If I remember, I'll amend the link when it becomes available from Gutenberg. --Alkhowarizmi (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


The following has been repeatedly inserted:

By 1947, Hubble seemed to question the so-called Hubble Law when he said, "The interpretation is not universally accepted, but even the most cautious among us admit that red-shifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature."[1] He continued, "If they [100-inch telescope observations] are valid, it seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."[2]

The source quoted says nothing about Hubble questioning the so-called Hubble Law or abandoning it as a previous version stated. The quotes are from a 1947 pub by Hubble re: a new 200 in. telescope. The addition of abandoned or questioned is simply WP:OR on the part of the two editors adding the material. Both links are to Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems you didn't bother to read the 200 inch telescope article. Hubble says on Pages 165-166 [3]nd I quote: "Attempts have been made to attain the necessary precision with the 100-inch, and the results appear to be significant. If they are valid, it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to [turning to page 166] an expanding universe, and much of the current speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."Wikkidd (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, read it. Recognizing that new technology may bring new data and require modifying older concepts is not questioning or abandoning that concept. It is still OR to make that false claim. Vsmith (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Then what did Hubble mean when he wrote, "it seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding universe...?"Sophergeo (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Wikkidd/Sophergeo indefinitely blocked. Sophergeo's edits have only taken place while Wikkidd was blocked, including this latest. dougweller (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hubble was an extremely cautious and careful observer, and he was ambivalent about whether or not what he called the "apparent velocities" he measured for galaxies based on redshift represented actual velocities (and thus an expanding universe) or were caused by some other unknown factor, but the article already adequately explains all this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A Glaring Conflict in Dates That Needs to be investigated[edit]

It is literally impossible for Hubble to have served in the U.S. Army during WW II AND THEN completed and being granted his Ph.D. degree in 1917. Why? The United States did not enter WW II until April 4, 1917, and then it remained in the war until its end on November 11, 1918. Anyone who entered the Army in 1917 was "stuck" in the Army until at least some time in 1918, unless he was killed or else discharged from the Army due to severe wounds, sickness, etc.
Thus the sequence of events that was written is reversed, or else Hubble completed his Ph.D. after 1918, such as in 1919 or 1920.
Also, it makes a big difference about whether Hubble served in the Army inside the United Stated in 1917-18, or else he was sent overseas to France for combat or military support work thee - a big difference. The article currently says nothing at all about this. I am especially alert for such things, since my own grandfather served in the U.S. Army (he was drafted) in 1917-18, but he was not sent overseas. My grandfather had also been born in 1890, so he celebrated his 27th birthday in 1917, making him rather old for an Army private. That could conceivable have something to have done with his not getting sent overseas. (But he was also unmarried at the age of 27, and he did not marry until he was 32.) (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This discovery was the first observational support for the Big Bang theory which had been proposed by Alexander Friedmann in 1922?[edit]

In the second paragraph of the Redshift Increases With Distance section a claim is made that Hubble's discovery was the first observational support for the Big Bang theory which had been proposed by Alexander Friedmann in 1922. Did Friedmann really propose a version of the Big Bang theory in 1922? As far as I'm aware he solved Einstein's general relativity equations in 1922, but I see no mention of him proposing a Big Bang theory. Also looking at the Big Bang theory article it is claimed that Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory in 1931. So is that claim about Friendmann in error? Dionyseus (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the culprit, an anonymous user with the ip changed the original statement "Father Georges Lemaître in 1927" to "Alexander Friedmann in 1922", way back in November 24, 2006: [5]. Strange no one noticed. Dionyseus (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hubble should be added to Category American WWI personal[edit]

Hubble should be added to Category American WWI personal since he did serve and achieve the rank of Major.(LienEmpire (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)).

Regarding fair-use photographs[edit]

These two photographs have been brought to my attention:

After further research, I can conclude that both photographs are works of Mount Wilson Observatory. (The exact photographer is unknown). As such, both photos should be subject to identical fair-use guidelines. I am replacing the image that is currently in the article with the characteristic pipe portrait. Nimur (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, though I would like to point out that, firstly, the pipe image should be cropped and reduced in size (doesn't need to be that big at all). Secondly, the image on Commons should be nominated for deletion. Note that there is also another image on Commons- File:Edwin-hubble.jpg- if that one is non-free, it should also be listed for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cause of Death[edit]

As I read on this significant figure I came across few sources that had contending views as to his cause of death. One source which is an online webpage found here written by one Michael D. Robins, under a parent website Makara claims the cause of death was a cerebral thrombosis. Now I normally would not even care about what a website has to say, specially since the parent site Makara seems to be about "spiritual" discussions that are fairly easy to be kicked aside as unreliable, but the content of this page is very detailed and some of the assertions are dead on accurate. The other two sources however that I consulted which are the "The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10" By J. L. Heilbron, found here, and "Short History of Nearly Everything: Special Illustrated Edition" By Bill Bryson found here indicates that the cause of death was actually a "heart attack." Now for those who do not know heart attack or acute myocardial infarction is basically a clot obstructing one of the major arteries that feeds the heart (coronary artery) causing heart attack, heart damage and death from lack of pumping ability, whereas cerebral thrombosis is often result of a blood vessels in the brain clotting and preventing blood from reaching the brain an death by loss of blood flow. Interestingly, you can have a heart condition like atrial fibrilation that produces a lot of clot and that clot can embolize to the brain where it causes an embolic stroke. Anyhow, this was a contradiction between the two sources; for the time being I will revert the cause of death to "heart attack" because the two sources stating it outpower the webpage. If anybody can find reason or other sources to state the contrary feel free to change. Thank you! Dr. Persi (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this source seems to have found the solution to the problem. According to this source Hubble did suffer a heart attack, but did not immediately expire, it was however a fatal stroke that was the cause of death for him. I will simply reflect this using all three sources. The source is found here: Hubble and the Big Bang By Paul Kupperberg. Dr. Persi (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hubble-Humason constant[edit]

It is known as the Hubble constant. Where is in referred to as the Hubble-Humason constant? It is unfortunate that Humason was not given credit but it is not Wikipedia's place to correct it. (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang was not proposed in 1927[edit]

In the article it says that Big Bang was proposed by Georges Lemaitre in 1927, but he actually published that theory in 1931. Could I change that? --Dropzink (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Referenced quote in lead[edit]

I recently removed a large quote and its translation from within a reference tag, replacing them instead with a simple citation for the book. Not having a page number doesn't seem to be a good reason to undo this change. If information is missing from the citation please add it. Otherwise, please discuss why this large section should be included in the references. -- Fyrefly (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As it was You who deleted a considerable amount of thoroughly made text I thought I could have expected You to proceed with a certain thoroughness, in that — at least on the second occasion, when I had already explicitly pointed You to what I perceived as a certain unfriendliness. —
Hubble's view of the causes of the redshift is only explained in a quite difficult manner, farther down in the article. It can be hard for somebody who is new to the subject to understand how the frequency of a beam of light should be diminished through a force of what nature ever, the more as long as one is not, with a certain intensity, pointed to the complexity of the problem.
I thought the lede would be the right place for a more simple explanation of how Hubble deviated from the view that is today accepted. I, for my part, am not really able to follow the rather sophisticated explanations given farther down in the article (although I, for a non-physicist, probably understand such texts better than most, due to respective interests), in which Hubble's deviating view is, moreover, only alluded to through the following citation of Allan Sandage:
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."
It is often difficult for somebody who is acquainted with a matter to imagine how difficult it can be for others to understand that matter.
Though, at the end, not even the explanation from the very well and understandably written 1954 work by Engelbert Broda lets me grasp what Hubble may have actually meant, I think that the citation from this work that I included contains, at least, some hints which may be helpful for some readers.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what unfriendliness you've perceived, but I'm going to put that aside. I undid your revision because you seemed to be saying that you did so only because the citation was missing a page number, which I think we can agree would be a pretty ridiculous reason. Regarding the quote, I would think that anyone wishing to better understand the concept of redshift would click on the wikilink to redshift already present in the lead, rather than following an inline citation to a quote, which they wouldn't even know existed until after they had clicked the citation or had read the article all the way to the bottom. If you truly think that the quoted explanation is necessary and helpful, I'm not opposed enough to remove it again, but I would say please only include the English translation, as this is the English wikipedia and the text in its original form doesn't do most readers here any good. And for the record, none of my actions were caused by some expert perspective. I know really nothing about redshift and not much about Hubble (certainly nothing that I didn't learn from this article).
Oh, and just to check, did I choose the correct title for the citation? You seemed to have two different titles in your reference (Unsere Milchstraße und ihre Nachbarn and Kräfte des Weltalls) and I wasn't sure which one was the title of the book you were quoting. I would appreciate you fixing that as well, if it's wrong. Also, neither of those titles appear at Engelbert Broda, so maybe that article could use your knowledge as well. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that I missed "Globus, Vienna" in your original ref (along with the page number). Of course I'd like to include it, but I'm not sure if Globus is the publisher or something else. Could you please help with that? -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The final sentence of the quote translation still needs to be fixed. "who has deserved best of the measurement" doesn't make any sense. Is it supposed to be "who has best observed the measurement" perhaps? -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The German means the superlative of "who has deserved well of...", i.e. something like "who has deserved well more than all others of..." Hubble is depicted as the one who has done, who has achieved, has accomplished the most regarding the measurement of the redshift, so that he should now be most decisively credited for that.
I am going to try to put the data on the source into the citebook template.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of announcement of other galaxies?[edit]

This page says "...Hubble... had his findings presented in the form of a paper at the January 1, 1925 meeting of the American Astronomical Society". The 1924 and 1924 in science pages both say this announcement was on 30th Dec 1924, but with no citation (also on WP Front Page "On this day" today 30-Dec-2011). Which is correct? Gebjon (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent book edit removal[edit]

I've removed the reference to "The Death of Edwin Hubble" because it is likely self-promotion by the author and is also not substantial to the subject of Edwin Hubble. TimboTeemo (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edwin Hubble's "unrecognized principle"[edit]

It looks like Edwin Hubble's "unrecognized principle" has been discovered. It's detailed in a book called JULIEN'S MOUNTAIN;Fulfilling the Hubble Prediction. The writing isn't the best but it certainly offers a never-before-heard explanation for the redshift of distant galaxies which is what Hubble was referring to with his statement that it is caused by "a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature." the book looks at redshift from a whole new perspective. I found the book on Amazon. Albert B. (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [4]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Edwin Hubble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ here