|
Hmm;
Very interesting, Chris.
I have no major issues with what you say, as both my post #48 and your post #51, both state valid points of view.
Your comments about Wiki: Shades of grey. Your warning about Wikipedia is generalised and whilst I think we all know to be cautious about quoting from Wiki for certain topics, from the perspective of emphasing the validity of Hubble’s Law as scientific Law, and for the purposes of promoting discussion in an Amateur Forum/General Chat topic, it would seem sufficient. Had this discussion been raised in the Science forum … fair enough … we’d have an ‘interesting’ time of it.
I am a little disturbed by your words: “Application of Hubble’s so called law.”
The paper you provided is a most interesting read. Much empirical supporting data has been accumulated since it was published, (2003), and thus it is probably fair to say that nowadays, the majority of mainstream scientists go about their business with the metric expansion of space (as supported by Hubble’s Law), as a given. It is also probably fair to interpret this as their direct acceptance of the body of supporting evidence.
I was once challenged “how much evidence does it take for you to accept something ?”.
It really got me thinking.
The issues the paper discusses, seem to deal with misconceptions surrounding interpretations of Hubble’s Law, but are not directed at the law itself.
Hubble’s Law still meets the criteria of scientific classification as a “Law”, which was the main intent of my post.
Perhaps we could find more formal wording of Hubble’s Law.
Cheers & Thanks for your input.
|