5.2. Comparison with Hubble 1936

Finally, it is of interest to compare the modern counts in B, as read from Figs. 7 - 11 and averaged, with Hubble's 1936 five-data-point N(m) relation from Fig. 1. The comparison is shown in Fig. 12. The remarkable feature is that Hubble got the slope almost right. The main difference is only in the zero point of the magnitudes. Hubble's magnitudes are ~ 0.6 mag brighter than the modern values for the same integral count. Remarkably, the effect is in fact explained simply by the known corrections to the magnitude scales in the Mount Wilson Catalog, similar to those shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 12. Comparison of Hubble's 1936 counts (from Fig. 1) with the mean of the modern counts discussed in the text.

Note that the counts in Fig. 12, both for the Hubble and the modern data, are as observed (but reduced to "standard conditions"). No K corrections have been applied for the effects of redshift. Hence, whatever the explanation is why Hubble interpreted his counts as requiring the no-expansion model, that explanation does not lie in an error in the 1936 N(m) count data themselves where the slope (not the zero point) is important. In previous sections we have set out the reasons for Hubble's conclusion, based on his inappropriate precepts about the theory (K term and the Mattig exact equations for the z, volume and the m, z relations). Any errors in Hubble's conclusions evidently do not rest on the count data themselves.