In article , (Steve
Willner) writes:

In article ,
"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)" writes:
Lemaitre didn't have any data of his own, but he was the first to
actually calculate a numerical value for the "Hubble" constant.

Thanks. On that basis, it seems to me the response should be to
change "Hubble constant" to "Lemaitre constant." As an observer, I
favor those papers that actually present data, so my initial thought
is that "Hubble Law" should remain.

Ironically, many of "Hubble's" redshifts came from other people, often
without due credit. In the biography Edwin Hubble, Mariner of the
Nebulae by Gale Christensen (not sure if the spelling is right), he
comes across as someone who was not only interested in his own fame, but
was also willing to take credit where it was also due others. He had
more than enough work of his own to be proud of, but some folks just
can't get enough. :-|

See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2289 .

Both valid concerns, to be sure. Probably changing "Hubble constant"
is more of a stretch than "Hubble law," and that may have influenced
the IAU body proposing the change.

There are two things to keep in mind: the observational relation between
redshift and apparent magnitude, and the theoretical relationship
between velocity and distance. Both are sometimes referred to as
Hubble's Law. The latter must be completely linear in any model which
remains homogeneous and isotropic with time; no physics here, only
kinematics. The former is linear at low redshift (taking redshift as a
proxy for velocity and apparent magnitude as a proxy for distance). In
general, things are more complicated. Probably the best description, as
is often the case, comes from Ted Harrison:

@ARTICLE {EHarrison93a,
AUTHOR = "Edward R. Harrison",
TITLE = "The Redshift-Distance and
Velocity-Distance Laws",
JOURNAL = APJ,
YEAR = "1993",
VOLUME = "403",
NUMBER = "1",
PAGES = "28",
MONTH = jan
}


Hubble also has a "variable nebula" (NGC 2261 associated with R Mon).
You missed that one. :-)

So did Sandage. :-)