PDA

View Full Version : " 'A Day Without Yesterday': Monsignor Georges Lemaître & the Big Bang "



megimoo
05-16-2011, 05:44 PM
In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae – exploding stars visible over great distances – to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing – a discovery which has since "shaken astronomy to its core" (Astronomy, October 1999).

"Most of us know that when a star of sufficient mass reaches the end of its fuel burning days gravity causes its photosphere to collapses onto it's core and 'bounce' several times .

As this photosphere compresses into a kind of 'nuclear soup' compressed protron,neutrons and electrons all flow together compressed into one of the most powerful 'gravity beast' in the universe..a singularity.."

"Creation was an 'point source' singularity ' .In mathematics, a point source is a singularity from which flux or flow is emanating .Creation was the GOD created point source' singularity,a new day without an yesterday !!"


http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

FlaGator
05-16-2011, 06:11 PM
In fact, this had been theoretically discovered even earlier. Albert Einstein, who is considered the greatest scientist of the century, had concluded after the calculations he made in theoretical physics that the universe could not be static. However, he had laid his discovery to rest simply not to conflict with the widely recognised static universe model of his time. Later on, Einstein was to identify his act as 'the greatest mistake of his career'. Subsequently, it became definite by Hubble's observations that the universe expands.


Whole article here (http://www.albalagh.net/general/expansion_universe.shtml)

megimoo
05-16-2011, 06:51 PM
Whole article here (http://www.albalagh.net/general/expansion_universe.shtml)

Why would Einstein say:
"Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”"

Your sources are interesting,Have you converted to Islam ?

"The expansion of the universe is one of the most important pieces of evidence that the universe was created out of nothing. Although this fact was not discovered by science until the 20th century, Allah has informed us of this reality in the Qur'an revealed 1,400 years ago:

"It is We who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." [Az-Zariyat 51:47]"

marv
05-16-2011, 09:20 PM
The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang, is the same physicist who will tell you that the creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics.

Update: There was no Big Bang. There was no creation. Everything has always been here.

djones520
05-16-2011, 09:28 PM
The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang, is the same physicist who will tell you that the creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics.

Update: There was no Big Bang. There was no creation. Everything has always been here.

Except the universe wasn't created from nothing. It was a super dense entity that rapidly expanded and diluted itself into what we now call the universe.

Now where that material came from? *shrugs* We're still working on that. :p

wilbur
05-16-2011, 10:16 PM
The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang...


That is not part of the big bang theory.

megimoo
05-16-2011, 10:46 PM
Except the universe wasn't created from nothing. It was a super dense entity that rapidly expanded and diluted itself into what we now call the universe.

Now where that material came from? *shrugs* We're still working on that. :p
Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance on the hoof again young Mr.Jones ?Perhaps you're a Deist and not a real Athiest ? Speaking from your vast experience Jones where do you think all of the matter came from ?

Your input makes just about as much sense as a young school age childs view of the stars .The key question is where all of the energy came from ? Before creation space as such didn't exist,there was no energy,matter,light...nothing .Creation was a 'point source' of infinite energy that expanded and 'grew' space as it expanded .Think of the reverse of an infinite point source singularty expanding from nothingness to an explosively expanding plasma of stupendous energy changing into matter as it grows .....BTW I assume that you knew that matter is a different form of energy and visa versa ?

" rapidly expanded and diluted" now just what does that mean ? Do you mean like water vapour rising from a steam kettle that fogs your glasses ?What causes it to expand,What is a "super dense' entity" ?Are yor refering to a 'black hole' if so where did that come from ?...By way of an explanation...To expand means to grows larger.To dilute means to thin or weaken....Words have meanings so would you care to fill in the blanks young Mr.Jones ?

djones520
05-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance on the hoof again young Mr.Jones ?Perhaps you're a Deist and not a real Athiest ? Speaking from your vast experience Jones where do you think all of the matter came from ?

Your input makes just about as much sense as a young school age childs view of the stars .The key question is where all of the energy came from ? Before creation space as such didn't exist,there was no energy,matter,light...nothing .Creation was a 'point source' of infinite energy that expanded and 'grew' space as it expanded .Think of the reverse of an infinite point source singularty expanding from nothingness to an explosively expanding plasma of stupendous energy changing into matter as it grows .....BTW I assume that you knew that matter is a different form of energy and visa versa ?

" rapidly expanded and diluted" now just what does that mean ? Do you mean like water vapour rising from a steam kettle that fogs your glasses ?What causes it to expand,What is a "super dense' entity" ?Are yor refering to a 'black hole' if so where did that come from ?...By way of an explanation...To expand means to grows larger.To dilute means to thin or weaken....Words have meanings so would you care to fill in the blanks young Mr.Jones ?

I'm not an astrophysicist Megi. I'm a weather forecaster working on a degree in Environmental Sciences. So I'll have to let you be dissapointed for now, because no, I cannot fill in the blanks at this time.

Articulate_Ape
05-16-2011, 10:58 PM
The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang, is the same physicist who will tell you that the creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics.

Update: There was no Big Bang. There was no creation. Everything has always been here.

You might be right, Marv. It seems physics, at least astrophysics is getting closer to that notion. Hawking is a lesser simulated voice in this field today. He is more like the grandparent you wheel into the room to watch the latest Sci-fi movie in 3D.

This is deep, but so is space, time, the universe, and god; at least according to most people who ponder such things outside of dogma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y350oOiunf4

megimoo
05-16-2011, 11:06 PM
I'm not an astrophysicist Megi. I'm a weather forecaster working on a degree in Environmental Sciences. So I'll have to let you be dissapointed for now, because no, I cannot fill in the blanks at this time.I'm not disapointed at all .It just reinforces my opinion of you as a bullshit artist !

wilbur
05-16-2011, 11:08 PM
Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance on the hoof again young Mr.Jones ?Perhaps you're a Deist and not a real Athiest ? Speaking from your vast experience Jones where do you think all of the matter came from ?


Baby Jesus, duh! Makes perfect sense!

Articulate_Ape
05-16-2011, 11:15 PM
I'm not disapointed at all .It just reinforces my opinion of you as a bullshit artist !

Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(

djones520
05-16-2011, 11:19 PM
Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(

I offered to let him go to the Dome with it. We'll see if he does.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:23 PM
The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang, is the same physicist who will tell you that the creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics.

Update: There was no Big Bang. There was no creation. Everything has always been here.

the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)

megimoo
05-16-2011, 11:28 PM
Baby Jesus, duh! Makes perfect sense!Willie is regressing again,Next comes the Goos and Gahh .

megimoo
05-16-2011, 11:33 PM
the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)
There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !

djones520
05-16-2011, 11:36 PM
There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !

No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

That is the THEORY.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:36 PM
It's possible that our entire conception of the primary constitants of the universe are wrong.

Space, Time, Matter. the reality is there are giant gaping holes in the explanations of these phenomenon.

if we accept space, time, and matter as a given, along with the 4 fundamental forces which act within and on those first three, then the Big Bang is the best we have.

However, if space, time, and matter are actually something totally different than we've been thinking for the last century, then it could totally revolutionize our understanding of the universe.

Any serious investigation into space, time, and matter is filled with paradoxes, inconsistences, and general weirdness when you get into the real nitty gritty. physicists end up making ever more complex, ever more elaborate theories to account for these issues, but these might be an example of Ptolemization. - This is a reference to the ancient astronomy Ptolomy, who was working on a geocentric model of the universe, and kept noticing the orbital patterns of the planets had weird inconsistencies to them, at times they even appered to change direction multiple times in their orbits.

Because Ptolomy was absolutely certain that the Earth was the center of the universe, and because he was measuring these weird inconsistencies in the data, he had to account for it the only way he knew how: by making his geocentric model way more complex to account for the odd motions.

He kept the earth at the center, but added epicycles to the orbits of the planets, so that they moved in little circles within the path of the larger circle of their orbit, sort of like those old toys where you use your pencil within two circles to make patterns: http://nrich.maths.org/content/id/5603/toy2.jpg

The resulting orbital model was something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/J4ZYY.jpg

this is clearly WAY more complex and unnecessarily elaborate, given our knowledge of the relatively simple orbits of our Heliocentric Solar System.


The problem was his inability to look past his assumptions, and what was needed was a Copernican Revolution. From the perspective of a Sun-Centered solar system, the changing directions of the planets in the sky is easily accounted for by the relatively different speeds of the planets within their orbit, which pass each other and loop back around when viewed from earth.


This may be where we are today in modern physics with regards to the big questions of space, time, and matter. Every month it seems physicists are coming up with incredibly complex seemingly insane theories of the universe to account for the mathematical oddities and logical paradoxes that occur within our current system.

We might need a Copernican Revolution of sorts that totally re-thinks the very basic fundamental consituents of reality. It would be something extrordinarily radical, but could offer far more simple insight into whatever this reality is.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:37 PM
There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !

hence the use of quotes there ;)

some people argue that the universe may be cyclical, in which case there would have been a before, in some form.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:38 PM
No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

That is the THEORY.

at that point, all of the laws of physics break down, including the function of space-time. even if we say there was a singularity to begin with, there would have been no passage of time whatsoever.

megimoo
05-16-2011, 11:40 PM
Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(
Not at all .....I just tire of his vapid and trite nature .

megimoo
05-17-2011, 01:07 AM
No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

That is the THEORY.Jones have you actually read the Lemaître paper ?Do you have any understanding of it at all or just a bunch of talk ?

According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous.

wilbur
05-17-2011, 01:34 AM
Jones have you actually read the Lemaître paper ?Do you have any understanding of it at all or just a bunch of talk ?


LOL Megs - who are you trying to fool here? Nobody here believes for a second you understand anything at all about physics.

Articulate_Ape
05-17-2011, 01:36 AM
I bet Lacarnut $50 no one here watched the video I posted.

djones520
05-17-2011, 01:45 AM
I bet Lacarnut $50 no one here watched the video I posted.

I haven't as of yet. Youtube freezes my computer up at work.

Articulate_Ape
05-17-2011, 01:47 AM
I haven't as of yet. Youtube freezes my computer up at work.

Must be global warming.

djones520
05-17-2011, 01:48 AM
Must be global warming.

No, we had the global warming switch off at work today.

djones520
05-17-2011, 01:53 AM
Ok, I got about 4 minutes into that. Very interesting, but it is midnight. I did just do PT, right after an 8 hour shift where I had to deal with a range of issues from 40kt cross winds in the San Fransisco area, to fog in the Black Sea.

I'll try again tomorrow. :p

Articulate_Ape
05-17-2011, 01:55 AM
No, we had the global warming switch off at work today.

Expect a call from Al Gore's publicist's agent's secretary's assistant's agent's publicist's secretary soon to notify you of your part in killing this planet by disrupting its inevitable warming with your carelessness. It's a good thing his hit teams wear Crocs or you wouldn't stand a chance when they skip at you.

FlaGator
05-17-2011, 09:15 AM
the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)

That being one of the failings of the big bang theories. It is incomplete and doesn't account for initial conditions.

FlaGator
05-17-2011, 09:22 AM
No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

That is the THEORY.

Actually the theory states that in the beginning was an infinitely dense/ infinitely hot point of energy, a singularity, that for reasons unknown because unstable and expanded with matter resulting as the condensation from the energy as it cooled. What the theory fails to explain is what gave rise to the singularity and why did it become unstable. Did in sit there for eons and the suddenly become unstable and expand or was it created by something else and was unstable to begin with?

Science is not capable at this time to answer those questions.

wilbur
05-17-2011, 09:50 AM
Actually the theory states that in the beginning was an infinitely dense/ infinitely hot point of energy, a singularity, that for reasons unknown because unstable and expanded with matter resulting as the condensation from the energy as it cooled. What the theory fails to explain is what gave rise to the singularity and why did it become unstable. Did in sit there for eons and the suddenly become unstable and expand or was it created by something else and was unstable to begin with?

Science is not capable at this time to answer those questions.

Of course, the difficulty in thinking about the problem, is that time probably did not exist "before" the singularity... so words like "eon", and "before" simply make no sense. Our intuitions seem hopelessly inept at imagining timelessness.

FlaGator
05-17-2011, 11:44 AM
Of course, the difficulty in thinking about the problem, is that time probably did not exist "before" the singularity... so words like "eon", and "before" simply make no sense. Our intuitions seem hopelessly inept at imagining timelessness.

And that is why people have difficulty with the concept of God.