"Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble."
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/blast-of … -universe/
Very oddly, the man who propsed the theory of Big Bang, was a Christian priest. The theory he proposed was very unscientific, because it argues that matter comes from nothing, which is impossible, from the physical point of view. I requires the supernatural to assist his theory. Did he make that theory to save God from disappearing?
Get ready to hear all sort of nonsense. Relativity is a religion now and the idiots who follow that religion are more vicious than the worst believer.
Yes, you can disprove the belief that supernatural exist, or God exists (thought I'm not saying thet it can not) - it requires two seconds of reasoning. Just call to show evidence.
On the other hand, Relativity, which is a severely complicated belief system, sustained by a community of conformist workers (scientists?) - takes more effort to get rid of easily. They are link duct tapes. Sticky. Half-truths are more difficult to fight against.
The same goes for Evolution or the theory of Global Warming. These theories, which has the potential to gull millions of people, possesses potential for profit for certain groups of people. People always find it hard to reject anything that bears the stamp "coming down from scientific community".
They make good cults.
I have to say, at least the Catholics are acknowledging evolution, relativity and the amount of time it took for us to get hear. I can't say the same for creationists. Creationists only look internally, while Catholics are at the very least looking for answers. I don't think this priest proposed this theory to save Catholicism because as we know they don't need it. Christians hold onto there beliefs despite what science and or common sense dictates.
Common sense also dictates that we have a problem with global warming. The opening of the northern passage, the warmer winter that we can directly feel, changes in rain and snow patterns.
Sorry, but Relativity has been confirmed to a great deal of accuracy and is a standard requirement in all GPS satellites in order for them to work properly. These are vicious facts.
"Sorry, but Relativity has been confirmed to a great deal of accuracy"
Where was it confirmed? Who confirmed it?
LOL! Are you serious? It has been and continues to be confirmed every single day in particle accelerators and GPS satellites. Where ya been, dude?
Relativity is a difficult concept for some to comprehend. When they can't understand the concept they dismiss it. Ignorance really, diminutive intellect + indoctrination/misguided = this.
1. the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
2. the deflection of light by the Sun
3. the gravitational redshift of light
You have a very good understanding of science
You are correct, I perhaps don't, but I know I understand more than you. Look up the word "theory".
"I know I understand more than you. Look up the word "theory"."
Just like god is proved every day by the presence of earth and the life on it.
Actually, there is hard evidence, but I know that doesn't concern you.
Which is more hard Evidence, the universe and the precise workings of the universe, the way god set it, which screams the mighty power of god, but I know that doesn't concern you.
I agree there is time dilation though, yesterday my local time got so dilated that I had to take it to a watch mechanic.
It's been obvious you have very little understanding of most physics, if not all.
After going over your hubpage (as Fatfist) I found hubs with the word "REFUTED" splattered all over the place. After reading the ones on physics, I found only hand waving based on a misunderstanding of the subject, and no math whatsoever.
It is very sad there are people who propagate that nonsense when they don't even understand it.
It seems you mistake maths for physics.
And when I went through your hubs, the hubs showed what is in your mind.
When I went through your hubs[as Claire] it was nothing but nonsense.
Maths is not physics. Maths can only describe, it can never explain.Maths may describe the 'force' between two objects, but it can never explain how that force is exerted.
No Bill, I don't.
Of course, you're free to believe I'm Claire, even though I attempted to argue her insane beliefs. Usually, sock puppets support each other, like you and Jomine, Fatfist, etc. etc. etc.
Yes Bill, I've already seen your crank website in which you consider math and physics religions.
What difference you have from Claire?She sees Satan in everyone, and you Bill Gaede.
I'm not even an american.
And you chase circles to protect your religion.
ATM and Claire are nothing alike. ATM is mister one liner while Claire goes on seemingly for ever about some bomb going off at the olympics.
Atm had another avatar, Beelzedad who was not paranoid(?). This avatar and Claire act like paranoids, Atm see Bill Gaede in everyone who point out his mistakes, while Claire see satan, that's all.
What religion do you think ATM has? I think one of us is confused and I don't think it's me.
From your link...
"According to Lemaitre’s theory, all the matter in the universe was once packed within a single, gigantic atom, which, until ten thousand millions years ago, lay dormant. "
Did you even read the article you linked? It states quite clearly that Lemaitre's theory does not propose that "matter comes from nothing" but instead proposes "all the matter in the universe was once packed within a single, gigantic atom" and does not argue that "matter comes from nothing"
Then I ask you to explain from where did the supernatural get the raw materials to create the universe? YOU stated that it is impossible for matter to come from nothing.
Or, he was simply being honest about reality? Perhaps, many believers here could learn something from Lemaitre, especially when they don't learn from other sources.
"According to Lemaitre’s theory, all the matter in the universe was once packed within a single, gigantic atom, which, until ten thousand millions years ago, lay dormant."
The question is, where did that giant atom come from? From the physical point of view, it's not possible for matter to come from nothing. It either came from a natural source. Or otherwise, as the theory indicates.
I bet you prefer to think an invisible God created the first Atom? But I bet you would never ask who created this invisible God.
Something can never come out of nothing, even god has to 'exist' before he can create.
Space is our conceptualization of 'nothing', so do not need creation. Even if we concede that god exist he has to have matter to be an object.(only objects exist, so if god exist he should be an object). So matter and space are eternal.. No creation no bang.
Bang is a creation theory in disguise. If time and space are formed along with bang the religious can argue that god was and is outside the universe, hence we can never detect god and he was the ultimate cause. If you have noticed, to the question 'what was before bang' the answer is either nothing, or nonsense question, or irrelevant question, or no way to know or 'laws' came into existence along with bang.
@ Radman, are you reading gibberish here? I know I am.
Religious people always see reason as gibberish, because they are only looking for stuff that confirm their belief. Anything contrary is gibberish to them.
Sometimes people can't make up or control there minds.
The religious will always do as you described no matter what the theory, because they never ask who created God.
A better way will be 'religious are those people who do not use their critical thinking faculties'.
They believe the authority and take their words as the basis and analyse everything based on that and look for confirmations of the said belief and reject everything else. The relativist is no different. They speak nonsense like 'space expand' and 'time dilate' without ever bothering to think what it means and then say they have evidence. Evidence is an opinion, the same evidence can be used for or against depending on the skill of the prosecutor.
We don't ask what is means, because it doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it just is, as we are. It doesn't have to mean anything to be real. Me stepping on a bug doesn't mean anything other then the bug is dead.
Me stepping on the "bug"
But before stepping on the bug you should know what a bug is.
Suppose you do not know english, and some body told you this is bug
will you ever dare step on it?
Similarly every word is a concept, some words resolve to objects while the rest remain as concepts. We point to objects and name it, while concepts we define. You can point to the bug(or its picture), can you you point to space(or time or love) or its picture?
I know what a bug is, I know the difference between a bug and a lion. I can tell them apart from a picture. I don't need to get meaning from these things. I don't need direction from a deity to enjoy life. Perhaps you do?
You entirely missed my point.
You know what a bug and lion is because you were taught that from your childhood. That is why I said "if you do not know english"
When somebody tell you a name, say bug, you think about something say a house fly, I may be thinking about a spider and another a scorpion. Unless you specify what you mean by bug, we cannot communicate effectively.
Not only about bug, if we want an effective discussion about anything, we have to be absolutely clear what we say.
Deity or god is a meaningless term, for a person who consider the whole matter in the universe as god, god exist, for a man who consider sun as god, god exist and for them it is an object. For who consider him as creator or love he is a concept. And though they do not agree, concepts does not exist.
Why he does not do that, because it will invalidate his religion.
Religion started as a man's attempt to explain the nature, but he put the supernatural element and made the argument a non-explanation.
Relativist made an irrational one, and hence nonsense.
Why ATM does not define space/time? Once he define it in no uncertain terms, his further arguments will be invalid, hence he(relativists) will evade any questions asking him to define space or time.....
Relativist is a fallacy committed when a person rejects a claim by saying that the claim might be correct for others but not for themselves. I didn't miss your point. You're getting caught up in semantics and not saying anything.
How do you communicate without semantics?
I'm curious to know what you visualize when you hear space expand( a black box perhaps) or time dilates.
I'll read your answer but won't be able to reply for I'm quitting hubs, for I have not seen anybody changing their opinions in the face of reason. They find something to circumvent reason or remain blind to reason. And the more I study Human psychology the more I'm convinced that humans are just animals(no difference from other animals - we brag about our intelligence while what we actually do is simply reacting to the circumstances) and reason is an evolutionary mistake and hence very few people are comfortable with.
And yet, you make it clear you too are not using critical thinking skills at all.
Your lack of understanding does not preclude the understanding of others, especially when that understanding is based on hard evidence we see every single day.
Now, evidence is an opinion. Hilarious stuff, dude.
I bet you prefer to think the theory of Big Bang is true.
I have no idea if the big bang is true, but I'm not speculating a God made everything and then never ask where God came from.
What we prefer is irrelevant to the evidence.
Which you have none, regarding Big Bang, and Relativity.
Didn't I already show you evidence for relativity? Did you just forget or are you lying?
Sending communications to and from the Viking lander on Mars in 1979, scientists showed that signals traveling between Earth and Mars took slightly longer when they passed the Sun, due to the curvature in space-time caused by the massive star.
As the spacecraft Cassini was heading towards Saturn in 2002, scientists again measured the effect of solar gravity, looking at how the round-trip time of a radio signal changed when it went near the sun. Although the Cassini test showed the same result as that of the Viking, it was 50 times as accurate—within 20 parts per million, thanks to a better communication system that could filter out interference from the solar corona.
super-sensitive optical clocks are used to measure differences in time when the clocks are moving and comparing them to clocks that are not moving.
Keep believing in that fairy tale. You are making good sense now. I thought you were an wannabe intellectual. I now know you are not.
That's very interesting. You've been convinced otherwise. Please let me know your thoughts on relativity, space-time and how the universe began. Enlighten me.
How will you digest it? You have been fed junk for so long. First, tell me why did you believe the fairy tale of Relativity? My explanation will come after that. I can't teach a zealot.
Relativity works to a high degree of accuracy. GPS would never work without it.
Perhaps, this is the userid you're going to use? Did monkeyminds get banned already?
Who knows? I was under the impression that you were going to tell us that since you are the one posting the link and who created the OP.
Where did God find the raw materials to create the universe? From nothing?
Argument from incredulity. You make an absolute claim but offer no explanation. There are theoretical physicists who are attempting to answer that question with evidence, hence your absolute conclusion is not absolute.
What natural source is that? The same natural source God might get his materials?
You have already gotten into the idea of God as a valid possibility.
"The theory he proposed was very unscientific, because it argues that matter comes from nothing, which is impossible, from the physical point of view. I requires the supernatural to assist his theory. Did he make that theory to save God from disappearing?"
Again, from the link...
"Then, like a sky-rocket touched off on the Fourth of July after having remained quietly for months on a store shelf, the atom burst, its far-flung fragments forming the stars of which our universe is built."
Although an interesting conclusion, it is not correct.
The Big Bang was not an "explosion" in the traditional sense as compared with a 'sky rocket touched off on the Fourth of July". With explosions, we will see all the matter contained within the explosion move away at the same relative speeds. This is not observed in Big Bang theory, but instead all the matter in the universe was moving away at different speeds in that it was not an explosion, but instead, an expansion.
An explosion has a central point, an expansion does not.
They do talk about the origin of the universe, and the gravitational singularity.
"According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."
Notice that the explanation does not make any absolute conclusions like you have made.
That's called honesty.
by Uplifterx4 years ago
What was before Big Bang? Scientists have the following idea-"According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity...
by My Esoteric22 months ago
I have heard many times that one reason the "inflation theory" has been challenged is the argument that is if it were true then the expansion would have to happened at a speed faster than light, in violation...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Wilderness has a way of presenting a logical and intelligent conclusion to many arguments. What makes so many people drawn to religion although the bases of religion aren't based upon any logical premise? ...
by Eric Newland4 years ago
...there would be no gravity.My reasoning comes from the Shell Theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theoremSimply put, a spherical shell exerts no net gravitational force on objects inside it. Likewise, there will...
by janesix3 years ago
Whether your view is religious or scientific. And if you think the Universe is a steady state(as in, has no beginning or end),then try to explain that instead. Thank you.
by christiananrkist3 years ago
i asked this question in the Q&A section a while back and only got 1 response. given any worldview wouldnt a supernatural event had to have taken place at some point? most theist would obviously say a god/gods...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.