Page 1 of 19 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 188
  1. #1

    Default "There is no conflict between religion and science"


    'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang
    MARK MIDBON
    ~Source 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang



    Msgr. Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang

    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).
    This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without yesterday."

    After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists – including the mathematician Stephen Hawking -- predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre's contention that the Big Bang was in fact "a day without yesterday."

    When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.

    Lemaitre began his own scientific career at the College of Engineering in Louvain in 1913. He was forced to leave after a year, however, to serve in the Belgian artillery during World War I. When the war was over, he entered Maison Saint Rombaut, a seminary of the Archdiocese of Malines, where, in his leisure time, he read mathematics and science. After his ordination in 1923, Lemaitre studied math and science at Cambridge University, where one of his professors, Arthur Eddington, was the director of the observatory,

    For his research at Cambridge, Lemaitre reviewed the general theory of relativity. As with Einstein's calculations ten years earlier, Lemaitre's calculations showed that the universe had to be either shrinking or expanding. But while Einstein imagined an unknown force – a cosmological constant – which kept the world stable, Lemaitre decided that the universe was expanding. He came to this conclusion after observing the reddish glow, known as a red shift, surrounding objects outside of our galaxy. If interpreted as a Doppler effect, this shift in color meant that the galaxies were moving away from us. Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice. That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter, unimpressed, said, "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable."

    It was Einstein's own grasp of physics, however, that soon came under fire. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's systematic observations of other galaxies confirmed the red shift. In England the Royal Astronomical Society gathered to consider this seeming contradiction between visual observation and the theory of relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington volunteered to work out a solution. When Lemaitre read of these proceedings, he sent Eddington a copy of his 1927 paper. The British astronomer realized that Lemaitre had bridged the gap between observation and theory. At Eddington's suggestion, the Royal Astronomical Society published an English translation of Lemaitre's paper in its Monthly Notices of March 1931.

    Most scientists who read Lemaitre's paper accepted that the universe was expanding, at least in the present era, but they resisted the implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the idea that time had gone on forever. It seemed illogical that infinite millions of years had passed before the universe came into existence. Eddington himself wrote in the English journal Nature that the notion of a beginning of the world was "repugnant."

    The Belgian priest responded to Eddington with a letter published in Nature on May 9, 1931. Lemaitre suggested that the world had a definite beginning in which all its matter and energy were concentrated at one point:

    If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.
    In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein traveled to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." Duncan Aikman covered these seminars for the New York Times Magazine. An article about Lemaitre appeared on February 19, 1933, and featured a large photo of Einstein and Lemaitre standing side by side. The caption read, "They have a profound respect and admiration for each other."

    For his work, Lemaitre was inducted as a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium. An international commission awarded him the Francqui Prize. The archbishop of Malines, Cardinal Josef Van Roey, made Lemaitre a canon of the cathedral in 1935. The next year Pope Pius XI inducted Lemaitre into the Pontifical Academy of Science.

    Despite this high praise, there were some problems with Lemaitre's theory. For one, Lemaitre's calculated rate of expansion did not work out. If the universe was expanding at a steady rate, the time it had taken to cover its radius was too short to allow for the formation of the stars and planets. Lemaitre solved this problem by expropriating Einstein's cosmological constant. Where Einstein had used it in an attempt to keep the universe at a steady size, Lemaitre used it to speed up the expansion of the universe over time.

    Einstein did not take kindly to Lemaitre's use of the cosmological constant. He regarded the constant as the worst mistake of his career, and he was upset by Lemaitre's use of his super-galactic fudge factor.

    After Arthur Eddington died in 1944, Cambridge University became a center of opposition to Lemaitre's theory of the Big Bang. In fact, it was Fred Hoyle, an astronomer at Cambridge, who sarcastically coined the term "Big Bang." Hoyle and others favored an approach to the history of the universe known as the "Steady State" in which hydrogen atoms were continuously created and gradually coalesced into gas clouds, which then formed stars.

    But in 1964 there was a significant breakthrough that confirmed some of Lemaitre's theories. Workers at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey were tinkering with a radio telescope when they discovered a frustrating kind of microwave interference. It was equally strong whether they pointed their telescope at the center of the galaxy or in the opposite direction. What was more, it always had the same wavelength and it always conveyed the same source temperature. This accidental discovery required the passage of several months for its importance to sink in. Eventually, it won Arno Penzias the Nobel Prize in physics. This microwave interference came to be recognized as cosmic background radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang. Lemaitre received the good news while recovering from a heart attack in the Hospital Saint Pierre at the University of Louvain. He died in Louvain in 1966, at the age of seventy-one.

    After his death, a consensus built in favor of Lemaitre's burst of fireworks. But doubts did persist: Did this event really happen on a day without yesterday? Perhaps gravity could provide an alternative explanation. Some theorized that gravity would slow down the expansion of the universe and make it fall back toward its center, where there would be a Big Crunch and another Big Bang. The Big Bang, therefore, was not a unique event which marked the beginning of time but only part of an infinite sequence of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

    When word of the 1998 Berkeley discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate first reached Stephen Hawking, he said it was too preliminary to be taken seriously. Later, he changed his mind. "I have now had more time to consider the observations, and they look quite good," he told Astronomy magazine (October 1999). "This led me to reconsider my theoretical prejudices."

    Hawking was actually being modest. In the face of the scientific turmoil caused by the supernovae results, he has adapted very quickly. But the phrase "theoretical prejudices" makes one think of the attitudes that hampered scientists seventy years ago. It took a mathematician who also happened to be a Catholic priest to look at the evidence with an open mind and create a model that worked.

    Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre's view in 1933: "'There is no conflict between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both."


    I hope all of us will be enlightened after reading this beautiful yet very long post.


    There should be no conflict. We must know how to understand and at the same time RESPECT the beliefs of others.

    Let not Science and Religion tore us apart but instead learn to love and Respect one-another.

  2. #2

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    I DISAGREE.

    Science is always the conflict of religion.

    Life until the end of it is all science. but religion has it's own understanding about it.

    Regarding your post above, I didn't really get how church or science accepted the other field, opposite to what they believe in.

    Religion will never believe in science and science will also never believe in religion.

  3. #3

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Quote Originally Posted by CocoCrunch View Post
    I DISAGREE.

    Science is always the conflict of religion.

    Life until the end of it is all science. but religion has it's own understanding about it.

    Regarding your post above, I didn't really get how church or science accepted the other field, opposite to what they believe in.

    Religion will never believe in science and science will also never believe in religion.
    It seems Ironic, but you see it's up to us look at it as a conflict or not. For we love to argue on some things and try to influence people of what we believe in.

    Who started the fire? We can't really tell. For not all who belongs to RELIGION are good/ knows hows to stand & also knows how to defend ,& VICE VERSA

    Religion will never believe in Science? Science per se is very broad. And I know this statement came from your own understanding.

    If I am a religious person will I not take any medication for I don't believe its efficacy and use? Medication is a product of Science right?

  4. #4

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Learn how to respect the views of others, lets not make a conflict out of something. If you seem to doubt the beliefs of others then....just leave it that way. Stick to what you believe in as long as it does good to you, as long as you are happy with it...

    Ako? Nalipay raman ko sa akong pag-too (nga ako usa ka Catholico) og mau mani ang nakahatag sa akong kalipay, angay pa ba na lalisun?

  5. #5

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Actually, there is.

  6. #6

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Quote Originally Posted by petite fleur View Post
    It seems Ironic, but you see it's up to us look at it as a conflict or not. For we love to argue on some things and try to influence people of what we believe in.

    Who started the fire? We can't really tell. For not all who belongs to RELIGION are good/ knows hows to stand & also knows how to defend ,& VICE VERSA

    Religion will never believe in Science? Science per se is very broad. And I know this statement came from your own understanding.

    If I am a religious person will I not take any medication for I don't believe its efficacy and use? Medication is a product of Science right?
    if you really are very faithful with your religion then you won't take any medication coz you will believe God will cure and heal you.
    If you took the meds then you lack faith.

  7. #7

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Quote Originally Posted by pinoy_09 View Post
    Actually, there is.
    Yes there is! But there SHOULD be no conflict. If you have read the very long post ,the title of the Thread I quoted it fr. Msgr. Georges Lemaitre.

  8. #8

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Quote Originally Posted by CocoCrunch View Post

    Religion will never believe in science and science will also never believe in religion.
    Then how come Catholic schools have Science subjects??

  9. #9

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    Quote Originally Posted by petite fleur View Post
    Learn how to respect the views of others, lets not make a conflict out of something. If you seem to doubt the beliefs of others then....just leave it that way. Stick to what you believe in as long as it does good to you, as long as you are happy with it...

    Ako? Nalipay raman ko sa akong pag-too (nga ako usa ka Catholico) og mau mani ang nakahatag sa akong kalipay, angay pa ba na lalisun?
    dili ni angay lalison but those fields are obviously opposites and would never be together.

    Religion is always full of mysteries and fictions that can never be explain by science.

  10. #10

    Default Re: "There is no conflict between religion and science"

    the brightest and the smartest of all always wants to make a study or research on religion. For what mere reason? I think they just want to test their skill on how far they can go. They will try to scrutunize religion cause they themselves wants to be gods.

  11.    Advertisement

Page 1 of 19 123411 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

 
  1. What Happen To Us When There Is No Love At All?
    By websniper in forum "Love is..."
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-17-2014, 10:49 PM
  2. There is no such thing as HEAVEN.
    By JawBreaker in forum Spirituality & Occult - OLDER
    Replies: 357
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 09:07 AM
  3. Hell is NOT a Lake of Fire. There is NO Endless Punishment
    By junn in forum Spirituality & Occult - OLDER
    Replies: 248
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 12:06 AM
  4. Have you ever wondered why there is no 13th floor on some buildings?
    By captpoloy in forum Spirituality & Occult - OLDER
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 01:33 PM
  5. what is the Difference between Absolute and Relative URL?
    By lunar_eclipse_82 in forum Software & Games (Old)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 08:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
about us
We are the first Cebu Online Media.

iSTORYA.NET is Cebu's Biggest, Southern Philippines' Most Active, and the Philippines' Strongest Online Community!
follow us
#top