Scientists' help wanted!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_Sully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CORRECTION
past mistakes [which were after all only human infractions, ex-cathedra teachings].
SHOULD READ:

past mistakes which were after all only human infractions, NOT ex-cathedra teachings :mad:
 
Sorry, read the article on Gallileo and it seems he DID INDEED get it wrong.

Blow me over, I never thought I would ever hear myself admitting that.
 
Regardless of what is advertised on another page, the article I linked you to is a Scientific American article (August 2003). I presume this is mainstream enough?
Mark,

Scientific American is (or at least was–I cancelled my subscription some years ago over their increasing anti-Christian bias) indeed sufficiently mainstream. The fact remains, though, that I am looking for technical papers with governing equations and their solutions. It’s all very well to assert that a holographic universe in five dimensions satisfies the equations, but I’d like to see some support for the assertion.
  • Liberian
 
Ergo, Catholicism is scientifically improbable?
Catholicism is actually psychologically very probable. She is the perfect model so perfect in fact that it is blatently obvious her founder was no mere mortal.

Her brilliance in the service of humanity, the transparency of God is so evident. 👍
 
Hello,

Let’s have some real fun!

If noone was there to hear the Big Bang, would it make a sound or a noise?

A sound is a physical property that is independent of personal perception.

Noise is what occurs when I am annoyed by the sound of pre-historical quantum events.

But, if there is no Universe, and no space or atmosphere for sound waves to traverse, could there be a sound? Would we have to wait until the Universe expanded to encompass us until we would hear something?

You know, I can picture an astronomer sitting in his observatory with a big declassified listening device, straining to hear a sonic boom through his telescope. 😃
Well, funny you should say that, for you speak more truth than you know. We’ve been talking on this thread about the Cosmic Microwave Background (the CMB) which is the amazingly uniform radiation at 2.7 Kelvin that pervades the universe. The photons of the CMB were originally released when the universe cooled enough after the Big Bang to decouple the interaction of light and matter.

Now, although the temperature of the CMB is very uniform, it still has some tiny differences across the sky (the so-called CMB anisotropy). A part of that uneveness in temperature arises from the fact that in the period between Big Bang and decoupling, the universe was full of huge sound waves (caused by the Bang). Those sound waves left an imprint on the CMB temperature (hotter where the plasma was denser as a result of the propagating sound waves) that we still see today (this is the acoustic imprint on the CMB anisotropy). By exploring the statistics of the tiny variations in temperature of the CMB across the sky (using a sort of telescope - a satellite equipped with sensors to measure the microwave radiation) we can learn a lot about the acoustic conditions in the early universe - in fact, it tells us what the Bang sounded like, and that in turn tells us about some primordial conditions, such as the density and composition of matter in the early universe.

So there you go, scientists *do *peer into space, listening to the boom of the Bang.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
 
If I have understood, there are at least four models/opinions/theories competing for the correct answers?

Also, within those four models there are different schools of thought.

Is this a little correct on my part?

Thanks for all of the help!!!
 
For the record: I believe that God created the Universe!!!

I am curious as to how people of science explain the start of the universe.
 
One theory is that our perfect universe coming into being as it is, as a mere once off chance perfect happening, cannot be accepted - it is too difficult to believe.
So some imaginatively propose that there must be dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or more ‘parallel’ type universes in existance simultaneously in order to raise the odds to more believeable levels of such an ‘extra-ordinary happening’ occuring.
It is easier for ‘them’ to believe in invented universes than for them to believe the evidence of their own eyes.
 
It is easier for ‘them’ to believe in invented universes than for them to believe the evidence of their own eyes.
Even if there were tens of billions of other universes, this only increases the problem, for there would then be a nearly countless multitude of complexities coming from a single ultra-simple event, or from many.
 
Even if there were tens of billions of other universes, this only increases the problem, for there would then be a nearly countless multitude of complexities coming from a single ultra-simple event, or from many.
Yes, its nice to see complexity multiply naturally - & even in the imaginary.
 
There does not seem any reasor ot believeing in a milti-verse.

On the other hand, we could alll be merely Gods imagination
 
Prof John Polkingthorne suggests that the universe goes through many stages of big bangs and big collapses, with each collapse as matter retreats back in reverse of expansion, so space behind it collapses in on itself until eventually there is matter of infinite density again, which becomes so dense that the temperature rises to give way to another big bang.

He proposes that God originally lit the blue touch paper and it has been expanding and collapsing since all eternity so that there may have been trillions of big bangs [expansions and collapses] each one lasting several billion years,

It is my postulation that this theory is correct and the time between each big bang and big collapse expands with each cycle so that the first one may have lasted only a few seconds, the next half a minute and so on until eventually we reach the present level of billions of years. With each collapse, heavier matter or energy potentiality is made in each compression.
John Polkinghorne is a well respected physicist and an Anglican theologian. My guess is that he didn’t propose this in the last ten years though, because in the last ten years we have uncovered strong evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In other words, the idea of a cylical universe, cycling between Bang and Crunch has had to be abandoned - it seems that the universe expansion will continue to accelerate with the universe becoming colder and less dense indefinitely. We don’t need universe collapses to make heavier matter - elements up to the weight of iron are made in stars and heavier elements are made in the enormous explosions of supernovae.So your hypothesis, while interesting and rather elegant, is not needed to explain any observations and has no evidence to support it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Well, funny you should say that, for you speak more truth than you know. …So there you go, scientists *do *peer into space, listening to the boom of the Bang.
Yes, Galileo Was Wrong also discusses the “musical analogy” of the CMB (pgs. 104 & 105, 700 pg. version):

In a related article in
Scientific American,

Schwarz and Starkman essentially say the same thing,
but with a few more details. Comparing the CMB
fluctuations to the sounds of an orchestra, they find
that “Certain of those harmonics are playing more
quietly than they should be….These bum notes mean
that the otherwise very successful standard model of
cosmology [the Big Bang] is flawed – or that

something is amiss with the data.”368 Toward the end of the article Schwarz and Starkman more or less

discount that something is wrong with the data,
leaving the Big Bang theory itself as the culprit:

Yet the WMAP team has been
exceedingly careful and has done
numerous cross-checks of its
instruments and its analysis
procedure. It is difficult to see how
spurious correlations could
accidentally be introduced. Moreover,
we have found similar correlations in
the map produced by the COBE
satellite….The results could send us
back to the drawing board about the
early universe.

369

CONTINUED

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
CONTINUED

Schwarz and Starkman then refer to the study
of Tegmark and Oliveira-Costa we covered above,
noting that the “preferred axes of the quadrupole
modes…and the octopole modes…were remarkably
closely aligned” (i.e., geocentric), and they add the
study of Hans Kristian Eriksen in 2003 at the
University of Oslo, citing that:

What they found contradicted the
standard inflationary cosmology – the
hemispheres often had very different
amounts of power. But what was most
surprising was that the pair of
hemispheres that were the most
different were the ones lying above
and below the ecliptic, the plane of
the earth’s orbit around the sun. This
result was the first sign that the CMB
fluctuations, which were supposed to
be cosmological in origin…have a
solar system signal in them – that is, a
type of observational artifact.
370

The significance of Eriksen’s finding may go
over the heads of most people not familiar with
astrophysical language, but the simple interpretation is
that all the radiation in the universe, whether it is
symmetric or asymmetric, is centered around the
Earth (although because Eriksen is a Copernican he
refers to it as “the plane of the earth’s orbit around the
sun”). This is confirmed when Schwarz,

et al., state

later: “Within that plane, they sit unexpectedly close
to the equinoxes – the two points on the sky where the
projection of the earth’s equator onto the sky crosses
the ecliptic.” In other words, all the data show that, as
far out as our telescopes can see, space is oriented
geocentrically. What are the chances that this could
happen by accident? The team of Copernicans has to
admit that the “combined chance probability is
certainly less than one in 10,000.”

CONTINUED

Mark Wyatt

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Many simple monks have become great theorists, laying the foundations for the present age. Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, Newton being among the more notable ones.
…
We have only to look at recent Popes. His late Holiness JP2 was remarkable in his use of language let alone his remarkable mathematical abilities to understand and debate very complex equations, knowledge of science and art.

But it has not always been the case. If we are to appeal to the world we have to be impeccably honest and admit to our weaknesses as well as our strengths. If we are to 'go ye and teach all nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Mt 28:19-20, the Church must be impeccably honest about past mistakes [which were after all only human infractions, ex-cathedra teachings], the Church must also be transparent. 👍

There were times when the Church ‘got it wrong’
I don’t disagree with your thesis, but if we are going to be impeccably honest then we have to agree that Roger Bacon was a monk but da Vinci and Newton certainly were not.

Furthermore we also have to agree that JPII was not a scientist and had little mathematical ability (as opposed to your claim of “remarkable mathematical abilities”). I am not in any way criticising him - he was simply not a scientist or mathematician.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
CONTINUED

So upsetting is this evidence to the scientific *status quo *that another
magazine, New Scientist, labeled the same universal orientation around Earth’s equatorial plane as, “ THE AXIS OF EVIL ,” since this geocentric picture virtually destroys its cherished Copernican
principle.371

In conclusion, all the investigations show that

the characteristics of the CMB: (a) lean heavily

against the Big Bang theory and (b) suggest that our
local system (e.g., sun, Earth and planets) is either a
central source or the central depository or “sink” for
the CMB radiation. This means that the Earth and its
neighbors are in the center of the phenomenon. He
further adds that the positioning of the poles
symmetrically above and beneath the sun’s ecliptic is
to be interpreted as no accident. The CMB poles
couldn’t position themselves in respect of the Earth’s
rotation or translation since the poles have no reaction
to such movement. As such, the orientation of the
CMB is purely geocentric.

CONTINUED

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
366 M. Tegmark and G. Efstathiou, Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society
, 281, 1297, 1996.

367 Dominik J. Schwarz, Glenn D. Starkman, Dragan
Huterer and Craig J. Copi, “Is the Low- l Microwave
Background Cosmic?” Physical Review Letters, November 26, 2004, pp. 221301-1 to 4.

368 Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune,” Scientific American, August 2005, p. 50.

369 Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune,” Scientific American, August 2005, p. 55.

370 Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune,” Scientific American, August 2005, p. 52.

371 Marcus Chown, “Axis of Evil Warps Cosmic Background,”
New Scientist, October 22, 2005, p. 19ff.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Hello,
Catholicism as we know, was a major suppressor of science for many years and the ‘advancement of human knowldge’ has suffered as a consequence.

But the Church ‘got her act together’. This is now the age of ‘Reason’. If you want to go back to belief in pure mysticism without any attempts to explain phenomena, you need subscribe to Orthodoxy.

They accept the existance of mystery. For them that is all there needs to know. Catholicism on the other hand ‘seeks to find the reason why’ 👍
This would be laughable is so many people didn’t honestly believe this. Saying that the Catholic Church hates science is like saying the United States loves communism. The entire university system that scientists take for granted today was developed by the Church to train her clerics.

We have been talking in this thread about the Big Bang theory. Did you know that it was first proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. Here are some other Catholic scientists (some clergy, some laymen):

Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.

Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.

Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry.

Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.

Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, “Binet’s Theorem.”

Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.

Buffon wrote the first work on natural history.

Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.

Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany.

Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.

Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.

Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity.

De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.

De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets.

Descartes founded analytical geometry.

Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities.

Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.

Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy.

Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.

Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist.

Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.

Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.

Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.

Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.

Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist.

Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner’s compass.

Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.

Guttenberg invented printing.

Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis.

Holland invented the first practical sub marine.

Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.

Laennec invented the stethoscope.

Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine.

Latreille was pioneer in entomology.

Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.

Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.

Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols.

Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.

Marconi’s place in radio is unsurpassed.

Mariotte discovered Mariotte’s law of gases.

Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.

Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.

Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.

Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.

Pasteur, called the “Father of Bacteriology,” and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.

Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.

Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.

Secchi invented the meteorograph.

Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.

Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.

Torricelli invented the barometer.

Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science.

Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the “volt” is named after him.

from: ttp://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/mcf/mcfc014a.htm
 
Hello,

Here is a list of Jesuit scientists (the most scientifically intellectual religious order in the Church):

François d’Aguilon-Belgian mathematician and physicist who worked on optics.

Giuseppe Asclepi-Italian astronomer.

Joseph Bayma-He did work relating to stereochemistry.

Giuseppe Biancani-Astronomer and selenographer who wrote Sphaera mundi, seu cosmographia demonstrativa, ac facili methodo tradita

Michel Benoist-Missionary to China and scientist.

Mario Bettinus-Mathematician and astronomer.

Jacques de Billy-He wrote on number theory and astronomy.

Michał Boym-Missionary to China known for botanical and zoological works.

Roger Joseph Boscovich-Polymath famous for his atomic theory in part. Also for devising perhaps the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position.

Paolo Casati-Meteorology and speculation on Vacuums.

Tommaso Ceva-Mathematician and poet who wrote a work on geometry.

Teilhard de Chardin-Palaeontologist and philosopher involved in the discovery of the so-called Peking Man.

Christopher Clavius-Most noted in connection with the Gregorian calendar, but also his arithmetic books were used by many mathematicians including Leibniz and Descartes.

Guy Consolmagno-An astronomer at the Vatican Observatory who has primarily devoted himself to planetary science.

George V. Coyne-Astronomer whose research interests have been in polarimetric studies of various subjects including Seyfert galaxies.

Albert Curtz-German astronomer.

James Cullen (mathematician)-Known for the Cullen numbers.

Johann Baptist Cysat-He did important research on comets and the Orion nebula.

Jean-Charles de la Faille-Belgian mathematician.

Gyula Fényi-Hungarian astronomer noted for his observations of the Sun.

José Gabriel Funes-Argentine who currently heads the Vatican Observatory, succeeding George Coyne.

Christoph Grienberger-Astronomer and mathematician.

Francesco Maria Grimaldi-He coined the word ‘diffraction’ and used instruments to measure geological features on the Moon.

Maximilian Hell-A director of the Vienna Observatory who wrote astronomy tables and observed the Transit of Venus.

Pierre Marie Heude-French missionary and zoologist.

Georg Joseph Kamel-Missionary and botanist, the genus Camellia is named for him.

Athanasius Kircher-In his Scrutinium Pestis of 1658 he noted the presence of “little worms” or “animalcules” in the blood, and concluded that the disease was caused by microorganisms. This is antecedent to germ theory.

Wenceslas Pantaleon Kirwitzer-Astronomer and missionary to China.

Franz Xaver Kugler-Most known for his study of cuneiform tablets he was also a chemist.

Antoine de Laloubère-Mathematician who studied the properties of the helix.

Charles Malapert-Known for observing the stars of the southern sky and being against Copernicus.

Paul McNally-American astronomer who was a director of the Georgetown observatory.

Christian Mayer-Czech astronomer known for pioneering study of binary stars.

Juan Ignacio Molina-Chilean ornithologist and a botanist with a Author citation (botany).

Alexius Sylvius Polonus-Polish astronomer.

Franz Reinzer-He wrote about comets, meteors, lightning, winds, fossils, metals, etc.

Matteo Ricci-Mathematician, math translator, and noted for importance to the Jesuit China missions.

Giovanni Battista Riccioli-He wrote several works on astronomy and was the first to note that Mizar was a “double star.”

Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri-A mathematician who was perhaps the first European to write about Non-Euclidean geometry.

Christoph Scheiner-Astronomer noted for a dispute with Galileo Galilei over the discovery of Sunspots.

Gaspar Schott-He wrote on various mechanical and scientific topics, example gear, but little original research.

Angelo Secchi-He discovered the existence of solar spicules and drew an early map of Mars

Gerolamo Sersale-Selenographer, the crater Sirsalis (crater) is named for him.

Ignacije Szentmartony-“obtained the title of royal mathematician and astronomer” and used his astronomical knowledge in mapping parts of Brazil

André Tacquet-His work prepared ground for the eventual discovery of calculus.

Franz de Paula Triesnecker-Austrian astronomer.

Theodor Wulf-Among the first experimenters to detect excess atmospheric radiation.

Niccolo Zucchi-Italian astronomer known for his study of Jupiter and work on telescope design.

Giovanni Battista Zupi-Italian astronomer who discovered that Mercury had orbital phases.

from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
 
Hello,

Did you know that the Vatican operates its own science department. It is called the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Here is a list of some Noble Prize winners who were Academicians (many before they were nominated for the Prize):

Ernest Rutherford (Chemistry, 1908)

Guglielmo Marconi (Physics, 1909)

Alexis Carrel (Physiology, 1912)

Max von Laue (Physics, 1914)

Max Planck (Physics, 1918)

Niels Bohr (Physics, 1922)

Werner Heisenberg (Physics, 1932)

Paul Dirac (Physics, 1933)

Erwin Schrödinger (Physics, 1933)

Peter J.W. Debye (Chemistry, 1936)

Sir Alexander Fleming (Physiology, 1945)

Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee (Physics, 1957)

Joshua Lederberg (Physiology, 1958)

Rudolf Mössbauer (Physics, 1961)

Max F. Perutz (Chemistry, 1962)

John Carew Eccles (Physiology, 1963)

Charles H. Townes (Physics, 1964)

Manfred Eigen and George Porter (Chemistry, 1967)

Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall W. Nirenberg (Physiology, 1968)

Christian de Duve (Physiology, 1974)

George Emil Palade (Physiology, 1974)

David Baltimore (Physiology, 1975)

Aage Bohr (Physics, 1975)

Abdus Salam (Physics, 1979)

Paul Berg (Chemistry, 1980)

Kai Siegbahn (Physics, 1981)

Sune Bergstrom (Physiology, 1982)

Carlo Rubbia (Physics, 1984)

Rita Levi-Montalcini (Physiology, 1986)

John C. Polanyi (Chemistry, 1986)

Jean-Marie Lehn (Chemistry, 1987)

Joseph E. Murray (Physiology, 1990)

Gary S. Becker (Economics, 1992)

Paul J. Crutzen and Mario J. Molina (Chemistry, 1995)

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji (Physics, 1997)

Ahmed H. Zewail (Chemistry, 1999)

Günter Blobel (Physiology, 1999)

Ryoji Noyori (Chemistry, 2001)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top