Scientists' help wanted!

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

These lists have not been exhaustive (by any stretch of the imagination). They only illustrate that Catholics and Catholicism have significantly contributed (and continue to do so) to the scientific community. Catholicism has never been a suppressor of the sciences, but always one of its greatest supporters.

 

[noma]

Hello,

These lists have not been exhaustive (by any stretch of the imagination). They only illustrate that Catholics and Catholicism have significantly contributed (and continue to do so) to the scientific community. Catholicism has never been a suppressor of the sciences, but always one of its greatest supporters.

You have illustrated that Catholics have. So have Orthodox, Protestants, Pantheists, Atheists, and all the rest.

What in Catholicism, as the belief system, contributes to science in any significant way?

 

[Nullasalus]

You have illustrated that Catholics have. So have Orthodox, Protestants, Pantheists, Atheists, and all the rest.

What in Catholicism, as the belief system, contributes to science in any significant way?

That’s a somewhat deceptive question, as there’s more to ‘Catholicism’ than what’s in the CCC. All that was being illustrated was that Catholics and Catholicism in general have contributed heavily to the sciences (The Church itself has been involved in astronomy for quite awhile, despite the Galileo incident.) One could argue that the Catholic focus on charity and good works may encourage people to be productive in areas of science and elsewhere, and that the long tradition of philosophical and theological inquiry also promoted the kind of critical thought so useful in science. One could also turn around and argue that those things aren’t distinct to Catholics - but no one’s said they are. It’s just pointing out that Catholicism itself isn’t a barrier to science, even if some Catholics entertain improbable science or concepts - something not particular to christianity, or even religious faith.

 

[noma]

All that was being illustrated was that Catholics and Catholicism in general have contributed heavily to the sciences…

Actually, all I see illustrated is that Catholics, even in the official capacity of the Roman Church, have been involved in scientific endeavors.

But I would agree that Catholicism is no barrier to science.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

How many models are now in competition for the explanation of the start of the universe?

I believe God created.

I, however, want to know: How many models/ideas/theories/opinions are put forth by the scientific communities concerning the origin of the universe(s)?

THANK YOU!!!

 

[steveandersen]

Basically one
The Big Bang

There are many variations on the details, there are still some unknows, and I’m sure there are whackos out there with their own ideas (just like religion) but the overwhelming consensus is the Big Bang.

No need to shout.

 

[noma]

How many models are now in competition for the explanation of the start of the universe?

I believe God created.

I, however, want to know: How many models/ideas/theories/opinions are put forth by the scientific communities concerning the origin of the universe(s)?

THANK YOU!!!

There are the models of big bang plus inflation, big bang without inflation, steady-state expansion.

These follow with different weights to cosmological constants and curvature exponents to produce closed universe that dies, closed universe that is forever reborn, open universe that stops expanding, open universe that will expand forever, and open universe that accelerates in its expansion.

Currently, with the discovery of a dark energy (or cosmological constant, depending on your philosophical bent), we have likely a flat universe that is accelerating in its expansion toward heat death.

I apologize for misunderstanding what you were asking.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Noma “I apologize for misunderstanding what you were asking.”

If I understood your answer, there are four mentioned.

Does this include the String Theory?

 

[Seamus_Sully]

steveandersen

Basically one
The Big Bang

There are many variations on the details, there are still some unknows, and I’m sure there are whackos out there with their own ideas (just like religion) but the overwhelming consensus is the Big Bang.

No need to shout.

Sorry. I was not trying to shout, honestly.

Is the String Theory part of the Big Bang?

 

[steveandersen]

…Is the String Theory part of the Big Bang?

I’m not a physicist but my understanding is no.
The Big Bang is an explanation of an observed set of phenomenon.

String Theory is an attempt to unify Relativity (which works great for large objects such as you and I and galaxies) and Quantum theory (which works great on the sub atomic scale) into a single model of the universe.

String theory gets lumped in with the Big Bang because our current physics (i.e. separate Relativity and Quantum theories) breaks down at the earliest fractions of a second in the life of the universe.

The relationship between the two is sort of like if you stumbled upon a car wrapped around a light pole. Your explanation for this phenomena would be that there had been a big bang. Studying how the tire interacted with the road surface and how that affected the drivers reaction would be string theory.

 

[newbie1234]

steveandersen

Basically one
The Big Bang

There are many variations on the details, there are still some unknowns, and I’m sure there are whackos out there with their own ideas (just like religion) but the overwhelming consensus is the Big Bang.

No need to shout.

Sorry. I was not trying to shout, honestly.

Is the String Theory part of the Big Bang?

If you want to know the origin of the universe read Genesis1:1-2.
You can forget all other man made theories.
Literal six day creation period.

 

[noma]

Noma “I apologize for misunderstanding what you were asking.”

If I understood your answer, there are four mentioned.

Does this include the String Theory?

Hopefully so, for the string theorists.

None of these models specifically rests on string theory, because around the Planck Time (a time so short in duration, billions of them pass in the blink of an eye), far less than .0000000000001 seconds after the birth of the universe, no one knows what happens.

String theory is a possible explanation for the physics that exists at around this length. Loop theory of Quantum Gravity may be another (though it seems broken). Since neither of these suggest unique things we can observe now, there is no way to know.

Some theory of gravity would be necessary at such a short length/time. String theory may be it. Maybe not.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I have read the most recent posts.

I have reread the most recent posts.

How many theories are there for the beginning of the universe?

If I have understood the posts, there are five (5) theories at the present time.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND HELP!!!

 

[noma]

I have read the most recent posts.

I have reread the most recent posts.

How many theories are there for the beginning of the universe?

If I have understood the posts, there are five (5) theories at the present time.

It depends on how you count.

If you count the most general theories, there really is only one: that our visible universe expanded from a single point.

If you count by the general nature of the event that led to our universe, we have three: big bang with inflation, big bang without inflation, and steady-state expansion.

If we count all the theories within “big bang without inflation” we find two likely candidates, that the universe has positive or negative curvature.

If we look at 'big bang with inflation", the likely scenario is that the universe has nearly-zero curvature.

Within all three of these theories we have accelerating expansion, constant expansion, slowing expansion, and collapse. All these (we hope) depend on initial conditions.

So lot’s of theories, actually.

The most likely one right now seems: big bang with inflation into a flat universe that is accelerating in its expansion.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Thanks for all of the answers.

How are we using the word theory in this context?

I forget all the different levels of certitude within science.

With so many models or theories, how does the community of scientists use the word theory here?

Is theory the correct term?

Should one use another term?

Again, thanks for all of the help, time, energy and patience!!

 

[hecd2]

Quotation from Sungenis and Bennett’s ludicrous book:
“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.”

We don’t need any more garbage than this to know that Sungenis and Bennett are talking the most utter nonsense. Perhaps Mark would be kind enough to explain:
a) how the first and second peaks of the CMB “lean heavily against the Big Bang theory” - indeed how the CMB for l>4 does so. (For those who don’t know, the CMB anisotropy as measured by COBE, WMAP, etc is extremely powerful evidence *in support of *inflationary Big Bang)
b) in detail, with supporting mathematical treatment, what measured data leads to the absurd conclusion that the local system is a source or sink (make your minds up) for the CMB.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[noma]

Thanks for all of the answers.

How are we using the word theory in this context?

I forget all the different levels of certitude within science.

In this case, “theory” simply means a simple idea that does not contradict any existing evidence, and makes predictions that can be “tested”. “Test”, in the context of cosmology, is a difficult term to understand, as we can’t just make another big bang to see what happens. Rather, it means observing things near the time of the big bang (the set speed of light has been very fortuitous in cosmology), or about 11-15 billion light-years away.

Is theory the correct term?

Should one use another term?

This is a question about the philosophy of science, and not really about science. That doesn’t mean it isn’t important, but it means that through my education I’ve been to lazy to really think about it. So have most of the people in my building. We can “do science”, but we don’t really know what science is.

The way a philosopher of science once described most working scientists was as a group of musician savants who could play any piece nearly flawlessly, but had no understanding of music theory.

So, any philosophers of science out there, or scientists that have given thought to this question?

 

[Seamus_Sully]

According to physical scientists, when talking about the origins of the universe they use the word “theory” in analogous sense. For the lay people that should be made real clear.

Next idea: When doing science about the start of the universe, they are implying that it follows the laws of human reason. Actually it is most explicit. It is explicit or they should not trust the ability to reason to solve the problems.

Their tests in this area of study must follow the laws of reason.

Furthermore, their test must follow the laws of math which human reasoning created. Ergo, math is reasonable.

From where did all of this reason in the universe come?

 

[Sixtus]

JMJ
Your lists of notable religious scientcists and quasi-scientists are indeed impressive. But, they were working in relative isolation. They were largely of the last 400 years of so.

Many on your list had in fact come out from their respective Order in order to pursue their scientific enquiry. While it is true that many also went back into their Order, some did not as you will be well aware.

it still remains true to say that science, medicine technology and ‘modern man’ would be much further forward and poverty by now probably eradicated had Mother Church not suppressed the advances of science

I dearly love my faith, I also believe that the Catholic Church is the true church, but I am not blind to her mistakes, we owe most growth to the pioneering work of Protestants. That was, until the Church realised in her relentless persecution and stifling of science, she had erred. Then and only then did she adopt the rule of ‘science’ in knoweldge and reason.

No doubt she had much to fear from the earliest attempts at science. For every serious scientific enquirer there were many more crackpots who had no basis for their theories and my guess is Mother Church feared what might have been seen as an advance in witch-craft.

 

[Orogeny]

it still remains true to say that science, medicine technology and ‘modern man’ would be much further forward and poverty by now probably eradicated had Mother Church not suppressed the advances of science

That is an assinine statement, one that you can’t even begin to back up.

Peace

Tim