Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under cosmology...

alfgar says...

Tom at DIsputations was reading the latest from Sr. Joan Chittister

"Evolution gives us a God big enough to believe in."

Sorry, Jesus, maybe You'll do better next time.

But what particularly struck me, in and amongst the flirtation with Spong's Law of Theophysical Inanity (though Sr. Joan mishandles cosmology and biology rather than quantum physics), was the interior of this sentence:

The unfolding of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the launch, ironically, of the priest Georges Lemaître's big bang theory -- you can imagine how popular that made him in the church -- changed everything.

Do we really need to imagine how popular Lemaître's big bang theory made him in the church? Can't we Google it?

Per Wikipedia, Lemaître published an expanded version of his theory in 1933, and he became famous throughout the world. In March 1934, "Lemaître received the Francqui Prize, the highest Belgian scientific distinction, from [the Catholic] King Leopold III." Two years later, he was elected to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; he became president of the academy in 1960 -- a year in which he was also made a Monsignor by Pope John XXIII -- and served as president until his death in 1966. Pope Paul VI asked him to serve on the commission investigating oral contraception (he turned it down, citing ill health (and, at least privately, doubt that a mathematician would have much to contribute to the question)).

So his big bang theory made him remarkably popular in the Church, if public honors are any indication.

Yet Sr. Joan implies the opposite. Why?

Don't you hate it when your stereotypes don't meet reality? That those men in the

Facts are stubborn things, and keep contradicting what Everybody Knows. But ideologues have their minds made up, and won't let mere facts confuse them.

Filed under: cosmology

thrasher says...

I've just finished reading Infinite Potential, J. David Peat's biography of David Bohm. Bohm was a protégé of Einstein, a colleague of Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project, a man hounded from his native land by McCarthyism, an advisor to the Dali Lama, and the most creative theoretical physicist of the 20th Century. Yet his revolutionary theories about the nature of the universe remain largely ignored by the scientific community.
 
What impressed me most was Bohm's vulnerability, his ability to produce work of stunning genius despite the pain that wracked his personal life. He was emotionally isolated, almost autistic in his isolation, but capable of a singular focus upon a problem. He lived not entirely in this world. His ambition was to understand the very roots of reality, what lies beneath even quantum reality. His vision stitches back together the fragmentary world view resulting from our incomplete understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics. It will take me years to understand the significance of Bohm's contribution; it's a worthwhile ambition.
 
I suspect Bohm's concept of the implicate universe, the folding and unfolding of meaning, holds the potential to undo the feeling of alienation that haunts Western culture. Perhaps it can even save us from ourselves. It's certain we need saving and I doubt anything less fundamentally religious than our understanding of reality will suffice.

Filed under: cosmology

stonyp says...

The main Problems with the current model of the sun are as follows:

* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation
* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface
* Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun
* Sunspots reveal cooler interior
* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface
* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow

An eletcrical model would solve many of these problems.

Filed under: cosmology

The Dean says...

Ever notice the similarity between Hurricanes and Galaxies? Could it be that both the “whirlpool” and the apparent roping motion of the arms point to the same process at work?

The Big Bang Theory cannot account for the formation of galaxies without also relying on a fictitious, as-yet undetected substance called “dark matter” to make the theory work.

Plasma Physics and Electromagnetism provide a more accurate model (that is replicable in the laboratory). Thanks to Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven.

Could it mean that electromagnetic processes are behind the formation of hurricanes? We do, after all, live on a large, spinning, Geomagnet.

Filed under: cosmology

marcof says...


 
Another must-see this year.

Filed under: cosmology