Hi doma,
Very fluent and knowledgeable on the relationship between Einstein and Lemaitre. I didn't know about that, although I was aware of Einstein's thinking about the Big Bang and the cosmological constant. He was apparently extremely bothered by the latter.
Sounds like you've given up on the link between Lemaitre and Aquinas, which seems sensible.
Lemaitre's expanding universe model has nothing to do with Aquinas' creationism. The Ancient Greek idea of a universe from nothing, which is absent from the earlier Gospels and which appears in the beginning of John as Logos, links Aquinas and Lemaitre only in an ephemeral fashion. You could argue equally well that a universe from nothing links Lemaitre with Islam and Plato. It is a question that emanated most coherently from Plato and floated down many tributaries.
The question of the beginning of the universe is something every culture wonders about. Many of the creation myths try to explain it. The Greeks were the first really to question the idea of time, space and matter in a philosophical way.
When you challenge the Big Bang theory, I suspect you are moving back towards the electric universe model you have discussed. But it might be the hologram model. I'll wait for your discussion.
"At first it was the so called discovery of Hubble's
Red Shift & later on the discovery & measurement of
the Cosmological background radiation....
Only problem is BOTH have since been proven FALSE...."
So if you are questioning the big bang theory, have at it.
For starters, you seem to be saying neither the redshift nor the cosmological background radiation are observable. I'm not aware of the science behind this assertion.
Au contraire, mon ami, these two phenomena are well-known and observed by numerous folks. I take it you are not saying the scientists who have done so are all mad or all liars. The account of the discovery of the cosmological background radiation describes a well-known, scientific accident which lead to two scientists receiving Nobel Prizes and a third one ending up unjustly overlooked. Hubble's redshift observations won him a law and a celestial telescope with Lemaitre largely overlooked. Far as I know, these are fairly robust apparent phenomena which most physicists employ in their models.
So perhaps you are saying they are misinterpreted? That the folks you support have reinterpreted them in another way.
If so, fair enough. I'll look forward to hearing their new domafied meaning.
| 