3 ms·

There is no mention of Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest and physicist who first proposed the theory. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-t

There is no mention of Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest and physicist who first proposed the theory. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/ https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expa...

tablespoon 5y ago
It's also interesting to note that Hoyle's objection to the Big Bang was basically philosophical, and his steady-state theory had more to do with how he thought the universe "should be" than anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Brian Keating, in his book Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor: > Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility. * https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_against_religion_prevented_scientists_from_accepting_the_big_bang.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_ag... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The same excessive Copernicanism can be seen in the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences should be common in the universe. One even sees the argument made that if you think humanity is unique it must be because of religious sentiment.
  - France_is_bacon 5y ago
    Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists. I tend to doubt most atheist scientist didn't accept the big bank because it was too close to genesis. However, in any case, it doesn't matter. That is one of the absolute strengths of science over religion. Scientific method explicitly takes human biases into account. Publishing, peer review, reproducability - all foundations of science. There are a lot of examples of the majority of scientists rejecting an idea. For example, the washing of the hands by doctors. Everyone rejected this, but in good time, it was accepted by all. On the other hand, we have religion. It brooks no argument. There is no disagreeing or finding a different way to truth. People may do it, but the religion sure doesn't allow it, mostly.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >> Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle... > Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists. You don't have to buy the book to get a name. One was provided in the quote you're responding to: Fred Hoyle. Looking at the relevant Wikipedia articles, Hermann Bondi is likely another. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar motive isn't also behind a lot of multiverse theories, many of which are basically steady-state theories with any observable phenomenon pushed out of view.
      - France_is_bacon 5y ago
        Two people is not impressive, if there are 500,000 scientists who are atheists. Not impressive at all. My two sisters is blond and like eating sushi, therefore all blond women like to eat sushi. Where is the statistically significance in the study, and were are the data?
mannykannot 5y ago
Nor is there any mention of Ralph Alpher, who predicted the cosmic microwave background as a consequence of the big bang, well before it was accidentally discovered, and also showed that the cosmic abundances of hydrogen and helium can be predicted from the big bang - two results important to the theory's acceptance. Alpher was a doctoral student of Gamow's. To be fair, we can't expect a book review to be a comprehensive review article on a big topic.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- labster 5y ago
  Nor is there a mention of Hans Bethe, who contributed his name (only) to the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. Pronounce it aloud if you don’t get their joke.
greeneggs 5y ago
This is a book review. The book itself certainly discusses Lemaître. For example, regarding the paragraphs that Lemaître removed from his own article, > It turns out that Lemaître, who had translated his paper himself, had left out certain findings because he preferred not to distract readers from Hubble’s results, which were based on more extensive data. In his supreme modesty, Lemaître was little interested in what history would think of him. He only wanted the most accurate estimates to be available—which he believed were Hubble’s, not his.

tablespoon 5y ago

It's also interesting to note that Hoyle's objection to the Big Bang was basically philosophical, and his steady-state theory had more to do with how he thought the universe "should be" than anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...

throw0101a 5y ago
Brian Keating, in his book Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor: > Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility. * https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_against_religion_prevented_scientists_from_accepting_the_big_bang.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_ag... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating
- pfdietz 5y ago
  The same excessive Copernicanism can be seen in the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences should be common in the universe. One even sees the argument made that if you think humanity is unique it must be because of religious sentiment.
- France_is_bacon 5y ago
  Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists. I tend to doubt most atheist scientist didn't accept the big bank because it was too close to genesis. However, in any case, it doesn't matter. That is one of the absolute strengths of science over religion. Scientific method explicitly takes human biases into account. Publishing, peer review, reproducability - all foundations of science. There are a lot of examples of the majority of scientists rejecting an idea. For example, the washing of the hands by doctors. Everyone rejected this, but in good time, it was accepted by all. On the other hand, we have religion. It brooks no argument. There is no disagreeing or finding a different way to truth. People may do it, but the religion sure doesn't allow it, mostly.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle... > Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists. You don't have to buy the book to get a name. One was provided in the quote you're responding to: Fred Hoyle. Looking at the relevant Wikipedia articles, Hermann Bondi is likely another. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar motive isn't also behind a lot of multiverse theories, many of which are basically steady-state theories with any observable phenomenon pushed out of view.
    - France_is_bacon 5y ago
      Two people is not impressive, if there are 500,000 scientists who are atheists. Not impressive at all. My two sisters is blond and like eating sushi, therefore all blond women like to eat sushi. Where is the statistically significance in the study, and were are the data?

mannykannot 5y ago

Nor is there any mention of Ralph Alpher, who predicted the cosmic microwave background as a consequence of the big bang, well before it was accidentally discovered, and also showed that the cosmic abundances of hydrogen and helium can be predicted from the big bang - two results important to the theory's acceptance. Alpher was a doctoral student of Gamow's. To be fair, we can't expect a book review to be a comprehensive review article on a big topic.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
labster 5y ago
Nor is there a mention of Hans Bethe, who contributed his name (only) to the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. Pronounce it aloud if you don’t get their joke.

greeneggs 5y ago

This is a book review. The book itself certainly discusses Lemaître. For example, regarding the paragraphs that Lemaître removed from his own article, > It turns out that Lemaître, who had translated his paper himself, had left out certain findings because he preferred not to distract readers from Hubble’s results, which were based on more extensive data. In his supreme modesty, Lemaître was little interested in what history would think of him. He only wanted the most accurate estimates to be available—which he believed were Hubble’s, not his.