Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457427 > unrolled thread

Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-03 19:00 +0200
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 11:01 -0700
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 18:22 -0700
      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-04 08:48 +0200
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-04 16:25 +0200
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:28 -0700
            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-05 05:27 +0200
              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-05 09:27 +0200
                Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:59 +0200
                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-06 10:26 +0200
                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-06 10:48 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-07 12:18 +0200
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:07 +0200
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-08 00:28 -0700
            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-08 19:48 +0200
              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-08 20:40 +0200
              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-08 13:44 -0700
                Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-09 09:23 +0200
                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-09 07:40 -0700
                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-10 20:15 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-10 13:35 -0700
                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:29 -0700
                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-11 21:03 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-12 00:22 +0200
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-12 10:44 +0000
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-12 13:34 +0200
                            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-12 20:23 +0000
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-13 07:09 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 04:21 -0700
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-13 09:33 +0200
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:47 +0200
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:55 -0700
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 11:03 -0700
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:50 -0700
                            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-17 12:25 +0200
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:37 +0200
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:24 -0700
                                Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-18 21:01 +0200
                                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:02 -0700
                                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-19 12:20 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 04:22 -0700
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 04:26 -0700
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:22 -0700
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-22 20:38 +0200
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 12:12 -0700
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 22:16 +0000
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:42 -0700
                            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-24 18:13 +0200
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 14:44 -0700
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:44 -0700
      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:08 -0700
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:18 -0700
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:40 -0700
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-08 16:47 +0000
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 10:52 -0700
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:16 -0700
    Re:Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-07 19:11 +0200
      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-07 21:49 +0200
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:25 +0200
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-25 19:29 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#457820

What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD 
in such short time?   

At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper 
at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam 
Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his 
teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have* 
been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly 
after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject 
worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann– 
Bernays–Gödel set theory. 

He also played a pretty decent game of pinball. I lost the single time that 
I played against him. 

A Los Angeles Times news article about him called him the "Caltech Math Whiz", 
and jokingly described his appearance saying that he (my best recollection) 
"didn't exactly not look like Alfred E. Newman." I thought that was pretty 
cruel, and he absolutely didn't want to talk about the article when I brought 
it up. He was pretty hurt. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rubin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457821

On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 2:03:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:

> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against 
> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent 
> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.

What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD 
in such short time?   

At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper 
at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam 
Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his 
teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have* 
been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly 
after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject 
worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann– 
Bernays–Gödel set theory. 

He also played a pretty decent game of pinball. I lost the single time that 
I played against him. 

A Los Angeles Times news article about him called him the "Caltech Math Whiz", 
and jokingly described his appearance saying that he (my best recollection) 
"didn't exactly not look like Alfred E. Newman." I thought that was pretty 
cruel, and he absolutely didn't want to talk about the article when I brought 
it up. He was terribly hurt. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rubin 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457992

On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 3:03:37 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.05.2018 um 15:29 schrieb Edward Prochak:
> ...
> > So you only intend to smear Lamaitre because
> > "it sounds, smells and tastes like fraud".
> > 
> > and you agree that
> >> Even Lemaitre had eventually good intentions.
> >
> 'good intentions' does not equal 'good'.
> 
> > Does that mean you found nothing wrong with his published works?
> > Discussing "intentions" is very difficult to prove.
> > 
> I don't like 'big-bang theory' and that was Lemaitre's invention.
> 
> > Your real purpowse seem to be to discuss "this power":
> >> But there was seemingly some sort of power acting hidden behind the
> >> scene
> >> This power uses, seemingly, intentional scientific fraud as means for
> >> some kind of (unknown) purpose.
> >   
> > To me such a flimsy claim "sounds, smells and tastes like"
> > anti-Catholic bias. With no evidence other than the quickness
> > that Lamaitre was granted his degrees.
> > 
> > I will give you a counter example, an intern of mine.
> > When we reviewed his resume,  his courses and grade average
> > impressed us for a Junior (3rd) year student. However, when we
> > interviewed him, we learned he was a freshman (first year).
> > When he worked for us, his performance was excellent. When
> > he graduates he will be receiving a BS and MS together.
> > (Normally a 6 year process, he will complete in 3 years.)
> > 
> 
> Bachelor and master degrees were not the way how universities in Belgium 
> in 1920 were organized.
> 
> I guess they had a system somehow similar to Germany, but actually I 
> don't know.
> 
> In Germany we had another system, were studies at a university usually 
> ended with a diploma or similar. That took about four or five years.
> 
> After the end of the regular time you were allowed to postgraduate work, 
> usually as assistant. This takes a couple of years, too, maybe three 
> years. In this time you do some sort of scientific research. About this 
> research you write a thesis. After a few exams and after the thesis was 
> accepted, you receive a degree as 'doctor' (~>PhD).
> 
> This takes usually about ten years, possibly a little less.
> 
> But Lemaitre made it in less then two.
> 
> > Do you also suspect some "Power" involved in this student's
> > achievements? Or do you only feel the need to denigrate Lamaitre?
> > Is it jealousy or some other agenda?
> > 
> > If you are going to criticize a man's career, I only ask
> > you to be honest about your "intentions".
> 
> ???
> 
> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against 
> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent 
> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
> 
> TH

So at least you are being honest here, you dislike the BB theory,
so rather than providing evidence proving it wrong, you prefer
ad hominem attacks on its discoverer.

That's not science, that's politics.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458867

Am 15.05.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Edward Prochak:

>>
>> Bachelor and master degrees were not the way how universities in Belgium
>> in 1920 were organized.
>>
>> I guess they had a system somehow similar to Germany, but actually I
>> don't know.
>>
>> In Germany we had another system, were studies at a university usually
>> ended with a diploma or similar. That took about four or five years.
>>
>> After the end of the regular time you were allowed to postgraduate work,
>> usually as assistant. This takes a couple of years, too, maybe three
>> years. In this time you do some sort of scientific research. About this
>> research you write a thesis. After a few exams and after the thesis was
>> accepted, you receive a degree as 'doctor' (~>PhD).
>>
>> This takes usually about ten years, possibly a little less.
>>
>> But Lemaitre made it in less then two.
>>
>>> Do you also suspect some "Power" involved in this student's
>>> achievements? Or do you only feel the need to denigrate Lamaitre?
>>> Is it jealousy or some other agenda?
>>>
>>> If you are going to criticize a man's career, I only ask
>>> you to be honest about your "intentions".
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
>> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
>>
>> TH
> 
> So at least you are being honest here, you dislike the BB theory,
> so rather than providing evidence proving it wrong, you prefer
> ad hominem attacks on its discoverer.
> 
> That's not science, that's politics.

(Your forgot religion, since he was actually a priest).

So what do you have against my argument?

I wrote, that his 'career' looks like being 'staged'.

This is something for a scientist. But you are apparently willing to 
trust a person about his scientific discovery in a field, were his 
academic degree looks dubious?

How certain could we be, that he made this discovery himself (in person)?

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458870

El martes, 22 de mayo de 2018, 14:38:22 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger  escribió:

> So what do you have against my argument?
> 
> I wrote, that his 'career' looks like being 'staged'.
> 
> This is something for a scientist. But you are apparently willing to 
> trust a person about his scientific discovery in a field, were his 
> academic degree looks dubious?
> 
> How certain could we be, that he made this discovery himself (in person)?
> 
> TH

This whole thread is really total nonsense. It is not relevant the length of his
studies, or even if he studied something related or not to physics, but the
relevant fact is that Georges Lemaitre was the first scientist to propose, on
theoretical grounds, that the universe is expanding and the first to derive what
is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called
the Hubble constant, among other achievements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458890

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 15.05.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Edward Prochak:
> 
>>> 
>>> Bachelor and master degrees were not the way how universities in Belgium
>>> in 1920 were organized.
>>> 
>>> I guess they had a system somehow similar to Germany, but actually I
>>> don't know.
>>> 
>>> In Germany we had another system, were studies at a university usually
>>> ended with a diploma or similar. That took about four or five years.
>>> 
>>> After the end of the regular time you were allowed to postgraduate work,
>>> usually as assistant. This takes a couple of years, too, maybe three
>>> years. In this time you do some sort of scientific research. About this
>>> research you write a thesis. After a few exams and after the thesis was
>>> accepted, you receive a degree as 'doctor' (~>PhD).
>>> 
>>> This takes usually about ten years, possibly a little less.
>>> 
>>> But Lemaitre made it in less then two.
>>> 
>>>> Do you also suspect some "Power" involved in this student's
>>>> achievements? Or do you only feel the need to denigrate Lamaitre?
>>>> Is it jealousy or some other agenda?
>>>> 
>>>> If you are going to criticize a man's career, I only ask
>>>> you to be honest about your "intentions".
>>> 
>>> ???
>>> 
>>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
>>> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
>>> 
>>> TH
>> 
>> So at least you are being honest here, you dislike the BB theory,
>> so rather than providing evidence proving it wrong, you prefer
>> ad hominem attacks on its discoverer.
>> 
>> That's not science, that's politics.
> 
> (Your forgot religion, since he was actually a priest).
> 
> So what do you have against my argument?
> 
> I wrote, that his 'career' looks like being 'staged'.
> 
> This is something for a scientist. But you are apparently willing to 
> trust a person about his scientific discovery in a field, were his 
> academic degree looks dubious?
> 
> How certain could we be, that he made this discovery himself (in person)?
> 
> TH
> 

This is just propaganda. Anyone can rumor-monger and make scurrilous
speculations. The desired effect of discrediting usually just bounces back
on the propagandist. 

Give it up. You’re only diminishing yourself here. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458990

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.05.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Edward Prochak:
[]
> > 
> > So at least you are being honest here, you dislike the BB theory,
> > so rather than providing evidence proving it wrong, you prefer
> > ad hominem attacks on its discoverer.
> > 
> > That's not science, that's politics.
> 
> (Your forgot religion, since he was actually a priest).

So perhaps besides not accepting the BB theory,
you are also against religion?

> 
> So what do you have against my argument?

I'll repeat:
your argument is flawed. It is an ad hominem attack.

> 
> I wrote, that his 'career' looks like being 'staged'.

"looks like" is not a valid a argument.

> 
> This is something for a scientist. But you are apparently willing to 
> trust a person about his scientific discovery in a field, were his 
> academic degree looks dubious?

I am willing to trust the work he produced.
When journals referee an article for publication, do you think
they should include standards  for educational level?
for IQ level? For current job title? for religious affiliation?
For minimum age? for degree field?

> 
> How certain could we be, that he made this discovery himself (in person)?

now another frivolous argument.
If someone else was involved, they have the right to claim
a share in the discovery. In these many years no one had made
such a claim. So this is irrelevant.

> 
> TH

Your arguments are insulting and irrational.

I noticed you failed to switch to the other thread I started.
I thought maybe you were interested in science, but I see
you are only interested in insulting a man whose theory displeases you.

I'm not interested in your wild claims.
bye.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#459085

Am 23.05.2018 um 21:42 schrieb Edward Prochak:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:38:22 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.05.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Edward Prochak:
> []
>>>
>>> So at least you are being honest here, you dislike the BB theory,
>>> so rather than providing evidence proving it wrong, you prefer
>>> ad hominem attacks on its discoverer.
>>>
>>> That's not science, that's politics.
>>
>> (Your forgot religion, since he was actually a priest).
> 
> So perhaps besides not accepting the BB theory,
> you are also against religion?
> 
>>
>> So what do you have against my argument?
> 
> I'll repeat:
> your argument is flawed. It is an ad hominem attack.
> 
>>
>> I wrote, that his 'career' looks like being 'staged'.
> 
> "looks like" is not a valid a argument.
> 
>>
>> This is something for a scientist. But you are apparently willing to
>> trust a person about his scientific discovery in a field, were his
>> academic degree looks dubious?
> 
> I am willing to trust the work he produced.
> When journals referee an article for publication, do you think
> they should include standards  for educational level?
> for IQ level? For current job title? for religious affiliation?
> For minimum age? for degree field?
> 
>>
>> How certain could we be, that he made this discovery himself (in person)?
> 
> now another frivolous argument.
> If someone else was involved, they have the right to claim
> a share in the discovery. In these many years no one had made
> such a claim. So this is irrelevant.
> 

We have this phenomenon in various instances: someone made a discovery 
and someone else is rewarded for this.

Usually we want to know the painter (for instance) of a certain 
masterpiece of art or the composer of a piece of music, the singer of a 
nice song or the author of a story.

But my guess is, that in nine out of ten case we are presented with 
someone else. The person famed for a certain achievement is most likely 
involved in some sort of club, which has the power to present to the 
stupid public whomever they want.

Such cases are almost never 'blown'. But sometimes they are and we find, 
that painters didn't paint or singers didn't sing.

(In a few cases the entire person seems to be fabricated.)


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#459731

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:13:47 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.05.2018 um 21:42 schrieb Edward Prochak:

> > If someone else was involved, they have the right to claim
> > a share in the discovery. In these many years no one had made
> > such a claim. So this is irrelevant.
> > 
> 
> We have this phenomenon in various instances: someone made a discovery 
> and someone else is rewarded for this.

Rare, but it does happen.
> 
> Usually we want to know the painter (for instance) of a certain 
> masterpiece of art or the composer of a piece of music, the singer of a 
> nice song or the author of a story.
> 
> But my guess is, that in nine out of ten case we are presented with 
> someone else. The person famed for a certain achievement is most likely 
> involved in some sort of club, which has the power to present to the 
> stupid public whomever they want.

Your Guess is irrelevant.
> 
> Such cases are almost never 'blown'. But sometimes they are and we find, 
> that painters didn't paint or singers didn't sing.
> 
> (In a few cases the entire person seems to be fabricated.)
> 
> 
> TH

Care to present EVIDENCE?

BTW, one or two examples is not evidence.

you are drowning in this argument and just throwing out
anything you can think of with no support whatever.

Come back when you actually have an argument
 rather than wild claims.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457610

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:00:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi Ng
> 
> I have found something strange, that you certainly like:
> 
> Big-Bang-theory was invented by a Jesuit Priest in Belgium with the name 
> George Lemaitre.
> 
> He studied at the catholic university in Leuven in Belgium.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
> 
> He was born on 17 July 1894. With the age of 17 he finished his Jesuit 
> school and went to Leuven, to study civil engineering.
> 
> This ended with august 1914, since German soldiers burnt down parts of 
> the university in revenge for sniper attacks. The university was closed 
> until 21th of January 1919.
> 
> In 1920 Lemaitre had not only finished his studies in Physics, to what 
> he had switched in the meantime, but also received a PhD.
> 
> But were did he study, if the university was closed?
> 
> TH

I should think anyone interested in making good sense now of the Universe would want to scrap 'Albert's' speed of light stuff, his dimples and generally his Relativity formulations.

I wonder what concepts would emerge if we premised- -calculated anew what speed- -velocity light has shooting through 'the heavens' (to avoid more recent concepts such as Galaxies, as I would avoid all recent concepts) and what kind of 'heavens' those concepts would comprise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457613

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-5, effectu...@gmail.com wrote:

> I should think anyone interested in making good sense now of the Universe would want to scrap 'Albert's' speed of light stuff, his dimples and generally his Relativity formulations.
> 
> I wonder what concepts would emerge if we premised- -calculated anew what speed- -velocity light has shooting through 'the heavens' (to avoid more recent concepts such as Galaxies, as I would avoid all recent concepts) and what kind of 'heavens' those concepts would comprise.

Quite simply, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the data if we scrapped
relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457616

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:08:33 PM UTC+1, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 8:44:51 AM UTC-5, effectu...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > I should think anyone interested in making good sense now of the Universe would want to scrap 'Albert's' speed of light stuff, his dimples and generally his Relativity formulations.
> > 
> > I wonder what concepts would emerge if we premised- -calculated anew what speed- -velocity light has shooting through 'the heavens' (to avoid more recent concepts such as Galaxies, as I would avoid all recent concepts) and what kind of 'heavens' those concepts would comprise.
> 
> Quite simply, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the data if we scrapped
> relativity.

Perhaps you could string a few lines together to say why you think so?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457678

On Monday, May 7, 2018, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> Quite simply, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the data if we scrapped
> relativity.

This statement reflects how ignorant the person is.  <shrug>

An example is the communication satellite which was luckily invented by Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction write.  Why?  Because all self-styled physicists then believed in SR, and according to SR’s relative simultaneity, it is not possible to bounce off a signal at high speed (speed of light in this case) that can be decoded coherently.  After the communication satellites prove SR wrong, it is just convenient to toss out the data and still accept the myth.  <shrug>

Another example is the energy of an object in motion through spacetime.  After 100 years of this GR myth, the self-styled physicists are still incapable of deriving such an important equation.  Well, Koobee Wublee has done it.  It shows how relativity reports twice the Newtonian amount in gravitational Doppler.  It is much more convenient just to throw out the data and forget about (E = M c²).  <shrug>

There are countless more.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457680

Koobee Wublee wrote:

> On Monday, May 7, 2018, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
>> Quite simply, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the data if we
>> scrapped relativity.
> 
> This statement reflects how ignorant the person is.  <shrug>

agree, data makes no sense before that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457683

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 5:40:34 PM UTC+1, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> 
> > Quite simply, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the data if we scrapped
> > relativity.
> 
> This statement reflects how ignorant the person is.  <shrug>
> 

It does really, in two ways:
First: He does not bother to support his opinion, just asserts it.
Second: Perhaps he is only capable of remembering stuff that is fed to him, not capable of high(er) level thought.

Perhaps the "educational system" only turns out programmed robots - memory morons, at least in certain sciences (- the 'softer sciences').

To Otto Wahl:
Yes, pre orbiting rockets, it seems it was possible to calculate light shift near bodies, indeed via correct- -full use of Newtonian concepts.

The area that might show some promise - if we started over using  gravitational mass and inertial mass would be light spectra (and perhaps less promising: Doppler effect).

Again, my posting in this thread is in the spirit I felt was intended by the thread opener of taking a careful look at issues long ignored.


I might take this as an opportunity to state that there is an alternative to SR here - the E-PS Grid:
https://www.amazon.com/PS-Philosophy-Physics-Transcending-Absolutism-Relativism-ebook/dp/B07CJWHZ25/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524296532&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+kinane 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457615

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:00:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi Ng
> 
> I have found something strange, that you certainly like:
> 
> Big-Bang-theory was invented by a Jesuit Priest in Belgium with the name 
> George Lemaitre.
> 
> He studied at the catholic university in Leuven in Belgium.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
> 
> He was born on 17 July 1894. With the age of 17 he finished his Jesuit 
> school and went to Leuven, to study civil engineering.
> 
> This ended with august 1914, since German soldiers burnt down parts of 
> the university in revenge for sniper attacks. The university was closed 
> until 21th of January 1919.
> 
> In 1920 Lemaitre had not only finished his studies in Physics, to what 
> he had switched in the meantime, but also received a PhD.
> 
> But were did he study, if the university was closed?
> 
> TH

I scrapped my earlier post to make this revised one:

I should think anyone interested in making good sense now of the Universe would want to scrap 'Albert's' speed of light stuff, his dimples and generally his Relativity formulations. 

I wonder what concepts would emerge if we premised- -calculated anew 
the speed- -velocity of light shooting through 'the heavens' (to avoid more recent concepts such as Galaxies, as I would avoid all recent concepts), 
gravitational and inertial mass affects near massive bodies
and the kind of 'heavens' those concepts would comprise. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457624

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
> 
> 
> In 1920 Lemaitre had not only finished his studies in Physics, to what 
> he had switched in the meantime, but also received a PhD.
> 
> But were did he study, if the university was closed?
> 
On 1920 he graduated, under De La Vallée Poussin, quite renown
 mathematician.

In 1923, he became a graduate student  in astronomy. 

In 1923-1927(since 1925 partly), he 
studied in Cambridge at  Eddington, at Harvard and MIT.

He got his PhD in 1927.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457628

Am 07.05.2018 um 19:11 schrieb Libor Striz:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
>>
>>
>> In 1920 Lemaitre had not only finished his studies in Physics, to what
>> he had switched in the meantime, but also received a PhD.
>>
>> But were did he study, if the university was closed?
>>
> On 1920 he graduated, under De La Vallée Poussin, quite renown
>   mathematician.


No, in 1920 he received a doctorate in mathematics from the university 
of Leuven.

> In 1923, he became a graduate student  in astronomy.

In 1923 he was ordained as Catholic priest. Later he stated to study 
astrophysics

> In 1923-1927(since 1925 partly), he
> studied in Cambridge at  Eddington, at Harvard and MIT.
> 
> He got his PhD in 1927.
He had two: one in mathematics (1920) and one in physics (1927).

My question was: what enabled him to study mathematics in WWI, even if 
the university Leuven was closed at that time? And how was it possible 
to write a thesis for his doctorate in such a short time?

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457657

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
> Am 07.05.2018 um 19:11 schrieb Libor Striz:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>>
>>> In 1920 Lemaitre had not only finished his studies in Physics, to what
>>> he had switched in the meantime, but also received a PhD.
>>>
>>> But were did he study, if the university was closed?
>>>
>> On 1920 he graduated, under De La Vallée Poussin, quite renown
>>   mathematician.
> 
> 
> No, in 1920 he received a doctorate in mathematics from the university 
> of Leuven.

Both. 
> 
>> In 1923, he became a graduate student  in astronomy.
> 
> In 1923 he was ordained as Catholic priest. Later he stated to study 
> astrophysics

Both.

> 
>> In 1923-1927(since 1925 partly), he
>> studied in Cambridge at  Eddington, at Harvard and MIT.
>> 
>> He got his PhD in 1927.
> He had two: one in mathematics (1920) and one in physics (1927).

Some sources do not list these 2 doctorates as equivalent.
> 
> My question was: what enabled him to study mathematics in WWI, even if 
> the university Leuven was closed at that time? And how was it possible 
> to write a thesis for his doctorate in such a short time?

Books were not burnt.

Who enabled you to accuse him without evidence in hand ?

Do you have evidence his theses and 1920doctorate are fakes ?

Do you have evidence the doctorate is PhD equivalent and it was
 impossible for him to obtain it legally in that time?

Do you have evidence observations of universe expansion are fake ?

Accusations based on assumptions.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#459260

Am 08.05.2018 um 08:25 schrieb Libor Striz:
..
>>
>>> In 1923-1927(since 1925 partly), he
>>> studied in Cambridge at  Eddington, at Harvard and MIT.
>>>
>>> He got his PhD in 1927.
>> He had two: one in mathematics (1920) and one in physics (1927).
> 
> Some sources do not list these 2 doctorates as equivalent.
>>
>> My question was: what enabled him to study mathematics in WWI, even if
>> the university Leuven was closed at that time? And how was it possible
>> to write a thesis for his doctorate in such a short time?
> 
> Books were not burnt.
> 
> Who enabled you to accuse him without evidence in hand ?
> 
> Do you have evidence his theses and 1920 doctorate are fakes ?

I don't think, the doctorates were fake. What seems to be staged was his 
cv and his career.
> 

I have written, that the university of Leuven was closed until 1/21/1919.

To study mathematics in Leuven he could only have started after this 
date. To study math would require maybe four years (usually). Then we 
had 1923. Another three years should be reserved for the PhD. Then we 
had 1926 or 1927.

But not only had he received a doctorate in math in 1920 (six years 
earlier than common humans would need), but also received his ordination 
as priest in 1923 and another PhD from MIT in 1927 in physics.

To get ordained, you should take a few courses in theology, Greek, 
Latin, Hebrew and a lot of other stuff.

Apparently he did that simultaneous with his already suspiciously fast 
math studies.

In 1925 he went to the USA and met Edwin Hubble on Mount Wilson.

This would have taken a few weeks, at least.

This is an issue, since in 1927 he finished physics with yet another PhD.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web