Georges Lemaître: The Priest Who Discovered the Big Bang w/ Prof. Jonathan Lunine (Aquinas 101)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- ⭐ The new Aquinas 101 Learning Platform is LIVE! Unlock all the Aquinas 101 courses in one place and track your progression at your own pace through the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor for FREE at go.thomisticin....
🎥 Keep the Aquinas 101 cameras rolling! Donate $5 today to pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin....
Did you know that Georges Lemaître, the scientist who discovered the big bang theory, was a Catholic priest? Prof. Jonathan Lunine, a professor from Cornell University, shares the little-known story of Fr. Georges Lemaître, the father of the big bang theory.
Georges Lemaître: The Catholic Priest Who Discovered the Big Bang (Aquinas 101) - Prof. Jonathan Lunine, Ph.D.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
Scripture quotations are from The Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1965, 1966 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
"I believe that everyone who believes in a supreme being supporting every being and every acting, believes also that God is essentially hidden and may be glad to see how present physics provides a veil hiding the creation."
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
A continuation of God's hiddenness (see Philippians 2:5-11).
This video is an example of what I mean when I say unbelievers are those who have not read and understood the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Praise be to God of his gift of Reason and Faith!
It would be nice if a movie is to be made about fr georges' life and works. Looking at his life from a screen could bring understanding that theology and science coexists... knowing about him might help the next generation
It's amazing how much an individual can accomplish once any and all opportunities to be alone with young boys have been removed. I'm sure he felt this made him square. I was not surprised when first learning of his relationship with the Catholic Church.
Catholics don’t run Hollywood unfortunately.
It helps because now many young Catholics now think their faith contradicts Science and that the two a Mutually Exclusive.
Spreading of People like hims is important.
ONLY PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE THEIR COMMON SENSE BELIEVE IN BIG BANG THEORY. HOW CAN AN EXPLOSION GAVE A POSITIVE RESULT. ALL EXPLOSIONS ARE DISASTROUS. I CHALLENGE ALL WHO BELIEVE IN BIG BANG THEORY TO MAKE EVEN ONLY ONE EXPLOSION THAT WILL GIVE A POSITIVE RESULT. THE BELIEVERS OF THE BIG BANG ARE CONSIDERED INTELLIGENT PEOPLE BUT SAD TO SAY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR COMMON SENSE. ALL OF YOU, PLEASE ANSWER THIS.. HOW CAN AN EXPLOSION CREATE A HARMONIOUS UNIVERSE? I REPEAT, ALL EXPLOSIONS ARE DISASTROUS AND WILL NEVER GIVE A POSITIVE RESULT.
An amazing life but it would be an incredibly boring screenplay. A priest doing math? YAWN!
Fantastic video. I find it very uplifting for my faith to hear well-educated and intellectually rigorous presentations of Catholicism. Thank God for Aquinas and Aquinas 101. God bless.
I am Protestant and also enjoy these videos. They are awesome!
This is propaganda
@@mrwater5772 You are propaganda
@@mrwater5772lmao bruh just take a knee before it’s too late
How can one pursue greater Faith and Reason without investigating the wonders of creation on this plane of existence? There's so much that would be missed out on. Thank you for this video, God bless!
I still dont have my faith. But do miss it. I do miss practicing. This channel is just a treat. Glad to be here
Science is a body of truths in parted with certitude, and sacred doctrine is a body of truths in parted on God’s own authority and established with absolute certitude. - - Saint Thomas Aquinas
This is why I enjoy science and love God’s true church. 🔬 + ⛪️ =👍🏼
"Science is a body of truths in parted with certitude..."
Ehhh, say what? 🤔
@@michaelanderson4849
Certitude is that which you believe to be true but has room for revision if presented with new verifiable data. Absolute certitude is...well absolute.
Church doctrine is not subject to this type of revision.
@@arkofthecovenant6235 Certitude doesn't leave any wiggle room for revisions. If one keep a wiggle room in a claim then one is not certain. And nowhere in my reply did I write anything about dogma (not doctrine which is changed every now and then) which isn't changed. I quoted the part about science, which does not deal with absolutes when it comes to knowledge.
@@arkofthecovenant6235 Thank you, brother. That’s a nice explanation. I get it.
Science is not a body of truth ....it's all based on what they perceive will happen because it happened before ........doesn't work like that my friend ....God controls everything ....He can change science on its head if He so chooses ....seeing is not believing .....neither is perceiving .
One of the most important explanations I was wondering about. Thank you so much!
Glad it was helpful! God bless you.
Atheists are kicking themselves when they realize what LeMaitre was all about.
but win win points on the existence of paedo's and serial-killers
Your assumption is ridiculous.
This has nothing to do with atheism or theism.
@Catholic Lawyer But I thought faith was a good thing, more solid than facts? I guess you unconsciously know there's something gravely wrong with it so you try to brand atheism with it.
@@thatcatholiclawyer cmon bro, be charitable, atheists are just confused probably something happened in their lives that turned them against religion and God.
Thank you for this explanation. I will be using these videos to give my kids another perspective of science along with philosophy.
You're welcome!
Brilliant and Beautiful and True!
Very informative. Glad I stumbled upon it
Thank you Dr. Lunine for the video.
I have compiled a partial list of not simply Catholic pioneers of science but Catholics that were and are priests, brothers and nuns. My list so far comes to nearly 700. And I stress, "pioneers," not simply line workerd.
Wikipedia’s list of clergy scientists?
@@reggiestickleback7794 Sorry, no. I don't rely on Wikipedia.
Awesome synthesis of Thomism and Aristotelianism, while presenting Lemaitre's uplifting "living out" of the implications, as a Catholic priest and as a physicist.
Great video as always.
Thanks much for this video.
I learned about this guy in my Geology class in college. But yes, a scientist can be a religious or spiritual person. There is nothing wrong with that! Everyone has the right to believe in a religion or God. All they have to do is not have their religious beliefs interfere with their scientific work and research that they do. But speaking of "divine hiddeness", that is true! God is hidden but he is there! He exists outside of the physical and natural world and time itself. You can't scientifically falsify God or prove or disprove his existence. He is a supernatural and metaphysical entity. Science deals with the physical world and how it works. So how can we test God? We really can't do it. Praise Fr. Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedmann for giving us this theory!
When claiming god is outside time, would it not be a good idea to first define what time is?
Wonderful pure thoughts
Nicely explained - thanks!
You're welcome! We're happy you found it helpful.
Absolutely illuminating. Thank you for this.
You're most welcome! Thanks for watching.
@@ThomisticInstitute Can you make a video on potentia absoluta versus potentia ordinata?
Here’s a book you need to read - Logos Rising. Also watch the doco - The Principle
Nowaday when Science site bring up his name they mysterious remove his Reverant Title and remove all references that was a Priest. Weird right?
modernism has proven once again that they would rather worship someone Godless and heathenistic rather than the truth. Also saying that science has been tainted with a bunch of people who worship empirical truths. Its sad tbh
My take away from this is that God created the world and the Big Bang Theory is the scientific breakdown of how God created the earth & cosmo's
The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha2), where Mo is the observed mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world), and (alpha2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon's needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell's inequality AND Buffon's problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations-- no citation needed.)
8:32 lemaitre himself says “ this is not creation and it is not evidence of creation “
Atheists: The universe was created by the big bang theory not your sky daddy !
When they realised it was created by some Catholic priest:
Well Catholic is not really a Christian or simply he's just an Atheist after he made this theory - Atheist maybe 🤣
@@waitwhat1264 Catholic : Proof of that, he got reward for being a priest shows that he didn't become an atheist.
Atheists : walk away while (maybe) saying blah blah blah or something nonsense...
@@user-ji8zr2fv4t well that's what I call: Atheist rational ranting. Since most of them love to proclaimed themselves as rational and reasonable people. 🤣
LeMaitre was an extremely humble man. He is a Saint
I’m confused by the word “discovered” in the title. Can one discover a theory? That seems to imply that the model, whether accurate or not, has some sort of formal existence before ever being proposed by a human intellect. But the model itself may be incorrect, like Newton’s physics, therefore being purely artificial. It doesn’t seem accurate to describe such a thing as being “discovered.” I would say “proposed” unless someone here can correct me.
don't be obtuse. you know exactly what is meant when the word "discovered" is used in this context. this is third rate analytic philosophy.
"First Proposed" might be a little unwieldy in a title for a general audience. Besides, if I have a number of facts in my mind and finally think of a novel framework that relates them all, could I not say that I "discovered" the relational framework? I could then "propose" that you adopt this same framework.
You are correct. It is a poor choice for a title. I would also argue a hypothesis is proposed and not discovered.
@@emmereffing I don't agree that he is being obtuse by pointing out the poor choice for a title.
@@pccbelmont I would argue that you propose a framework in which those facts fit. Unless you have access to all possible data which would influence your model you will only be able to suggest a generalized relationship for those facts within that particular framework. I would not call that a discovery just a regular hypothesis.
Great video.
I do disagree about the unicorn thing, but agree with the principle of the analogy. I think it is better to say that out of the human and the unicorn, we only know for certain that the human exists. Who knows, maybe unicorns do exist somewhere. They actually do in the strict definition of the word, but we are obviously talking about the one horned horse mythical thing.
Science came from and was started by Christianity. Many young people don't know that. Also, as Catholics, we believe in the importance of Science. God comes before Science. Science doesn't come before God, it's not possible
Exactly. It's just that when they started to get answers that showed the Bible was full of shit that they Church went "Nooo not that kind of research, we want to show the Bible is true, REEEEEEE". Which, obviously, is impossible as it's a collection of Bronze Age stories from people even dumber than we are now.
Well history didn't start from Peter or whatever these apostles are called
@@munchkin8019 Science started in the middle ages from Christianity and Christian school. Apostle Peter lived in the first century and no science then
@@kelechukwuanozyk7605 tell me you don't know nothing about science without telling me
@@munchkin8019 I have a science degree, studied sciences especially Chemistry, biology etc.
You can't talk about history of science and contributions of science without talking of the contributions of the Catholic Church and Christianity.
Christian philosophers were the pioneer scientists in the middle ages. There were some non Christians as well
Not sure if we should be celebrating a theory like this. This guy may have had good intentions but the Big Bang theory has been taken in a completely different direction
What direction has it been taken?
It's atheistic. It contradicts scripture and 100% out three Church fathers.
@@philc6068 First, naah. Second, scripture does a fine job contradicting itself. Genesis violates plenty of what we understand about nature. Third, are you suggesting the church fathers were infallible? If so, you are in for a surprise.
@@michaelanderson4849 when they're in unanimous agreement they're considered infallible. Genesis 2 doesn't contradict genesis 1. People make false assumptions
@@philc6068 well for starters, they're not in agreement, the old church fathers. Genesis is in disagreement with what we observe in nature.
The radius of the universe on a quantum level is R = Root (M/m), where M is the total mass of the universe needed to unite gravitational and electrostatic forces and m is the rest-mass of an electron, yielding,
Ke2/ R2 = RGm2/ R2,
where K is the Coulomb constant, e2 is the square of the charge on an electron, G is the universal gravitational constant, and m2 is the square of the rest-mass of an electron. The calculated mass at a quantum level, including "missing mass," is M = 1.58079 x 10 raised to the 55th power Kg, and the calculated radius of the quantum realm is 4.16574 x 10 raised to the 42nd power measured in instantaneous, dimensionless units. (M is undefined in the quantum realm, yet partially discernable as the observed mass of the universe in the macroscopic world,). The number of unit circles (or squares) in the quantum realm is R2 = 1.73534 x 10 raised to the 85th power. It is a quantum attribute that area of unit squares and number of unit squares are indistinguishable (No need for citation, as all stated derivations are my own.)
imagine a universe that starts with a single particle of gigantic mass that spontaneously divides into two smaller masses (with a force that unites them, like, say primordial gravity). Imagine that over "time" the process of division continues, producing "newer," lighter particles (and forces that unite them) over "time." (Note: The cascade of particles is presently observed as nuclear decay, where heavier elements spontaneously transition into lighter elements.) To see how rapidly the NUMBER of particles (of increasingly smaller mass) can grow in a short amount of time, just multiply 2 x 2 = repeatedly on a small calculator-- in a very short time the numbers go off the scale. Just imagine, then, IN THE PROCESS OF DIVIDING, heavier masses that eventually form galaxies divide over time, seeming coming from nowhere at each epoch of division. This process is known as TOP DOWN evolution. In the end, you have present-day smaller galaxies, plus the cosmic heat signature of NOW-EXTINCT past elements (including galaxies), known today as the cosmic microwave background radiation. (Note: Smaller early galaxies are required by the BOTTOM UP big bang theory, where predicted smaller galaxies form larger galaxies over time, and where the predicted cosmic microwave background radiation would be "smooth," rather than "lumpy," like it would be with the TOP DOWN process I just described.) (PS: Leave the origin of our universe to other theories, PLEASE, so as not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater.")
0:25 That's incorrect as Lemaître himself said his work had nothing to with religion; furthermore, his calculations were standard mathematics, nothing to do with religion.
Correct. Lemaitre was a god loving catholic, but when he worked as a scientist, he left religion at home
The closest thing to absolute certainty is found in abstract math (in application, there is always an uncertainty, like when counting apples). The best that can be done in the real world is to bet on the odds, while accepting the risk. BOTTOM-UP (Big Bang) cosmology had bet on smaller primal galaxies with the JWST, and lost; whereas, TOP-DOWN cosmology PREDICTED larger primal galaxies, and won. Betting on the odds, TOP-DOWN WINS-- no need for citation because relating the definition of "TOP-DOWN" to the JWST findings of larger primal galaxies is a NEAR TAUTOLOGY!
Ce nouveau paradigme d'un univers ayant eu un commencement intéresse néanmoins la théologie et la philosophie de la religion puisque l'originalité des religions issues de la Bible et du Coran est d'affirmer que notre monde a eu un commencement ...
Sudden change followed by slow growth. A recurring theme in so many areas of life. Universe begins, sperm enters egg, Jesus is resurrected.
Di Fr. LeMaitre believe in Jesus Christ?
Yes, he was a roman catholic christian priest.
So beautiful!!
Thank you! Cheers!
I'm 26 YEAR. OLD I AM RESEARCH HAHAHAHA NOW I KNOW
wow now I remember why I never read Aquinas' Summa past a few chapters: he was never that original and in fact it's great Said's Orientalism mowed some Eurocentric bias away in academia regarding "eastern studies" and a following generation rehabilitated Avicenna's undisputed role as The Commentator to The Philosopher (perhaps Aquinas can be remembered as The Scholiast regarding the first 2: he is just a garden variety of the "ontological status of possibility". And I'd need to forget all that studied in Avicenna to enjoy this iteration/version update
Using my TOP DOWN cosmology, the rate of change of alpha is -2.7958 x 10^-17/ year, based upon a perceived age of the universe of 13.799 x 10^9 years.
"I think, therefore I exist." Each person is unique. Ancient mythology of the Kabbalah says there is a chain of umbilical cords going back to the beginning (witness creation myth, and why life cannot spontaneously generate). My summation: Each person is a creation event. All lifeforms in the universe are related in the web of life (witness Darwin's thesis-- plus my thesis of universal dichotomy, or TOP DOWN evolution). What is most profound (over time) is emergent consciousness, as each generation becomes more-and-more "self-aware." (AI's will not survive universal evolution without a close relationship to DNA ancestry.)
Check-out the (audio)book “The Day Without Yesterday.”🌙☀️💫✨
Athiest have a lot of faith and they dont know it 😅😅😅
Catholics believe in science and many Catholics I know study and work in STEM.
Euler's "proof of God" is equivalent to (2pi - 1) = 0 in the quantum realm.
Someone else
Hydrogen-rich stars and galaxies of equivalent mass, respectively, previously and inappropriately deemed to be colliding under BOTTOM UP (BBT) cosmology are actually and appropriately DIVIDING under TOP DOWN cosmology, which respects and predicts this behavior from evolutionary changes regarding critical masses (witness our own galaxy and Andromeda, representing main sequence evolution).
Webb is looking down a dead end street.
How can a priest believe in big bang theory what about God creating the earth in genesis
The Book of Genesis is a theological narrative. The books of the Bible contain MORE than one Creation narrative....obviously, they were never meant to be read literally as Creation stories.
@@mmmail1969The book of Genesis and the book of Enoch explain creation perfectly straight forward. The earth is geographical and not heliocentric. If you believe otherwise that's your opinion.
@@rytrusministry The Book of Genesis is not a scientific account of the Creation of the world but simply a mythical story to a primitive people using
the language of appearances that anyone who could read or hear it read could understand that God was at the origin of the Universe who brought it into being and kept it in existence ; and it is still a mystery that matter itself at the size of an atom could expand like a balloon into a majestic universe .
All science knows is that the universe is a grand effect without a known cause so hence a paradox because there is a cause for every effect known to man
@@peterj6740 Man listen I'm not the one you want to waste your time on the earth is flat nothing or no one can change that fact!
Me who can after reading angle and demons book 😅
Theorized not discovered
Semantics
@@frjimt2286 A very fair point. Why dumb down language?
A Jesuit priest. There is no outer space!
he wasn't a Jesuit
I do not see an Evangelist reaching such thoughts on God, the Universe and science. They are busy making money.
Dedicate yourself to realize the sun is not 93 million miles away... the curvature of earth over water... what does the word planet mean... the real north pole, our current north pole and why no one can travel below or above 60 degrees paralels... also, check our map reflected on the moon. You may find where you are... that's a start point!
how do you explain the fact millions of people live above the 60th Parallel North?
Is it true that according to the Big Bang theory, the entire physical universal came from an infinitely dense and infinitely small point? In other words, from nothing?
First, if the origin wss a singularity it sure wasn't "nothing".
Second, this is not at all what the theory says.
Space / nothing is merely an explanation of that which we can't explain. Nothing always will in a sense be something. Space contains molecules... Just because the human eye can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
@@axiomaticidioms3857 Space is not another name for nothing. Space is something in itself. There can absolutely be a totally empty space, but there can never be molecules without space.
@@michaelanderson4849 the Big Bang ORIGINATES from before time and space!
@@mmmail1969 Nope, not by any means. The event called the big bang was a vary rapid change of something which existed before the event started.
There is no "big bang".
Says the guy banging his head
@@frjimt2286 He could be right. No one have any observational data to show otherwise. So far we can only see back to the recombination era. Anything before that is hypothesized based upon data from high energy physics. Perhaps gravitational detectors can give new data from an earlier phase?
@@michaelanderson4849 I read your other comments as well under this video. Why are you trying to support all those who raise questions against the views that are portrayed in this channel? Trying to prove your intellect! There are people who find these useful. It takes tremendous difficulty for a non-believer to start believing in something. Having faith in this era is much more difficult as everyone wants proof for everything, as though they would turn this world upside down if they get the proof. May you not mislead those who have faith, brother. Thanks!
@@christopher4926 Yes, brother. On the other hand, we can offer them reasons like those given by St. Thomas Aquinas. End of the day, the other person has to be willing to accept the truth. If the opposition is adamant, then it gets difficult to compromise, as you mentioned. If they are really willing, they’ll find the way, anyhow.
Désolé que ce prêtre si savant soit si peu métaphysicien au point de croire que son hypothèse, sa théorie et son paradigme d'astrophysique dirime le problème philosophique de la création ... !
Perhaps the people of faith could just read the Holy Scriptures. Soon they may "discover" no need for a philosopher, scientist/priest or scientist to explain God to them. Citing one verse from Isiah is proof texting. Read the whole Bible and ponder its contents. Theories will come and go but the Word remains. Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
The wonder of God cannot be contained in the holy scriptures, to think so is illogical, and prideful
A priest (BELIEVER) muddling in Science....Many scientists were or are believers .
Deus vault!
"Discovered"?!?! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Big bang is an absurdity because my question is: where was the big bang ? An explosion to be possible must have a space. And the theory says tha bang was the beginning of everything - what an absurdity !
It was not an explosion.
The name was actually given by the astronomers community to mock it.
It consists of spacetime suddenly expanding itself extremely fast (and it still does).
What spacetime? If there was a spacetime it means that something already existed. And if something already was existing then when had that begun?
God spoke every thing into existence . not a big bang
Thats a completely illogical view to hold. What reason do you have to read the first chapter on genesis in a literalistic way? It's clearly meant to be symbolic and show God as the source of creation.
let there be light and there was light basically a big bang theory
God created the heavens and the earth
God is not the creator of the universe.
The devil invented the universe in your minds and his name is Georges Lemaitre
😂 no
The hidden god is just a “god of the gaps” argument.
the only people I've ever heard promote the "God of the gaps" rubbish, are atheists!
@@mmmail1969 Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are Christians who decrie, just like the atheist, god of the gaps arguments.
@@CesarClouds and?
@@mmmail1969 And look at your original comment I replied to.
@@CesarClouds I identify as correct in this discussion!
He only proved they don’t believe the book of Genesis is the word of God. Just remember it’s only a theory.
The book of Genesis is a theological narrative. It is part of Sacred Scripture and very insightful, when read in it's correct context. You believe it anyway!
Wait a minute here. What is this crap. Its a nice bed story or farytale at best, maybe. All about his interpretations all the time. Someone said something sometime, yeah ok. But what makes it facts? Maybe Mr.G said all those things. But it does not make him beeing right or not at all even close, maybe Mr.G was close to the truth. I'm not saying its right or wrong. But dont just blindly belive what someone else is telling you. Not me, not anyone! When there is no facts beeing presented, be aware.
As usual no recognition of what Friedman did years before LeMaitre also based upon the field equations in GR. 🙄
Not about Friedman..
Do your own video to bring light to your point
@@frjimt2286 My point is that it is almost always claimed that LeMaitre was first, especially in catholic circles, and in particular among apologists. But it simply isn't true.
@@michaelanderson4849 I'm no expert on this particular subject in the history of science, but as far as I know, Lemaitre was the first to combine the solutions to the equations of GR that show an expanding spacetime with the first hints of empirical evidence available at the time about the speed of galaxy receding from us and their distances from Slipher and Hubble respectively, to be the first to estimate the Hubble constant in an article written in French in 1927 (before Hubble published he's own estimate in 1929).
As such, he was indeed the first to build a real "model" of the Universe evolution, while Friedman had only been "playing around" with the equations of GR and found that it implied generically a "dynamic" spacetime (either contracting or expanding). Therefore, it's fair to say that Lemaitre is the true father of the big bang theory.
@@jonatanblais957 Friedman presented what is known as the Friedman equations in 1922. In that paper he not only propose a expanding universe but also the expansion rate. LeMaitre present his hypothesis in a paper in 1927.
@@michaelanderson4849 Friedman presented his equations in 1922 but these equations where simply solutions to Einstein's equations, showing that a non-static universe was a generic consequence of GR. But this is not considered a cosmological model. There's a difference between solving equations and building a model of how those equations can be applied to solve a particular problem for a particular system.
In his 1927 paper however, Lemaitre was the first (two years before Hubble) to derive what would become known as the Hubble Law or Hubble-Lemaitre law and the first to observe the proportionality between recessional velocity of, and distance to, distant bodies, and to suggest an estimated value for the proportionality constant; this constant, came to be known as the Hubble constant. This is for these accomplishments that he his considered by many to be the father of the big bang theory.
False, he didn't discover anything, he just invented a lie... you will discover that in the future
cope and seethe
I have some issues with this video, first off I don't believe in the big bang it is not in the Bible and I love Saint Thomas Aquinas but you can only take Aristotle-scholasticism so far before it goes into error, reading the Bible and the lives of the saints and prayer is the only thing that's going to save our souls, not thinking about complex theories that don't do anything for the mind, body or soul, science are natural philosophy is coming up with answers for things that happen naturally in nature, it is very technical to build a house with running water and electricity it has to do with science, but I doubt most contractor's and construction workers ever took a science class not even once in their life and yet the house is built running water electricity and everything it's good to be technical but to meditate on the mysteries of our faith is good too, it's okay not to have the answers to everything because God has the answers to everything and we worship God, sacred silence, prayer and meditation is the key to a happy life. 🙏✝️
I would argue it takes a fundamental understanding of the physics of electricity to be able to safely install the electrical components in a house. To design a house there are several aspects of physics that comes into use for chosing the right materials and dimensions. So a understanding of natural sciences might be more useful than you think.
God gave us both faith and reason so that we may use them to know and love Him, and to know and love each other. Science and philosophy are the tools in which we use the gift of reason, they can draw us closer to each other and to God. The Church doe not teach “Sola scriptura”, that is, bible alone. There are many subjects and truths that are not detailed in the Bible that are still good and true.
@@michaelanderson4849 I agree with you considering you just quoted what I wrote in my original comment Lol but I have personally known plumbers, construction workers, contractors, electricians and maintenance men that never took a physics class or a science class not even once in their whole life and they are super good at what they do, I don't know what else to tell you without this conversation going in circles Lol
@@christopherhennigan9834 I agree with you but not everybody's faith and reason is going to be the same, everybody's wants hopes and dreams are going to be different, as far as I'm concerned the Bible the Rosary and the Brown Scapler are the only faith and reason I need to live a good Catholic life ✝️🙏
@@odanobunaga7584 I totally agree! Daily reading of scripture, praying the rosary, and consistent use of the sacraments and sacramentals is the road to holiness. Each of us are called to be saints and we all have different gifts. God bless you.