Jesus and Einstein on the Expansion of the Universe

Thomas said:
I understand that there is a debate between intelligent design, and random factors ... and there seems a huge number of random factors at play in the cosmos that throw grit in the mechanism of intelligent design.


No. I don't imagine God being subject to time in any sense. I think that's thinking about God the wrong way.

God bless

Thomas
Click to expand...

So do I. As you see, we are of the same opinion.
 
IowaGuy said:
My reading of Einstein is that he did not think god was "still working", i.e. that he didn't believe god has any sort of meddling/micromanagement in anyone's life. i.e. no "personal god" (as many Christians believe) or god that chooses/controls how much rain Iowa gets this year, etc.

Is this how you read Einstein's thoughts on god/pantheism, that he does not believe in a "working god"? But instead, that the laws of the universe, once created, are constant - therefore god is done working?
Click to expand...

Your question is related to an anthropomorphic idea of God. Of course, Einstein had the universe and the expansion of it as a result of fixed laws, which theists who understand metaphorical language attribute to God as the author of of what is natural in the universe. Can scientists explain how the universe came to be what it is? No, they cannot. It probably could be this or that way. Hence, we cannot discard the probability for the existence of God if we are not sure of any other option. Since the universe started, it has never stopped. That's what Jesus meant by God still at His work of creation. Einstein must have had that text in mind when he said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of creation. Both acting from the metaphorical point of view.

Ben
 
From a biography of his. As well as from some CD's in the You Tube website. Let alone from the logical point of view. Hundreds of years before Einstein was born, the gallaxies and planets in them have been all in the constant kinetic state of motion. Could it be that Einstein missed that one to declare that the universe is static?

EVERYONE (until Hubble) thought it was static. No one knew that planets and galaxies were in an ever-expanding universe. Look up the references I sent "static" does not mean motionless, it means "not expanding". Likewise "Block Time" refers to a universe that does not expand (about the only way to make it work).
 
radarmark said:
From a biography of his. As well as from some CD's in the You Tube website. Let alone from the logical point of view. Hundreds of years before Einstein was born, the gallaxies and planets in them have been all in the constant kinetic state of motion. Could it be that Einstein missed that one to declare that the universe is static?

EVERYONE (until Hubble) thought it was static. No one knew that planets and galaxies were in an ever-expanding universe. Look up the references I sent "static" does not mean motionless, it means "not expanding". Likewise "Block Time" refers to a universe that does not expand (about the only way to make it work).
Click to expand...

For heavens' sake Radarmark, I watch a NOVA TV program every week here, and more than a Cosmologist speak about the expansion of the universe. And since Kopernicus and Galileo it is well known that the earth rotates around the sun. And that planetary systems move throughout the universe within their respective galaxis. How can they be speaking of a static condition of not expanding? And some of them say that the expansion is highly observed.

Ben
 
You do realize the hubble has been up for over two decades and the NOVAs you have been watching ever week are not reruns from the 80's yes?
 
Let me make something very I am speaking of the astronomer Edwin Hubble and his revolutionary discovery of the expansion of the universe (Hubble's Law) in 1925. Prior to that time (look him or his law up) no one knew the universe was expanding (not changing or moving, but expaning like the surface of a balloon being inflated). PERIOD! Lemaître postulated the "Big Bang" in 1927 to explain this (again, the notion of the universe "coming into being" was ORIGINAL, at least in astonomy and physical cosmology). The "Big Bang", as a scientific notion (let alone a theory, let alone part of the Standard Model) did not exist. PERIOD!

Einstein rejected both of these notions and it was only the 1931 Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity and Hubble's very quick (within weeks) endorsement of it that it displaced the earlier Einsteinian relativity (linear Robertson-Walker metric). By the thime de Sitter and other cosmologists were done relativity theory (and Einstein's assumption of a spatially homogeneous, isotropic, and steady-state universe was relegated to the dustbin of history). Of course the great man knew it when he said "My greatest mistake was the Cosmological Constant" (the number he fudged to make the model spatially homogeneous, isotropic, and steady-state).

Just read the references for Einstein, Hubble, Lemaître, and physical cosmology at wiki (while not 100% accurate, well within 90%)>
 
wil said:
You do realize the hubble has been up for over two decades and the NOVAs you have been watching ever week are not reruns from the 80's yes?
Click to expand...

What does it mean, that the earth has stopped circling around the sun and that the planetary systems are no longer travelling throughout the universe in the wagon of the galaxies?

Ben
 
radarmark said:
Let me make something very I am speaking of the astronomer Edwin Hubble and his revolutionary discovery of the expansion of the universe (Hubble's Law) in 1925. Prior to that time (look him or his law up) no one knew the universe was expanding (not changing or moving, but expaning like the surface of a balloon being inflated). PERIOD! Lemaître postulated the "Big Bang" in 1927 to explain this (again, the notion of the universe "coming into being" was ORIGINAL, at least in astonomy and physical cosmology). The "Big Bang", as a scientific notion (let alone a theory, let alone part of the Standard Model) did not exist. PERIOD!

Einstein rejected both of these notions and it was only the 1931 Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity and Hubble's very quick (within weeks) endorsement of it that it displaced the earlier Einsteinian relativity (linear Robertson-Walker metric). By the thime de Sitter and other cosmologists were done relativity theory (and Einstein's assumption of a spatially homogeneous, isotropic, and steady-state universe was relegated to the dustbin of history). Of course the great man knew it when he said "My greatest mistake was the Cosmological Constant" (the number he fudged to make the model spatially homogeneous, isotropic, and steady-state).

Just read the references for Einstein, Hubble, Lemaître, and physical cosmology at wiki (while not 100% accurate, well within 90%)>
Click to expand...

Is there anything 100% accurate as Cosmology is concerned?

Ben
 
Of course not! There is no such thing as "Truth" laying around out there for us to find. Are you really serious? We only do the best we can.
 
radarmark said:
Of course not! There is no such thing as "Truth" laying around out there for us to find. Are you really serious? We only do the best we can.
Click to expand...

In that case, the truth is around there for us to find. The problem is with us who are not doing the best we can. The piece of the puzzle is around there somewhere. We just need some more time to find it. As you can see
I was being serious with my question about anything accurate as Cosmology is concerned. That the inaccuracy is in us and not out there.

Ben
 
In 95% of introduction to modern physics courses, the Universe is described as a rising loaf of raisin bread, with the Galaxies as the raisins...

Thomas 96
Jesus [says]: "The kingdom of the Father is like [a] woman.She took a little bit of yeast. [She] hid it in dough (and) made it into huge loaves of bread. Whoever has ears should hear.""

In math, the foundational proof of infinity, for the Calculus, where the singularity of the Big Bang/Creation comes from, you can't just say "infinite", that's not a proof. What you do is like the shoolyard taunt, "whatever you call me, you are twice as bad." Except in this case it's "Any number you pick this number is smaller, the smallest of all numbers."

Thomas 20The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us whom the kingdom of heaven is like!" He said to them: "It is like a mustard seed. <It> is the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on cultivated soil, it produces a large branch (and) becomes shelter for the birds of the sky."
 
Well, here we have again the personal and subjective and irrational surfacing. What did I say to attack you? I merely sated the fact that you are very uneducated in physics (sorry).
 
radarmark said:
Well, here we have again the personal and subjective and irrational surfacing. What did I say to attack you? I merely sated the fact that you are very uneducated in physics (sorry).
Click to expand...

"You don't understand what the physics says"

How about we totally ignore each other, what do you think? I've said Native Americans 2000 years ago didn't give full equality to women, and every historian on earth agrees with me, just about every way possible, it's getting old.
 
Nope, you do not know about what you are speaking about. Not every historian agrees with you. Give me one reference (if you understand what that is). I already provided you three references that prove your "historical claim" about Thomas was wrong.

Ain't seen much but words from you. Find me one single historian who deals with American anthropology that says women were not treated equally in either the Iroquois or Cherokee cultures.

Or keep making up fairy tales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top