The "Big Bang" theory? It is old of 800 years! Mathematical Modelling of the 13th Century...

Forget Albert Einstein. The name is Robert Grosseteste who in late Middle Age describe a cosmological model of the Universe, absolutely mind-blowing: An immense explosion at the beginning of the Times... In his Book "De Luce" (On The Light) he has theorized also the presence of Multi-Universes.... In the dark Middle Age, when the “witches” were burnt on the stake and most eminent scholars swore and swore falsely that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, fulcrum of the most perfect celestial harmony, the English theologian Roberto Grossatesta wrote the treaty De Luce (the Light). In 1225 when Grossatesta, he had studied the recently rediscovered works of Aristotele on the "motion of stars and the Earth" in a series of nine concentric spheres, proposes in his written the idea of a universe begun with a light lightning bolt.This lightning bolt would have pushed all the matter towards outside, from a very tiny point until to transform it in a great sphere. Does this analogy remember you something? But yes, it is amazing modern. It is the concept that is on the base of the of the Big Bang theory.
arxiv.org...

In his treatise on light, written in about 1225, Robert Grosseteste describes a cosmological model in which the Universe is created in a big-bang like explosion and subsequent condensation. He postulates that the fundamental coupling of light and matter gives rises to the material body of the entire cosmos. Expansion is arrested when matter reaches a minimum density and subsequent emission of light from the outer region leads to compression and rarefaction of the inner bodily mass so as to create nine celestial spheres, with an imperfect residual core. In this paper we reformulate the Latin description in terms of a modern mathematical model. The equations which describe the coupling of light and matter are solved numerically, subject to initial conditions and critical criteria consistent with the text. Formation of a universe with a non-infinite number of perfected spheres is extremely sensitive to the initial conditions, the intensity of the light and the transparency of these spheres. In this "medieval multiverse", only a small range of opacity and initial density profiles lead to a stable universe with nine perfected spheres. As in current cosmological thinking, the existence of Grosseteste's universe relies on a very special combination of fundamental parameters.

How much we could be advanced in the scientific evolution without the dogmas of the Church?

reply to post by Arken

How much we could be advanced in the scientific evolution without the dogmas of the Church?

Guess you missed the part about him being a theologian and a bishop?

Gross teste hehehe

Just wanted to give the thread a bump, interesting stuff

S&F

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Arken

 

How much we could be advanced in the scientific evolution without the dogmas of the Church?

Guess you missed the part about him being a theologian and a bishop?

Guess you missed the entire part..."DisinfoShill" (from your custom title).

Also Giordano Bruno was a Theologian and a Bishop.

Watch... this.... You know what I mean right?

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Or in English....Bobby BigBalls?

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Arken

 

How much we could be advanced in the scientific evolution without the dogmas of the Church?

Guess you missed the part about him being a theologian and a bishop?

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation by Georges Lemaître, Catholic priest: Father of the Big Bang

bismarket
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Or in English....Bobby BigBalls?

edit on 21-3-2014 by bismarket because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2014 by bismarket because: Would you believe spelling?

maybe you missed that cat likes big balls

To Arken, thanks, I've never heard of Robert Grosseteste, and his advanced thought processes seem very important in the history of science. His Wikipedia page is a great read, and I've only started it!

en.wikipedia.org...

...an English statesman, scholastic philosopher, theologian, scientist and Bishop of Lincoln. He was born of humble parents at Stradbroke in Suffolk. A.C. Crombie calls him "the real founder of the tradition of scientific thought in medieval Oxford, and in some ways, of the modern English intellectual tradition".

enoxiana

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Arken

 

How much we could be advanced in the scientific evolution without the dogmas of the Church?

Guess you missed the part about him being a theologian and a bishop?

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation by Georges Lemaître, Catholic priest: Father of the Big Bang

And to enoxiana, thanks as well, never heard of this guy either. From enoxiana's source:

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion.

At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

Arken

 

Grossatesta (...) had studied the recently rediscovered works of Aristotele on the "motion of stars and the Earth" in a series of nine concentric spheres, proposes in his written the idea of a universe begun with a light lightning bolt.This lightning bolt would have pushed all the matter towards outside, from a very tiny point until to transform it in a great sphere. Does this analogy remember you something? But yes, it is amazing modern. It is the concept that is on the base of the of the Big Bang theory.
arxiv.org...

Excellent find & very thought-provoking. I admit that I was completely unaware of R. Grosseteste and his ideas ... it's certainly worth looking into the Arxiv paper you referenced in order to try and get a better understanding of his work.

Every once in a while, we seem to come across people that are way ahead of their times. I guess that applies to Grosseteste as well and in an extraordinary way. Next thing to do is to find out what exactly it was that inspired him to look at things so differently. His efforts and achievements to help establish the scientific method is another noteworthy aspect of the whole story.
Thanks for digging this up, that's definitely something to spend some more time on ... S&F!

Arken
he had studied the recently rediscovered works of Aristotele on the "motion of stars and the Earth" in a series of nine concentric spheres, proposes in his written the idea of a universe begun with a light lightning bolt.This lightning bolt would have pushed all the matter towards outside, from a very tiny point until to transform it in a great sphere. Does this analogy remember you something? But yes, it is amazing modern. It is the concept that is on the base of the of the Big Bang theory.

Well, that is actually a very poor analogy. In fact, the idea that the Big Bang was an explosion of material out from a center point is an idea is actually a hindrance to understanding the big bang. When people use the analogy of the theoretical big bang being an explosion of material outward, they only end up being confused. This analogy only serves to prevent an understanding of the big bang.

The theoretical big bang was not an explosion of material into space because there WAS no space to explode into; there was no place for an explosion to throw material. Also, it did not emanate from a center point outward. Instead, the big bang was an inflation of space itself; it grew (and still grows) in all directions from every point, not from any center point.

There is no central point that was the origin point for the big bang because it happened everywhere. From the location you are sitting, the universe around you is expanding (generally) away from you in every direction. If you were sitting at a point 10 billion light years away (across large percentage of the known universe), the universe around you is expanding generally away from you in every direction

Consider the surface of a balloon to be the universe -- NOT the inside of the balloon, but JUST the surface of the balloon itself; ignore the inside, because it does not exist in this analogy. I understand the surface of the balloon is 2D and the universe appears to be 3D, but even with that limitation, this analogy is actually better that the analogy of the big bang being an explosion of material out from a center point....

...When a balloon inflates, the surface of the balloon expands in every direction. However, no single point on the surface of that balloon is the center of that expansion (again, ignore the inside). The expansion of the surface of the balloon (the universe) happens everywhere. No matter where you are on the surface of that balloon, the universe is expanding away from you in every direction. If you draw dots all over the balloon and inflate it, each one of those dots moves away from each other. their is no SINGLE dot that all of the other dots move away from; EVERY dot can make that claim.

So for a person to truly understand what the big bang theory is saying, they need to ignore the idea of the big bang being an explosion outward of material. It was (and still is, because the big bang is still happening today) and expansion of space itself -- not material/matter, but space.

By the way, I say it is still happening today, because it is. The expansion of the universe that we talk about as being the big bang is still happening, so the big bang is still happening.

reply to post by bismarket


Actually, it translates as Richard the Bigheaded (or more broadly, as Richard the Fathead).

By the way, the OP paper is an elaborate scholarly joke. It is in no way intended to imply that Grosseteste's model of the origin of the cosmos is a truthful scientific depiction. It isn't. What the authors have done is work out the mathematical description of an imaginary universe that behaves according to Grosseteste's model. They certainly don't mean to suggest that the real universe originated in this way.

Anyone who doesn't believe me can read the paper and see for themselves.

reply to post by Arken


Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

Here's a link to the actual text of De Luce:

De Luce

I'm not sure it says what the authors in that paper claim. It just seems like a mish mash of Aristotelian physics and medieval conceptions of infinity. It's pretty interesting nonetheless.

Now fuel for the fire.

His 9 perfect celestial spheres may be in some weird way tied to the 9 home worlds of Norse mythology. These were unified by the world tree Yggdrasill. Maybe the world tree is a description of the expansion of the universe. This graphic from space.com even turned on its side could be like a tree.

www.space.com...


Looks like Disney has an agenda with those Thor movies when you pay attention to those sets.... just saying.

DJW001
reply to post by Arken

 

Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

For sure you was on of them who burnt him on the stake....

Arken

DJW001
reply to post by Arken

 

Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

For sure you was on of them who burnt him on the stake....

Grossteste was not burned at the stake. He died of old age.
en.wikipedia.org...

DJW001

Arken

DJW001
reply to post by Arken

 

Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

For sure you was on of them who burnt him on the stake....

Grossteste was not burned at the stake. He died of old age.
en.wikipedia.org...

I refer to Giordano Bruno.
You try to divert you responsability!

Arken

DJW001

Arken

DJW001
reply to post by Arken

 

Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

For sure you was on of them who burnt him on the stake....

Grossteste was not burned at the stake. He died of old age.
en.wikipedia.org...

I refer to Giordano Bruno.
You try to divert you responsability!

Bruno was burned at the stake for attempting to revive Paganism, not for his pagan cosmology. He was a mystic, not a scientist.

DJW001

Arken

DJW001

Arken

DJW001
reply to post by Arken

 

Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

For sure you was on of them who burnt him on the stake....

Grossteste was not burned at the stake. He died of old age.
en.wikipedia.org...

I refer to Giordano Bruno.
You try to divert you responsability!

Bruno was burned at the stake for attempting to revive Paganism, not for his pagan cosmology. He was a mystic, not a scientist.

Correct.

The Church for years put up with Bruno's ideas about heliocentrism and his ideas that the Sun was just another star, and that the stars may have other planets. That's not why they burned him at the stake. If it was the reason, they would have done it far sooner.

I do give him credit for having a better understanding of the true nature of stars, though. He was a free thinker, but it wasn't "free thinking" per se that got him into trouble, nor was it his ideas about the stars having planets -- it was his specific ideas about God/gods that were too different than Church teachings.

If Bruno was around in the 1970s, people would have called him a hippy or a guru. He may have even become a cult leader, considering his ideas about God and gods -- although NOT because of his ideas about the nature of the cosmos.

DJW001

Arken

DJW001

Arken

DJW001
reply to post by Arken

 

Grosteste described a geocentric system of crystalline spheres, not exactly modern cosmology. His thinking is as much mysticism as science, as was Giordano Bruno's.

For sure you was on of them who burnt him on the stake....

Grossteste was not burned at the stake. He died of old age.
en.wikipedia.org...

I refer to Giordano Bruno.
You try to divert you responsability!

Bruno was burned at the stake for attempting to revive Paganism, not for his pagan cosmology. He was a mystic, not a scientist.

Paganism? Where did you find this?
Wrong. You misunderstood like the Church the Giordano Bruno cosmology.
Seems you are really one of the Inquistion....