Mpc 801: Fill & Download for Free

I have to agree with Dr, Fernee. Hawking’s contributions have been essentially null. He contributed to what is called Hawking Radiation, but it was Yakov Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky who did the work. Hawking only calculated how much and how fast the particles would be created and annihilated.Aside from that, his only other contribution has been to provoke Leanord Susskind into finding the correct answers to unique questions.Why Hawking has become popularized is a modern mystery. Most every equation he ever wrote has been dismissed and corrected by someone else.I think, in my opinion, there is a Sci-fi mystique to the computerized wheelchair for the computer geek; who then makes their Sci-fi viral.It occurs to me as I edit this, that Hawking was the first to publish a book about physics for the common layman. Unfortunately, between getting the model wrong to begin with, and then having it edited down by a journalist, it didn’t say one thing that was correct, except for the Big Bang happened.He personally managed to insult 3 Popes; 5 Imams and 4 Ayatollahs (of Islam) personally face-to-face, 97% of the theist world, by proclaiming ‘science’ as some higher thing than Faith. In the irony of it, he never got any of his ‘science’ correct. Everything he wrote has been long dismissed and corrected by someone else. And; he has led a young generation to ‘cognitively believe’ that ‘science’ is incompatible with Faith.There is no one else in the history of human writing that has done this. No scientist would insult 3 Popes, 5 Imams, 4 Ayatollahs, and 7 billion theists because of their personal cognitive belief system. He in fact mocked Pope John Paul, regarding his own version of the Big Bang as ‘scientific, in the twisted irony that the Catholic Church, Georges Lemaitre, discovered the Big Bang, which the Church embraces.We had no modern creation myth until 1927, by George Lemaitre, a Catholic priest. It wasn’t until 1931 that the expanding cosmos he introduced evolved to a creation model, also by Lemaitre (he called the ‘cosmic egg’). Since that time, the model has changed 5,282 times.[23-45]]As of this writing, that means that our modern creation myth has changed about 62 times per year. That is four times per lunar month. This is compelling toward the conclusion that our modern creation mythos is still an artifact of the lunar cycle (e.g., menses, menstruation; the lunar month).Georges Lemaitre discovered the Big Bang, a Catholic Priest, a century ago, and long before Hubble had any clue about any recessional velocity. I finally found a public domain copy of the paper that describes this. [46] Lemaitre’s original paper was edited, censored, to give credit to Hubble. Livio writes:During the past few months, a passionate debate has flared up about who actually deserves the credit for discovering the cosmic expansion.[47-50] In particular, a few articles raised the suspicion that some not-so-kosher censorship practices may have been applied in the 1920s to ensure Edwin Hubble’s priority on the discovery. [49, 50] Here are, very briefly, the background facts that are most relevant for this debate. By February of 1922, astronomer Vesto Slipher had measured the redshifts for 41 galaxies. [51] In a book published in 1923, Arthur Eddington [52] listed those redshifts and noted that: “The great preponderance of positive [receding] velocities is very striking; but the lack of observations of southern nebulae is unfortunate, and forbids a final conclusion.” In 1927, the Belgian priest and cosmologist Georges Lemaître published a remarkable paper (in French) whose title read (in its English translation): “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae.” This paper was published in the relatively obscure Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels. [53] In it, Lemaître first discovered dynamic solutions to Einstein’s general relativity equations, from which he derived what is now known as “Hubble’s Law”—the fact that the velocity of recession is linearly proportional to the distance. But Lemaître went beyond mere theoretical calculations. He actually used the velocities of the galaxies as measured by Slipher (and published by Strömberg [54] ), and the distances as determined from brightness measurements by Hubble [55] in 1926, to determine the rate of expansion of the universe. For the numerical value of that rate, today called the Hubble constant, Lemaître obtained 625 km/s/Mpc. Recall that Hubble obtained a value of about 500 in 1929. [56] Lemaître also discussed the fact that the accuracy of the distance estimates available at the time seemed to him to be insufficient to assess the validity of the linear relation he discovered.Livio then goes on to note:Here, however, is where the plot really thickens. The English translation of Lemaître’s 1927 paper was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in March 1931. [57] However, a few paragraphs from the original French version were deleted! In particular, the paragraph that described “Hubble’s Law” and in which Lemaître used the 42 galaxies for which he had distances and velocities to derive a value for the Hubble Constant of 625 km/s/Mpc, was missing. Also missing were one paragraph in which Lemaître discussed the possible errors in the distance estimates, and footnotes, in one of which he remarked on the interpretation of the proportionality between the velocity and distance, as resulting from a relativistic expansion. In the same footnote, Lemaître also calculated two possible values for the Hubble Constant, of 575 and 670, depending on how the data were grouped.Amidst this conspiracy, we find that Lemaitre himself was the one who omitted the equations, for a number of reasons. Einstein had already ridiculed him publicly in the presence of very high-ranking physicists for merely suggesting an expanding universe. In addition, it was made clear to Lemaitre that his admission into the Royal Astronomical Society was contingent upon his giving credit to Hubble, who would publish the miscalculation two years later. Most importantly, Lemaitre knew that the calculation was wrong because the redshift data was incorrect. Therefore, Lemaitre let Hubble publish his incorrect value of H0 = 500, when today the value seems to be about 70, with a range from 62 to 93. Hubble was in such a rush to publish, he was off by an entire order of magnitude. Lemaitre knew this, because he saw the error in the redshift data. Hubble used it anyway, apparently, because he did not see the error in the redshift data. Lemaitre hung Hubble out as bait, knowing that in the future, all of this would become known I the history books. Hubble wanted his here and now.The most important aspect was that Lemaitre was pushed into this corner because science did not want a discovery of this magnitude belonging to the Church. As a result, his entrance into the Royal Astronomical Society among other things was held suspended until such time that he yielded and allowed Hubble to publish, two years later. I am no fan, nor enemy of the Church, whatever Church that might be. The point is, a condition placed upon a man’s recognition, as he is affiliated with a group, that another group who controls the journals (media) disdains, is what they expect to be recorded in history. Fortunately, Hubble is recorded as flubbing the math, and Lemaitre is recorded as making the discovery. I would just like to thank the historians for uncovering what really happened and why.To put in perspective how wrong Hubble’s result was, if H0 = 500, the universe would have thermalized (Heat Death) long ago.That is, the Uncertainty, a fistful of random dots allows continuous mythos to be created. I call it ‘player participatory religion and science.’ It is a game that we make up as we go along. It is not that we haven’t quite finished the Big Bang model yet, as would be indicated by a progression and narrowing of that progression. It is random, we are clueless. The argument, ‘we will figure it out one day’ is non-sequitur. You cannot figure out the answer for infinity and still apply that argument.The Black Hole was first proposed by Schwarzschild, not Einstein, as is another urban myth. Since that time, over 4 million papers have been written, each must have unique, original content or it will not get published. That means, the Black Hole mythos changes every 8 minutes.In the simplest possible terms, the approach to the Schwarzschild radius is a asymptotic time dilation. LIGO, an interferometer just like the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the observer/observed relationship in Special Relativity does not apply to General Relativity, as the LIGO interferometer detected its own change of state as a result of a Gravity Wave. Therefore, whatever the distant observer is observing, is also observed by the collapsing mass.Since mass cannot travel at v=c, then that means I can get between the collapsing mass and the Schwarzschild radius and measure that distance as being infinite. A photon is chiral, you cannot get in front of it and see it spinning the opposite direction because it is traveling at v=c. An electron has mass, cannot travel at v=c, and I can get in front of a clockwise spinning electron and see it apparently spinning counter-clockwise. This is the same principle.These childishly simple concepts evaded Hawking, and wipe out everything he ever stated.In the 1st century, Ptolemy worked out the math of the Earth centered universe, which stood uncontested for over 2000 years. With this mathematical model, one could predict the movements of the planets, stars, eclipses, everything in the night sky. The Earth centered universe had thus been proven true and correct. Ptolemy’s mathematics had predictive power, not just the ability to explain what is observed. You will also note that this is long before the Catholic Church; whom you were taught both created and enforced this Earth centered universe hypothesis. Nonetheless, Ptolemy’s mathematical model was sound, not only explained observations, but also had predictive power that was quite exacting.Ptolemy had worked out sophisticated math that did in fact have great astronomical (do not confuse this with his astrological exploits) predictive power. Essentially, everything that was visible in the night sky without modern optics was predictable in this system. His model was a series of nested spheres. Aristotle then carried on the nested sphere model founded by Plato, carried on by his student Eudoxus, whose work probably became the ancient work Sphaerics. The work, The Music of the Spheres by Kepler refers to this nested spherical model of the cosmos as a series of spheres. There is a good real time visual on Ptolemy’s model at http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/ptolemy.html At the center is Earth, the sun orbiting the Earth, and so on. The mathematical rigidity of this model stood for 1500 years. It still works. Oddly, the entire shape of the cosmos is offset by just a few degrees in Ptolemy’s model. The universe has no known center, as it is an expansion of space-time itself, with no reference or preferential frame of reference (like in Special Relativity). This merely reduces the argument to does the Earth orbit the sun or the sun orbit the Earth.This is a ridiculous argument, as anyone with half an ounce of knowledge of gravimetrics knows; the Earth and sun orbit each other. It just appears that the Earth orbits the sun because of the sun’s greater mass. Therefore, neither model is correct. In addition, neither model locates the center of the cosmos. It is also incorrect to state that the universe has no center. It is only correct to say, if there is a center, a point where the expanding phenomenon began, we do not know how to locate or identify it. To state that the Earth is not the center of the universe is not correct either. If there is no preferential frame of reference for the expansion of space-time, we can arbitrarily set any point we wish and call it the center, even change it at will. Oddly, if there is a ‘center’ to the cosmos, it would be at the visible horizon, the farthest (comoving) distance, meaning the oldest age.My point is Ptolemy’s mathematical model had the entire cosmos orbiting the Earth. Neither Kepler nor Copernicus, nor Galileo actually resolved this mathematical anomaly. The mathematical anomaly wasn’t actually resolved until the 20th century. Copernicus did not resolve Ptolemy’s mathematical model. Aristarchus of Samos had presented a proper heliocentric solar system around 250 BCE, [2] albeit without a proper mathematical foundation. Copernicus model was actually taken from an Arab astronomer and mathematician, Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī [3] (good luck pronouncing that one). Al-Urdi produced a series of tables circa 1250 CE based on his own observations. Copernicus noted that the Alfonsine tables (created in Spain in 1250 using Ptolemy’s math) had additional epicycles added in to make them conform more precisely with observation (Ptolemy’s math was now 1250 years old). [1] Although Copernicus gives some model for calculations in his book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, the math is not as accurate as the Ptolemaic models. He does argue in the preface, however, that math, rather than physics, should be used to understand his hypothesis. Copernicus’ primary reason for waiting so long to publish was the idea that his work, his hypothesis, would not be well received by the scientific community, not because of any issues with the Church. He in fact handed his work over to Bishop Tiedemann Giese (the Copernicus and Giese family shared blood), who then gave it to Pope Paul III for publication. [4] Essentially, whereas the Ptolemaic system accounted for what we now refer to as parabolic orbits, Copernicus model was a system of spheres where the orbits were circular. He knew this was incorrect, but did not know how to fix it, hence, his reluctance to publish, which he thought would lead to scientific critcism. Kepler founded the parabolic orbit problem in a blaze of trigonometry that fills volumes. However, accuracy was not achieved for any part of the system, particularly Mercury, which has a precessional orbit, until Einstein applied General Relativity in 1916. Thus, the Ptolemaic mathematical model stood for 1900 years as exacting, whereas the Copernicun and Kepler Models, even Newton’s models, were approximations that matched Ptolemy’s calculations, at best.“I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,” Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. (AP 6/15/2006)Copernicus published his first book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), regarding the Earth-centric model in 1543. The printer, Johannes Petreius, included a forward by a Lutheran philosopher, Andreas Osiander, which Copernicus was not aware. Copernicus work was essentially a paligiarism of a former work by Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī, over two centuries earlier. [6] His reluctance to publish was not due to the Church, but because he could not resolve the problem that his circular orbits did not work. He gave the work to the Bishop Tiedemann Giese, dedicated to Pope Paul III, altered by Petreius (a Lutheran, Protestant), the printer, but published on a Catholic Press belonging to the Catholic Church. There is some more myth regarding the idea that Osiander, a Lutheran (Protestant) was the one who wrote the dedication to the Catholic Pope, which is of course, absurd. The dedication was by Copernicus.Copernicus reason for waiting until just a few years prior to his death was the idea of rejection by the scientific community, nor religious, as he could not make mathematical predictions using his model that were as accurate as the Ptolemaic system. This is why he turned toward the Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī, or Al-Urdi tables as his main data source, although he did not credit Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī with the work over two centuries earlier, thinking it obscure.The book gained absolutely no attention by the clergy, and at the Council of Trent [5] which according to urban myth banned the book, it is only mentioned that the book was printed on the Pope’s print, and edited by a Lutheran, which was the primary concern. No further attention was paid to it because the model was in fact, incorrect. The planets are not in a circular orbit, and Ptolemy’s mathematical model was much more accurate.On page 705 of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it states:Although he was unusually gifted, Osiander’s haughty, overbearing, disputatious, and unrestrained manner irritated his enemies and alienated his friends. Although adept at pointing out error, he rarely contributed constructive solutions. He could not forego polemics. When asked by Rhäticus (Georg Joachim von Lauchen 1514–76) to edit and publish Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543), Osiander added his own preface in which he claimed the work was based on hypotheses. Although Copernicus’s adherents were furious, the claim kept the book off the Index until the 17th century. Although he was nominally Lutheran, Osiander’s teachings, because of certain mystical assumptions.It was Osiander who rewrote Copernicus’ history, with grievance noted by the Catholic Church. Note that I cannot find any reference to Copernicus in the first addition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, written by Eusebius in 1570. However, Copernicus’ work was unknown at that time.Kepler’s argument was that the elliptical orbits were the way God designed things. The argument he received was from the field of Physics, which denied an Earth centered system. Physics and Astronomy were not friends, and not because of religious debate, but because the field of Physics denied math had any useful content. [7, 8] By this time, Tycho Brahe had seen Copernicus’ work and hybridized it with Ptolemy’s math.Galileo was met by opposition from Astronomers, not the Church, because he could not explain Steller parallax, nor could he do the math of any existing system, he was essentially innumerate. It was this reason that Kepler, living at the same time, solved the math. Galileo’s only evidence was the observation of Venus going through phases like our moon, which neither the Church scientists nor the secular scientists found convincing. Galileo wrote in his text that he denounced Kepler’s theories and math, albeit, Galileo could produce no evidence one way or the other. Galileo, the urban mythos of being the great astronomer, wrote in his book that Kepler was wrong. Read the Book. He also insulted Kepler, merely for producing a competing argument.Copernicus’s work remained obscure until Kepler picked up the text in 1609 and applied trigonometry to make the orbits elliptical, as this elliptical behavior was what he observed upon rolling balls inside of cones (the same way we demonstrate elliptical orbits in grade school today).Galileo therefore shouted more loudly, as though this would win the argument. After Kepler had already published the correct results, Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in 1632 (Kepler published in 1609). Galileo’s book was published by the Inquisition’s press, so as to alleviate Galileo’s crying that he was being oppressed. There was no statement by the church that Galileo was found of heresy, except for what Galileo writes in his book. His problem was not being able to resolve the math, not religious. (Read the book). The Church rejected his ideas because he had no compelling math, evidence, or argument. The Church had already published Kepler’s work. This is why Galileo insults Kepler’s work in his book.Galileo’s book attacked Pope Urban VIII, which was the reason for his ‘house arrest.’ He was a wealthy man. His ‘house arrest’ was at his villa, overlooking Florence. It was his attack on the Pope that got him arrested, not his ideas. It was not only a personal attack, but also insinuated a personal threat.Newton also did not fix the Ptolemy model via his laws of gravitation, which failed to explain many anomalies, most notably, the precessional (not processional, as procession has the perihelion advancing every orbit, the precision has the perihelion regressing every orbit) orbit of Mercury. It wasn’t until 1915 that Einstein tried, but failed to calculate the precession via his Field equations of General Relativity. Schwarzschild fixed the problem, but Einstein used the solution and did not credit Schwarzschild with the effort. It was from Schwarzschild’s corrections that Einstein was able to present and publish his first paper on General Relativity a year later. General Relativity is the work of Schwarzschild, not Einstein. [9-14] Einstein was in such a rush to publish, he negated details such as the contribution of Mercury’s mass, he had the field tensor wrong, and he considered gravitation as a static thing.The mathematically correct Ptolemaic system of the 1st century stood as mathematical proof via its predictability until at least 1915, when Schwarzschild correctly calculated Mercury’s precession without using Ptolemy’s table. Albeit, history attributes the work to Einstein, who rushed to publish. You will note that he subsequently published several retractions and recalculations, as he did with his eclipse model.The key to know is that 1) mathematical predictability is not compelling evidence that a mathematical model is correct and 2) the urban myth of the rift between science and state was actually started by Galileo, by calling the Pope an asshole for not recognizing his work, when it was in fact, incorrect.Kepler published via Pierre Gassendi, a priest, by way of the Bishop who resolved a legal dispute over using Tycho’s observatory and data put forth by Tycho’s family.Galileo started the ‘great rift’ between science and religion. The reason was that the church would not support his work. The reason the church did not back his work up was because he had no data to support. Galileo, a wealthy man, was infuriated (noteably denounced even Kepler’s current work, based on math, in favor of his own, which had no data). He openly published an entire book calling the Pope an asshole, and got put under house arrest in his villa (I wish I had one) and it is only in Galileo’s book that any mention of heresy is historically recorded. Again, the references below clearly indicate that neither the Pope nor the Council recorded any such events took place, except for the house arrest, and assigning that event as a result of an attack on the Pope. The Church keeps very detailed records. It is also of great note that the Church very proudly and loudly announced acts of heresy, it did not conceal them.The summary of all of this is the following: Albeit one cognitively selects ‘believing’ that the Church held back science, history clearly dictates that the Church, if anything, did exactly what we do today. They looked at the math, of the math was not better than Ptolemy’s predictive approach they considered it crap. Copernicus model was crap; the orbits are not circular, albeit, it was pressed on the Bishop’s press (the Bishop wanted part in the discovery). Galileo had no data whatsoever, even scoffed at Kepler’s correct answer. He then wrote an entire book that essentially threatened the Pope, the reason he was put under house arrest. He discovered nothing. Although he is credited with astronomy, he made no contribution. He is credited with the physics of motion, but he never was able to explain his observations. His observations of inertia would be explained by Huygens nearly a century later [15]. He is credited with the telescope, but it was Hans Lippershey who invented the telescope [16-18]. Cardinal Bellermine wrote in 1615 that Galileo had simply provided no evidence of a heliocentric model. [19-22]The Church was simply requiring the same thig we would today, a mathematical model with at least as much predictability power as some existing model. Galileo had no math whatsoever. They didn’t stop him (Galileo) from printing at his own cost, they were simply denying paying the cost to print Galileo’s work.Essentially, Galileo was a guy who had some observations and ideas, but had no ability to produce compelling math or argument. He thus wrote Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) after the Astronomical Society rejected his proposals for lack of compelling math or evidence. This text was a scathing personal attack on Pope Paul III, which got his ass in trouble. Galileo’s problem was purely egocentric, not heliocentric.Tycho Brahe discovered the elliptical orbits but did not publish because he could not explain them. Kepler, using Brahe’s data, explained the elliptical orbits as ratios to the speed and distance of the sun. As stated, he published his work via the Bishop, on the Pope’s press no less, as the Church wanted part in the discovery. The Bishop personally intervened when Brahe’s family launched a legal issue claiming the rights to the discovery, as it was via Brahe’s family observatory, and Tycho Brahe’s data that Kepler used.Ptolemy’s mathematical model stood from the 1st century until 1915, when Schwarzschild handed Einstein the corrected results for Mercury’s processional orbit, and corrected his field equations in General relativity. The model therefore had the most predictive power, even beyond Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, until 1915.Solid math and ‘predictive power’ are therefore NOT an acceptable criteria for a proof of concept.There are a stack of checkpoints that a hypothesis must go through before becoming theorem. In some cases, it is a short stack, in other cases, where the claim is more far-reaching, it may remain simply improvable. In science, just like Rock Music, everyone wants to be a Rock Star. The more press releases you buy, the more you popularize an idea, the more you play that song on the radio over and over again, the idea seems to precipitate into ‘reality.’ Star Trek is reality as you know it, and an idea is forced into being real by repeating it over and over again, like a mantra, by sheer will alone; it ‘beams’ into being true.We can do amazing things with math. The problem is, as Ptolemy exemplified, with enough mathematical bandages you can make something that is clearly not correct proven, predictive, and powerful.After this set of references there is another section to this answer.1.Gingerich, Owen (2005). The Book Nobody Read. London: Arrow. p. 306. ISBN 0-09-947644-4.2.Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) [1906]. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications.3.Georges Saliba "The Astronomical Work of Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi (died 1266): A Thirteenth Century Reform of Ptolemaic Astronomy", Markaz dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiya, Beirut, 1990, 19954.Teresa Borawska, Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) w życiu wewnętrznym Warmii i Prus Królewskich Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) in the Internal Life of Warmia and Royal Prussia, Olsztyn, 1984.5.Westman, Robert S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254817.6.M. Saliba, Univ Michigan, 1979 Volumes 1 and 2 detail the prior work of Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi in the 13th century.7.http://ghhv.quetroi.net/74LEHAINAM/Gale%20Group%20The%20New%20Catholic%20Encyclopedia%202nd%20Vol%2010%20(Mos-Pat).pdf8.Barker and Goldstein. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy", pp. 112–13.9.Galina Weinstein , Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story, Tel Aviv University November 25, 201410.Einstein, Albert (1915a). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische, Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 778-786.11.Einstein, Albert (1915b). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. (Nachtrag)."Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 799-801.12.Einstein, Albert (1915c). "Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 831-39.13.Earman, John and Janssen, Michel (1993). "Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of nMercury's Perihelion." In John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton (ed), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, MA: Springer, 129-172; 141.14.The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914 (CPAE 4). Klein, Martin J., Kox, A.J., Renn, Jürgen, and Schulmann, Robert(eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury", 349-351.15.Asimov, Isaac (1964). Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. ISBN 978-038517771916.Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-49542-6.17.Van Helden, Albert (1977). The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-674-6.18.Van Helden, Albert (1985). Measuring the Universe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-84881-7.19.Finocchiaro, Maurice (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. Springer. ISBN 978-9048132003.20.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.21.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.22.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian. 69 (3): 601–602. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2007.00189_68.x.23.Big Bang: the etymology of a name | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic24.Alpher R Herman R 1997 in The George Gamow Symposium (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Franscisco) 49.25.Beatty C Fienberg R 1994 Sky and Telescope 87:320.26.Bondi Het al. 1959 Rival Theories of the Universe (Oxford University Press, London).27.Brush S 1993 Perspectives on Science 1 245.28.Cox Eet al. 1949 Journal of Meteorology 6 300.29.Dicke Ret al. 1965 Astrophys. J. 142 414.30.Eddington A 1928 The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).31.Fowler W 1957 Scientific Monthly 84 84.32.Gamow G 1951 The Creation of the Universe (Viking Press, New York).33.Gamow G 1968 American Institute of Physics34.Hanson N R 1963 in Philosophy of Science 2 (Interscience, New York) 465.35.Hawking S Tayler R 1966 Nature 209 1278.36.Heckmann O 1961 Astronomical J. 66 59937.Horgan J 1995 Sci. Amer. 272:3 46–48.38.Hoyle F 1949 The Listener 41 567–568.39.Hoyle F 1965 Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (Harper & Row, New York).40.Lemaitre G 1931 Nature 127 706.41.Lightman A Brawer R 1990 Origins (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.).42.McVittie G 1961 Science 133 1231.43.McVittie G 1974 Quart. J. Royal Ast. Soc. 15 246.44.Peebles J 1966 Astrophys. J. 146 542.45.Weinberg S 1962 Phys. Rev. 128 1457.46.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).47.Way, M. & Nussbaumer, H. Physics Today, August, p. 8 (2011).48.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).49.Van den Bergh, S. preprint at [1106.1195] The Curious Case of Lemaitre's Equation No. 24 (2011).50.Block, D. preprint at arxive.org (2011).51.Van den Bergh, S. in The Extragalactic Distance Scale, eds. M. Livio, M. Donahue, & N.Panagia (Cambridge: CUP), p. 1 (1997).52.Eddington, A. S. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Cambridge: CUP), p. 162(1923).53.Lemaître, G. Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux. A 47, 49 (1927).54.Strömberg, G. ApJ, 61, 353 (1925).55.Hubble, E. P. ApJ, 64, 321 (1926).56.Hubble, E. P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 15, 168 (1929)57.Lemaître, G. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 91, 483 (1931).With no contributions and a trail of stains of this sort, my only hope is that people come to realize very rapidly the absurdity of his Atheism; which has been declared by the United States Supreme Court to be a ‘Religion,’ a cognitive belief system based on a vacuum of evidence. [1,2,3,4]There is a ‘burden of proof’ issue stated in these Supreme Court Rulings. In order to prove that God does not exist you have to look into an infinite number of unobservable domains for infinity. Otherwise, Atheism is just another psycho-spiritual cognitive belief system. If you disagree with that ruling, which has been repeated 4 times over the decades to clarify unambiguously that Atheism is a cognitive belief system, take it up with the Supreme Court. I am just the messenger.In short, Atheism is a claim that you see a vacuum where 97% of the global population (excluding agnostics and alternative definitions of God) see God. For example, an Atheist claims ‘science’ to be a better explanation. However, the math and science are beyond their reach; they know neither the math nor science. They ‘skim’ over Wikipedia, skipping any of the math, as it is all Greek to them. Their eyes see the key words they find suitable to their penchant, the rest is invisible. It is an entire worldview based on lack of dopamine, attention, focus, and cherry picking out elements from the WWW that fits inside that worldview.Oddly as hard as I bang my fist on the table, it is merely wave function among fields, whose seemingly ‘solid’ nature is a property of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. There is actually nothing there. Neither my fist nor the table. Yet, this is proven (that they only exist as wave functions in fields) but call that ‘real.’Consciousness then becomes an artifact of these wave functions and fields, according to this worldview. Wave functions and fields, quantized, ticking along in the Planck Flow (space-time is not infinitely divisible) being ‘self-aware.’Quanta are not sentient. There is no way you can arrange quanta to make them sentient. Artificial Intelligence is not sentience, it is the ability to adapt by experience.Darwin’s hypothesis was disproven by Genomics in the 90’s. [79–111] He had a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology, and that was his only education. [78] Darwin was ridiculed for his hypothesis openly stating that these ‘evolutionary traits were of God’s design.’ Eventually, he gave into the self loathing of the Atheist movement, as having been pinned their poster child, and said he was Atheist, less he lose all support. Keep in mind his hypothesis had no evidence, just fossils lined up in rows. When Genomics, the ability to actually decipher the gene became possible in the 90’s, it was clear that changing one species into another by all the magical terms, ‘pangenesis,’ ‘taxons,’ ‘genetic drift,’ and so on were urban myth; they were absolutely proven to be impossible. At the point a gene sequence can become another species, it becomes unviable. That is why you cannot mate a horse with a frog. We call it the ‘cracking point’ of the gene. It doesn’t matter how slow, or by what hypothetical process, it was proven incorrect, 20 years ago. (See the references; don’t bother arguing with me).Regardless of the failure of the hypothesis, Darwin’s hypothesis was an attempt to explain your bones, not ‘you.’ You can alter mass, energy, time (the Quantum Zeno Effect), the forces of nature, the conditions and the outcome of a series of events. Your dead bones cannot. Therefore, where I usually copy and paste Nicolini and Verlinde’s approach to Information Theory as (a result of Bekenstein’s approach)For some reason they never got to the obvious result, ‘what is 1 bit of information?’Setting C=1, Lp = tpInformation Theory describes a 2-dimensional scaffold of a 4-dimensional facade, which you can manipulate, but your bones cannot. That is, you can manipulate mass-energy, time, the forces of nature, and so on, but your corporeal body cannot. This requires then that you, aside from your bones, exist, the compelling evidence is that your bones are inert, they cannot lift a rock or start a fire, but you can.If you exist, then you exist as information. Of what sort or the nature thereof is irrelevant, not a requirement of the argument. Everything that exists is information of some sort.Therefore, if at any time you cease to exist, the source of Information has been destroyed, violating the -1 law of thermodynamics; Information cannot be destroyed. The Information does not exist as such by itself, it is not an inherent property of itself. In my explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (see the link), it is clear that, regardless of attempts of explaining phenomenon off as superposition (which occurs throughout all space-time, not localized at exactly two slits), Information remains a nebulous, formless thing until such time that we drag it into our frame of reference.In 35 years of Physics, working with thousands of the highest qualified scientists, I have known exactly two (2) Atheists. Oddly, Physicists tend to be 1) Muslim 2) Hindu 3) Jewish and finally 4) Christian. No, I have never met a Rastafarian Physicist.I’ve gotten some feedback that people do not understand how the burden of proof works. The statements: God exists is one burden of proof, the statement; nothing exists is also a burden of proof. It is a claim there is nothing, when in fact there is no evidence to support the claim. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue decades ago, and the rulings are referenced below.As for the claim, nothing exists, for those unfamiliar with Quantum Theory, nothing is an impossible condition. Everything rests upon a minimalist stage called the Zero Point, an integer multiple of Planck’s constant. As strange as that sounds, there is more evidence that it is impossible for nothing to exist than there is evidence to support ‘absolute nothingness.’ The stretch from that statement to God is not that strange.To render an reducto absurdium, I can claim that Peter Pan does not exist. I am one of 3% who claims Perter Pan does not exist, 97% claim that Peter Pan is real. How do I go about supporting my statement that Peter Pan does not exist? You can’t see Pan, however, the definition of Pan is that he exists in an unobservable domain. There is 350,000 years of evidence of Pan (marked by the first ritualistic burials of proto sapiens). Then, when written language becomes available at the end of the Pleistocene, we have some 11,500 years of cultures all over the world writing with increasing complexity about the Pan.On the other hand, there is no evidence of sapiens or proto sapiens making a claim of ‘nothingness.’ This doesn’t appear until the 18th century, and was invented by Baron d’Holbach. Prior to d’Holbach, there is no concept of ‘God does not exist.’ The Greeks had a term, ἄθεος atheos referring to without gods (plural) or more accurately, disdaining the gods (not liking Apollo, for instance, because he brought plague when he was pissed). The concept of a single God, not existing, was invented in the 18th century by d’Holbach.As for belief, people once believed the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Ptolemy had very complex math that proved the Earth was the center of the universe, uncontested for 1500 years. The Earth not being the center of the universe was beyond the human frame of reference altogether. Yet, not one atom was displaced as a result of all humans focused on that ‘belief.’ It was in fact knowledge, mathematically proven by Ptolemy.The physical worldview you have is a cognitive ‘belief.’ There is nothing but wave functions, fields, and as far as we can tell, all existing on a 2-dimensional Schwarzschild surface (Holographic Theory). You can bang your fist on the table, and the only thing making it seem ‘solid’ is a wave function upon wave function interaction, the Pauli Exclusion Principle. As for the fist and table, we have no explanation for that.You ‘believe’ in the continuity of time, when in fact, time is ticking (referred to as the Planck Flow) at 1/10^-44 seconds, like a movie projector. It is discontinuous. If it were infinitely divisible, the electron would have to pass through an infinite number of states in order to make the ‘quantum jump’ from one orbital to another. However, it doesn’t happen that way, it is 1 quantum frame.Since time is discontinuous, space is therefore also discontinuous. The topic is discussed in detail at: Bill Bray's answer to How does quantum entanglement affect particles?What you perceive has nothing to do with the nature of nature. As discussed on that page, space-time, its geometry, the forces and laws of nature, are all emergent phenomenon of superposition and quantum entanglement. That is the natural state of ‘stuff’ in its native state. It is only when you attempt to drag that ‘stuff’ into the human frame of reference that things get weird.My point is, wave functions and fields, you ‘believe’ the table exists and is solid. If I go to prove it exists, I find there is no table, just wave functions and fields. If I attempt to prove there is absolute nothingness, I get an explosion of 10^117 joules per cubic meter. Given an estimated 10^57 joules of baryonic mass-energy in the cosmos, that is equivalent to about 100 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion universes worth of baryonic mass-energy; in one cubic meter of absolute nothingness. (That is the old QED estimate, it is immeasurable, however, as it relies on the time limited HUP).My point to that very lengthy discussion is that a ‘belief in nothingness’ is impossible in Quantum Theory. A belief in something is (using our Ptolemy argument) equally as pointless.Faith is a spiritual state of being, like Love is a spiritual state of being. They go hand in hand, if you achieve one you will be in the other state as well; like the cat. If and when one evolves beyond belief and genitalia, and differentiates that from Faith and Love, then you are like God.Because Hawking didn’t ‘believe’ in God, now all the little nuggets think Atheism is ‘scientific.’ To give you an idea, we look at the ‘scientific’ creation mythos. Just over half a century ago, the Milky Way was the entire cosmos, infinite in size, and existed for infinity (steady state theory). Then a Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, corrected Einstein and his gravimetric equations by pointing out that according to General Relativity, the cosmos would either have collapsed away or GR was wrong. This led Lemaitre to state that the universe must have at one time been smaller. Lemaitre then reverse engineered how much smaller and came up with a number not far off from what we have today. Einstein ridiculed him at a party, openly. We call that the Big Bang theory today. The Big Bang Theory has changed, radically, about every few years or so ever since, and is now changing more than once a year.My point to this little story is that the Big Bang is the discovery of the Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, a discovery therefore of the Catholic Church. (I am Christian, but not Catholic). The twisted irony is that Hawking mocked away Faith as mythos, stating that ‘science’ was the answer, when the ‘science’ in question was a discovery of the Catholic Church (which embraces the Big Bang hypothesis). Hawking’s model, on the other hand, was dismissed long ago, except for the Big and Bang terms.I have this thing I call the Kaufman Paradox. It is when you go to an open mic night at a bar, and the performer is so bad, you feel embarrassed. This is referred to as ‘paradoxical empathy.’ Kaufman was a comic genius who used this paradoxical empathy to entertain and confuse his audience. In the real world, it is when someone does something so - I know this is a strong word, but, stupid, you feel embarrassed.To claim that God did not create the universe, but it happened via the Big Bang, is - the Kaufman Paradox. It is embarrassing to watch. Furthermore, the Catholic Church backs up the Big Bang Theory. To discover how God did a thing, is a monumental success. It bleeds out into Islam and Hinduism. In fact, most of Quantum Nomenclature uses Hindu terms, as the models seem to reflect Hindu writing.The other possibility of course being that both science and religion are artifacts of human thinking, which makes parallels seem to occur where both are only artifacts of human thinking. That’s on another page somewhere.Then we have this idea that the expansion is accelerating. In order to make this determination, one has to have a Relative Standard Deviation of the Hubble Parameter of less than 1%. However, as this image shows, this is not the case. Furthermore, there is no trend over time of becoming more precise. It is random, with a range from 62 to 93 km/s/MpcMy point is, the ‘scientific’ creation myth is whacked, it doesn’t exist. But anything else is ‘pseudo-science.’ Oh, it’s not complete, we’ll get it right some day, has never saved anyone’s job in the real world; it will not work coming from you.Hawking did a lot of damage by being the poster child for Atheism; which by definition of the Supreme Court, is a religion. He contributed little if anything to real science. You probably don’t understand this, but the recent discovery of Gravity Waves via an interferometer (exactly like the Michelson-Morley interfermoter of the 19th century) will erase essentially everything Hawking proposed about Back Hole physics. That is, the LIGO interferometer can detect its own change of state as a result of Gravitation. That changes everything.As harsh as my reply sounds, keep in mind Hawking used Cambridge like a firearm. He made enemies in the physics, science as a whole, certainly the Theist communities, even those close to him. For example, when the Russian scientists came forward and said, ‘why are you calling our work ‘Hawking Radiation,’ he doubled the insult by renaming it Hawking-Bekenstein Radiation, although Bekenstein had nothing to do with it. This is the kind of thing he did on a daily basis.He will be forgotten swiftly.1.Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 D.C. Cir. 19572.American Humanists vs. US Case 3:14-cv-00565-HA Document 333.“Torcaso v. Watkins (1961); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997) Supreme Court Decisions on Religious LibertyKaufman v McCaughtry, from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.78. Browne 1995, p. 9779. Moran, Laurence (22 January 1993). “Random Genetic Drift”. TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-06-27.80. Sanford, John. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.81. Rennie, John (9 April 2008). “Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Integrity Displayed”. Scientific American (Stuttgart: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group). ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved 2015-11-16.82. Shubin, Neil; Tabin, Cliff; Carroll, Sean B. (February 12, 2009). “Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty”. Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 457 (7231): 818–823. Doi:10.1038/nature07891. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 19212399.83. Futuyma, D. J. 2009. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.84. Carroll, S. B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.85. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life. Journal of Creation. 27 (3): 84-92.86. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology” Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.87. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.88. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.89. Rupe, C. L. and J. C. Sanford. 2013. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle—“Haldane’s Ratchet.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. M. Horstemeyer, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.90. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.91. Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 578-590.92. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.93. Gregory, T. R. The onion test. Evolver Zone. Posted on http://genomicrom.evolverzone.com April 25, 2007, accessed December 17, 2013.94. Venema, D. ENCODE and “Junk DNA,” Part 2: Function: What’s in a Word? The BioLogos Forum. Posted on BioLogos September 26, 2012, accessed December 17, 2013.95. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Junk DNA” Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.96. Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos. Creation Ministries International. Posted on Creation | Creation Ministries International August 20, 2011, accessed June 25, 2014.97. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.98. Venema, D. and D. Falk. Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on BioLogos May 17, 2010, accessed December 13, 2013.99. Max, E. E. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy. The TalkOrgins Archive. Posted on Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy May 5, 2003, accessed December 13, 2013.100. Jeanson, N. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.101. Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.102. Ayala. Francisco, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978, pp. 56-69.103. Kolata, Gina, “Genes in Pieces.” Science, V. 207. No. 4429, 1980, pp. 392-393. (Note also the emphasized quotation on P. 393: “A number of molecular biologists believe there is more to the extra DNA than the evolutionary theories imply.”)104. Pai, Anna. Foundations of Genetics New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974, pp. 248-249.105. Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, as quoted by William Bauer, “Review of Evolution of Living Organisms” “ Acts and Facts, Impact No. 76, 1979.106. Kimura, Motoo, “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution,” Scientific American V. 241, No. 5, 1979, pp. 98-126.107. Powell, Jeffrey, and Charles Taylor, “Genetic Variation in Diverse108. Environments,” American Scientist, V.67, No. 5, 1979, pp. 590-596.109. Kanapaux, B. UF study: Rapid burst of flowering plants set stage for other species. University of Florida press release, February 9, 2009.110. Thomas, B. Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree ‘Annihilated.’ ICR News. Posted on http://icr.org February 3, 2009, accessed March 3, 2009.111. Wang, H., et al. Rosid radiation and the rapid rise of angiosperm-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print, February 17, 2009.

Quantum Physics is a misdirected term implying that the information observed can be interpreted in some way, suggesting correct. Quantum Theory is a misdirected term which describes a plethora of improvable hypotheses, one of which is Quantum Field Theory (Hypothesis).THIS IS A DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION GOING VIRAL DUE TO THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT BY TWEAKING A MATHEMATICAL MODEL REPEATEDLY UNTIL IT MATCHES THE DATA (AT THAT POINT FORWARD REFERRED TO AS ‘PREDICTION’) - CAN DUPE THE ENTIRE WORLD INTO BELIEVING QUANTUM FAIRY TALES (QFT)Before anyone gets a chance to argue, I will paste why this is ludicrous here:We had no modern creation myth until 1927, by George Lemaitre, a Catholic priest. It wasn’t until 1931 that the expanding cosmos he introduced evolved to a creation model, also by Lemaitre (he called the ‘cosmic egg’). Since that time, the model has changed 5,282 times.[23-45]]As of this writing, that means that our modern creation myth has changed about 62 times per year. That is four times per lunar month. This is compelling toward the conclusion that our modern creation mythos is still an artifact of the lunar cycle (e.g., menses, menstruation; the lunar month).Georges Lemaitre discovered the Big Bang, a Catholic Priest, a century ago, and long before Hubble had any clue about any recessional velocity. I finally found a public domain copy of the paper that describes this. [46] Lemaitre’s original paper was edited, censored, to give credit to Hubble. Livio writes:During the past few months, a passionate debate has flared up about who actually deserves the credit for discovering the cosmic expansion.[47-50] In particular, a few articles raised the suspicion that some not-so-kosher censorship practices may have been applied in the 1920s to ensure Edwin Hubble’s priority on the discovery. [49, 50] Here are, very briefly, the background facts that are most relevant for this debate. By February of 1922, astronomer Vesto Slipher had measured the redshifts for 41 galaxies. [51] In a book published in 1923, Arthur Eddington [52] listed those redshifts and noted that: “The great preponderance of positive [receding] velocities is very striking; but the lack of observations of southern nebulae is unfortunate, and forbids a final conclusion.” In 1927, the Belgian priest and cosmologist Georges Lemaître published a remarkable paper (in French) whose title read (in its English translation): “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae.” This paper was published in the relatively obscure Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels. [53] In it, Lemaître first discovered dynamic solutions to Einstein’s general relativity equations, from which he derived what is now known as “Hubble’s Law”—the fact that the velocity of recession is linearly proportional to the distance. But Lemaître went beyond mere theoretical calculations. He actually used the velocities of the galaxies as measured by Slipher (and published by Strömberg [54] ), and the distances as determined from brightness measurements by Hubble [55] in 1926, to determine the rate of expansion of the universe. For the numerical value of that rate, today called the Hubble constant, Lemaître obtained 625 km/s/Mpc. Recall that Hubble obtained a value of about 500 in 1929. [56] Lemaître also discussed the fact that the accuracy of the distance estimates available at the time seemed to him to be insufficient to assess the validity of the linear relation he discovered.Livio then goes on to note:Here, however, is where the plot really thickens. The English translation of Lemaître’s 1927 paper was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in March 1931. [57] However, a few paragraphs from the original French version were deleted! In particular, the paragraph that described “Hubble’s Law” and in which Lemaître used the 42 galaxies for which he had distances and velocities to derive a value for the Hubble Constant of 625 km/s/Mpc, was missing. Also missing were one paragraph in which Lemaître discussed the possible errors in the distance estimates, and footnotes, in one of which he remarked on the interpretation of the proportionality between the velocity and distance, as resulting from a relativistic expansion. In the same footnote, Lemaître also calculated two possible values for the Hubble Constant, of 575 and 670, depending on how the data were grouped.Amidst this conspiracy, we find that Lemaitre himself was the one who omitted the equations, for a number of reasons. Einstein had already ridiculed him publicly in the presence of very high-ranking physicists for merely suggesting an expanding universe. In addition, it was made clear to Lemaitre that his admission into the Royal Astronomical Society was contingent upon his giving credit to Hubble, who would publish the miscalculation two years later. Most importantly, Lemaitre knew that the calculation was wrong because the redshift data was incorrect. Therefore, Lemaitre let Hubble publish his incorrect value of H0 = 500, when today the value seems to be about 70, with a range from 62 to 93. Hubble was in such a rush to publish, he was off by an entire order of magnitude. Lemaitre knew this, because he saw the error in the redshift data. Hubble used it anyway, apparently, because he did not see the error in the redshift data. Lemaitre hung Hubble out as bait, knowing that in the future, all of this would become known I the history books. Hubble wanted his here and now.The most important aspect was that Lemaitre was pushed into this corner because science did not want a discovery of this magnitude belonging to the Church. As a result, his entrance into the Royal Astronomical Society among other things was held suspended until such time that he yielded and allowed Hubble to publish, two years later. I am no fan, nor enemy of the Church, whatever Church that might be. The point is, a condition placed upon a man’s recognition, as he is affiliated with a group, that another group who controls the journals (media) disdains, is what they expect to be recorded in history. Fortunately, Hubble is recorded as flubbing the math, and Lemaitre is recorded as making the discovery. I would just like to thank the historians for uncovering what really happened and why.To put in perspective how wrong Hubble’s result was, if H0 = 500, the universe would have thermalized (Heat Death) long ago.That is, the Uncertainty, a fistful of random dots allows continuous mythos to be created. I call it ‘player participatory religion and science.’ It is a game that we make up as we go along. It is not that we haven’t quite finished the Big Bang model yet, as would be indicated by a progression and narrowing of that progression. It is random, we are clueless. The argument, ‘we will figure it out one day’ is non-sequitur. You cannot figure out the answer for infinity and still apply that argument.The Black Hole was first proposed by Schwarzschild, not Einstein, as is another urban myth. Since that time, over 4 million papers have been written, each must have unique, original content or it will not get published. That means, the Black Hole mythos changes every 8 minutes. I don’t know if I am making myself clear enough. Schwarzschild was not ‘a believer’ in the Black Hole, as his asymptotic time dilation he derived meant that a Back Hole could not actually exist, it would just be forever in the forming (take infinity to do so). He thus let Einstein, like Hubble, publish a completely incorrect result, based on his work.Since in order to publish your content has to be unique and original, there are now over 4 million unique, original, competing, not complementary, versions of what a Black Hole is or does, and so on. Every 8 minutes, a new and complete model emerges.In the simplest possible terms, the approach to the Schwarzschild radius is a asymptotic time dilation. LIGO, an interferometer just like the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the observer/observed relationship in Special Relativity does not apply to General Relativity, as the LIGO interferometer detected its own change of state as a result of a Gravity Wave. Therefore, whatever the distant observer is observing, is also observed by the collapsing mass.Since mass cannot travel at v=c, then that means I can get between the collapsing mass and the Schwarzschild radius and measure that distance as being infinite. A photon is chiral, you cannot get in front of it and see it spinning the opposite direction because it is traveling at v=c. An electron has mass, cannot travel at v=c, and I can get in front of a clockwise spinning electron and see it apparently spinning counter-clockwise; this is referred to as helicity.’ This is the same principle.I am standing on the surface of a collapsing star. It cannot collapse at v=c because it has mass. Like helicity, I can get in front of the collapsing mass, meaning I am now standing between the collapsing mass and the Schwarzschild radius, and measure that distance and time as being infinite. Again, the observer/observed relationship of Special Relativity does not apply; now proven by the LIGO interferometer.Those 4 million papers would not exist if the myth of the observer/observed relationship of Special Relativity was not deliberately assigned to General Relativity. Apparently, they thought they could go on hypothesizing ad infinitum so long as this myth was not busted. However, LIGO busted that myth, and those 4 million papers are only worth recycling.These childishly simple concepts evaded Hawking, and wipe out everything he ever stated. He only had an IQ of 160, which I suspect is disinformation. Nonetheless, to put that in perspective, Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) IQ is 178, Bill Clinton 156, Marilyn Monroe 168, Snoop Dog 150, James Wood 184. My point being that he had less of a capacity to comprehend Black Holes than Mr Bean, a dumb blonde, and a rapper.In the 1st century, Ptolemy worked out the math of the Earth centered universe, which stood uncontested for over 2000 years. With this mathematical model, one could predict the movements of the planets, stars, eclipses, everything in the night sky. The Earth centered universe had thus been proven true and correct. Ptolemy’s mathematics had predictive power, not just the ability to explain what is observed. You will also note that this is long before the Catholic Church; whom you were taught both created and enforced this Earth centered universe hypothesis. Nonetheless, Ptolemy’s mathematical model was sound, not only explained observations, but also had predictive power that was quite exacting.Ptolemy had worked out sophisticated math that did in fact have great astronomical (do not confuse this with his astrological exploits) predictive power. Essentially, everything that was visible in the night sky without modern optics was predictable in this system. His model was a series of nested spheres. Aristotle then carried on the nested sphere model founded by Plato, carried on by his student Eudoxus, whose work probably became the ancient work Sphaerics. The work, The Music of the Spheres by Kepler refers to this nested spherical model of the cosmos as a series of spheres. There is a good real time visual on Ptolemy’s model at http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/ptolemy.html At the center is Earth, the sun orbiting the Earth, and so on. The mathematical rigidity of this model stood for 1500 years. It still works. Oddly, the entire shape of the cosmos is offset by just a few degrees in Ptolemy’s model. The universe has no known center, as it is an expansion of space-time itself, with no reference or preferential frame of reference (like in Special Relativity). This merely reduces the argument to does the Earth orbit the sun or the sun orbit the Earth.This is a ridiculous argument, as anyone with half an ounce of knowledge of gravimetrics knows; the Earth and sun orbit each other. It just appears that the Earth orbits the sun because of the sun’s greater mass. Therefore, neither model is correct. In addition, neither model locates the center of the cosmos. It is also incorrect to state that the universe has no center. It is only correct to say, if there is a center, a point where the expanding phenomenon began, we do not know how to locate or identify it. To state that the Earth is not the center of the universe is not correct either. If there is no preferential frame of reference for the expansion of space-time, we can arbitrarily set any point we wish and call it the center, even change it at will. Oddly, if there is a ‘center’ to the cosmos, it would be at the visible horizon, the farthest (comoving) distance, meaning the oldest age.My point is Ptolemy’s mathematical model had the entire cosmos orbiting the Earth. Neither Kepler nor Copernicus, nor Galileo actually resolved this mathematical anomaly. The mathematical anomaly wasn’t actually resolved until the 20th century. Copernicus did not resolve Ptolemy’s mathematical model. Aristarchus of Samos had presented a proper heliocentric solar system around 250 BCE, [2] albeit without a proper mathematical foundation. Copernicus model was actually taken from an Arab astronomer and mathematician, Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī [3] (good luck pronouncing that one). Al-Urdi produced a series of tables circa 1250 CE based on his own observations. Copernicus noted that the Alfonsine tables (created in Spain in 1250 using Ptolemy’s math) had additional epicycles added in to make them conform more precisely with observation (Ptolemy’s math was now 1250 years old). [1] Although Copernicus gives some model for calculations in his book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, the math is not as accurate as the Ptolemaic models. He does argue in the preface, however, that math, rather than physics, should be used to understand his hypothesis. Copernicus’ primary reason for waiting so long to publish was the idea that his work, his hypothesis, would not be well received by the scientific community, not because of any issues with the Church. He in fact handed his work over to Bishop Tiedemann Giese (the Copernicus and Giese family shared blood), who then gave it to Pope Paul III for publication. [4] Essentially, whereas the Ptolemaic system accounted for what we now refer to as parabolic orbits, Copernicus model was a system of spheres where the orbits were circular. He knew this was incorrect, but did not know how to fix it, hence, his reluctance to publish, which he thought would lead to scientific critcism. Kepler founded the parabolic orbit problem in a blaze of trigonometry that fills volumes. However, accuracy was not achieved for any part of the system, particularly Mercury, which has a precessional orbit, until Einstein applied General Relativity in 1916. Thus, the Ptolemaic mathematical model stood for 1900 years as exacting, whereas the Copernicun and Kepler Models, even Newton’s models, were approximations that matched Ptolemy’s calculations, at best.“I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,” Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. (AP 6/15/2006)Copernicus published his first book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), regarding the Earth-centric model in 1543. The printer, Johannes Petreius, included a forward by a Lutheran philosopher, Andreas Osiander, which Copernicus was not aware. Copernicus work was essentially a paligiarism of a former work by Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī, over two centuries earlier. [6] His reluctance to publish was not due to the Church, but because he could not resolve the problem that his circular orbits did not work. He gave the work to the Bishop Tiedemann Giese, dedicated to Pope Paul III, altered by Petreius (a Lutheran, Protestant), the printer, but published on a Catholic Press belonging to the Catholic Church. There is some more myth regarding the idea that Osiander, a Lutheran (Protestant) was the one who wrote the dedication to the Catholic Pope, which is of course, absurd. The dedication was by Copernicus.Copernicus reason for waiting until just a few years prior to his death was the idea of rejection by the scientific community, nor religious, as he could not make mathematical predictions using his model that were as accurate as the Ptolemaic system. This is why he turned toward the Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī, or Al-Urdi tables as his main data source, although he did not credit Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī with the work over two centuries earlier, thinking it obscure.The book gained absolutely no attention by the clergy, and at the Council of Trent [5] which according to urban myth banned the book, it is only mentioned that the book was printed on the Pope’s print, and edited by a Lutheran, which was the primary concern. No further attention was paid to it because the model was in fact, incorrect. The planets are not in a circular orbit, and Ptolemy’s mathematical model was much more accurate.On page 705 of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it states:Although he was unusually gifted, Osiander’s haughty, overbearing, disputatious, and unrestrained manner irritated his enemies and alienated his friends. Although adept at pointing out error, he rarely contributed constructive solutions. He could not forego polemics. When asked by Rhäticus (Georg Joachim von Lauchen 1514–76) to edit and publish Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543), Osiander added his own preface in which he claimed the work was based on hypotheses. Although Copernicus’s adherents were furious, the claim kept the book off the Index until the 17th century. Although he was nominally Lutheran, Osiander’s teachings, because of certain mystical assumptions.It was Osiander who rewrote Copernicus’ history, with grievance noted by the Catholic Church. Note that I cannot find any reference to Copernicus in the first addition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, written by Eusebius in 1570. However, Copernicus’ work was unknown at that time.Kepler’s argument was that the elliptical orbits were the way God designed things. The argument he received was from the field of Physics, which denied an Earth centered system. Physics and Astronomy were not friends, and not because of religious debate, but because the field of Physics denied math had any useful content. [7, 8] By this time, Tycho Brahe had seen Copernicus’ work and hybridized it with Ptolemy’s math.Galileo was met by opposition from Astronomers, not the Church, because he could not explain Steller parallax, nor could he do the math of any existing system, he was essentially innumerate. It was this reason that Kepler, living at the same time, solved the math. Galileo’s only evidence was the observation of Venus going through phases like our moon, which neither the Church scientists nor the secular scientists found convincing. Galileo wrote in his text that he denounced Kepler’s theories and math, albeit, Galileo could produce no evidence one way or the other. Galileo, the urban mythos of being the great astronomer, wrote in his book that Kepler was wrong. Read the Book. He also insulted Kepler, merely for producing a competing argument.Copernicus’s work remained obscure until Kepler picked up the text in 1609 and applied trigonometry to make the orbits elliptical, as this elliptical behavior was what he observed upon rolling balls inside of cones (the same way we demonstrate elliptical orbits in grade school today).Galileo therefore shouted more loudly, as though this would win the argument. After Kepler had already published the correct results, Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in 1632 (Kepler published in 1609). Galileo’s book was published by the Inquisition’s press, so as to alleviate Galileo’s crying that he was being oppressed. There was no statement by the church that Galileo was found of heresy, except for what Galileo writes in his book. His problem was not being able to resolve the math, not religious. (Read the book). The Church rejected his ideas because he had no compelling math, evidence, or argument. The Church had already published Kepler’s work. This is why Galileo insults Kepler’s work in his book.Galileo’s book attacked Pope Urban VIII, which was the reason for his ‘house arrest.’ He was a wealthy man. His ‘house arrest’ was at his villa, overlooking Florence. It was his attack on the Pope that got him arrested, not his ideas. It was not only a personal attack, but also insinuated a personal threat.Newton also did not fix the Ptolemy model via his laws of gravitation, which failed to explain many anomalies, most notably, the precessional (not processional, as procession has the perihelion advancing every orbit, the precision has the perihelion regressing every orbit) orbit of Mercury. It wasn’t until 1915 that Einstein tried, but failed to calculate the precession via his Field equations of General Relativity. Schwarzschild fixed the problem, but Einstein used the solution and did not credit Schwarzschild with the effort. It was from Schwarzschild’s corrections that Einstein was able to present and publish his first paper on General Relativity a year later. General Relativity is the work of Schwarzschild, not Einstein. [9-14] Einstein was in such a rush to publish, he negated details such as the contribution of Mercury’s mass, he had the field tensor wrong, and he considered gravitation as a static thing.The mathematically correct Ptolemaic system of the 1st century stood as mathematical proof via its predictability until at least 1915, when Schwarzschild correctly calculated Mercury’s precession without using Ptolemy’s table. Albeit, history attributes the work to Einstein, who rushed to publish. You will note that he subsequently published several retractions and recalculations, as he did with his eclipse model.The key to know is that 1) mathematical predictability is not compelling evidence that a mathematical model is correct and 2) the urban myth of the rift between science and state was actually started by Galileo, by calling the Pope an asshole for not recognizing his work, when it was in fact, incorrect.Kepler published via Pierre Gassendi, a priest, by way of the Bishop who resolved a legal dispute over using Tycho’s observatory and data put forth by Tycho’s family.Galileo started the ‘great rift’ between science and religion. The reason was that the church would not support his work. The reason the church did not back his work up was because he had no data to support. Galileo, a wealthy man, was infuriated (noteably denounced even Kepler’s current work, based on math, in favor of his own, which had no data). He openly published an entire book calling the Pope an asshole, and got put under house arrest in his villa (I wish I had one) and it is only in Galileo’s book that any mention of heresy is historically recorded. Again, the references below clearly indicate that neither the Pope nor the Council recorded any such events took place, except for the house arrest, and assigning that event as a result of an attack on the Pope. The Church keeps very detailed records. It is also of great note that the Church very proudly and loudly announced acts of heresy, it did not conceal them.The summary of all of this is the following: Albeit one cognitively selects ‘believing’ that the Church held back science, history clearly dictates that the Church, if anything, did exactly what we do today. They looked at the math, of the math was not better than Ptolemy’s predictive approach they considered it crap. Copernicus model was crap; the orbits are not circular, albeit, it was pressed on the Bishop’s press (the Bishop wanted part in the discovery). Galileo had no data whatsoever, even scoffed at Kepler’s correct answer. He then wrote an entire book that essentially threatened the Pope, the reason he was put under house arrest. He discovered nothing. Although he is credited with astronomy, he made no contribution. He is credited with the physics of motion, but he never was able to explain his observations. His observations of inertia would be explained by Huygens nearly a century later [15]. He is credited with the telescope, but it was Hans Lippershey who invented the telescope [16-18]. Cardinal Bellermine wrote in 1615 that Galileo had simply provided no evidence of a heliocentric model. [19-22]The Church was simply requiring the same thig we would today, a mathematical model with at least as much predictability power as some existing model. Galileo had no math whatsoever. They didn’t stop him (Galileo) from printing at his own cost, they were simply denying paying the cost to print Galileo’s work.Essentially, Galileo was a guy who had some observations and ideas, but had no ability to produce compelling math or argument. He thus wrote Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) after the Astronomical Society rejected his proposals for lack of compelling math or evidence. This text was a scathing personal attack on Pope Paul III, which got his ass in trouble. Galileo’s problem was purely egocentric, not heliocentric.Tycho Brahe discovered the elliptical orbits but did not publish because he could not explain them. Kepler, using Brahe’s data, explained the elliptical orbits as ratios to the speed and distance of the sun. As stated, he published his work via the Bishop, on the Pope’s press no less, as the Church wanted part in the discovery. The Bishop personally intervened when Brahe’s family launched a legal issue claiming the rights to the discovery, as it was via Brahe’s family observatory, and Tycho Brahe’s data that Kepler used.Ptolemy’s mathematical model stood from the 1st century until 1915, when Schwarzschild handed Einstein the corrected results for Mercury’s processional orbit, and corrected his field equations in General relativity. The model therefore had the most predictive power, even beyond Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, until 1915.Solid math and ‘predictive power’ are therefore NOT an acceptable criteria for a proof of concept.There are a stack of checkpoints that a hypothesis must go through before becoming theorem. In some cases, it is a short stack, in other cases, where the claim is more far-reaching, it may remain simply improvable. In science, just like Rock Music, everyone wants to be a Rock Star. The more press releases you buy, the more you popularize an idea, the more you play that song on the radio over and over again, the idea seems to precipitate into ‘reality.’ Star Trek is reality as you know it, and an idea is forced into being real by repeating it over and over again, like a mantra, by sheer will alone; it ‘beams’ into being true.We can do amazing things with math. The problem is, as Ptolemy exemplified, with enough mathematical bandages you can make something that is clearly not correct proven, predictive, and powerful.For the final example, Newton’s equationIS NOT CORRECT. Gravity is not a ‘force.’ Gravity describes the geometry of space-time. Thus, even though we can make bold predictions where our ICBMs will land, the orbits of some (but not all) of the planets, the model and the scaffold, the hypothesis is incorrect. Newton’s hypothesis was and is wrong.The ‘apparent force’ we observe is actually a change in the geometry of space-time, which may or may not be the result of mass (a Gravity Wave is Gravitation without mass). There is no ‘apparent force’ until you try and alter the path of an object within this changing geometry of space-time.1.Gingerich, Owen (2005). The Book Nobody Read. London: Arrow. p. 306. ISBN 0-09-947644-4.2.Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) [1906]. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications.3.Georges Saliba "The Astronomical Work of Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi (died 1266): A Thirteenth Century Reform of Ptolemaic Astronomy", Markaz dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiya, Beirut, 1990, 19954.Teresa Borawska, Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) w życiu wewnętrznym Warmii i Prus Królewskich Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) in the Internal Life of Warmia and Royal Prussia, Olsztyn, 1984.5.Westman, Robert S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254817.6.M. Saliba, Univ Michigan, 1979 Volumes 1 and 2 detail the prior work of Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi in the 13th century.7.http://ghhv.quetroi.net/74LEHAINAM/Gale%20Group%20The%20New%20Catholic%20Encyclopedia%202nd%20Vol%2010%20(Mos-Pat).pdf8.Barker and Goldstein. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy", pp. 112–13.9.Galina Weinstein , Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story, Tel Aviv University November 25, 201410.Einstein, Albert (1915a). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische, Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 778-786.11.Einstein, Albert (1915b). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. (Nachtrag)."Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 799-801.12.Einstein, Albert (1915c). "Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 831-39.13.Earman, John and Janssen, Michel (1993). "Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of nMercury's Perihelion." In John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton (ed), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, MA: Springer, 129-172; 141.14.The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914 (CPAE 4). Klein, Martin J., Kox, A.J., Renn, Jürgen, and Schulmann, Robert(eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury", 349-351.15.Asimov, Isaac (1964). Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. ISBN 978-038517771916.Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-49542-6.17.Van Helden, Albert (1977). The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-674-6.18.Van Helden, Albert (1985). Measuring the Universe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-84881-7.19.Finocchiaro, Maurice (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. Springer. ISBN 978-9048132003.20.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.21.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.22.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian. 69 (3): 601–602. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2007.00189_68.x.23.Big Bang: the etymology of a name | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic24.Alpher R Herman R 1997 in The George Gamow Symposium (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Franscisco) 49.25.Beatty C Fienberg R 1994 Sky and Telescope 87:320.26.Bondi Het al. 1959 Rival Theories of the Universe (Oxford University Press, London).27.Brush S 1993 Perspectives on Science 1 245.28.Cox Eet al. 1949 Journal of Meteorology 6 300.29.Dicke Ret al. 1965 Astrophys. J. 142 414.30.Eddington A 1928 The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).31.Fowler W 1957 Scientific Monthly 84 84.32.Gamow G 1951 The Creation of the Universe (Viking Press, New York).33.Gamow G 1968 American Institute of Physics34.Hanson N R 1963 in Philosophy of Science 2 (Interscience, New York) 465.35.Hawking S Tayler R 1966 Nature 209 1278.36.Heckmann O 1961 Astronomical J. 66 59937.Horgan J 1995 Sci. Amer. 272:3 46–48.38.Hoyle F 1949 The Listener 41 567–568.39.Hoyle F 1965 Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (Harper & Row, New York).40.Lemaitre G 1931 Nature 127 706.41.Lightman A Brawer R 1990 Origins (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.).42.McVittie G 1961 Science 133 1231.43.McVittie G 1974 Quart. J. Royal Ast. Soc. 15 246.44.Peebles J 1966 Astrophys. J. 146 542.45.Weinberg S 1962 Phys. Rev. 128 1457.46.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).47.Way, M. & Nussbaumer, H. Physics Today, August, p. 8 (2011).48.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).49.Van den Bergh, S. preprint at [1106.1195] The Curious Case of Lemaitre's Equation No. 24 (2011).50.Block, D. preprint at arxive.org (2011).51.Van den Bergh, S. in The Extragalactic Distance Scale, eds. M. Livio, M. Donahue, & N.Panagia (Cambridge: CUP), p. 1 (1997).52.Eddington, A. S. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Cambridge: CUP), p. 162(1923).53.Lemaître, G. Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux. A 47, 49 (1927).54.Strömberg, G. ApJ, 61, 353 (1925).55.Hubble, E. P. ApJ, 64, 321 (1926).56.Hubble, E. P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 15, 168 (1929)57.Lemaître, G. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 91, 483 (1931).