Famous and not so famous Cosmologists

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:49 am

Hello All

I thought maybe discussing the works of some cosmologists maybe fun.

What do you think?

and maybe pay tribute to their work

makc · Post by **makc** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:01 am

sure. let's start with Hannes Alfvén.

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:28 pm

Hi Harry! How about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmologists
Orin

makc · Post by **makc** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:22 pm

Hannes Alfvén is 1st existing entry in the list

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:11 pm

I'm not sure of those in red. I think they were added to Wikipedia after the list was started. I found the list surfing! I can't verify accuracy.

Sorry if I misled anyone!
Orin

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:56 pm

geeeeeeeee I wonder why Percival Lowell isn't on the list.

FOCLMAO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Lowell

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:42 am

http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Cosmology/albrecht/

http://www.light-science.com/alpher.html

These two were on the list. I'll try to reasearch some of the others; If anyone is interested.
Orin

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:16 pm

Hello All

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!! is a great word.

I have started to read some of the cosmologists and the journey that some had to under go.

It brings tears to my eyes and great respect even though I disagree with some.

I read
http://www.light-science.com/alpher.html

Ralph Asher Alpher authored his Ph.D. dissertation on the Big Bang theory in 1948. His mathematical formula brought into being the scientific theory of the origin of the universe. His paper said the universe occurred 14 billion years ago with a superhot explosion and later, in 1948, Alpher showed proof. No one accepted these ridiculous ideas until 1964 when two radio astronomers showed Alpher's theory was correct. Unfortunately, they received the Nobel Prize, not Ralph Alpher.

and some papers from Hannes Alfven and Halton Arp

Hannes Alfven

List of papers
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/ ... 20Containe

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/elec ... /index.htm
First published in 1948 in the book The New Astronomy , Chapter 2, Section III, page 74 -79

Hannes Alfvén is an original contributor to the potent new discipline of magnetohydrodynamic, to which he brings a background of work in such varied and related fields as cosmic rays, fundamental electronics, aurorae, earth magnetism, sunspots, and the design of electron tubes. He was born in 1908 at Norrköting, Sweden, and educated at the University of Uppsala. Since 1940, he has been professor at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [He died in 1995. Biography]

In Memory of Hannes Alfven
http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Halton Arp
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... alileo.htm

Halton Arp's discoveries about red shift.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:55 am

Hello All

Hermann Bondi

Professor Sir Hermann Bondi, KCB , FRS (1 November 1919–10 September 2005) was an Anglo-Austrian mathematician and cosmologist. He is best known for developing the steady-state theory of the universe with Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, but his most lasting legacy will probably be his important contributions to the theory of general relativity.

In 1948, Bondi, Hoyle and Gold formulated the steady-state theory, which holds that the universe is constantly expanding but matter is constantly created to form new stars and galaxies to maintain a constant average density. It is probably fair to say that this theory dominated over the rival Big Bang theory until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation caused a sudden change in fortune.

Bondi was a major contributor to the golden age of general relativity (roughly 1960-1975). He was one of the first to correctly appreciate the nature of gravitational radiation, introducing Bondi radiation coordinates, the Bondi k-calculus, and the notion of Bondi mass, and writing influential review articles. He popularized the sticky bead argument which was said to be originally due, anonymously, to Richard Feynman, for the claim that physically meaningful gravitational radiation is indeed predicted by general relativity, an assertion which was controversial up until about 1955. An influential 1947 paper revived interest in the Lemaitre-Tolman metric, an inhomogeneous, spherically symmetric dust solution (often called the LTB or Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi metric). Bondi also contributed to the theory of accretion of matter from a cloud of gas onto a star or a black hole, working with Raymond Lyttleton and giving his name to "Bondi accretion" and the "Bondi radius".

He became a professor at King's College London in 1954, and was given the title of Emeritus Professor there in 1985. He was secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1956 to 1964.

Don't you love reading about the journey of these cosmologists.

starnut · Post by **starnut** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:22 am

harry wrote: http://www.light-science.com/alpher.html

Ralph Asher Alpher authored his Ph.D. dissertation on the Big Bang theory in 1948. His mathematical formula brought into being the scientific theory of the origin of the universe. His paper said the universe occurred 14 billion years ago with a superhot explosion and later, in 1948, Alpher showed proof. No one accepted these ridiculous ideas until 1964 when two radio astronomers showed Alpher's theory was correct. Unfortunately, they received the Nobel Prize, not Ralph Alpher.

Ralph Alpher, 86, died of respiratory failure on August 12 at an acute care facility in Austin, TX.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... tml?sub=AR

He should have shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize with Penzias and Wilson!!!

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:18 am

Hello Starnut

I agree with you.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:24 pm

I would add Eugene Shoemaker, even though his later geologic work was on craters and the crater big bang theory.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:49 pm

Perhaps an operational definition of "cosmologist" might be helpful.

How far back in history should we look?

What minimal 'theory' component should a candidate cosmologist's work include for serious consideration?

If 'cosmology' is defined as having something to do with the (quantitative, scientific) study of the nature of the universe as a whole, to what extent should we use contemporaneous definitions of 'universe' and 'science' in considering candidates?

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:12 am

Hello Neried

Its good to see the historical cosmologists as well. With limited tools and info some came up with great ideas.

Time Line In Cosmology
Google for it

3rd century BCE- Aristarchus of Samos proposes a Sun-centered Universe
2nd century - Ptolemy proposes an Earth-centred Universe, with the Sun and planets revolving around the Earth
c500 onwards - Several astronomers propose a Sun-centered Universe, including Aryabhata, Bhaskara I, Ibn al-Shatir, and Copernicus
1576 - Thomas Digges modifies the Copernican system by removing its outer edge and replacing the edge with a star-filled unbounded space
1584 - Giordano Bruno proposes a non-hierarchical cosmology, wherein the Copernican solar system is not the centre of the universe, but rather, a relatively insignificant star system, amongst an infinite multitude of others
1610 - Johannes Kepler uses the dark night sky to argue for a finite universe
1687 - Sir Isaac Newton's laws describe large-scale motion throughout the universe
1720 - Edmund Halley puts forth an early form of Olbers' paradox
1744 - Jean-Philippe de Cheseaux puts forth an early form of Olbers' paradox
1791 - Erasmus Darwin pens the first description of a cyclical expanding and contracting universe
1826 - Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers puts forth Olbers' paradox
1848 - Edgar Allan Poe offers first correct solution to Olbers' paradox in an essay that also suggests the expansion and collapse of the universe

[edit] 1900-1949

1905 - Albert Einstein publishes the Special Theory of Relativity, positing that space and time are not separate continuums
1915 - Albert Einstein publishes the General Theory of Relativity, showing that an energy density warps spacetime
1917 - Willem de Sitter derives an isotropic static cosmology with a cosmological constant as well as an empty expanding cosmology with a cosmological constant, termed a de Sitter universe
1922 - Vesto Slipher summarizes his findings on the spiral nebulae's systematic redshifts
1922 - Alexander Friedmann finds a solution to the Einstein field equations which suggests a general expansion of space
1927 - Georges Lemaître discusses the creation event of an expanding universe governed by the Einstein field equations
1928 - Howard Percy Robertson briefly mentions that Vesto Slipher's redshift measurements combined with brightness measurements of the same galaxies indicate a redshift-distance relation
1929 - Edwin Hubble demonstrates the linear redshift-distance relation and thus shows the expansion of the universe
1933 - Edward Milne names and formalizes the cosmological principle
1934 - Georges Lemaître interprets the cosmological constant as due to a vacuum energy with an unusual perfect fluid equation of state
1938 - Paul Dirac suggests the large numbers hypothesis, that the gravitational constant may be small because it is decreasing slowly with time
1948 - Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe("in absentia"), and George Gamow examine element synthesis in a rapidly expanding and cooling universe and suggest that the elements were produced by rapid neutron capture
1948 - Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle propose steady state cosmologies based on the perfect cosmological principle
1948 - George Gamow predicts the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation by considering the behavior of primordial radiation in an expanding universe.

[edit] 1950 to 1999

1950 - Fred Hoyle derisively coins the term "Big Bang".
1961 - Robert Dicke argues that carbon-based life can only arise when the gravitational force is small, because this is when burning stars exist; first use of the weak anthropic principle
1965 - Hannes Alfvén proposes the now-discounted concept of ambiplasma to explain baryon asymmetry.
1965 - Martin Rees and Dennis Sciama analyze quasar source count data and discover that the quasar density increases with redshift.
1965 - Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, astronomers at Bell Labs discover the 2.7 K microwave background radiation, which earns them the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics. Robert Dicke, James Peebles, Peter Roll and David Todd Wilkinson interpret it as relic from the big bang.
1966 - Stephen Hawking and George Ellis show that any plausible general relativistic cosmology is singular
1966 - James Peebles shows that the hot Big Bang predicts the correct helium abundance
1967 - Andrei Sakharov presents the requirements for baryogenesis, a baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in the universe
1967 - John Bahcall, Wal Sargent, and Maarten Schmidt measure the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines in 3C191 and thereby show that the fine-structure constant does not vary significantly with time
1968 - Brandon Carter speculates that perhaps the fundamental constants of nature must lie within a restricted range to allow the emergence of life; first use of the strong anthropic principle
1969 - Charles Misner formally presents the Big Bang horizon problem
1969 - Robert Dicke formally presents the Big Bang flatness problem
1973 - Edward Tryon proposes that the universe may be a large scale quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy
1974 - Robert Wagoner, William Fowler, and Fred Hoyle show that the hot Big Bang predicts the correct deuterium and lithium abundances
1976 - Alex Shlyakhter uses samarium ratios from the Oklo prehistoric natural nuclear fission reactor in Gabon to show that some laws of physics have remained unchanged for over two billion years
1977 - Gary Steigman, David Schramm, and James Gunn examine the relation between the primordial helium abundance and number of neutrinos and claim that at most five lepton families can exist.
1981 - Viacheslav Mukhanov and G. Chibisov propose that quantum fluctuations could lead to large scale structure in an inflationary universe
1981 - Alan Guth proposes the inflationary Big Bang universe as a possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems
1990 - Preliminary results from NASA's COBE mission confirm the cosmic microwave background radiation is an isotropic blackbody to an astonishing one part in 105 precision, thus eliminating the possibility of an integrated starlight model proposed for the background by steady state enthusiasts.
1990s - Ground based cosmic microwave background experiments measure the first peak, determine that the universe is geometrically flat.
1998 - Controversial evidence for the fine structure constant varying over the lifetime of the universe is first published.
1998 - Adam Riess, Saul Perlmutter and others discover the cosmic acceleration in observations of Type Ia supernovae providing the first evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant.
1999 - Measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (most notably by the BOOMERanG experiment see Mauskopf et al., 1999, Melchiorri et al., 1999, de Bernardis et al. 2000) provide evidence for oscillations (peaks) in the anisotropy angular spectrum as expected in the standard model of cosmological structure formation. These results indicates that the geometry of the universe is flat. Together with large scale structure data, this provides complementary evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant.

[edit] Since 2000

2003 - NASA's WMAP takes more detailed pictures of the cosmic microwave background radiation than were obtained by the BOOMERanG experiment. The image can be interpreted to indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (within one percent error) and confirm that the Lambda-CDM model and the inflationary theory are correct.

2003- An apparent periodicity in the cosmic microwave background led to the suggestion, by Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Observatoire de Paris and colleagues, that the shape of the Universe is a finite dodecahedron, attached to itself by each pair of opposite faces to form a Poincaré sphere. ("Is the universe a dodecahedron?", article at PhysicsWeb.) During the following year, astronomers searched for more evidence to support this hypothesis but found none.

2006 - The long-awaited three-year WMAP results are released, confirming previous analysis, correcting several points, and including polarization data.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:25 pm

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:15 am

So much for Einstein's proposition about mass.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:41 pm

Nereid wrote:Perhaps an operational definition of "cosmologist" might be helpful.

How far back in history should we look?

What minimal 'theory' component should a candidate cosmologist's work include for serious consideration?

If 'cosmology' is defined as having something to do with the (quantitative, scientific) study of the nature of the universe as a whole, to what extent should we use contemporaneous definitions of 'universe' and 'science' in considering candidates?

Perhaps an operational definition of "cosmologist" might be helpful.
Me tinks that is already a given,

How far back in history should we look?
All the way, , , duh?What minimal 'theory' component should a candidate cosmologist's work include for serious consideration?
Now why would you minimize data input? Most with common sense are capable of determining just what is possible and what is most probable.
If 'cosmology' is defined as having something to do with the (This you can leave out entirely "(quantitative, scientific)") study of the nature of the universe as a whole, (as you said, WHOLE) to what extent should we use contemporaneous definitions of 'universe' and 'science' in considering candidates?

Just what kind of double talk is this? Shameful. It's just a searching and re-searching for the truth. Get over it.

Norval

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 am

That's an interesting list harry.

Do you mind if I ask whether the source was copyright?

Also, is there any particular reason why it seems so heavily focused (biased?), for its pre-16th century coverage, on a tiny minority of civilizations?

If you were to guess, based on this list, as it is, would you say that names such as Hoyle*, Alfvén, and Luminet will disappear within a century or so, from future versions of such a list?

Pace craterchains, to what extent does this list include only those who have done quantitative work (post-16th century)?

Why do you think Arp's name is not anywhere to be found on the list?

*wrt 'steady state' ... in fact, Hoyle is only on this list for reasons other than 'steady state'!

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:22 am

craterchains wrote:
Nereid wrote:Perhaps an operational definition of "cosmologist" might be helpful.

How far back in history should we look?

What minimal 'theory' component should a candidate cosmologist's work include for serious consideration?

If 'cosmology' is defined as having something to do with the (quantitative, scientific) study of the nature of the universe as a whole, to what extent should we use contemporaneous definitions of 'universe' and 'science' in considering candidates?
Perhaps an operational definition of "cosmologist" might be helpful.
Me tinks that is already a given, How far back in history should we look?
All the way, , , duh?What minimal 'theory' component should a candidate cosmologist's work include for serious consideration?
Now why would you minimize data input? Most with common sense are capable of determining just what is possible and what is most probable.
If 'cosmology' is defined as having something to do with the (This you can leave out entirely "(quantitative, scientific)") study of the nature of the universe as a whole, (as you said, WHOLE) to what extent should we use contemporaneous definitions of 'universe' and 'science' in considering candidates?

Just what kind of double talk is this? Shameful. It's just a searching and re-searching for the truth. Get over it.

Norval

May an unbiased reader infer from this, craterchains, that you do not, in any way, distinguish between a scientific study of the universe as a whole and rampant speculation untrammeled by such irrelevancies as quantitative, verified, objective observational and experimental results?

Independently, what do you consider to be reliable, verifiable tests of statements asserting "the truth" to be?

Oh, and I really don't know what "Get over it" means; would you be so kind as to elaborate please?

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:33 am

May an unbiased reader infer from this, craterchains, that you do not, in any way, distinguish between a scientific study of the universe as a whole and rampant speculation untrammeled by such irrelevancies as quantitative, verified, objective observational and experimental results?

Independently, what do you consider to be reliable, verifiable tests of statements asserting "the truth" to be?

Oh, and I really don't know what "Get over it" means; would you be so kind as to elaborate please?

1.

2. Time
3. Lighten up about so called scientists. They seem to be your "gods".

(edited to add)
In the realm of cosmologists, and even that of the true persuit of knowledge, I would have to nominate Charles Fort. A researcher and writer of the early 1900's. His fortitude earned him the knowledge of what took place in our solar system, but not the why.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:34 am

Hello All

Neried is right.
I thought I gave a ref link.

Darn

and also it is an opinion from another link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology

This was posted not as a final histroy or discussion, but as an introduction.
This should not restrict our discussion in any way or form.

We can make our own histroy and put the list together.

Have fun with it.

makc · Post by **makc** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:02 pm

harry wrote:We can make our own histroy

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:33 am

Hello All

smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oops,,,,,,,,,,,,,must have a virus

zeilouz · Post by **zeilouz** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:54 am

What about galeilio?he invented the first telescope for the human kind..~.~

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:09 am

Hello Zeilous

Give us more on Galeleo.

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:43 pm

I would add to the list, Dr. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky (July 1, 1916 – March 3, 1985) a Soviet/Russian astronomer and astrophysicist.