Well, like a good little boy, I did my home:work including a key statement published in Nature in 1931, in English no less, as referenced in Wikipedia. It is hard to think that Eliot would have missed it. It's very dry and definitive, so perhaps it didn't inspire Eliot. It is very plain, simple and easy to follow.
It would seem that Georges Lamaitre just wasn't in it for the fame or prizes.
He was a scientist.
Rickard Parker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Peter Montgomery wrote:
>> After forty-odd years of teaching, I find myself tending
>> to agree with Eliot. Still, I can't help wondering what
>> his response to the deduction of the big bang would have been.
>Well, Eliot had 30+ years in which to comment. And, to make things more
>interesting, a Catholic priest seems to be involved.
>Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a
>Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic
>University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the
>expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He
>was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made
>the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he
>published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître
>also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the
>Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. As he
>was a secular priest, he was called Abbé, then, after being made a canon,
>In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding
>model for the universe to explain the observed red shifts of spiral nebulae,
>and forecast the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and
>De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding
>In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif"
>(hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the
>"explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called the Big Bang.