In memory of the late great epicyclist Fred Hoyle, whom I admit, I am greatly biased towards because my brain found the Steady State infinitely more logical than what Hoyle called the Big Bang (which some claim was meant as a perjorative, not merely descriptive) which is Genesis as retold by the Jesuit LeMaitre. Having paid attention for almost half a century now, I heard of the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity in some of the first astronomy texts I read, when cosmology had not achieved academic formal consensus around the pseudo-creationism, and other models, including Alfvans electromagnetic universe, were still part of the subject matter of astrophysics, and even Velikovsky was being proven more accurate than Carl Sagan. The Hoyle–Narlikar theory made predictions that were roughly the same as Einsteins general relativity, but it incorporated Machs Principle, which Einstein had tried but failed to incorporate in his theory. However, it also added an epicycle, the premise that Brahma is still counting out time, adding to the number of hydrogen atoms in the verse at a steady state. As I said, I have paid attention for close to half a century now, and THIS PASSAGE IN QUOTES IS FALSE!!!!! Unfortunately the Hoyle-Narlikar theory failed several tests, including consistency with the microwave background. It was motivated by their belief in the steady state model of the universe. The Hoyle-Norliker, and especially Alfvans predictionw, were closer to the observed value than the big bang theory by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, until the big bang theorists introduced three competing theories based on three different epicycles of their own, each of which was arbitrarily given a value which JUST HAPPENED to yield exactly the right (post-facto) prediction. Related to this, and partially in support of his Steady State theory, Hoyle pointed out, what was been even more dramtically confirmed by the reading of genetic codes, that earth is too young by an order of Magnitude, and the Big Bang verse itself is too young by half, for the basic 90% of life before multicellular forms to arise. This was not a problem for Hoyle, who did not believe Big Bang buncum, so he endorsed the idea of panspermia. Biology has been consistently pushing the age of the verse beyond what astronomy allows, by the way. This is sufficient to give me reasonable doubt that Big Bang Cosmology is correct, and even puts the neo-Darwinian consensus into question., but to continue would take me to Velikovski 202 from Skepticism 101. Ill get to that later. To sum up Hoyle tho, the Noble Laureate Linus Pauling said, In order to have a good idea, have a lot of ideas. Hoyle seems to have done that. youtube/watch?v=LnMt6QYry2U
Posted on: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:59:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015