In *Astronomy: The Hoyle Story*, John Maddox (Nature 6-6-02) wrote about Fred Hoyle's being ahead of his time and wrote of Hoyle's many accomplishments, in spite of what most of us consider to be his much-contested Steady State theory which had matter being created as the universe expanded.

One of Hoyle's great accomplishments was his theory that molecules' rotational states were caused by molecular clouds being cooled by radiation emission. Hoyle used this in the prediction of other of his many astrophysical ideas.

Hoyle recognized that there was a process of accreting onto red giants which led to a general process which affected everything, from the smallest of the Universe's objects to the enormous ones, such as our own galaxy, the Milky Way (a/k/a The Galaxy).

I think that Hoyle's critics kept muted about their disagreements at this symposium in his honor.

Perhaps he was much maligned because of a few of his theories. Maybe, his memory might change the opinion of the public (although not likely about his theories of the evolution of the universe. I, myself, was never a fan of this theory. But, who am I to determine the value of a theory?

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-06-05 22:58 ]</font>

My favourite Hoyle quote:
"The geocentric paradigm is at least as good as anyone else's. If the Galileo Affair would been held after Einstein published his General Theory, it would have resulted in
an even draw by mathematical and physical necessity!'' For just saying this alone, all Hoyle's sins are forgiven! The universe is not the smallest isolated system, and Hoyle in Heaven now knows with certitude what
exactly is going round what. He has now gone outside the physical universe to an absolute stable reference point, and knows what the true situation is.
That is not possible for us mortals on Earth to do, even theoretically. Until the Day of the Lord, or we pass on, whichever is sooner, we rely on the Biblical report!

I never met Hoyle, but I met his Steady State co-author Tom Gold. They advocate the "perfect" cosmological principal. Gold still has an active web site at Cornell. http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21...%20Gold%20Vita
Both Gold & Hoyle advocate panspermia. Gold is controversial in stating that oil is not a surface fossil fuel, but a natural hydrocarbon that didn't come from the dinosaurs, but rather from a deep hot biosphere. He says that the hydrocarbons are not initially biological, but heated natural hydrocabons from the initial formation of the planets. He's being at least partially vindicated in this.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-06-06 09:30 ]</font>

Gold and Hoyle are/were both brilliant, and enjoy[ed] challenging the scientific mainstream. But they are/were seemingly incapable of admitting being wrong about their pet theories.

For example, Gold may or may not be right about the oil thing. I predict he will never admit it if further discoveries or theoretical work go against him. Hoyle was almost certainly wrong about the steady state, but I don't believe he would have relented no matter how much MAP, etc. might reinforce BB cosmology.

As for the geocentric thing, I don't think Hoyle actually believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, but was rather illustrating a point about certain types of scientific argument. No matter; there is no evidence to support the idea that the Earth is the absolute center of the Universe; physically it is nonsense, on a par with homepathy or astrology.

BTW, Prince, to what "sins" of Hoyle's do you refer, and where do you get the authority to forgive them? Or do you speak directly for the Almighty?

The Michelson-Gale Experiment, the Barr Effect, Varshni's Result and Bouw's super-dense Aether/Firmament theory, weakening of the Homogeneiety Principle, CBR, the Redshift, resonances, etc are lesser evidences that are all open to a Geocentric interpretation. If sts60 really believes in Relativity, he cannot by definition ridicule Geocentricity, as the BA has often reiterated!

Theres a difference between accepting that according to relativity anywhere 'could' be considered the centre, and insisting (without good scientific reason) that somewhere specific 'is'.
I share the ridicule [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


_________________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-06-06 13:30 ]</font>

Here is a link to the original announcement of Hoyle's death by Cardiff University, and a eulogy by Wickramasinghe. http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/fredhoyle.html

I guess MAP refers to Microwave Anisotropy. The BBT predicted anisotropy of 1 part in a 1,000, but it's 1/100,000. This anisotropy is in better agreement with absorption of the background by distant galaxies in a static universe than it is with a big bang.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-06-06 14:37 ]</font>

Oh, sure I can. Relativity tells us, among other things, that there's no "absolute" frame. One can choose an Earth-centered frame, or one centered on the Sun, or on one's own big toe. By what mental gymnastics do you turn this into relativity supporting an absolute frame?

Now as for anything which is "open to a Geocentric interpretation"... do you not understand that some fact which, in isolation, does not flatly contradict an assertion is not necessarily evidence for an assertion?

I am looking out my window at another building. I can't see the parking lot on the far side of the building. I do not, however, list this fact as support for my "theory" that a herd of blue unicorns is grazing on the far side of that building, even though my inability to see the far side is open to a Unicorn interpretation.

Your problem is that you have decided on a particular set of Biblical interpretations, and have decided that everything else must fit with that. You solve the problem of facts disagreeing with your interpretation by simply declaring that they do, and repeating this no matter how often you are corrected. Perhaps you've signed the ICR loyalty pledge yourself?

[Bzzzt] Sorry, that's not how science works. But thanks for playing!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-06 16:31 ]</font>

sts60:

I am in agreement with you. What could I possibly have been thinking about when I noted Sir Fred Hoyle's passing.

Of course, he accomplished a lot. But his cosmology? Well, I do not want to talk about that. I am a big fan of the accelerating universe (and of the Big Bang, which I understand was neither big nor a bang), the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), Dark Matter (DM), Dark Energy (Lambda or Quintessence) and all things related to these marvelous discoveries.

I am not a fan of the Steady State Theory and wrote the original post because there were many other discoveries of Hoyle's which will stand the test of time. Peer review does not love the Steady State Universe. But Fred Hoyle was an accomplished scientist and should be acknowledged for his other important work.

Not being a scientist, I leave cosmology up to peer review.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Hoyle was a genius, a gadfly (gadflies aren't necessarily always right), an SF writer with a wild imagination, and probably a h*** of a lot of fun to get drunk and argue cosmology with.

He won't be forgotten.

I have friends who, when sober, will argue in favor of steady-state ideas. I do not mind the arguments (but they are one-sided because I move away from ad hominem types of situations). The Steady-Staters are missing out on so much by hanging onto something which observation has ruled out long ago.

Some old ideas have come back into fashion (such as Lambda) with the accelerating universe and with dark energy. I do not expect to see Steady State have a similar reincarnation.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.