What was wrong with Hoyle's steady state theory? Alas Lewis & Barnes

preview_player
Показать описание
What was wrong with Hoyle's steady state theory?

Welcome to Alas Lewis & Barnes, a "conversation" about the universe. Always sciency, sometimes funny, never boring.

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

If we count Occam’s razor against Steady State, it should arguably much more be used against the Big Bang?

We have big problems like
o. The need for Inflation to spread the microwave radiation out to bring it into line with what we observe
o. The need for “dark energy “
o. The need for “dark matter “
o. The apparent appearance of heavy elements in the relatively early Universe
o. The move, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, from maximum entropy the initial state to stupendously low entropy at present.

Vortexengineer
Автор

Listening to these sort of conversations suggests another theory "you go round and round in circles and end up your own arsehole - then you come out again and repeat the process ad infinitum" - this is the "Eternal Rectum Theory"

BernieHolland-wl
Автор

So. How do Hoyle's steady state justification postulates sit with the mysteries of dark energy and dark matter (which seem to be widely accepted, yet aren't understood?) Wasn't Einstein's cosmological constant his 'big mistake', yet now has some currency?

doronron
Автор

If you reorient yourself to think of expansion as galaxy local, driven by intermittent QSO activity in each galaxy over billions of years then you can retain the concept of expansion and redshift from expansion in a steady state universe where galaxies only appear to be moving apart but aren’t in reality.

EmergentUniverse
Автор

I believe that our universe follows the path of irrational, never repeating numbers.

vitalnutrients
Автор

Of course Sir Fred Hoyle's original Steady State theory was later revised when the Cosmic Microwave background became better understood. It is later described as Quasi Steady State. As far as the title of this video is concerned, Sir Fred certainly wasn't wrong, not about this and not about anything else. Of course with the data from modern satellites, Sir Fred might have had to tweak the theory but unfortunately he died. That doesn't mean he was fundamentally wrong. A cosmological theory can only be said to be wrong if the theory requires such magical properties as Dark Energy or Dark Matter without any observational evidence for these things but only the requirements of the theory. Sir Fred didn't introduce magic or creationism into his theories - but the Big bang did. Who's wrong now - observation or creationism?

paulmorgan
Автор

well, the main argument in your inquisition-trial against the steady state theory, one ot the supposed "nails in the coffin" (or flames on the stake) - too many assumptions to maintain the theory - is exactly the argument of burbidge and narlikar (were they mentioned...?!) against the bb-theory... which theory has more 'phantastic' assumptions? like the temporary "inflation of time and space"... - words you can repeat, but - frankly - do you really understand what they are supposed to mean...? (from the stand-point of philosophy it seems just like plain logical non-sense [something can expand IN space and relative! to a constant yard-stick, but not absolute space itself, which would mean: the yard-stick also expands... the same goes for time]) - even if you can construct mathematical models for it that somehow deliver the desired, fitting results...)
not to speak of you just not mentioning alternative interpretations! of red-shift... you thoughtlessly jump to the conclusion of the 'scientific' herd: the universe expands... at least you mention one! alternative explanation of the cmb... is it not utterly plausible that only a tiny, "tired", 'stretched out' part of almost perfectly scattered light-waves arrives here after having travelled through enormous depths of space that is not at all empty, but filled with interacting phenomena - interaction known or possible -, like gas, dust, gravitational lenses or - completely speculative "dark matter" and "dark energy"...?!

BerlinerTourGuide
Автор

When Hebrews Rabbis says God created us due to his desire is same as Buddhism and Hinduism claimed as God’s Loneliness. But they are not stopping there, They say God is deluded himself to think he is God, and they continue to theory of Oscillating universe, when current God’s time is over, the universe will be vanished in a big crunch, And  present God will be demoted as a common soul, Again when the universe come back in a big bang, another soul will be awaken, he feels lonely and speak the Words, everything will manifest, So he too get deluded thinking he is creating new souls, but these souls were in hibernation mode and just waking up, this infinite loop will continue, Therefore God too desperate to become a Buddha to escape the Matrix, Please debunk this false theory as this is the no1 challenge to God, not the Atheism!

fontofgod
Автор

Why is stellar evolution talked about so well seeing as how it changed the early universe to now but for the future universe stellar evolution really isn't thought about. It's just going to die.

FLSGLD
Автор

Atheism made Fred Hoyle incorrect about his steady state theory because no such theory will mean Universe has a starting point. a beginning. "In the beginning, God

junacebedo
join shbcf.ru