You have provided a good summary of the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity.
I mentioned earlier that Hoyle coined the term Big Bang, not to explain the idea, but to belittle a hypothesis he very much disliked.
I've read at least one of Sir Fred Hoyle's sci-fi novels in the dim and distant past.
October the First is Too Late (1966) rings a bell as it starts off in a Scottish setting.
https://www.fantasticfiction.com/h/fred-hoyle/october-first-is-too-late.htm
October the First is Too Late (1966) rings a bell as it starts off in a Scottish setting.
https://www.fantasticfiction.com/h/fred-hoyle/october-first-is-too-late.htm
I remember that title but I don't think I read it. I did read A For Andromeda, but I'd have to read a synopsis/review to remember what it's about. I read a lot of SF back in college.
It's a while since I have done Integrals, but my Maths teacher noted on my school report: "I am frequently impressed by the conciseness of Steve's Integral solutions." So I ought to be able to comment:
10/10, I'd say:
In fact she has generalised the first integral of 1/x in a rather clever way! I'd guess she ( ...like the assumedly dumb waitress in the famous mathematical joke...) is just about to add a final constant C to complete the punchline. Many people forget the constant.
Apropos certain earlier comments, I'd say Fred Hoyle's Cosmology Theories and Halton Arp's Redshift theories are Woo Science!
These things are usually easy to spot.
Still, everyone is entitled to their opinion in these modern times. And the WORST THING is they have to tell us ALL ABOUT IT! 😀
10/10, I'd say:
In fact she has generalised the first integral of 1/x in a rather clever way! I'd guess she ( ...like the assumedly dumb waitress in the famous mathematical joke...) is just about to add a final constant C to complete the punchline. Many people forget the constant.
Apropos certain earlier comments, I'd say Fred Hoyle's Cosmology Theories and Halton Arp's Redshift theories are Woo Science!
These things are usually easy to spot.
Still, everyone is entitled to their opinion in these modern times. And the WORST THING is they have to tell us ALL ABOUT IT! 😀
Last edited:
A for Andromeda was originally a seven part BBC television drama which was broadcast in 1961.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_for_Andromeda
The serial was the first major role for the actress Julie Christie who played Andromeda.
A copy of the sixth episode, The Face of the Tiger, still survives:
I (almost) feel I should apologize for posting that 3-hour video, especially before seeing the whole thing first. It was mostly about funding and mismanagement of the SSC project. The scientific explanations, while there were some, were few and far between. The scientific discoveries and accomplishments mentioned were, of course, made at other accelerators in the USA and around the world.
It shouldn’t matter where the LHC is located. There are thousands of physicists and engineers working on these challenges at CERN from all over the world - Europeans, Americans, Asians etc. Better to pool resources at one machine since the costs seem to me to be almost exponential as the required energies get higher.
I watched his gravity video. 😉 Looks like the usual problem - knowledge of a number of mathematical transforms if you want to follow the math. Those will have been proved by a mathematician, A pure one. Others use them.
😉 I also thinks he belittles Einstein a bit. Is there anything wrong with his root. I'd say not. Once given is it surprising that others find a different mathematical method that can produce the same result based on Einstein's equation. Could they have done it without that?
His German soldier amused me. Not just any soldier. It's a name that crops up in other areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
eg
https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/jsasian/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2016/03/Schwarzschild-II.pdf
LOL You could always take the Open Universities maths foundation course but not sure about it's current level as that dropped off not longer after I did. It would probably stir up your neurons again. I found it odd. Education in this area usually relates to certain areas to allow it to be used. Pure maths is just the same in as much as it applies to maths only. People may find even the notation is not the same as they are used to. That can even vary in the different fields where maths are used.
LOL It's been a while for me too. Lack of use means things fade.
I think I have read all of them. His other types of books sometimes crop up in 2nd hand bookshops but the type that may have stuff like that from a number of authors appear disappearing. Locally to me anyway.
Always willing to learn, I've looked into the historical record.
Although it is “well known” that Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in a pejorative sense, what is well known is not necessarily correct!
On 28 March 1949 Hoyle gave a talk on his favoured “continual creation” theory to BBC's Third Programme which shortly thereafter was reproduced in The Listener, the widely circulated BBC magazine. He emphasised the contrast between the Steady State theory and “the hypothesis that all matter of the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past”, which he found to be “irrational” and outside science. Less than a year later he gave a series of five broadcasts on the BBC which again were printed in The Listener and also in the form of the best-selling book The Nature of the Universe. With Hoyle's radio lectures of 1949–1950 the term “big bang” made its entry in the cosmological vocabulary.
Was Hoyle's use of the neologism “big bang” intended to be pejorative, as stated by numerous authors?
In an interview in 1989, Hoyle himself said: "I was constantly striving over the radio - where I had no visual aids, nothing except the spoken word - for visual images, and that seemed to be one way of distinguishing between the steady-state and the explosive big bang. And so that was the language I used.” This would suggest that he meant not to disparage the theory but merely to describe it.
In a later interview, he said: "You had to have something vivid. So I thought up ‘the big bang’. Words are like harpoons. Once they go in, they are very hard to pull out.”
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975
"Space" and "time" are infinite - if we understood that they are "concepts". So they already didn't need a "big bang"-)
That's right. In the World of Stupid, all opinions are equally valid. Expertise is just an illusion.
Too true thanks to the media. It's now a household term. When he resigned he made his living by writing books. While active he is known to have made various statement that some might take the wrong way. I believe he wrote some before resigning, 😉 When rather young I ordered one at the library, Turned out to be on relativity.
A more recent harpoon. Black holes. Fit's in nicely with "bent space".
I did happen on one of his popular science books. It's around some where. In terms of steady state he says he can't see why matter can't be created from nothing. He could probably dive of into particle aspects as per the big bang stuff. Seems he calculated how much. It paints a different picture. He's wasn't disrespective about other ideas.
I also found one by Plank. It goes through pre Einstein theory with amazing clarity 🙁 Then the usual happens when he gets to relativity. Put to one side for later. Lent it to some one and think it hasn't come back. It might go a little slower but maths, I've not needed to make much use of that for years,. Especially OU stuff, Most of that was just needed for the OU, Pure maths is about just that not what can be done with it,
;-)
Aside:
“Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein’s theory of relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc², plays some essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a non-relativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly.”
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...=as2&tag=restrdata-20&linkId=RBOZCDBSPTNBWTZO
Aside:
“Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein’s theory of relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc², plays some essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a non-relativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly.”
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...=as2&tag=restrdata-20&linkId=RBOZCDBSPTNBWTZO
