The Great Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)

[Thoth101]

Any thoughts? Came across this blog article:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/remembering-big-bang-basher-fred-hoyle/

 

Hoyle's mindset is most evident in his views on biology. Since the early 1970's he has argued that the universe is pervaded by viruses, bacteria and other organisms. (Hoyle first broached this possibility in 1957 in The Black Cloud, which remains the best known of his many science fiction novels.) These space-faring microbes supposedly provided the seeds for life on earth and spurred evolution thereafter; natural selection played little or no role in creating the diversity of life. Hoyle has also asserted that epidemics of influenza, whooping cough and other diseases are triggered when the earth passes through clouds of pathogens.

Discussing the biomedical establishment's continued belief in the more conventional, person-to-person mode of disease transmission, Hoyle glowered. "They don't look at those data and say, 'Well, it's wrong,' and stop teaching it. They just go on doping out the same rubbish. And that's why if you go to the hospital and there's something wrong with you, you'll be lucky if they cure it."

 

But if space is swarming with organisms, I asked, why haven't they been detected? Oh, but they probably were, Hoyle assured me. He suspected that U.S. experiments on high-altitude balloons and other platforms turned up evidence of life in space in the 1960's, but officials hushed it up. Why? Perhaps for reasons related to national security, Hoyle suggested, or because the results contradicted received wisdom. "Science today is locked into paradigms," he intoned solemnly. "Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down."

Hoyle emphasized that, contrary to certain reports, he did not believe the AIDS virus came from outer space. It "is such a strange virus I have to believe it's a laboratory product," he said. Was Hoyle implying that the pathogen might have been produced by a biological-warfare program that went awry? "Yes, that's my feeling," he replied.

 

Hoyle also suspected that life and indeed the entire universe must be unfolding according to some cosmic plan. The universe is an "obvious fix," Hoyle said. "There are too many things that look accidental which are not." When I asked if Hoyle thought some supernatural intelligence is guiding things, he nodded gravely. "That's the way I look on God. It is a fix, but how it's being fixed I don't know."

Many of Hoyle's colleagues--and a majority of humanity--share his view that the universe is, must be, a divine conspiracy. Perhaps it is. Who knows? But his assertion that scientists would deliberately suppress evidence of microbes in outer space or of genuine flaws in the expanding universe model reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of his colleagues. Most scientists yearn for such revolutionary discoveries.

 

Will Hoyle’s skepticism toward the big bang ever be vindicated? Will cosmology undergo a paradigm shift that leaves the big bang behind? Probably not. The theory rests on three solid pillars of evidence: the red shift of galaxies, the microwave background and the abundance of light elements, which were supposedly synthesized during our universe’s fiery birth. The big bang also does for cosmology what evolution does for biology: it provides cohesion, meaning, a unifying narrative. That is not to say that the big bang can explain everything, any more than evolutionary theory can. The origin of life remains profoundly mysterious, and so does the origin of the universe. Nor can physics tell us why our universe takes its specific form, which allowed for our existence.

 

[Mutex]

 

But if space is swarming with organisms, I asked, why haven't they been detected? Oh, but they probably were, Hoyle assured me. He suspected that U.S. experiments on high-altitude balloons and other platforms turned up evidence of life in space in the 1960's, but officials hushed it up. Why? Perhaps for reasons related to national security, Hoyle suggested, or because the results contradicted received wisdom.

 

It has been shown that life exists on earth and within our atmosphere where high-altitude balloons go, there is no conspiracy there and nothing is being hidden.

 

However there is NO evidence at all that anything at all that we could consider life to exist anywhere else in the universe, we have detected amino acids and such that are 'building blocks' of life, but that is not the same thing as life. 

 

As far as we know life started on earth and exists only on earth. (there is a statistical possibility that it started and exists elsewhere in the universe, but we have no evidence for that).

 

 

Hoyle also suspected that life and indeed the entire universe must be unfolding according to some cosmic plan. The universe is an "obvious fix," Hoyle said. "There are too many things that look accidental which are not." When I asked if Hoyle thought some supernatural intelligence is guiding things, he nodded gravely. "That's the way I look on God. It is a fix, but how it's being fixed I don't know."

 

Indeed that is speculation, it however does not give credence or authority to that speculation, and there is no evidence that this speculation is correct, so it is just that, speculation with no supporting evidence. 

 

 

Will Hoyle's skepticism toward the big bang ever be vindicated? Will cosmology undergo a paradigm shift that leaves the big bang behind? Probably not. The theory rests on three solid pillars of evidence: the red shift of galaxies, the microwave background and the abundance of light elements, which were supposedly synthesized during our universe’s fiery birth. The big bang also does for cosmology what evolution does for biology: it provides cohesion, meaning, a unifying narrative.

 

Red shift, the CMBR and abundance of light elements, are observations, they are not evidence. You can treat them as evidence and consider that they are evidence of the big bang, they are solid pillars of evidence, but they are not necessarily evidence of the big bang.

 

This is an important point, the scientific method is not used to prove facts, it is about evaluating evidence, if you claim that as evidence of the big bang you need to show that the effects you see (red shift or whatnot) CAN BE FROM NO OTHER POSSIBLE MECHANISM. 

 

That is, you theory has to be able to be falsified, not that it IS falsified, but there needs to be that possibility. So you can only 'prove' the big bang from red shift et al. IF you can show that there is no other possible mechanism for that observed evidence.

 

Turns out that there are many other possible mechanisms for a redshift with distance relationship (Gravitational redshift is the best candidate), that means that Redshift alone is not evidence for the big bang. Same apples with the CMBR and with nucleogenesis, or light element abundance. 

 

CMBR is microwave background because matter radiates energy and the universe is full of background matter, Red shift is the direct result of gravitational shift that is shown (by observation) to have a redshift/distance relations, and we can in a lab turn heavy elements into light elements, and light elements into heavy elements, so there is no reason at all to think that this could not be a natural process occurring in the universe right now. 

 

So not only does the big bang have a falsifying argument, it turn out that the argument for that falsification has a solid grounding in well known, tested and established physics. 

 

So the BB can be falsified, and there are very strong arguments that it is and has been falsified.

 

So I think the universe might of started 13.8 billion years ago, but so far I do not see any solid evidence to indicate that this is the case. 

[Thoth101]

It has been shown that life exists on earth and within our atmosphere where high-altitude balloons go, there is no conspiracy there and nothing is being hidden.

 

However there is NO evidence at all that anything at all that we could consider life to exist anywhere else in the universe, we have detected amino acids and such that are 'building blocks' of life, but that is not the same thing as life. 

 

As far as we know life started on earth and exists only on earth. (there is a statistical possibility that it started and exists elsewhere in the universe, but we have no evidence for that).

 

 

Indeed that is speculation, it however does not give credence or authority to that speculation, and there is no evidence that this speculation is correct, so it is just that, speculation with no supporting evidence. 

 

 

Red shift, the CMBR and abundance of light elements, are observations, they are not evidence. You can treat them as evidence and consider that they are evidence of the big bang, they are solid pillars of evidence, but they are not necessarily evidence of the big bang.

 

This is an important point, the scientific method is not used to prove facts, it is about evaluating evidence, if you claim that as evidence of the big bang you need to show that the effects you see (red shift or whatnot) CAN BE FROM NO OTHER POSSIBLE MECHANISM. 

 

That is, you theory has to be able to be falsified, not that it IS falsified, but there needs to be that possibility. So you can only 'prove' the big bang from red shift et al. IF you can show that there is no other possible mechanism for that observed evidence.

 

Turns out that there are many other possible mechanisms for a redshift with distance relationship (Gravitational redshift is the best candidate), that means that Redshift alone is not evidence for the big bang. Same apples with the CMBR and with nucleogenesis, or light element abundance. 

 

CMBR is microwave background because matter radiates energy and the universe is full of background matter, Red shift is the direct result of gravitational shift that is shown (by observation) to have a redshift/distance relations, and we can in a lab turn heavy elements into light elements, and light elements into heavy elements, so there is no reason at all to think that this could not be a natural process occurring in the universe right now. 

 

So not only does the big bang have a falsifying argument, it turn out that the argument for that falsification has a solid grounding in well known, tested and established physics. 

 

So the BB can be falsified, and there are very strong arguments that it is and has been falsified.

 

So I think the universe might of started 13.8 billion years ago, but so far I do not see any solid evidence to indicate that this is the case. 

Thanks for your interesting input. :smile:

 

Yes and I think that is called  Panspermia. I think he meant back in the 60's and a little later there was a bit of or a cover up and or they didn't exactly have the proof as they do now.

 

Well I am not sure how you take into account remote viewing. But through remote viewing there have been found to be other life in the universe and even on mars about a million years ago.

https://nexusmagazine.com/free-downloads/?v=7516fd43adaa#/categories/ufos-a-the-unexplained

 

Though yes as you say earth could be the only planet with life. But I think the chances of no other life being in this vast universe are infinitely small. It is practically impossible for their not to be any other life in this whole entire universe. For the statistics there is the Drake equation the Fermi Paradox and the Zoo Hypothesis and also the Great Filter . We are just one speck of dust compared to the whole universe. Not to mention their could me multiple universes.

https://www.crystalinks.com/drake_equation.html

 

What do you think of string theory?