'Big bang' astronomer believed life had been arranged by a super-intelligent civilisation
63
Big Bang Theory is often used as an explanation of the origin of a "natural darwinian evolution" towards life but as this BBC article told us, the originator of the Theory did not agree:
"The English astronomer who coined the term 'Big Bang' to describe an academic theory on the creation of the cosmos, has died at the age of 86.
Despite popularising the theory by giving it a name, Professor Sir Fred Hoyle challenged the belief that the cosmos was caused by a huge explosion 12,000 million years ago.
He advocated the "steady state" theory - that the cosmos had no beginning but new galaxies were formed as others moved apart.
Sir Fred also rejected Darwin's theory of evolution, putting forward the so-called Panspermia Theory, which suggests that life, or the building blocks of life, could be carried to planets by comets or drifting interstellar dust particles.
He believed it had all been arranged by a super-intelligent civilisation who wished to seed our planet.
Sir Fred used this theory as the inspiration for one of his many science-fiction novels, The Black Cloud".
Related articles
- [Videos] The Elegant Universe (about the Super String Theory)
About Einstein's Theory, Quantum Mechanics and the Super String Theory - [Youtube Videos] Are we real ? What is Reality ?
Do we live in a "Computer Matrix" ? - The New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram
about the incompleteness of Darwin Theory - [Science Fiction Film] The 1st Annunaki:
the Ancient Sumerian Gods who created the Human Races through Interbreeding - [Ancient Egyptian/African Civilization] The Dogon Scientific Knowledge Mystery
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
logical thinking says:
2 months ago
I believe there are some aspects of the big bang theory to be true. I believe the universe is ever expanding. So in theory if you reverse the big bang then you come to the natural conclusion that there was one point of origin. A point at which astronomers say the univers was shrinking down to the size of a single atom. I have a problem with that latter part of that theory. Logically it doesn't make much sense. If that were true then all the planets,sun,asteroids ect within the universe would in turn have to shrink in order for it to all fit into the size of a single atom. There is no evidence that the earth or any other planet is growing in size. (example) If you were to take a cherry bomb fire cracker, light it and let it explode then all the particals of that cherry bomb would be expanding but not growing larger in size. Now if you were to reverse that process as in the big bang theory then all the particals would return to their point of origin, but it would still be the size of the original cherry bomb it would not shrink beyond it original size. So how could the universe with all its masses shrink in size to fit into a single atom. So a logical conclusion would be the universe would reverse to a point of origin not the size of an atom rather actually a large mass that exploded and is expanding.