Re: star gazers

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-17 06:24:53 EST, dalmiro@mesioq.obspm.fr (Dalmiro
Maia du DASOP) writes:

>About Hoyle, he is wrong about archie but he has done important work on
>astronomy. He likes to support strange theories for as he uses to say
>you're wrong 90% of the time but when you get one right everybody 
>notices. The steady universe theory was a valid theory, explaining
>many features that we observe in our universe, though it could not
>explain the 3K background radiation, something the standard big-bang
>model explains very well. It didn't get much suport because there was
>a theory that explained the data better, not because it was awkward.  
>
>

Hoyle's major contribution to science was (in collaboration with Burbidge and
Fowler) the theory of stellar interiors and the nuclear reactions therein,
which fully explained how the stars shine and why, every so often, certain
stars become supernovae. It also explained the origins of chemical elements
heavier than lithium. Fowler received the Nobel in 1983 for some of this
work, but Hoyle (as far as I can recall) never did. Most of their theory is
still considered correct, and it provides the basis for much of today's
stellar astrophysics.