Re: Colbert & Ostrom Talk (fwd)

[Dalmiro Maia du DASOP <dalmiro@mesioq.obspm.fr>]

Stan Friesen wrote:

> Only when they can demonstrate they have some clue as to what they
> are talking about.  In astronomy I will give Hoyle *some* respect,
> but given his continued insistance on a steady-state model even there
> he must be taken with a large grain of salt.
> 

In what concerns cosmology every model must be taken with a grain of
salt. Even big-bang models face severe problems related to the age of
the universe and the invisible mass.

> A good example of this is found in Velikovsky's writings. Historians
> reading his books have been known to say "his astronomy sounds reasonable
> but his history is atrocious", and astronomers have been known to say
> "his history looks substantial but his astronomy is absurd".  Guess
> what? Velikovsky is out to lunch in *both* fields!

Just curious, which astronomers and historians have been known 
to say that? That deserves some references. (And no one that has 
done valid scientific work deserves a comparison with Velikovsky, 
ok Hoyle probably behaved like what someone called a 'paleomoron', 
but Velikovsky? I'm still having problems with his huge group of
fanatics, if any of them knows is being compared to Hoyle... they always 
come up with the Wegener example.)

I think it's time to stop this thread. Hoyle was proven to be wrong and
that's all that really matters, post's like yours and mine add no
information on the subject and are just filling other peoples mailboxes.
I don't remember if anyone as sent the references that refute Hoyle's
arguments, but that's the only post concerning this subject I think
has some place in this list.

Best regards

Dalmiro Maia