So that was Tom Golds' and Fred Hoyle's objection? Perhaps you have a link to Gold and Hoyle's comments on the subject. (These were the primary opponents of the Big Bang theory.) I bet he's thinking, "...better Gold then [Stephen Jay] Gould" (RIP, btw)
So how did Eddington feel about it?
...and oh, yes, I believe Lord Kelvin had some fascinating stuff on the age of the Earth & therefore by extension, the stars...
Yeah, just stirring the pot. (I can hardly wait until some of the less scientific on these threads start reading Kelvin...)
Lord Kelvin
Charles Darwin
PLEASE NOTE their common facial adornment. ;-) (Tee hee...)
Yeah, just stirring the pot. (I can hardly wait until some of the less scientific on these threads start reading Kelvin...)I've been told two or three times by creationists that Lord Kelvin showed that the earth wasn't old enough for evolution. They used an argument along the lines of "if nuclear fission is keeping the earth warm then where is it? Why aren't we all dying of radioactive poisoning?". Talk about wanting to shout, "GET AN EDUCATION, UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE, *THEN* JOIN THE DEBATE!"