COSMIC ANCESTRY | Quick Guide | Site Search | 2018 - Replies Index - 2016 | by Brig Klyce | All Rights Reserved

Replies to Cosmic Ancestry, 2017


Dear Brig, thank for bringing Facts and Speculations In Cosmology to the attention of your readers.  I have re-read it since it was published like some people re-read their Bible.  The QSSC of Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, and Arp is the best theory we have to comprehensively explain the universe's present dynamics and composition including its past and future.  QSSC correctly postulates and explains the origin and abundances of the elements, the expansion, the origin and place of quasars, the cosmic acceleration (which you point out), and any number of other observations.  It requires none of the untestable ad hoc initial explosive conditions of an origin-based theory like the Big Bang, whose parameters of a gigantic explosion are set arbitrarily without rational justification to fit the observations-- no test or experiment is possible to prove or support these parameters.  As Fred Hoyle often said, the Big Bang is based on pure faith bordering on religious dogma--it is not a scientifically testable theory.

Hoyle denied that either QSSC theory or theories of life in the universe were deliberately undertaken to support each other.  He said in an interview he did not work that way--he said hat he took on his work in either of the areas as separate problems.  But it appears not requiring a theory for the origin of the physical universe happily squares with not needing an origin of life theory to explain how life on Earth came to be--they are mutually compatible but not premeditated to be so.  This adds to their strengths.

Sincerely, George Nickas | Corpus Christi, TX
Facts and Speculations... is the related news item, posted 25 Mar 2017.

10:46 AM: George, many thanks. (I have re-re-edited the subject posting, for style only.) When I interviewed Sir Fred in 1996, I asked about the congruence between QSSC and panspermia because I thought others could falsely accuse him. Also, at that time, he thought life could originate if there were 10^17 years available. He said that to me then. Perhaps I shoulda included it in the writeup, but it wasn't on the recording, because the tape had run out. Nicola Hoyle, our sound engineer, politely did not interrupt us to alert us. Fred Hoyle Interviewed..., 5 Jul 1996.

PS: you have probably also read A Different Approach to Cosmology: from a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality, by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, April 2000. ... What'sNEW, 20 May 2000.


Dear Dr. Klyce, My name is Julio Padron, and I taking part in the initiative that Ted is leading, where I've seen you are also on board. It was precisely in the exchange of emails that we are having that I had the chance to know about your website. It is very nice and impressive to see all efforts you are presenting in there. In this regard I just wanted to let you note this recently published paper. Best regards, Julio

Are humans a "clothed mass of microbes" engaged in a sort of panspermia? by Julio L. Padròn Velàzquez, doi:10.5779/hypothesis.v14i1.479, Hypothesis, online 12 Dec 2016.

Dr. Julio Padron, PhD | Studio Eutropi, Clinical Pathology and Nutrition | Rome, Italy.


...I think the job of science is to explain what we observe. We do not observe the origin of life. That life originates is an assumption, currently based on the big bang. But if the universe is eternal (or if the big bang theory has a leak) life never has to originate. It is a big step to get this concept. But without it, we still face the complaint that [panspermia simply moves] the origin-of-life problem over the horizon. I would like to turn the tables. If darwinists are so sure that life can originate, let them show how. Until then, it's their problem, and life is not required to originate! ...Best regards, Brig
The RNA World is our webpage about origin-of-life theories.


Brig, I have noticed that Vera Rubin is being described by some, including Mr. Hagerty in the WSJ (panspermia website) as having "found evidence" or having "proved" the existence of dark matter. What she really discovered was the flat rotation curves of galaxies suggesting, but in no way giving 'proof' of such matter. To be sure, the flat rotation curves cannot be explained by ordinary Newtonian mechanics based on visible matter, but this does not necessarily force us to conclude that there is unseen matter in place. Rubin would be in agreement with this. Other plausible ways of understanding the flat rotation curves have been proposed--notably the Milgrom theory of modifying Newtonian physics in environments where gravitational accelerations are very small as they are in galaxy rotation. In fact, astronomers are already placing time limits on further unsuccessful searches for the 'dark matter' before dropping the whole idea and rethinking the problem.

Yours truly, George Nickas, Corpus Christi, TX
Vera Rubin (1928-2016) is the related news item, posted 31 Dec 2016.
COSMIC ANCESTRY | Quick Guide | Site Search | 2018 - Replies Index - 2016 | by Brig Klyce | All Rights Reserved