Having read what the other gentlements said about the book. I have not much to say. It pretty much gives a better cosmological model for our Universe than the standart model for it brings commum sense and simple logic back to the field. However, I would like to comment a sentence wrote by the Scientific American editors:

"Seemingly plausible ideas can have subtle flaws, and it takes a collective effort of problem solving to find them out."

I wonder that what is going on with mainstream Science nowadays is even worse than I thought. It look likes they assume that standart models can NOT possible be wrong and that any other models MUST fail in order to keep the standart one.

Plausible ideas are the BEST ideas in Science. Of course it still can have flaws, but as they pointed out, the flaws are often subtle. But in the illogical and nonsensical big-bang model, the flaws are OBVIOUS. Also, if you read this book or "Seeing Red" by Alton Harp or "Dark Matter, missing planets and new comets" by Tom V. Flandern, you will find out (in spite of what the Scientific American are trying to tell you) that in fact the standart model IS durty.

I strongly recommend this book because I have found a logical truth and I'd like you find it by yourself as well: The Universe is infinity in space and time and the so-called Big-Bang actually NEVER happened.

A rare and well balanced scientific discussion of the relative merits of the new Quasi Steady State versus Big Bang concept of the Universe. This book gives the reader a feel for the basis of our understanding of the Universe. A feeling for the vast uncertainties concerning our interpretation of distant objects, such as Quasars.

Please note: This book is for serious students of cosmology. The authors presume the reader has an understanding of general relativity.

Sir Fred Hoyle and fellow authors, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar show why the paradigm debates in modern cosmology ended too soon! Their sweeping analysis includes the early static universe concepts, the Einstein, de Sitter, and Friedmann-Lemaitre relativistic models, the controversy of the classic Steady-State vs. the Big Bang, and the contemporary Big Bang paradigm. As participants, they discuss the controversies over interpretation of the Hubble velocity-distance relation, light element origins, the radio sources and their fabled distributions, the quasars, the cosmic microwave background, and large-scale matter distribution.

They summarize the accumulating evidences for intrinsic-peculiar redshifts, and ejection of compact X-ray and optical sources from active galactic nuclei. The Big Bang is found wanting both in theoretical assumption and observationally. Building on their Quasi-Steady-State cosmology, the authors propose that both observation and scale-invariant gravitational equations require us to consider an ongoing-episodic creation of matter within the universe. . . .

Don't let prevailing theory (or episodic mathematical equations) keep you from reading this important book!

An inspiring read for those interested in the relationship between the "real world" of our everyday life and the more complex questions of our existence. Both authors speak with respect, understanding and courage about life in the past (and next!) century. It was interesting for me, a layperson in matters of both science and religion, to feel a strong connection with such complex thinkers. I appreciate philosophical discussion that doesn't leave your heart cold -this fits the bill nicely.

"Space and Eternal Life" is a profound dialogue between eminent astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe from Sri Lanka and Daisaku Ikeda, a Japanese scholar and president of the worldwide Buddhist organization called Soka Gakkai International. Both are world renowned poets, Mr. Ikeda having even been named a poet laureate of Japan.

In his foreward to the book, Sir Fred Hoyle states, "Many challenging problems face humankind as we approach the dawn of the new century. This book expolores some of these problems.... "

In closing the discussion, Ikeda states, "The advance of astronomy and unfolding of cosmology will expand humanity's awareness so that it encompasses the entire Earth.... "

This book, "Space and Eternal Life" is incredibly diverse in its range. It is essentially a dialogue between Chandra Wickramasinghe, an internationally renowned astronomer, and Daisaku Ikeda, leader of Soka Gakkai International, the world's largest Buddhist organization.

In this dialogue, the two men probe some of the deepest aspects of our existence. They touch on everything from Religion to Near-Death Experiences to Nuclear Weapons to AIDS to the Big Bang Theory and more.

As the dialogue unfolds, both the Buddhist viewpoint and an astronomer's view of the world are expressed, side by side, with interesting comparisons between the two.

While at first sight Buddhist philosophy might seem to lack the advantages of the empirical methodology of science in its exploration of the physical world, Buddhism's treatment of psychology, including the idea of many states of consciousness, appears to be remarkably sophisticated in modern terms.

This book also shows how ancient Buddhist ideas of cosmology are in tune with modern scientific thoeries. Fascinating through and through.

From the flyleaf: "Dr. John West, Cambridge don and private investigator, was present at the trial of an odd duck, R. A. Adcock, who was being most uncooperative in answering questions about a bank robbery. At length, Adcock had made a dash for it from the courtroom -- through a glass window, and what should have been a three-story drop to the street. But suddenly Adcock just wasn't there, and at once a swarm of bees came into the courtroom. Thus begins THE MOLECULE MEN, which takes many fascinating and terrifying turns to it's chilling conclusion. In the second story, THE MONSTER OF LOCH NESS, Tom Cochrane, an independent scientist, determines to find out why the waters of Loch Ness are inexplicably warming up. What was it taht cuased the waters of the loch to pour up into the air like the worst rainstorm any one of the observers had ever seen. What was at the bottom of the loch? These two short novels by a celebrated father-and-son team will hold the interest of the science fiction fan from page one on."

The only brief account, using understandable modern terminology, of what Ptolemy and Copernicus really did. Epicycles are just data anaylsis (Fourier series), they don't imply any underlying theory of mechanics (Mainzer got this wrong!). Copernicus did not prove that the earth moves, he made the equivalent of a coordinate transformation and showed that an earth-centered system and a sun-centered system describe the data with about the same number of epicycles. For the reader who wants to understand the history of ideas of motion, this is the only book aside from Barbour's far more exhaustive treatment.

I first read The Black Cloud in the late seventies and still used to read it every now and then (up to now at least 25 times!). It has a solid story, a very plausible scientific background (I am not a scientist to be able to prove it, but it "feels" right, and that is the most important thing after all, is it not?). There is a romantic plot, suspense, and the ending is not what we might excpect. One can find everything in this novel, except the book itself... It is three years now that my wife dismembered my copy by means of accidentaly letting it fall in a very busy road and since then I was not able to locate another copy although I am looking for it every time I go to a bookstore... But that is another story... Mr. Hoyle has written other novels also, some together with his brother Geoffrey Hoyle. I was able to obtain only The Fifth Planet which, naturally, I do not allow to be taken out of my library. It is a wonder why books of the quality of The Black Cloud are not to be found easily. Perhaps because one must earn quality the hard way?

Delighted to find this work available in hardback; I've got my old Penquin copy from the 60's (it cost less than a buck back then) and it's falling apart, as I read this book once a year whether I need to or not. I first heard of British scientist Fred Hoyle back in my freshman physics class at Wheaton College, Ill, in the early 60's re: his "steady state" theory; Shortly thereafter I came across "The Black Cloud." Hoyle is a terrific writer and brings to bear his expertise as a scientist in producing a novel that is engrossing, with the dialogue delightfully flavored with his subtle British sense of humor. I particulary enjoy the interaction between the dignified 'Astronomer Royal' and the chief character and maverick & rather unstable Professor Kingsly. The book begins with a description of a cold wintry January morning on the prime meridian in England, with the natives huddled around their fireplaces moaning about the weather, and quickly moves to Mt. Palomar above the California orange groves, where an underpaid Norwegian grad assistant finds that certain photographic plates (didn't have CDC's back then) taken of the Orion region of the sky show that an entire circle of stars is blinking on and off when compared with the plate taken somewhat earlier….a condition that shouldn't exist…and the action starts from there….of course the culprit is the "Black Cloud" heading straight for the solar system. I'm a fan of Heinlein, Asimov, Arthur C. Clark, et. al…but I gotta say this is my number one favorite of all time. Anybody who likes sci-fi within the realm of what actually could happen as told by a writer grounded in science…and who's got a flare for SETI will love this book. And the way he writes, I find myself visualizing being right there on the scene., whether at Mt. Palomar, Pasadena, or Nortonstowe out in the English countryside (where they all end up). Always felt it was too bad Hoyle wasn't a more prolific writer of novels....

There's not much to add to the reviews below. Sir Fred Hoyle, scientist and polymath extraordinaire, was also one of our greatest sci-fi novelists, and it is a pity that his SF works are not better known. Anyway, its all here with a brilliant prescience: scientific discovery, political obtrusiveness, nuclear winter, the steady-state universe theory, the unintelligibility of extraterrestial intelligent life, right down to the tragic ending. Any lover of thoughtful SF should read this excellent book.

This is an often-fascinating glimpse into the life of the incomparable Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, panspermicist, sci-fi afficionado, stellar nucleosynthesist and generally mathematician/scientist extraordinaire. I knew of Hoyle's work in stellar nucleosynthesis and steady-state cosmology before, but I came to this book intentionally after reading and thoroughly enjoying his sci-fi novels (especially "The Black Cloud" and "A for Andromeda"). Here, we peer into Hoyle's life as a scientist, beginning with his stubborn truancy in grammar school and continuing with his adolescent chemistry experiments, his work for the British goverment in WWII, his involvement in astronomy and cosmology from the 1950's through the 1970's, and ending with his political duels with stodgy representatives of British institutional science and his critique of Big-Bang theory as sheer metaphysic, indicting all the while fundamentalists of all ilk, Big-bangers and Bible-thumpers alike. His stories are often very funny, and those about Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli (with whom he worked at Cambridge) are truly priceless. However, I always find his prose a bit stilted, and slogging one's way through Hoylistc grammar and obscure British slang can make for some slow, hard reading. Worst of all, several aspects of Hoyle's most interesting and controversial scientific work is completely absent, for example, panspermia (nothing to speak of) and evolutionary genetics (1-2 paragraphs). And despite both the cover photograph and the fact that Hoyle wrote a well-received book on Stonehenge as an ancient observatory, there is not one word about Stonehenge here. What a pity. On the other hand, he does immerse us in his deep distrust of politics and politicians, and even give's us a taste of his surprisingly Vedanta-like spiritual attitude and a kind of Pythagorean wonder at the Universe. The quote in my title is from Hoyle's self-described scientific activity as crab-like, inching foward cautiously over a lifetime. All told, it is a fascinating life-story told by one of the 20th century's greatest scientific iconoclasts.

Of all the stories and anecdotes I use to tell to my friends, many, surprisingly many, were learnt from this charming and wise book. How to buy a car, when to do it, etc., according to the ethics of times harder. Of course Sir Fred is a great astronomer, learned quantum mechanics from Dirac and is as much famous as a science-fiction writer. So, he wrote one of the best books I read in recent years.

I gave 2 stars only because it has a couple of good things, as to deserve something over the least. It tells you to be aware and don't believe everything, and to try different alternatives. Besides, it shows a theory that has been told by other people about the possibility of life arising from space in meteorites. Up to here fine, but... It is not conceivable that Carl Sagan had recommended to read this man (that is why I bought this book)in the demon haunted world, when Hoyle uses any trick to arrange anything to suite his words. He describes in the 3rd chapter how he supposes that the cosmic soup experiment by Ulrey was done, when everybody knos that technical papers show step by step how they were made... there is no need tu make assumptions. Besides, in that same chapter he describes how electricity used to extract hydrogen from water is produced by humans, as the basis to say that urea cannot be produced by inorganic means. The book is so full of such incongruencies to attempt to make us believe his hypothesis that I would reccomend to save time and read something useful.

In this controversial book, Fred Hoyle asserts that life on Earth may originally be of extraterrestrial origin. This isn't as stupid as it sounds. The infrared spectrum of comets & galaxies are surprisingly similar to that obtained from viruses/bacteria found on Earth. Most bacteria on Earth are remarkably resistant to extremes in temperature found in outer space; they will continue to thrive after being exposed to temperatures of only a few degrees above absolute zero. Yet the Earth NEVER gets that cold, and according to the theory of evolution they shouldn't evolve to be this impervious to extremely cold conditions. He attributes the periodic influenza epidemics to the passing of the Earth through the tails of nearby comets in orbit. This is quite a claim!

But Hoyle provides all the convincing scientific evidence necessary to prove his point - there are just the right amount of relevant figures, which reveal all the data that brings him to this conclusion. The style of writing is unpretentious and not overcomplicated, and it flows very well. The proposition is very original, and I doubt you'll find another book like this. Revolutionary.

While most of us assume the truth of Darwinism - and may even have read whole books by exponents like Richard Dawkins - it can be shocking to realize how many gnarly bits there are that we just don't quite understand. For instance: how did some assumed (and so far undiscovered) common ancestor give rise to bears and horses? In theory, random mutations happen all the time, and a tiny percentage of them are beneficial. But if no such mutation yields a new variant that cannot interbreed with the main species, how do new species arise? And if it does, how can the new variant survive unless - by some unbelievable coincidence - another identical mutant of the opposite sex is born at the same time and place?

One of the hallmarks of a great mind is the confidence to ask questions that the rest of us would be ashamed to ask for fear of exposing ourselves to ridicule. This book forcefully argues that today's scientific orthodoxy can be every bit as stifling and irrational as the religious dogmatism of previous centuries. Surely it is wrong that certain opinions simply cannot be held by practising scientists - if they want to keep their jobs and have their papers published, at any rate?

"Our Place in the Cosmos" advances a variety of ideas, all of which are stimulating, although some are more convincing than others. The authors make no bones about the fact that some of their thoughts are speculative - they are only two scientists, backed up up by a small team of researchers, and they have limited time and means. In stark contrast, they claim that the entire community of Darwinian biologists has laboured for 150 years without finding conclusive evidence in the fossil record.

The book's most convincing hypothesis is that the universe is stuffed with microorganisms. The comparison of infrared flux from the galactic centre with that from dry E. coli shows a striking similarity, suggesting the existence of interstellar clouds made up of bacteria - dehydrated of course, but potentially viable when introduced to a suitable ecological niche. It is explained that bacteria can survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, whereas airless bodies like the Moon swat them like bugs on a windshield. There is also evidence to show that respiratory diseases could be spread by such infalling bacteria (and viruses), whose arrival can be synchronized with the passage of comets.

It is impossible to do justice to this thrilling book in a review. If you enjoy scientific thrillers - with the added spice of an apparent conspiracy to ignore the work of misunderstood geniuses - get hold of a copy of "Our Place in the Cosmos". Anyone who enjoyed Fred Hoyle's SF novels - notably "The Black Cloud", "Ossian's Ride" and "A for Andromeda" - will recognize some key themes.

That's right: the very same British astronomer - a retired Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and currently a Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St. John's College in Cambridge and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales - who occasionally challenges the audience of astronomers with daring theories, also writes fiction.

The novel, written in 1966, was set into present time, i.e. 1966. Two colleagues from their common Cambridge times, a composer and a acclaimed particle physicist, meet at Heathrow airport. In a cheerful reunion mood they decide to make one of their student plans come true, and head for a hike in the Scottish Highlands. A pleasant hiking holiday is abruptly interrupted when the physicist learns he has to make an urgent trip to California, since the experiments show an unexpected modulation in the Sun radiation. The composer is invited along, and from there the two characters start an unusual and fantastic journey across the world and - simultaneously - through the time, as the parallel universes suddenly seem to be coexisting side by side, with Britain being in 1966, Western Europe in 1917, North America in mid-eighteenth century, and Greece in the fifth century B.C. But the gap in the time-space is closing... you guessed when.

Very much of its 1966 British zeitgeist. It concerns the unlikely adventures of two friends, one a composer and pianist, the other a Nobel laureate physicist. The prose is glib and rather awkward at times, but something about this book is compelling in an indefinable way. Well, the social and philosophical speculation is intriguing; the glamor of the musician's life is attractive. I first read "October the First is Too Late" at age twelve or thirteen, and it may have helped decide me to take up music professionally (so to speak). Speaking of music, I also recommend George Heussenstamm's "Norton Manual of Music Notation".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is a great pity that Sir Fred Hoyle, scientist, mathematician and polymath extraordinaire, has yet to be recognized as one of our greatest Sci-Fi writers, comparable in importance to HG Wells, AC Clarke, PK Dick and Wm Gibson. Wit and intelligence shine through this brillant story about time out of joint and parallel universes, with the 2 main characters providing an interesting contrast between Apollonian (the scientist) and Dionysian (the musician) approaches to life. (For a professional astronomer, Hoyle has a brilliant feel for music, but I hear he was also an accomplished drummer!) The story jumps times and places, from Periclean Greece to the distant, pessimistic future, with another poignant ending. Should be required reading for true Sci-Fi fans.

Hoyle, one of the most brilliant people to go through Cambridge, may have the delightful range of English character that reaches toward eccentricity in its freedom of thought, but he has never failed to be interesting and deep. I admit it is much easier to fall asleep in one's assumptions than to be genuinely and deservedly puzzled by problems not yet solved or situations that promote embarrassment for the casualness of their treatment by the common imitative herd.

This book is very much in character for Hoyle, and I highly recommend it. Few minds in the twentieth century have provided such a constant challenge to the intelligent as has Hoyle throughout his many books and papers in a long career.

It is often a person outside a great field who sees it the most clear-eyed way and knows where it needs to blush because it has cheated.

- Patrick Gunkel

Hoyle did a wonderful job in this book using mathematics. Unfortunately his initial assumptions are flawed, thus no matter how good the math, the answer is wrong. He seems only vaguely aware that authors such as Fisher, Wright, Haldane, and Kimura have already laid the foundation for this topic and that their conclusions are in complete opposition to his. Hoyle suggests that the real explanation for macroevolution is found in what he calls "genetic storms". In the book he presents two arguments (1) the inadequacy of mutations in natural selection and (2) the necessity of imported material. In both cases he is dead wrong. Biologists have known for decades that most mutations are neutral. This gives natural selection much more room maneuver. Hoyle is also ignorant of the fact that organisms are not designed according to some stringent engineering principles. They carry a lot of extra "genetic baggage" put together with a lot of redundancy and inefficient systems. Exactly what one would expect if they evolved. His second point is that some how genetic material, compatible with life on Earth, comes from space! There is no scientific support for this idea. If we took someone's DNA and sprinkled millions of tons of it over the entire earth, there is no mechanism by which we would expect to see any of it incorporated into our genome. In addition Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium model fits well with the observations in the fossil record. Reading this book has reminded me of that old adage that being an expert in one field does not make you one in another. Hoyle would have done better to label this book as one of his science fiction works.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. This aptly titled book is indeed on the mathematics of evolution. Hard hitting material that places constraints on evolutionary arguments.

First, it is explicit, it takes nothing for granted. Every (or virtually every) assumption, model, and math step is explained. He explains it clearly and completely, rather than just stating his say-so as so many other evolution books do. Based on the text, I was able to re-derive virtually all its math and verify that it is based on his stated models and assumptions. The math techniques are especially valuable for researchers in this field. He gives the clearest explanation of the use of diffusion equations I have found anywhere. Kimura, for example, throws diffusion equations around a lot, but does not explain them nearly as clearly, even in his detailed published papers, which I have read.

Also, Hoyle deals with some highly relevant issues, which other evolution books tend not to do. Evolution books ordinarily try to sell evolution to the public, and to accomplish that they tend to under-discuss the touchy issues. Hoyle's book goes after the touchy central issues unflinchingly. I wish more evolution books were like it. For example, the cost of harmful mutation, and issues like error catastrophe, are almost always avoided or under-discussed in evolutionary genetics books - they assume away this issue, often without even acknowledging it. But it is a key issue and ought be a regular participant in evolutionary discussions. Hoyle approaches it boldly as a centerpiece of his book. Bravo!

Armed with a clear mathematical analysis, Hoyle enters the contentious issue of sexual reproduction, to argue, with compelling strength, that asexual populations have difficulty evolving because they are overwhelmed by harmful mutation. Sexual reproduction provides a way to more readily shed harmful mutations. This argument elsewhere goes by the name of Muller's Ratchet, but Hoyle gives it clear, mathematical armament.

Maynard-Smith (in his Feb. 10 review in Nature) had to press to the very fringes of the book to find much to disagree with. This is noteworthy because he is a leading expert on these very issues of sexual reproduction and the cost of harmful mutation. His review instead faulted the book for not being "new". He missed the point: The book is good because it is clear, correct, and important - more-so than comparable evolution books.

Hoyle discusses his mathematical results in readily understandable terms. The book has many juicy statements that are sure to be quoted in the origins debate. The book's posture is doubtful of Darwinian macroevolution, and for this reason I suspect the book might not be read widely (or promoted) by avid Darwinians. That is unfortunate, because the book has so much to offer, no matter which side of the origins debate one is on.

On the flip-side, Hoyle is mistaken about Haldane's Dilemma. I can (and will in future publications) explain in detail just where his errors occur (there are several, as he takes several lines of argument on this issue - which I admire). Maynard-Smith's review, to his credit, acknowledges that Hoyle's dismissal of this famous evolutionary problem is unconvincing. This is not a serious failing of Hoyle's book however, as the mistakes he made are not uncommon, and there is much confusion about this issue, even in Haldane's original papers. So, I do not fault Hoyle badly on this point.

Hoyle's book touches on eugenics some (which may perhaps raise eyebrows). The book also briefly ties in with his ideas of panspermia. Yet I do not find it improper for him to include such discussion. I would merely say the strength of the book lay in the material I mentioned earlier.

Hoyle is on the right track when he calculates the odds of the DNA needed for a simple cell forming by chance. I go similar numbers for a cell with about 250 genes (a theoretical cell that can reproduce and use food). He calculated the odds to be 1 out of 10 to the 40,000th power! He correctly realized that there was not enough time or material on earth to make it mathematically possible to get even a simple cell by chance - even if you were given whole DNA molecules (thermodynamics rules out large molecules before cells - see TIME'S ARROW by Blum). However to suggest that such cells formed elsewhere in the universe only increases the chances slightly. If you calculated the maximum number of events in the entire univers over the past 20 billion years they would not exceed 10 to the 120th power. (Take the number of atomic vibrations per second - 10 to the 11th max - for every atom in the universe - 10 to the 80th - and multiply that times the number of seconds in 20 billion years and you get about 10 to the 108th events). To make the human (or most any other creature's) genome by random chance mutations is mathematically impossible. To get all my A,T,C,and G's of my DNA code in the order they are in by chance is less than one out of 10 to the billionth power (assuming the Human genome to be about 3.12 billion base pairs, teh odds for each base is 1/4, 1/4 times itself 3 billion times is less than 1 out of 10 to the billionth power). Even if 99% is nonsense it would still be 1 out of 10 to the 10 millionth power - or impossible anywhere in a universe with only 10 to the 108th events. Impossible unless there is intelligence acting. Chance is not intelligent, Natural laws are not intelligent - they cannot produce complex specific information (such as language and DNA see INTELLIGENT DESIGN by Dembski. Natural selection is a law that selects good information by selecting functional traits in reproducing organisms. Natural selection does not PRODUCE the information. Natural Selection explains the survival of the fittest, NOT THE ARRIVAL of the fittest! The information gap between life and non life and between every major goup of creatures on earth is immense and impossible to cross without intelligence. Maybe this intelligence is the same one that caused the Universe for you can't get something from nothing and the cause must equal or exceed the effect, therefore the cause of hte universe must be outside and probably greater than the universe. From the amazing complexity of the laws of nature and the fact that the cause had to choose to make the universe - it is logical to conclude that the cause of the universe is intelligent.Darwin may have hit the nail on the head on the last page of his book ORIGIN OF SPECIES when he attributed the first cells to the Creator's direct act. The calculations Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did are evidence that there may have been much more involvement by the Creator than Darwin thought.