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.)
PS: I didn't know you were that old.
100
That old? I grew up in the 40's and 50's. Is that old?
The big bang theory overthrew the steady state theory gradually as new evidence began to accumulate. At what point was it officially overthrown? I don't think that can be answered. I do remember when I was in high school believing in Hoyle's SS theory. It was the accepted theory. Hubble's redshift was fact for about 30 years but that fact by itself was unable to unseat SS theory.
For me, and a lot of other people, the turning point was 1965 when Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation of the BB for which they won the Nobel Prize.
As to Hoyle's motivation for opposing the BB? I believe it was philosophic in nature. Can't prove it but I do remember reading about some of his comments and quips which led me to that conclusion.
Motives are tricky. They are hidden for the most part. How could a good scientist ever admit to being motivated by anything other then the search for the truth? But they are, or at least they fervently hope their version of the truth wins out. That is why scientists are not immune from the temptation to "cherry pick" data.
You should Google Hoyle's writings and comments and form your own opinion on his motives.
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...)