- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
almond13 said:
You must be kidding. A bit of mathematical modelling suggests otherwise.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981CosRe..19...87K
Damned / Rejected Science (Miscellaneous)
- Thread starter almond13
- Start date
You must be kidding. A bit of mathematical modelling suggests otherwise.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981CosRe..19...87K
Hi eberacum,
You say, “This anomaly Newton described is far too small to have anything to do with Venus coming close, and is about a thousand years too late”.
Had you read the work that you so vehemently deny, you would have known that Velikovsky speaks about several close approaches and interactions that involve Earth, Venus and Mars, ranging from 1500BCE to CE (I think about 600 but i can't find the ref' which would be OK for the reference in the previous post).
How can you say that the effect is too small when you don't know how close the interaction was? One of Velikovsky's main points was the repulsion of the like but unequal charges of the opposing planets and this was the reason there was no real collision. In the 1500 catastrophe there were major changes to Earth's orbit, volcanism etc. In later events the effect was less but still recorded in ancient documents.
Having had an almost ringside seat to these events, I can tell you that the original scientific objections were almost all based on false interpretations. There were at the time and to be fair, scientists who objected to the treatment of the man. Today we find almost none and the skeptics – there are dozens of these sites – have rehashed the 'disproved' comments of his past detractors.
The appalling treatment of Velikovsky buy the scientific community is quite amazing in that it was/is the very antithesis of science:
By the vast majority there was absolutely no enquiry about his theory, just taking the word of others and not even reading the book. (not many enquiring minds here)
There was at the time no experimental evidence on which to reject his findings even though it was requested.
The book was banned by academics threatening to boycott the publisher and pseudo-debunked and then passed to another publisher.
There was a witch-hunt type campaign against the man not seen since the inquisition where the sick medieval mind took over to an extent not dreamed possible by men of 'learning'?
People lost their jobs because they gave support.
You say, “This anomaly Newton described is far too small to have anything to do with Venus coming close, and is about a thousand years too late”.
Had you read the work that you so vehemently deny, you would have known that Velikovsky speaks about several close approaches and interactions that involve Earth, Venus and Mars, ranging from 1500BCE to CE (I think about 600 but i can't find the ref' which would be OK for the reference in the previous post).
How can you say that the effect is too small when you don't know how close the interaction was? One of Velikovsky's main points was the repulsion of the like but unequal charges of the opposing planets and this was the reason there was no real collision. In the 1500 catastrophe there were major changes to Earth's orbit, volcanism etc. In later events the effect was less but still recorded in ancient documents.
Having had an almost ringside seat to these events, I can tell you that the original scientific objections were almost all based on false interpretations. There were at the time and to be fair, scientists who objected to the treatment of the man. Today we find almost none and the skeptics – there are dozens of these sites – have rehashed the 'disproved' comments of his past detractors.
The appalling treatment of Velikovsky buy the scientific community is quite amazing in that it was/is the very antithesis of science:
By the vast majority there was absolutely no enquiry about his theory, just taking the word of others and not even reading the book. (not many enquiring minds here)
There was at the time no experimental evidence on which to reject his findings even though it was requested.
The book was banned by academics threatening to boycott the publisher and pseudo-debunked and then passed to another publisher.
There was a witch-hunt type campaign against the man not seen since the inquisition where the sick medieval mind took over to an extent not dreamed possible by men of 'learning'?
People lost their jobs because they gave support.
Hi wembley8
I must be getting even thicker in my old age but I don't know if this reference http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981CosRe..19...87K
refers to mathematical modelling or the link I sent to Timble.
THE YOUTHFUL ATMOSPHERE OF VENUS by Charles Ginenthal
http://www.kronia.com/library/journals/venair.txt
If you are referring to the Timble link then your reference says nothing about the problem outlined:
I must be getting even thicker in my old age but I don't know if this reference http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981CosRe..19...87K
refers to mathematical modelling or the link I sent to Timble.
THE YOUTHFUL ATMOSPHERE OF VENUS by Charles Ginenthal
http://www.kronia.com/library/journals/venair.txt
If you are referring to the Timble link then your reference says nothing about the problem outlined:
Hmm - but the Ginethal article is sourced from http://www.kronia.com/... Make of that what you will...
The problem with VELIKOVSKI is that he doesn't know what the difference is between a planet and a comet. How can we consider seriously a man who professes such outstandish ignorance? His theory is bogus from its very premise. And CO2 doesn't photodissociate so easily, and much of photodissoiated gasses reassembles quickly. Part of O2 assembled with SO2 and H2S to produce H2SO4. Otherwise, Mars' atmosphere would be full of oxygen (unless Mars is a young planet too?). Velikovsky's theories can hardly be described as suppressed science, because thay hardly qualify as science at all. Confusing the issues with true scientific problems, worthy of an attention official science doesn't give them, would only confuse the issues.
On TV today, in National Geographic's, Investigating the Earth's Core, it was said that the magnetic field of Earth is diminishing and that it could disappear and leave earth dead like Mars.
This is typical of the scare tactics proffered by an ailing scientific community to justify their questionable existence.
As I said in a recent past post, the deep hole drilling in Russia proved that the geological mathematical modelling for even a couple of miles beneath the Earth's surface was incorrect.
The same applies to global warming with the usual scare tactics, that the Earth will overheat and melt the poles, flooding major towns and cities. This, they tell us is all down to our collective greed and disregard for our planet. Some of the faithful have suggested mass culling of the population in order to correct the situation. What is not so publicised is the fact that the earth passes through cycles of warm/cold at regular intervals and this is exactly what is happening now. The dreaded melting of Greenland has happened in recorded history with a thriving farming community until temperatures dropped and the land was abandoned. Also amazingly, the most recent warming spell was accompanied by unprecedented increase in wealth, prosperity and commerce in Europe, as records show.
The warming is due – would you believe? - to one of the multiple cycles of the Sun. Amazingly, every planet in the solar system is warming.
The drop in the magnetic field is also a natural and regular event with cycles up and down. The maximum of the present cycle, I am told was at the time of classical Greece and the minimum is now. Nothing unusual.
This is typical of the scare tactics proffered by an ailing scientific community to justify their questionable existence.
As I said in a recent past post, the deep hole drilling in Russia proved that the geological mathematical modelling for even a couple of miles beneath the Earth's surface was incorrect.
The same applies to global warming with the usual scare tactics, that the Earth will overheat and melt the poles, flooding major towns and cities. This, they tell us is all down to our collective greed and disregard for our planet. Some of the faithful have suggested mass culling of the population in order to correct the situation. What is not so publicised is the fact that the earth passes through cycles of warm/cold at regular intervals and this is exactly what is happening now. The dreaded melting of Greenland has happened in recorded history with a thriving farming community until temperatures dropped and the land was abandoned. Also amazingly, the most recent warming spell was accompanied by unprecedented increase in wealth, prosperity and commerce in Europe, as records show.
The warming is due – would you believe? - to one of the multiple cycles of the Sun. Amazingly, every planet in the solar system is warming.
The drop in the magnetic field is also a natural and regular event with cycles up and down. The maximum of the present cycle, I am told was at the time of classical Greece and the minimum is now. Nothing unusual.
I think that the first part of your protest needs to be taken up with the learned gentlemen who wrote the quotes that I mention. You seem to be saying that they are completely wrong in their interpretation of chemistry. You will read that they say that they will not reassemble and that there should be detectable oxygen for instance, in the atmosphere of a multi billion year old planet.Analis said:
What would you call a planet-sized body with the orbit of a comet and what would you call a rocky comet? At least one of the two are known to exist and maybe both. You seem to be suggesting that there are clearly defined demarcation lines with cosmic bodies. I seem to remember the Hubble picture “Birth of Planets” with what are said to be earth sized 'whatever' streaming their tails as they fly apart.
I'm not aware of H2SO4 in Mars atmosphere, but I may be wrong on that one and no I do not think that Mars is young.
You say: “”Velikovsky's theories can hardly be described as suppressed science, because thay hardly qualify as science at all””
There it is again, can you please tell me what does qualify as science?
eburacum
Papo-furado
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,859
I've read it (but a long time ago) and I do remember that he mentions several encounters between Earth, Mars and Venus. I also remember posting a link to six rock-solid disproofs of Velikovsky, plus another (the constancy of the Moon's orbit). They are all laid out in the Velikovsky thread but I'll re-iterate them if I must.almond13 said:
Well, that is exactly my point! Velikovsky gave no quantifiable evidence as to how close these encounters were; he gave no indication of the amount of energy required to divert the various planets he discussed (he couldn't, because he didn't have a clue). A theory where the proponent has no single clue as to the magnitude of the forces concerned is not a theory, it is a fairy tale.
An interesting comment on the peer review process.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issue ... omment.asp
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issue ... omment.asp
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
almond13 said:
I don't beleive anyone - at least, not a maintstream scientist -- actually said that. As we know, the Earth goes through frequent pole reverals (during which the field strngth drops dramsatically) without great damage.
Unless you happen to have a source.
almond13 said:
Of course, that sounds just like UN policy. No, I don't think there's much poitn continuing the conversation.
Timble2
Imaginary Person
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,048
- Location
- In a Liminal Zone
By the way Almond my last post went astray, but in essence it said about your paper that it's outdated, incomplete and the model is wrong because it's doesn't take a lot of factors into account.
You won't get much free oxygen in the absence of a biosphere, because it's too reactive.
It doesn't support Veliskowsky, because it doesn't explain the missing hydrocarbons, the ones he predicted would be there.
You won't get much free oxygen in the absence of a biosphere, because it's too reactive.
It doesn't support Veliskowsky, because it doesn't explain the missing hydrocarbons, the ones he predicted would be there.
wembley8, you really do have me confused now. There is no mention of the missing O2 or O3 which for eburacum's sake rises to the upper atmosphere on earth and does not mix with the air. Wind speeds are quite low in the lower atmophere of Venus and less mixing than earth is presumed. If it behaves in a similar way on Venus it would be detected in spite of the “reducing reactive' environment.
“”In fact, O2 has not been detected even at
I ppm [part per million] level. Due to low abundance of O2 and 03
[ozone which absorbs ultraviolet radiation] solar ultraviolet of
sufficient energy to photolyse C02 penetrates down to 65 km [or 39
miles above the surface] of Venus””.
eberacum said:
“”If they believe that they are wrong; oxygen is far too reactive to remain in the atmosphere of a planet with a reducing surface. And Venus's superotating atmosphere mixes the layers far too well to maintain a high level oxygen layer””.
As for mathematical models, I seem to remember a model for the earth's atmosphere to improve weather forecasting – that did not work and so why should i be impressed by one for Venus several million miles away?
Velikovsky's account of past catastrophes is an historical text and few historians give quantifiable evidence. This tactic of expecting him to be all things to all men is not new. The forces involved are questionable as you can see from the last post. A complete knowledge of astrophysics is definitely not available to physics as is shown by the Pioneer Anomaly for example.
What you seem to me to be saying is that science cannot be done by any other means than that laid down by establishment science. I tend to find this a little inhibiting and more disturbing, authoritarian. Astronomy has been carried out accurately for literally thousands of years with no help from modern science and you seem to be denying alternative method. For example the Mayan Calender is more accurate than the western and their astronomy was outstanding.
Is it not conceivable to arrive at conclusions by alternative means? Velikovsky gave huge amounts of data, described by a contemporary scientist as needing years of work to check sources. Vel' then went on to make predictions that were verified. He also agreed to face his critics in debate and in most cases was declined. I'm still waiting for the “Vague” or at least a link.
Hi Timble2Timble2 said:
I think that I've dealt with most of this in the previous but one post. I'm sure that you will let me know if I have not.
As for the hydrocarbons: I did answer your post and I was not aware that it had gone. I said that I didn't know what had happened to them, but would look at the problem. Anyway, one out of - how many? - is not bad.
almond13: "Can you please tell me what does qualify as science?"
VELIKOVSKY's theory ignores all of cosmomlogy, physics. By that, I mean it ignores general relativity as well as Newtonian physics. As for a rocky celestial body with the size of a planet, it would be a planet, not a comet. Such excentric planets may have existed in the first stages of solar system evolution. When it became later more stabilized, there was no room for them. And there is no trace left. So why suppose the existence of something we have no reason to believe have existed at all? That's why I don't call Velikosky theory scientific, because it relies on nothing. Just one thing, relating to its curious rotation: it is better explained by a complete tilting of its rotation axis. It would explain its slowness too, due to inertia. Venus has no moon to prevent huge variations in its rotation axis.
"I'm not aware of H2SO4 in Mars atmosphere, but I may be wrong on that one and no I do not think that Mars is young."
The point was not on the absence of H2SO4, but on the absence of O2/O3. It contradicts the core of their theory, as Mars atmosphere is mainly CO2. So should be young according to their predictions
As for the problem of magnetic pole reversal, it is not completely true that no one said they caused catastrophs. Some paleontologists saw them as a possible cause to mass extinctions. But it is now dismissed, as no link could be established (that's the way science works, maybe it comes as a surprise to you...).
Problem of climate change: as with evolution, you're on the same side as the creationnists. But the Sun is constant since the end of the Mindel and Maunder minimum. The increase in temperature from those last decades is not linked to its variations. And the current change is much faster than previous ones. It is much more important than the medieval Small Optimum. And yes, it could lead to a number of catastrophes (see the recent Atlantis thread for examples). Well, it is probably unavoidable that such occurences will happen.
VELIKOVSKY's theory ignores all of cosmomlogy, physics. By that, I mean it ignores general relativity as well as Newtonian physics. As for a rocky celestial body with the size of a planet, it would be a planet, not a comet. Such excentric planets may have existed in the first stages of solar system evolution. When it became later more stabilized, there was no room for them. And there is no trace left. So why suppose the existence of something we have no reason to believe have existed at all? That's why I don't call Velikosky theory scientific, because it relies on nothing. Just one thing, relating to its curious rotation: it is better explained by a complete tilting of its rotation axis. It would explain its slowness too, due to inertia. Venus has no moon to prevent huge variations in its rotation axis.
"I'm not aware of H2SO4 in Mars atmosphere, but I may be wrong on that one and no I do not think that Mars is young."
The point was not on the absence of H2SO4, but on the absence of O2/O3. It contradicts the core of their theory, as Mars atmosphere is mainly CO2. So should be young according to their predictions
As for the problem of magnetic pole reversal, it is not completely true that no one said they caused catastrophs. Some paleontologists saw them as a possible cause to mass extinctions. But it is now dismissed, as no link could be established (that's the way science works, maybe it comes as a surprise to you...).
Problem of climate change: as with evolution, you're on the same side as the creationnists. But the Sun is constant since the end of the Mindel and Maunder minimum. The increase in temperature from those last decades is not linked to its variations. And the current change is much faster than previous ones. It is much more important than the medieval Small Optimum. And yes, it could lead to a number of catastrophes (see the recent Atlantis thread for examples). Well, it is probably unavoidable that such occurences will happen.
Hi again Analis
I hope that you will forgive me, but I have a problem with almost every sentence:
I asked,"Can you please tell me what does qualify as science?" and you continue with what you consider to be not science. This is not an answer.
You continue, ”By that, I mean it ignores general relativity as well as Newtonian physics”.
I doubt that Newton or Einstein ever thought that their ideas would completely stop any progress and be fixed in stone. They were innovators themselves, I doubt that they would have discouraged others from the same route.
And again, “As for a rocky celestial body with the size of a planet, it would be a planet, not a comet”.
So you are saying yes there are demarcation lines? What of the rocky asteroids in the solar system that are believed to have once been comets? Is this a continuation of the insistance that meteorites need to have a definite predetermined composition to be meteorites or are said to have been on the ground all the time? This is one small step from the “There are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks don't fall from the sky” stagnation.
You continue,”When it became later more stabilized, (the solar system) there was no room for them” (planet sized comets).
The formation of the solar system is conjecture and there is no concrete, tangible proof that it formed per consensus conjecture. What you are talking about is convenience and not hard fact and this should, wherever possible be stated as such. It's not a crime to say “I'm unsure”. In fact you say, “So why suppose the existence of something we have no reason to believe have existed at all”? This is selective reasoning based on the selective reasoning of consensus science.
You say, “The point was not on the absence of H2SO4, but on the absence of O2/O3. It contradicts the core of their theory, as Mars atmosphere is mainly CO2”.
Here, you are not contradicting Velikovsky's theory or even Ginenthal, but the opinion of scientists who have done studies independent of and with reference to, the atmosphere of Venus alone.
U. von Zahn, et al., "The Atmosphere of Venus," edited by D.M. Hunten, L. Colin. T. M. Donahue and V. I. Marov (University of Arizona
1983). p. 133.
You say, “But it is now dismissed (magnetic reversal), as no link could be established (that's the way science works, maybe it comes as a surprise to you...)”.
Again I was quoting a National Geographic TV program screened only yesterday and my point was that scare tactics are common justifications for dodgy science.
The most recent example being the bird flu scare where thousands of people went to GP's for protection against a strain that does not exist and only “may evolve into human form”. The percentage of people world-wide who have contracted the bird strain is so small as to be insignificant and would be ignored were it any other disease. After protecting us from something non-existent, the scientific community will congratulate itself for a job well done.
I hope that you will forgive me, but I have a problem with almost every sentence:
I asked,"Can you please tell me what does qualify as science?" and you continue with what you consider to be not science. This is not an answer.
You continue, ”By that, I mean it ignores general relativity as well as Newtonian physics”.
I doubt that Newton or Einstein ever thought that their ideas would completely stop any progress and be fixed in stone. They were innovators themselves, I doubt that they would have discouraged others from the same route.
And again, “As for a rocky celestial body with the size of a planet, it would be a planet, not a comet”.
So you are saying yes there are demarcation lines? What of the rocky asteroids in the solar system that are believed to have once been comets? Is this a continuation of the insistance that meteorites need to have a definite predetermined composition to be meteorites or are said to have been on the ground all the time? This is one small step from the “There are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks don't fall from the sky” stagnation.
You continue,”When it became later more stabilized, (the solar system) there was no room for them” (planet sized comets).
The formation of the solar system is conjecture and there is no concrete, tangible proof that it formed per consensus conjecture. What you are talking about is convenience and not hard fact and this should, wherever possible be stated as such. It's not a crime to say “I'm unsure”. In fact you say, “So why suppose the existence of something we have no reason to believe have existed at all”? This is selective reasoning based on the selective reasoning of consensus science.
You say, “The point was not on the absence of H2SO4, but on the absence of O2/O3. It contradicts the core of their theory, as Mars atmosphere is mainly CO2”.
Here, you are not contradicting Velikovsky's theory or even Ginenthal, but the opinion of scientists who have done studies independent of and with reference to, the atmosphere of Venus alone.
U. von Zahn, et al., "The Atmosphere of Venus," edited by D.M. Hunten, L. Colin. T. M. Donahue and V. I. Marov (University of Arizona
1983). p. 133.
You say, “But it is now dismissed (magnetic reversal), as no link could be established (that's the way science works, maybe it comes as a surprise to you...)”.
Again I was quoting a National Geographic TV program screened only yesterday and my point was that scare tactics are common justifications for dodgy science.
The most recent example being the bird flu scare where thousands of people went to GP's for protection against a strain that does not exist and only “may evolve into human form”. The percentage of people world-wide who have contracted the bird strain is so small as to be insignificant and would be ignored were it any other disease. After protecting us from something non-existent, the scientific community will congratulate itself for a job well done.
Yes indeed, Hi crunchy5 ,
I always tend to think that individual studies by scientists are pretty good. It's what is done with them and which ones live to see the light of day that's the problem. Science is riddled with taboo subjects that are disregarded on a regular basis with the wave of a hand by Peer review.
Science is policed by scientists who cannot see any further that their indoctrination allows. The huge funding that is supplied by the tax payer who has no say in its spending is decided by scientists. No one else gets a look in.
If I am unhappy about laws or education, I can voice my opinion and be heard, but in the case of science anyone dessenting is called a crank or mad or in a case like that of Velikovsky is attacked and vilified. This, in a democratic society is totally unacceptable.
feen5
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,350
I would like you to explain where all the venusian material is gone. If as velikovsky has said that the earth passed through the tail of venus why have there being no deposits (not one) found in all the drilling on the ice packs or ocean floors.
Venus can be claimed to be earths twin in that it is close to the same size, so how could it have lost all this material when gravity would not allow the loss of so much material from a planetery body of that size. I will concede that Venus has a tail, but sadly for you Almond it is particles of its atmosphere being blown off by the solar wind. Similar tails have been found trailing from earth and mars.
Then there are the radar studies of the Venusian surface showing the Impact craters (not volcanic). The high number of these also shows how old Venus is (far older than if it was formed from Jupiter 3,500 years ago as velikovsky would have you believe.
Velikovsky also stated that Venus did not exist before 1500 BC and that the Hindus and Babylonians never recored Venus. Its strange then Cuneiform texts stretching back 3000 years BC record the star connected with the rising and setting sun. How did he miss that one?
I don't expect you to supply anything like a decent reply to any of these questions because you are doing exactly what you are accusing the rest of us of doing burying our heads in rigid and unbending science. As your quote
shows. Hardly the quote of someone who wants people to open their minds, if he can so willingly write of millions and millions of scientists and the people who believe in science so glibly.
Could you please learn how to use the quote function aswell. Its bad enough getting a headache from reading your posts without having decipher where the quotes end and your replys begin.
Venus can be claimed to be earths twin in that it is close to the same size, so how could it have lost all this material when gravity would not allow the loss of so much material from a planetery body of that size. I will concede that Venus has a tail, but sadly for you Almond it is particles of its atmosphere being blown off by the solar wind. Similar tails have been found trailing from earth and mars.
Then there are the radar studies of the Venusian surface showing the Impact craters (not volcanic). The high number of these also shows how old Venus is (far older than if it was formed from Jupiter 3,500 years ago as velikovsky would have you believe.
Velikovsky also stated that Venus did not exist before 1500 BC and that the Hindus and Babylonians never recored Venus. Its strange then Cuneiform texts stretching back 3000 years BC record the star connected with the rising and setting sun. How did he miss that one?
I don't expect you to supply anything like a decent reply to any of these questions because you are doing exactly what you are accusing the rest of us of doing burying our heads in rigid and unbending science. As your quote
shows. Hardly the quote of someone who wants people to open their minds, if he can so willingly write of millions and millions of scientists and the people who believe in science so glibly.
Could you please learn how to use the quote function aswell. Its bad enough getting a headache from reading your posts without having decipher where the quotes end and your replys begin.
Hi feen, it's always a pleasure to hear from you.
Your first question is: ”I would like you to explain where all the venusian material is gone. If as velikovsky has said that the earth passed through the tail of venus why have there being no deposits (not one) found in all the drilling on the ice packs or ocean floors”.
I take it from this that you are referring to the exchange of atmosphere at the time of the first encounter about 1500BC.Velikovsky uses ancient documents to answer this and they record that black sticky stuff fell from the sky and also that some of this was converted to some form of edible matter by bacterial action or electrical discharge, which also fell from the sky. The simple answer is that it soaked into the ground and we now run our cars on it.
The question jumps out as to why there is no sign of this on Venus. My answer is “I don't know”, but it may have burned away or combined with other gasses. Methane is very common in the solar system and on earth it tends to hide at the ocean bottom – it's a hydrocarbon. So who knows? Velikovsky said that hydrocarbons would be found on Venus and as it is present in all other planets this would not be surprising. We are told, however that it's not there and we have to take the word of those who know.
“Then there are the radar studies of the Venusian surface showing the Impact craters (not volcanic). The high number of these also shows how old Venus is (far older than if it was formed from Jupiter 3,500 years ago as velikovsky would have you believe”.
Yes, there are impact craters and yes there is extensive evidence if volcanism.
The age of planets is based on an assumption. This being that “if” the theory is true, then the most heavy cratering would take place at the birth of the planets and tapering off to what we see today. In the case of Venus (a young planet) it was running wild after it's appearance and may have encountered the Asteroid Belt. Also electrical discharges at encounters with earth and Mars would have caused craters. Read the book feen.
“”Velikovsky also stated that Venus did not exist before 1500 BC and that the Hindus and Babylonians never recorded Venus””.
Velikovsky did not say that Venus did not exist before 1500BC. This is the time of encounter with earth. If you look back at my recent posts you will see that i have given some references for ancient sources and the four planet system. Many translations of old texts have been altered to suit the modern paradigm because they don't make sense when they say that, for example, Venus position in orbit is far away from what it should be. Reading the originals you will find that they agree with Velikovsky's theories as this is the way that he read them.
The ancients were obsessed with planetary positions and not likely to tell stories about them on fear of death.
I apologise about the quotes but I find that on my puter it won't do more than one quote at a time.
Your first question is: ”I would like you to explain where all the venusian material is gone. If as velikovsky has said that the earth passed through the tail of venus why have there being no deposits (not one) found in all the drilling on the ice packs or ocean floors”.
I take it from this that you are referring to the exchange of atmosphere at the time of the first encounter about 1500BC.Velikovsky uses ancient documents to answer this and they record that black sticky stuff fell from the sky and also that some of this was converted to some form of edible matter by bacterial action or electrical discharge, which also fell from the sky. The simple answer is that it soaked into the ground and we now run our cars on it.
The question jumps out as to why there is no sign of this on Venus. My answer is “I don't know”, but it may have burned away or combined with other gasses. Methane is very common in the solar system and on earth it tends to hide at the ocean bottom – it's a hydrocarbon. So who knows? Velikovsky said that hydrocarbons would be found on Venus and as it is present in all other planets this would not be surprising. We are told, however that it's not there and we have to take the word of those who know.
“Then there are the radar studies of the Venusian surface showing the Impact craters (not volcanic). The high number of these also shows how old Venus is (far older than if it was formed from Jupiter 3,500 years ago as velikovsky would have you believe”.
Yes, there are impact craters and yes there is extensive evidence if volcanism.
The age of planets is based on an assumption. This being that “if” the theory is true, then the most heavy cratering would take place at the birth of the planets and tapering off to what we see today. In the case of Venus (a young planet) it was running wild after it's appearance and may have encountered the Asteroid Belt. Also electrical discharges at encounters with earth and Mars would have caused craters. Read the book feen.
“”Velikovsky also stated that Venus did not exist before 1500 BC and that the Hindus and Babylonians never recorded Venus””.
Velikovsky did not say that Venus did not exist before 1500BC. This is the time of encounter with earth. If you look back at my recent posts you will see that i have given some references for ancient sources and the four planet system. Many translations of old texts have been altered to suit the modern paradigm because they don't make sense when they say that, for example, Venus position in orbit is far away from what it should be. Reading the originals you will find that they agree with Velikovsky's theories as this is the way that he read them.
The ancients were obsessed with planetary positions and not likely to tell stories about them on fear of death.
I apologise about the quotes but I find that on my puter it won't do more than one quote at a time.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
almond13 said:
I love the way you fume about Velikovsky's treatment by those closed-minded scientists and then deadpan gems like this.
Erm, any idea how it 'soaked into the ground' given the geology that it ended up in? And what the chemistry might be for making it into something edible?
How it soaked into the ground is simple. The chemical transformation is more difficult.
Recall, that the proto-planet Venus was making close encounters with earth and the Santorini/Thera explosion was one of the consequences. You will find that on and after this period the global incidence of volcanism increased. The earth was in a constant state of upheaval – hence the title of the second book. The liquid hydrocarbon would have easily seeped into the open fissures. What was left on the surface would disappear due to bacterial action like it does at sea after a spill.
Looking for cometary dust in ice cores is not likely to give results as repulsion due to planetary electrical charges would have the same result on dust as it had on the planets. However, the high resistance hydrocarbons, like oil, would not presumably have such a high charge and consequently less repulsion.
The edible something would arise, maybe, through some kind of fermentation.
The following may be interesting to some, a short and very excellent version of the Velikovsky affair by James Hogan:
EXCERPTS FROM CATASTROPHE OF ETHICS -- The Case for Taking Velikovsky Seriously
(From EARLY WORK: THE MAKINGS OF AN ICONOCLAST)
Through all of this, two traits stand out in the treatment of Velikovsky by his detractors. One is repeated admissions, frequently boasts, by his most vehement critics that they hadn't read the material they castigated--as if the touch of it might be somehow unclean and defiling. They just "knew" that he couldn't be right, and that was sufficient. The other was that after solemnly reciting commitment to such scholarly principles as scientific objectivity, fairness, and civility of discourse, they would then go on to immediately violate every one of them. Organized science had tried every tactic of distortion, evasion, misrepresentation, intimidation, vilification, and suppression of evidence to slay the monster that threatened the entire foundation of the collective uniformitarian world view and mind set. http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.p ... &sample=79
eburacum
Papo-furado
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,859
Well this is the biggest impossible thing we have to believe before breakfast. Hydrocarbons don't become edible by fermentation; there are a very few petrophilic bacteria but they are far from edible. This fantasy shows where Velikovsky was really coming from; he wanted to prove the bible story of the Exodus to be factual; he did this by inventing entirely miraculous events like edible petrol.almond13 said:
And Venus's atmosphere seems to be singularly devoid of hydrocarbons, of course.
Almond13: "This is not an answer."
To call an hypothesis as 'scientific' one must deem it as reasonnable and based on a number of premises, not cause unnecessary turmoil. VELIKOVSKY's doest not answer those conditions, it goes against theories established by years of observation with no need, it is unwarranted. No, NEWTON and EINSTEIN never intended to discourage any progress. But this progress should take into account the teachings of their theories, as observation and experimentation confirmed them. By ignoring them, Velikovsky tried a regression, not a progress.
"What of the rocky asteroids in the solar system that are believed to have once been comets?"
I suppose you're speaking of those comets who lost their ice, due to travel close to the Sun? As the definition is based on composition (i.e. comets = more ice, asteroids = more rock) , yes some bodies can evolve from a category to another. Nothing to do with 'There are no rocks in the sky'. But a body almost the size of Earth, with a similar composition, is clearly on the side of rocky planets, with all their characteristics: atmosphere, tectonics etc...
"The opinion of scientists who have done studies independant of and with reference to, the atmosphere of Venus alone."
What I meant was that if their theory were true, it postulates a mecanism which should produce similar results on Mars too, as the conditions are similar. Hence the conclusion that, according to their theory, Mars should be young too.
"Again I was quoting a National Geographic TV program."
Do you mean that a program on National Geographic Channel said there was a danger? If this is the case, this time I would agree with you, this is not very serious. But be careful to the bird flu issue. I studied the genetics of virae. I know that H5N1 does share a number of similarities with the Great flu of 1918.
To call an hypothesis as 'scientific' one must deem it as reasonnable and based on a number of premises, not cause unnecessary turmoil. VELIKOVSKY's doest not answer those conditions, it goes against theories established by years of observation with no need, it is unwarranted. No, NEWTON and EINSTEIN never intended to discourage any progress. But this progress should take into account the teachings of their theories, as observation and experimentation confirmed them. By ignoring them, Velikovsky tried a regression, not a progress.
"What of the rocky asteroids in the solar system that are believed to have once been comets?"
I suppose you're speaking of those comets who lost their ice, due to travel close to the Sun? As the definition is based on composition (i.e. comets = more ice, asteroids = more rock) , yes some bodies can evolve from a category to another. Nothing to do with 'There are no rocks in the sky'. But a body almost the size of Earth, with a similar composition, is clearly on the side of rocky planets, with all their characteristics: atmosphere, tectonics etc...
"The opinion of scientists who have done studies independant of and with reference to, the atmosphere of Venus alone."
What I meant was that if their theory were true, it postulates a mecanism which should produce similar results on Mars too, as the conditions are similar. Hence the conclusion that, according to their theory, Mars should be young too.
"Again I was quoting a National Geographic TV program."
Do you mean that a program on National Geographic Channel said there was a danger? If this is the case, this time I would agree with you, this is not very serious. But be careful to the bird flu issue. I studied the genetics of virae. I know that H5N1 does share a number of similarities with the Great flu of 1918.
feen5
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,350
Seriously is that the best he could come up with, and your defending this?
We have evidence of an object (a tiny fraction of the size of Venus) that hit the earth 65 million years ago scattered all over the world. Ever heard of the KT boundry? And your trying to tell me that an object the size of Venus can pass us, less than 4 thousand years ago, and leave nothing but oil. Would this be the same oil that is in fact created millions of years ago and is in fact made from microscopic plants and animals. Your trying to tell me that it was infact created by Venus?
Well if Venus was born from Jupiter as he believes then it would have to have passed the asteroid belt. This would be the same asteroid belt that is in fact not a populace as one might think. Venus must have had to stop off in the same orbit as the asteroid belt for a while to hoover up that many asteroids to make craters and then continued its way on to earth. I read enough about astronomy to know that passing through the asteroid belt would not even come close to forming that many craters. Its simple Venus was created at the same time as the rest of the solar system hence the reason for the numerous craters.
Yes, yes and yes.
Millions of years old oil is an assumption based on current theory.
There have been other theories by famous scientists to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gol ... _petroleum
Again, Velikovsky did not say that Venus “hit the earth”
""Well if Venus was born from Jupiter as he believes then it would have to have passed the asteroid belt. This would be the same asteroid belt that is in fact not a populace as one might think. Venus must have had to stop off in the same orbit as the asteroid belt for a while to hoover up that many asteroids to make craters and then continued its way on to earth. I read enough about astronomy to know that passing through the asteroid belt would not even come close to forming that many craters. Its simple Venus was created at the same time as the rest of the solar system hence the reason for the numerous craters"".
There are a number of anomalies that would say that Venus is not the same as other planets.
1. The orbit is in four revolution sync' with the earth.
2.Venus gives off more heat than it receives from the sun. This is not unusual for a planet, but in the case of Venus it's something like 10,000 times the earth.
3.Venus was expected to be a sandy desert.
4.The Venera photographs showed non-eroded rocks.
5.No water has been detected on Venus.
You mean like heliocentrism?
“”according to their theory, Mars should be young too””.
They have no theory, they just say that it causes problems with the prevailing one
I know that H5N1 does share a number of similarities with the Great flu of 1918.
I tend to think that all periods of flu pandemics or even “plagues” arrive at a times of great austerity, like 1918.
If you look at this map
http://www.safehaven.com/article-5363.htm
you will see that oil is not distributed evenly throughout the world; most is in the Middle East.
In places where ice cores are taken there is little or none.
As there is little transfer of air across the equatorial boundery the northern ice cores should show dust from the multiple eruptions at the time. I'm not sure what the air contamination would likely be.
“”Hydrocarbons don't become edible by fermentation; there are a very few petrophilic bacteria but they are far from edible. This fantasy shows where Velikovsky was really coming from; he wanted to prove the bible story of the Exodus to be factual; he did this by inventing entirely miraculous events like edible petrol.
And Venus' atmosphere seems to be singularly devoid of hydrocarbons, of course””.
I don't see an insurmountable chemistry problem in hydrocarbon to carbohydrate? All kinds of weird and wonderful things have been made from oil.
Velikovsky never used the term petrol, he used the term petroleum as an alternative to crude oil.