Immanuel Velikovsky / Worlds in Collision

[Timble2]

Velikovsky was a qualified physician, specialising in pyschiatry. Which makes him as much as amateur on cosmology, astrophysics and ancient history as anyone here, who doesn't have training in one of the specialities.

It's the classic appeal to authority, he's good at (a) therefore he's good at (b). If the boot was on the other foot and Sagan had came out with an off the wall theory about brain function that ignored and misunderstood much of neurophysiology, Velikovsky would have been well placed to pick it apart.

...a friend of Einstein, whom he worked with at one point and asked advice from concerning his theories throughout the latter part of his life.

Einstein -Velikovsky letters

 

[eburacum]

Actually Sagan was well prepared to bullshit his way through neurophysiology. I have a book of his (The Dragons of Eden) which is all about brain function. Another example of someone venturing outside his speciality.
I certainly wouldn't use Dragons of Eden as a neurophysiology textbook, although it is certainly interesting...

 

[almond13]

I notice that you do not add 'friend of Freud' as well. But of course Freud's theories have been largely debunked themselves. I am afraid that being a respected psychologist in the early twentieth century is not really much of an accolade...
Together with his legal training, this background only qualifies him as a supreme bullshitter.

Well hark at her!
I do know something about this subject in fact.
First: He was not a friend of Freud, more of a casual acquaintance. He psychoanalysed Freud, as is the custom among psychologists.
Next: Freud’s theories may have been debunked and replaced by the more scientific methods that reduce patients to numbers, but they are still used in psychiatry because they seem to work. Why don’t you check?
This bad mouthing of the giants of science seems to be reaching epidemic proportions lately. I sometimes wonder if this is due to a deep-seated regret for the direction that science is headed these-days.


""Velikovsky was a qualified physician, specialising in psychiatry. Which makes him as much as amateur on cosmology, astrophysics and ancient history as anyone here, who doesn't have training in one of the specialities. ""

Back to the old chestnuts I see “You don’t have a degree and so we can ignore anything you say” You do realise that Jesus and his disciples never went to theological college I suppose?
If all the past innovators took that attitude we would still be in the Stone Age.

"”It's the classic appeal to authority, he's good at (a) therefore he's good at (b). If the boot was on the other foot and Sagan had came out with an off the wall theory about brain function that ignored and misunderstood much of neurophysiology, Velikovsky would have been well placed to pick it apart.”"

If you read my previous post you will see that Sagan had trouble with his own subject. These circular and self fulfilling arguments don’t cut any ice.

 

[eburacum]

If you read my previous post you will see that Sagan had trouble with his own subject.

Hmm; the 'debunking' of Sagan's ten 'problem's with Velikovsky' seems quite spurious. Sagan didn't make any substantive mistakes, only mistating the escape velocity of Jupiter slightly.
And even that might have good physical reasoning behind it- the escape velocity from a solid planet like the Earth is easy to define as the velocity required to escape from the solid surface, while Jupiter has no solid surface, so the escape velocity has a range of figures depending on where you start from. But then I don't know exactly how wrong his value was in this instance.

 

[almond13]

Notes from Charles Ginenthal:

http://sheol.org/throopw/[email protected]

(I think Ginenthal knows more about this subject then anyone else).

“I cited the following from my book, roughly paraphrased: Carl
Sagan ridiculed Velikovsky for saying that comets can take on
the shapes of different animals through distortion during
interactions with other celestial bodies or electromagnetic
phenomenon.1 Although Sagan ridiculed Velikovsky for suggesting
this, he nevertheless, has a chapter in his own book, Comet,
titled "A Cometary Bestiary," in which he claims that comets do
take on the shapes of animals.2”

(As luck would have it, I have that very book by Sagan).

Taken together, the reticence of the press to expose Sagan's
errors and misrepresentations to the public, and Sagan's ability
to reach millions because of his access to the press and media
compared to that of his critics, creates an environment where
one side, Sagan's, in the Velikovsky debate is, to all intents
and purposes, the only side which is propagated widely to the
public.

After Sagan's talk there were questions from the
floor and Adam Stuart held up my book, Carl Sagan and Immanuel
Velikovsky, and began to discuss the evidence in it. Sagan
would have none of this and had the microphone into which Stuart
was speaking killed, and delivered a statement that scientists
do not take Velikovsky seriously.

Problem I: The Ejection of Venus By Jupiter

Moore tells us that two years after Sagan introduced this
criticism, scientists other than Sagan suggested the fission
theory of planets being born from planets, "which has never been
observed by astronomers [but] is not inconsistent with much that
we know about planetary and cometary physics, namely the
ejection of an object of planetary dimensions from a planet."
And Opik, too, says this concept is not
inconsistent with planetary and cometary physics.””

He (Opik) speaking of the Moon and this is, in fact, the preferred theory today (fission)

Problem II: Repeated Collisions

"The problem here lies in the fact that Sagan considers each
collision as an isolated or haphazard event, thereby ignoring
gravity. In fact, any two celestial bodies, once attracted to
each other, will tend to continue to approach each other
periodically,

And so on……………………………..

 

[eburacum]

Notes from Charles Ginenthal:

http://sheol.org/throopw/[email protected]

(I think Ginenthal knows more about this subject then anyone else).

“I cited the following from my book, roughly paraphrased: Carl
Sagan ridiculed Velikovsky for saying that comets can take on
the shapes of different animals through distortion during
interactions with other celestial bodies or electromagnetic
phenomenon.1 Although Sagan ridiculed Velikovsky for suggesting
this, he nevertheless, has a chapter in his own book, Comet,
titled "A Cometary Bestiary," in which he claims that comets do
take on the shapes of animals.2”

(As luck would have it, I have that very book by Sagan).

The shape of the (presumed) cometary tails was not one of Sagan's Ten Problems; he must have chucked that one in as a bonus. It is a cheap shot by Sagan but not essential to his argument. In fact if the alternate hypothesis by Clube and Napier is correct, then in this case Velikovsky may habe been right, and Sagan wrong. But we are not discussing Clube and Napier's modification of Velikovsky, but rather Sagan's ten arguments.

Problem I: The Ejection of Venus By Jupiter

Moore tells us that two years after Sagan introduced this
criticism, scientists other than Sagan suggested the fission
theory of planets being born from planets, "which has never been
observed by astronomers [but] is not inconsistent with much that
we know about planetary and cometary physics, namely the
ejection of an object of planetary dimensions from a planet."
And Opik, too, says this concept is not
inconsistent with planetary and cometary physics.””

He (Opik) speaking of the Moon and this is, in fact, the preferred theory today (fission)

The current theory of the formation of the Moon, and also of the formation of the Pluto/Charon double planet involves collision. In fact every planet in the solar system is thought to have been formed by a process of collision and accretion. Hooray! Velikovsky was right!
Of course the last of these major collisions occured around 3.8 billion years ago, so they probably were not recorded by ancient astronomers.

One book I have is a astronomy book from the Second World War period, a time when astronomy became widely popular - partly because of the dark skies, and partly because so many military personnel were given crash courses in astronomical navigation. This book describes the then-current paradigm concerning the formation of the solar system; front runner back then was the near-collision hypothesis. This described the close approach of one star to another, pulling out a cigar-shaped tube which became the planets.
This hypothesis has been rejected nowadays in favour of accretion and repeated collisions in the early solar system; if you look at Velikovsky's ideas they involve a lot of 'near collisions' between objects. His ideas of near collision owe a lot to those old (grazing collision) hypotheses that were current back then.
The idea of a near collision has been more or less abandoned nowadays- if something is going to hit -it will hit and make a heck of a mess. No ancient witnesses would survive a solar system which underwent a real-life 'Worlds in Collision' scenario.

Problem II: Repeated Collisions

"The problem here lies in the fact that Sagan considers each
collision as an isolated or haphazard event, thereby ignoring
gravity. In fact, any two celestial bodies, once attracted to
each other, will tend to continue to approach each other
periodically,

The suggestion here is that Sagan has ignored the possibility of a harmonic relationship spontaneously developing between the orbits of the planets of Venus, Earth and Mars. Perhaps someone would like to calculate the odds of that harmonic relationship developing, and then subsequently dissapearing without a trace.
I suspect that the possibility was seen as being so remote that it was not worth calculating-
of course since that time a number of pairs of planets in harmonic orbit have been discovered, (such as the planets at Gliese 876) but they are believed to have existed in that state for billions of years.

And so on……………………………..

The charge is that Velikovsky was unscientific, and I am afraid that charge sticks. He assumed that the eyewitness reports that have been handed down from ancient times were accurate and described real events, then adjusted his cosmology to fit.
This is not a scientific way way to proceed, as it takes no account of the fallibility of the sources he was using.
If his speculations had been bourne out by subsequent observation then he might have had a case; but after sixty years of expensive exploration of the solar system none of his theories can be said to hold any water whatsoever.

 

[eburacum]

On the other hand, using post hoc probability calculations are a questionable practice, as any outcome of chance events generally has quite a low probability of happening. I am reminded of a UFO believer who calculated the chance that a particular Mogul balloon would have landed on the Foster Ranch; of course it was very low. But it had to land somewhere- and it turns out that the probability of it landing at any one location was comparably low. So post hoc probability is a sneaky trick.

 

[almond13]

The idea of a near collision has been more or less abandoned nowadays- if something is going to hit -it will hit and make a heck of a mess. No ancient witnesses would survive a solar system which underwent a real-life 'Worlds in Collision' scenario.............

It seems that you have hit the nail on the head this time. The main point of the book is about the planets - Not – hitting and this is the reason that it is of so much interest today. The failure of science to address the effects of electricity in the universe is nothing short of a scandal. We have magnetic fields throughout the galaxy, let alone the Solar System and as everyone knows; they are created by electric currents. Tesla pointed out over a hundred years ago that the earth has a net charge and so does the sun; this is proven by modern research. Because of this there is now a kind of underground science that is dedicated to research in this area.
The planets did not collide because of the repulsion of like charges.

““Menzel had offered calculations to show that if Velikovsky were right about electromagnetic forces in the solar system, the sun would have to have a surface electric potential of 10 19 (10 raised to 19th power, 10 billion billion) volts - an absolute impossibility, according to the astronomer; but in 1960, V. A. Bailey, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Sydney (Professor Bailey died December 7, 1964, in Switzerland - he was en route to the United states, where he hoped to see experiments carried out in space to test his hypotheses), claimed that the sun is electrically charged, and that it has a surface potential of 10 19 volts -- precisely the value calculated by Menzel. Bailey, at the time his theory was first published, was entirely unaware of Velikovsky's work and of Menzel's repudiation of it.”” source
Ain’t this a gem?

Menzel again.
“”Insight into the frame of mind of the Harvard astronomer at the time he wrote is to be gained by noting his remarks about Velikovsky's score on predictions. In connection with the radio noise of Jupiter, Menzel wrote that, since scientists for the most part do not accept the theory of Worlds in Collision, 'any seeming verification of Velikovsky's prediction is pure chance. ' In regard to the high temperature of Venus, the astronomer argued that '" hot" is only a relative term. For example, liquid air is hot [196 deg below zero, centigrade], relative to liquid helium [269 deg below zero, centigrade]... ' Later in his article Menzel referred to this comparison: 'I have already disposed of the question of the temperature of Venus. “”
He’s a lad isn’t he? He had said in 1955 that the ground temperature of Venus was 55C.
And again.
As for the extent of the earth's magnetic field, Menzel wrote: 'He [Velikovsky] said that it would extend as far as the moon; actually the field suddenly breaks off at a distance of several earth diameters. '


edited by TheQuixote: created hyperlink to stop pagebreak

 

[eburacum]

The failure of science to address the effects of electricity in the universe is nothing short of a scandal. We have magnetic fields throughout the galaxy, let alone the Solar System and as everyone knows; they are created by electric currents. Tesla pointed out over a hundred years ago that the earth has a net charge and so does the sun; this is proven by modern research. Because of this there is now a kind of underground science that is dedicated to research in this area.
The planets did not collide because of the repulsion of like charges.

Yes, the Electric Universe theory is interesting; it doesn't seem to work in practice,as the electric force is far too small- but it is interesting none the less. Electrostatic repulsion would not be strong enough to keep two determined planets apart.

Ahem...
I have my own alternate theory that would make the Velikovsky scenario possible; Quantum Orbital mechanics. In this theory it is entirely possible for a planet to jump from one orbit to another- they do it instantly, with no messy transition or hit and miss recircularisation. Just as in the atom, wher an electron can jump from one orbit to another by absorbing or emitting a photon of a specific energy, so too can a planet instantly change orbit by absorbing or emitting a very high energy cosmic ray. And I do mean high energy- many sextillions of joules worth of energy...
Well, it is a theory, and it explains why these planets can go leaping about the solar system without damage to themselves and while maintaining regular orbits.

 

[eburacum]

The best evidence which proves to any reasonable mind tha neither Venus nor Mars has been anywhere near the Earth in the last few billion years is the orbit of the Moon. If either planet had been anywhere near the Earth the orbit of the Moon would have been disrupted; but the Moon is still there, following the same orbit the Babylonians were familiar with.

There is plenty of geological evidence for the duration of monthly tides in prehistoric times, and this evidence doesn't support the idea of a Moon in a radically different orbit before Mars and Venus came to call.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Then there was the book by Dr Mike Baillie who is a dendrochronologist at The Queen's University, Belfast and what he calls absolute confirmation of the above date. It seems that the trees at the time had little growth for about ten to twelve years, according to the rings.

He gave a set of two talks on this that - he is a good speaker and delivered a good solid convincing case.

From his Wikipedia entry:

Since then, he has devoted much of his attention to uncovering the causes of these global environmental downturns. He believes that impacts from cometary debris may account for most of the downturns, especially the AD 540 event. This hypothesis is supported in work by British cometary astrophysicists, who find that earth was at increased risk of bombardment by cometary debris in the AD 400-600 timeframe.

To provide further support to his cometary debris theory, Dr Baillie has searched the written record and traditions embodied in myths. There he has found evidence that the dates of the environmental downturns listed above are often associated with collapses of civilizations or turning points in history. The AD 540 event, for example, may have been associated with a catastrophe that ushered in the Dark Ages of Europe.

His book, Exodus to Arthur (Batsford, 1999), relates the findings of his tree-ring studies to a series of global environmental traumas over the past 2500 years that may mark events such as the biblical Exodus, the disasters which befell Egypt, collapses of Chinese dynasties, and the onset of the European dark ages. His latest book, The Celtic Gods: Comets in Irish Mythology (2005), co-authored with Patrick McCafferty, focuses on the AD 540 event as recorded in the historical records and myths of Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Baillie

The transcript of the PBS show is worth reading too:

www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/flash/catastrophe1_script.html

No one is talking about Venus though.

---------
I'm moving this over to Earth Mysteries as it seems the more natural home to this.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

There is also a thread on the "535 AD disaster" here:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3897

Worth a merge?

 

[eburacum]

Re: re

have you heard of Robert William Fogel, the

1993 Nobel Laureate? One of the things he's known for is

counterfactual, virtual, or alternate history?

Nope; but I have heard of him now, Thanks.
I was interested in this little gem from Freeman Dyson, who is of course one of my heroes;
Miracle on Probability Street;
Dyson reckons that (because of the Law of Large Numbers) million-to-one miracles should happen to any particular person once a month.

Trouble is most of the time you don't notice them...

 

[eburacum]

There is also a thread on the "535 AD disaster" here:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3897

Worth a merge?

I would say not, unless almond13 thinks it is a good idea (after all, it is his thread).

 

[Timble2]

Well hark at her!
I do know something about this subject in fact.
First: He was not a friend of Freud, more of a casual acquaintance. He psychoanalysed Freud, as is the custom among psychologists.

You said he was that he worked with Einstein, actually, reading the correspondence he was more of a on-off correspondent....

 

[almond13]

The best evidence which proves to any reasonable mind tha neither Venus nor Mars has been anywhere near the Earth in the last few billion years is the orbit of the Moon. If either planet had been anywhere near the Earth the orbit of the Moon would have been disrupted; but the Moon is still there, following the same orbit the Babylonians were familiar with.

There is plenty of geological evidence for the duration of monthly tides in prehistoric times, and this evidence doesn't support the idea of a Moon in a radically different orbit before Mars and Venus came to call.

The following examples are from William R Corliss “The Moon and Planets”

X2 is the one that caught my attention.

Examples
Xl. Radar-derived discrepancies. "Abstract. Precise measurements of the Doppler shift of radar waves reflected from Moon disclose unexpectedly large discrepancies---averaging about 0.6 centimeter per second---between the radial velocities and the predictions based on the Eckert-Brown lunar ephemeris. These residuals have a rapidly changing component corresponding to a relatively large, variable, and unexplained discrepancy in radial acceleration of about 10-4 centimeter per second, per second, in magnitude and about 1 day in period." The authors could not identify any specific cause for these discrepancies. (R1)

X2. "Sudden" perturbations in nongravitational forces. "The parameter [D"], which is a linear combination of the accelerations of the Earth and Moon, can be followed as a function of time with high confidence from about ~~ 700 BCE to the present. From its behavior, we are apparently forced to conclude that ' there was something like a square wave in the non-gravitational forces that began about 700 CE and that lasted until about 1300 CE. During the time of this square wave, the accelerations apparently changed by factors of around 5.
We are seriously lacking in mechanisms to explain the non-gravitational forces. The only mechanism of tidal friction (the 'shallow seas' model) that has been evaluated quantitatively provides only about one fourth of the necessary amount of friction, and it does not provide for much change with time within a period as short as historic times. Forces of non-tidal origin, which are of the same order as the tidal forces, may be due largely to core-mantle interactions. There are no quantitative theories of these interactions; there are only models whose parameters are uncertain within many orders of magnitude. " (R2) CE equals Christian Era.



X4. "Nongravitational" drift of the moon's longitude. "(Ray) Lyttleton's view cannot be dismissed out of hand. The argument starts out from observational evidence that the Moon, as viewed from Earth, seems to be subject to an 'extra' acceleration apart from the expected influence in line with Newton's laws of motion. The result is a drift of the longitude of the Moon compared with Newtonian predictions, amounting to 0. 5 degrees of arc per thousand years, and 3 or 4 degrees for the dates of the oldest ecTip"ses` on re-cord(Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 20, p. 243).

Lyttleton says that calculations based on Newtonian mechanics suggest that a certain eclipse three millenia ago would have been visible only in America. But contemporary records report sightings from Europe. " LttIeton takes these figures as evidence that the earth is slowly shrinking and that its moment of inertia is likewise changing. (R4) In contrast to Lyttleton's view, some astronomers believe the earth is expanding. (WRC) ->)';
References
R1. Smith, Carl R., et al; "Discrepancies
between Radar Data and the Lunar Ephemeris, " Science, 160:876, 1968. (XI)

R2. Newton, R. R. ; "Astronomical Evidence
Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in
the Earth-Moon System, " Astrophysics
and Space Science, 16:179, 1972. (X2) R3. "Evidence for Weakening Gravity, "

Science News, 105:237, 1974. (X3)
R4. "Mountains Come from Earth Shrinkage,"
New Scientist, 84:110, 1979. (X4)
R5. Lyttleton, R. A. , and Fitch, J. P. ; "On
the Apparent Secular Accelerations of the
Moon and the Sun, " The Moon and the the Planets 22:9 1980 (X4)

 

[almond13]

First: He was not a friend of Freud, more of a casual acquaintance. He psychoanalysed Freud, as is the custom among psychologists.

You said he was that he worked with Einstein, actually, reading the correspondence he was more of a on-off correspondent....

Please explain?

 

[almond13]

He gave a set of two talks on this that - he is a good speaker and delivered a good solid convincing case.

Thanks for the info I'll check it out.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

He gave a set of two talks on this that - he is a good speaker and delivered a good solid convincing case.

Thanks for the info I'll check it out.

Yeah he was still getting all the ideas straight (probably why he was giving the lectures to throw out ideas and see what others in the field thought) but it was already looking pretty good. Just on that evidence I'd imagine his books are well worth checking out.

 

[eburacum]

X2. "Sudden" perturbations in nongravitational forces. "The parameter [D"], which is a linear combination of the accelerations of the Earth and Moon, can be followed as a function of time with high confidence from about ~~ 700 BCE to the present. From its behavior, we are apparently forced to conclude that ' there was something like a square wave in the non-gravitational forces that began about 700 CE and that lasted until about 1300 CE. During the time of this square wave, the accelerations apparently changed by factors of around 5.
We are seriously lacking in mechanisms to explain the non-gravitational forces. The only mechanism of tidal friction (the 'shallow seas' model) that has been evaluated quantitatively provides only about one fourth of the necessary amount of friction, and it does not provide for much change with time within a period as short as historic times. Forces of non-tidal origin, which are of the same order as the tidal forces, may be due largely to core-mantle interactions. There are no quantitative theories of these interactions; there are only models whose parameters are uncertain within many orders of magnitude. " (R2) CE equals Christian Era.

That is extremely interesting. Of course it doesn't coincide with the Velikovskian events, but it does show that unusual things are happening to tidal forces.
Just to clarify- the recession of the Moon is affected by tidal friction, and the amount of tidal friction is determined by two main things- the friction of the seas on Earth (which varies because of the shapes of the continents and because of sea level)
and Earth tides, which occur as flexing and deformation of the Earth itself. Earth tides are affected by the internal structure of the Earth and by'core-mantle interactions'; no-one really knows how this works.
Well, I don't, anyway.

 

[bohica9]

Let me get this straight, then:

1) Venus' chemical composition is radically different from Jupiter's. So either it was a seperate body, or formed as part of some kind of very selective chemical dump.
2) Some random (unexplained) event spun Venus away from Jupiter.
3) An incredible chance confluence of events meant that Venus hurtled towards Earth - kind of like bullseyeing a wasp at a hundred miles.
4) It zipped past and stirred things up a bit, but didn't hit. Phew
5) Some other unexplained force slowed Venus down and plonked it into a stable orbit around the sun at a nice, safe distance from Earth.

I call shennanigans on this one

 

[almond13]

1)""Venus' chemical composition is radically different from Jupiter's. So either
it was a separate body, or formed as part of some kind of very selective chemical dump.""

Or it was a satellite, or it was an independent wayward body that was deflected by Jupiter. The chemical composition of the solid core of Jupiter is unknown.
Venus chemical composition is also radically different to that of the earth and this causes problems in the accepted theory of planetary formation.
Venus gives off more heat than it receives from the sun, maybe as much as 15%. It follows that she must have much more radioactive material than earth or that the surface is very hot, due to recent heating – this is unexplained by current theory. You will note that Io is heated by Jupiter’s gravity and electrical discharges and has a surface much the same as Venus.

2) ""Some random (unexplained) event spun Venus away from Jupiter.
3) An incredible chance confluence of events meant that Venus hurtled towards Earth - kind of like bullseyeing a wasp at a hundred miles.
4) It zipped past and stirred things up a bit, but didn't hit. Phew ""

If Jupiter put Venus into a changed orbit its second most powerful attractor would be the sun. In an elliptical solar orbit it would have to cross the earth’s orbit at some point. You see it’s not so amazing after all?

Jupiter gave birth to Uranus and Neptune http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/555473.stm
Catastrophism is making a comeback in science because it has been found impossible to account for the formation of the outer planets.

5) Some other unexplained force slowed Venus down and plonked it into a stable orbit around the sun at a nice, safe distance from Earth.

According to Velikovsky’s theory Venus interacted with both Mars and Venus. The finale seems to have been the earth/moon encounter - Venus is still synchronous with the earth.

None of the above is at odds with the prevailing mainstream theory that a large body struck the earth and put the moon into its present orbit.

 

[Timble2]

The problem with all of this is that Velikovsky puts the "Venus comet" witjin the last few millenia.

Current theories tend towards a rather catastrophic formation of the planets, but as someone else points out around, 3.8 billion years ago.

Or it was a satellite, or it was an independent wayward body that was deflected by Jupiter.

That isn't what Velikovsky said, you seem to be embarking on some revisionism about his theories...

 

[eburacum]

None of the above is at odds with the prevailing mainstream theory that a large body struck the earth and put the moon into its present orbit.

Except of course it is; as I have explained, Venus cannot have come anywhere near the Earth/Moon system without disrupting the orbit of the Moon. The disturbances described in your previous post are trifling adjustments to the Moon's orbit, apprently due to slight movements of mass within the Earth. If Venus had come any where near Earth the Moon would probably have been ejected from the system, or perhaps even drawn into an impact with Venus or Earth.

And as for the circular nature of Venus's orbit; there is no conceivable set of interactions between Earth, Mars and Venus which could have led to them all falling together into stable, near circular orbits. None whatsoever, nada, zip.

This is why Velikovsky makes my blood boil; he did not do any maths at all to show how these interactions are supposed to have occured. If you try to do cosmology without doing maths, you are not doing science, you are just expressing an opinion.

And Velikovsky's opinion has been disproved a thousand times.

 

[almond13]

Hi eburacum
Nice to hear from you again – this is fun - I’ve not done any Velikovsky for years.

““And Velikovsky's opinion has been disproved a thousand times.””

Who is it that disproved his opinion – some references please?
Not Sagan and not Menzel, they had your boiling blood problem and were not able to think straight.

I see that we seem to be talking about who is right and wrong.
What Velikovsky did was to set the baseline for his celestial mechanics on the psychology of ancient man. He then went on to construct his own mechanics from scratch. This it seems is wrong because he had no qualifications and as such failed to supply the maths. I think that they call it multidisciplinary, also frowned on.

I’m sure that someone has a computer simulation of the moon being fissioned from the earth and it contains all the maths that make scientists so happy these days. I am also sure that a simulation can be made to show that you are right and the Venus scenario is rubbish. But these simulations are not analogues of reality; they are dependant on the prevailing flavour-of-the-month at the time. This is the reason physics is in such a mess and I refer you to http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... 524911.600 “Thirteen things that do not make sense”, New Scientist.
However, some one did do a simulation of the very thing that you deny - Gordon Atwater, who was chairman and curator of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City. used his planetarium to show what happened and was told to clear his desk.

“”If you try to do cosmology without doing maths, you are not doing science; you are just expressing an opinion.””

You are assuming that science plus maths is the font of all wisdom and that’s the reason I’m writing this thread, because I don’t.

“”Except of course it is, as I have explained, Venus cannot have come anywhere near the Earth/Moon system without disrupting the orbit of the Moon.””

We have already been here; the theories that you use do not contain the electrical element that is the heart of the book, and without reference to this you cannot make this statement. Remember, that the book is challenging the conventional theory on the grounds that it is inadequate.

 

[almond13]

Hi Timble2, thanks for the post and for giving me some brain exercises. I’ve not had much since they kicked me out of my job.

””That isn't what Velikovsky said, you seem to be embarking on some revisionism about his theories...””

In my dreams.
I must admit that I haven’t read the book for years, but as I recall I did qualify this statement by saying what he did say in a previous post. “From the head of Jupiter” as per the ancient quote.

“”The problem with all of this is that Velikovsky puts the "Venus comet" within the last few millenia.

Current theories tend towards a rather catastrophic formation of the planets, but as someone else points out around, 3.8 billion years ago. “”
This is true, but I think that you will find that the surface of Venus is not that old.

 

[eburacum]

Perhaps we can discount Sagan's calculation of the energy required to lift Venus out of Jupiter- which if you remember I did as well and came to the same conclusions. This is only possible because Velikovsky did not give an exact explanation as 'coming from the head of Jupiter' means.

Also, to be generous, we can discount the post-hoc probability argument, as the orbits may not have been stochastic; but I doubt that this is really relevant. A different and very complex calulation is required to se exactly how Venus Mars and the Earth could have interacted in order to produce both the presumed harmonic orbits (which lasted for about six hundred years) and then morphed into the present orbits.

But the other arguments of Sagan still stand;

Problem 3: The Earth’s rotation. Velikovsky asserted that the Earth’s rotation changed dramatically about 3000 years ago; in his preferred scenario it actually stopped, then began rotating again in the opposite direction. Sagan raised many valid objections to the idea that tidal or electromagnetic forces could have stopped the Earth’s rotation, let alone start it up again. These are among the principal flaws in Velikovsky’s scenario.

Problem 4: Terrestrial geology and lunar craters. In Velikovsky’s theory, the Earth suffered extreme geological disruption from the close passes of Venus and Mars. Sagan noted many contradictions between Velikovsky’s scenario and the geological record. There was not a general eruption of terrestrial volcanoes a few thousand years ago, mountains were not thrown up, and the lunar surface was not melted.

Problem 5: Chemistry and biology of the terrestrial planets. Sagan pointed out that Venus’s oxidizing chemistry is inconsistent with its supposed Jovian origin and noted many other problems in Velikovsky’s chemistry, such as the composition of the martian polar caps. Velikovsky responded by quoting old astronomical authorities in support, but that is beside the point, since these references had since been proved wrong.

Problem 6: Manna. Velikovsky concluded that manna (edible carbohydrates) fell on the Earth from Venus, perhaps manufactured by microorganisms out of the hydrocarbons of the comet’s tail. Sagan set up a strawman in which the Venus-comet shed manna over the entire inner solar system, and he used a ROM calculation to show that the quantity of manna exceeded the entire mass of the Earth—a reductio ad absurdum. The exercise doesn’t prove much, since Velikovsky never postulated a model to explain the production of manna, but it went over well with audiences and Sagan, like Velikovsky, was a showman.

Problem 7: The clouds of Venus. Sagan, who was one of the world’s experts on the atmosphere of Venus, effectively demonstrated that Velikovsky’s ideas on this subject were completely at odds with the facts, concluding “Velikovsky’s idea that the clouds of Venus are composed of hydrocarbons or carbohydrates is neither original or correct.” Velikovsky’s reply stressed that hydrocarbon clouds had been suggested by others, but again this is beside the point—by 1974 we knew the clouds were sulfuric acid, although Velikovsky could not accept that fact.

Problem 8: The temperature of Venus. Again Sagan was on solid ground, speaking as one of the originators of the greenhouse model for the atmosphere of Venus. (30) Velikovsky categorically rejected the greenhouse model as “contradicting the second law of thermodynamics” (31) and apparently believed it was a fabrication designed solely to repudiate his theory. He also continued to assert, in contradiction to the astronomical data, that Venus emitted more energy than it absorbed from the Sun. There was no contest here, with all the facts on Sagan’s side. Unfortunately, Sagan added a quantitative appendix on the heating of Venus during a close passage by the Sun that makes no sense to me and has been widely criticized, undercutting his temperature argument.

Problem 9: The craters of Venus. Sagan noted that the presence of craters on Venus (recently discovered by cloud-penetrating radar) contradicted the claimed youth of Venus. This is at best a weak uniformitarian sort of argument, based on an assumption of roughly constant impact rates to form the craters. However, Velikovsky thought the craters resulted from recent interplanetary electrical discharges and did not accept the idea of widespread impact cratering in the planetary system. Neither perspective is very edifying.

Problem 10: The circularization of the orbit of Venus and nongravitational forces in the solar system. Sagan pointed out that there is no evidence that electromagnetic forces play any role in planetary dynamics, and that even if such other forces were at work it would be extremely difficult to change an elongated orbit into a circle (and Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet). These are sound arguments, and neither Velikovsky nor his supporters provided a coherent theory to rationalize the planetary motions that were central to his theory.

The last one is the most important.

And the final nail in the coffin is the Earth/Moon Argument, which I have described and has been elaborated upon by Phil Plaitt, the Bad Astronomer. No matter what unconventional physics you use, you can't have Venus near the Earth without disturbing the Moon.

(Well, I say that; My Quantum Orbital theory might work, but that is just an opinion, not science).

 

[almond13]

As I mentioned in a previous post, the human race seems to have an inbuilt constraint against progress past a certain point. Science, like everything else suffers from this problem. What should be a process of continuous improvement has become a continuous campaign to block new ideas.
Science was originally intended to help us solve the problems of nature – to subdue it. The meaning of life was left to religion. In its need to fill the void science has usurped the role of religion and has a sad Humanist credo that says we are all here by accident and our ancestors are beasts and the cosmos will end with a heat death and its all pretty pointless really. Failed!
Any new attempt at revision is judged against what already exists and always found wanting on the grounds that it’s unscientific. It’s from this background that skepticism (with a K) arose and now it’s hard to tell one from the other.

Science reached its cul-de-sac in the first part of the last century and has been floundering ever since. To counteract this lack of innovation it has been building defences to guard what it has and any threat is blasted out of the water. A typical case in point is the cold fusion affair and the perceived need by academics to falsify results. There are many such examples.

Now there are people – like Velikovsky - who don’t accept this bleak outlook and want to go outside the box, punch the envelope. This is not an attack on science as such but a replacement for something unacceptable. The paranoia and siege mentality of science sees it as a slap in the face and takes defensive action that goes right over the top. It leads to a martyrdom and book burning of unprecedented proportions that attracts more attention to the public who have always been suspicious of science motives anyway. Bad move! They now have a problem of their own creation that won’t go away. Instead of confronting their demons, as any shrink would advise, they repress, deny it and pretend it doesn’t exist. And as we all know, this leads to more mental problems.

Having said all that, I will return to your challenge of answering the criticisms of Sagan:
Problem 3: The Earth’s rotation
As I recall the earth was never said to have stopped rotating, if memory serves, another Einstein worrier, namely one, Charles Hapgood, worked it out. He figured that the earth toppled over and continued to rotate. Velikovsky gives examples of this and other polar shifts. (If I am wrong on any of this it’s because I’m working from memory)

Problem 4: Terrestrial geology
I think that you will find that there were some quite spectacular eruptions at the time (1500BC). Santorini (the date keeps changing) and some of the large Italian volcanoes. I had a web site with dates about two days ago but I failed to keep it. not anticipating your post. As for the melting of the Moon, I was watching a video on this subject only last night.

Problem 5: Chemistry and biology
The chemistry of Jupiter below the cloud-tops is unknown, even after the probe.
Also the chemistry of Venus is incompatible with the earth as they are supposed to have formed in situ.

Problem 6: Manna
Answered by your good self.

Problem 7: The clouds of Venus
As is well known, the sulphuric acid is created by action of the sunlight on the atmosphere of Venus. When Venus entered it’s present orbit it would be safe to say that it had no acid.

Problem 8: The temperature of Venus.
“”He also continued to assert, in contradiction to the astronomical data, that Venus emitted more energy than it absorbed from the Sun.”” According to my astronomical data it does give off more heat than it receives from the sun – 15%more.


Problem 9: The craters of Venus
There is a problem for theorists with the craters of Venus in that any recent cratering is unlikely due to the huge atmosphere. Only the largest would survive. This means that the cratering would have to have happened at the time of formation of the planet. This has caused them to postulate that the surfacing has taken place over billions rather than millions of years. In the Velikovskian theory this is not a problem.

Problem 10: The circularisation of the orbit
“”A different and very complex calculation is required to se exactly how Venus Mars and the Earth could have interacted in order to produce both the presumed harmonic orbits (which lasted for about six hundred years) and then morphed into the present orbits.””

I don’t think this problem has ever been solved.
“Furthermore, an unreasonably large number of terms (of order10 to the 8million) of Sundman's series are required in to attain anything like the accuracy required for astronomical observations”.

And the final nail in the coffin is the Earth/Moon Argument, which I have described and has been elaborated upon by Phil Plaitt, the Bad Astronomer. No matter what unconventional physics you use, you can't have Venus near the Earth without disturbing the Moon.

I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does.

I have above me on shelf 10 books by William Corliss that are dedicated to problems and anomalies in science and this is not the full compliment by miles.

 

[Timble2]

Problem 9: The craters of Venus
There is a problem for theorists with the craters of Venus in that any recent cratering is unlikely due to the huge atmosphere. Only the largest would survive. This means that the cratering would have to have happened at the time of formation of the planet. This has caused them to postulate that the surfacing has taken place over billions rather than millions of years. In the Velikovskian theory this is not a problem.

There are only large craters on Venus, NASA point out the because of absence of liquid water, erosion is a lot slower than on Earth so these will persist.

Venus

Magellan Mission to Venus

This article discusses the claimed excess heart problem (it is in't a problem, apparently) and lot of other issues. Is Venus Young?

Out of fairness, This is Ted Holden's response to the article:Reply to the Venus-Young article on the Ediacara WWW server.

 

[eburacum]

This article discusses the claimed excess heart problem (it is in't a problem, apparently) and lot of other issues. Is Venus Young?

Out of fairness, This is Ted Holden's response to the article:Reply to the Venus-Young article on the Ediacara WWW server.

Two things; the claimed excess of heat coming fro Venus is based on a single measurement of the visible albedo at 80%, made by Pioneer at close range. All other figures have been lower; currently we use a figure of 77% in Celestia which works fine. To cut the excess heat to zero requires an albedo of roughly 76% in the visual, which is more or less the current figure.
But the most important figure in the thermal balance equation is not the visual albedo, but the bolometric albedo, which is the reflectivity in all wavelengths and is much lower; about 60%. In ultraviolet for instance Venus is covered in dark stripes which absorb much heat from the nearby Sun; these markings are currently being investigated by the Venus Express probe.
Using one out-of-the range figure for visual albedo and extrapolating that to show that Venus gives off massive amounts of heat is disingenuous.