Immanuel Velikovsky / Worlds in Collision

[almond13]

The Cracked Pot

A water bearer in China had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a polewhich she carried across her neck. One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.

At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full. For a full two years this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots of water to his house.

Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments, for which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it was able to accomplish only half of what it had been made to do.

After 2 years of what perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes to leak out all the way back to your house.

The bearer said to the pot, "Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side? That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.

Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house."

Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding.

You've just got to take each person for what they are and look for the good in them.

To all of my crackpot friends, have a great day
and remember to smell the flowers.

 

[bazizmaduno]

Quite beautiful, almond13

Thank you.

 

[Jerry_B]

Hmm, but doesn't add anything to the current discussion...?

 

[stu neville]

No, but we now have some nice flowers to look at during the hiatus .

And here's some music...

("A Taste of Honey" by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass quietly strikes up...)

 

[eburacum]

I have enjoyed this discussion, and hope that almond13 wasn't too offended by the nut reference, which I presume was a joke with respect to his nom-de-plume...

 

[Timble2]

I have enjoyed this discussion, and hope that almond13 wasn't too offended by the nut reference, which I presume was a joke with respect to his nom-de-plume...

That was it exactly...

 

[almond13]

I have enjoyed this discussion, and hope that almond13 wasn't too offended by the nut reference, which I presume was a joke with respect to his nom-de-plume...

Thank you both for a most stimulating discussion and yes I realise that my almond is an open invitation for the nut joke. It’s been with me for ages and was originally a combination of the names of my wife, daughter and myself. The 13 was by FT

 

[Jerry_B]

So what did 'By by' mean then?

 

[almond13]

So what did 'Bye bye' mean then?

Of course it’s important to check facts and I would encourage anyone to do this. However, there comes a point where no more facts are available and you have to use what you have got and speculate. All of science is based on this principal.
Scepticism puts ever-higher demands on anomalous events until it’s impossible to find the evidence required; evidence that would not be required in other areas.
In the past people have been hanged on less evidence than that required to prove the existence of UFO’s. Scepticism becomes more outlandish than the subject that it claims to be verifying.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Therefore, the purpose of my answer is to show that the “Bye Bye” is because I have reach the point where scepticism has made it impossible to continue the conversation and I will bow out. If this is a victory for scepticism then so be it, but I fail to see what has been gained apart from killing any interesting comments.

 

[Jerry_B]

Hmm. In terms of my replies to you about Tesla, all I was doing was trying to explain how some aspects of the 'free' energy theories bear up under scrutiny in terms of economics. That's pretty basic stuff. In order to have a discussion about possibilities, one has to be open to the possibilities

For some reason, you seem to equate questioning with scepticsm - a mistake which is quite common here. I myself am very much open to the various possibilities and questions raised by people like Tesla and Velikovsky, but those apsects have to be able to be questioned. Questions only kill off discussions if one side refuses to talk about it any more, and that more than anything else stifles debate.

 

[almond13]

But that's only one part of the product. And who's to say someone wouldn't have come up with a way of metering - or instead for charging for use of the energy network in a more widespread sense? So a cost could still be passed onto the consumer.

Questions only kill off discussions if one side refuses to talk about it any more, and that more than anything else stifles debate.

There would have been a slight problem metering someone in a jungle hut in Papua New Guinea in the 1930’s, or even now.

You see, the answer’s obvious, but when you come to reply to my last post you seem to have had a brain transplant. Do you suffer from selective comprehension or is this a wind-up?

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

So what did 'Bye bye' mean then?

Of course it’s important to check facts and I would encourage anyone to do this. However, there comes a point where no more facts are available and you have to use what you have got and speculate. All of science is based on this principal.

No its not.

Science is about creating hypothesise and testing them.

 

[Jerry_B]

There would have been a slight problem metering someone in a jungle hut in Papua New Guinea in the 1930’s, or even now.

They would still have had to have paid for the equipment to receive and use the free energy, wouldn't they? This is my point - even if the energy source was free, whatever was needed to utilise it would have to be paid for. Even if a jungle hut in Papua New Guinea couldn't be metered (for whatever reasons), one would have to say that that wouldn't be a significant chunk of the market in the first place. The real money would be made supplying more densely populated areas.

You see, the answer’s obvious, but when you come to reply to my last post you seem to have had a brain transplant. Do you suffer from selective comprehension or is this a wind-up?

Why resort to flaming? You seem to be suggesting that, if the energy is free, then the means to turn it into something practical would also be free. Perhaps this would work if we were living in some sort of utopia where there is no private property or profit motive - but as we don't, you would still have to pay for any equipment, engine, vehicle, or whatever utilised the energy source. As I said previously, 'free' energy' does not = 'free products'. So, if Tesla's car engine had ever gone into production, we would now not be driving around in free cars. We'd have to pay for the means of utilising the energy source his engine used, in various ways. Other revenue could be sourced in a variety of ways, despite the energy source being 'free'.

 

[almond13]

So, if Tesla's car engine had ever gone into production, we would now not be driving around in free cars. We'd have to pay for the means of utilising the energy source his engine used, in various ways. Other revenue could be sourced in a variety of ways, despite the energy source being 'free'.

Yes I agree and I did not intend to flame you and yes you are right that cars would not be free. The reason for the complaint is because the main source of revenue is the energy and as such would be the place to look for suppression of technology. All the signs point in this direction in the case of Tesla although I have no direct proof. All the proof is of a negative kind and his notes are still missing after all these years.

You can check on this, but I believe that the Motor and energy industries are the most lucrative on earth today.

 

[Jerry_B]

Motor industries wouldn't really benefit from surpressing such technology. After all, they'd still be able to make motors. Tesla's stuff was allegedly supressed in the 1930s, when oil-based energy concerns were nowhere near the level they are today (see my earlier reference to the 1970's Oil Crisis). Back then oil supply and cost wasn't a problem, especially for the US.

 

[rynner2]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

I have read Worlds in Collision (more than once), but many years ago.

Perhaps you could summarise his predictions, and their subsequent proofs, with appropriate references (preferably online)?

 

[eburacum]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

Well, nonsense. Velikovsky said Venus was a comet- it isn't.

 

[Ghostisfort]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

Well, nonsense. Velikovsky said Venus was a comet- it isn't.

I seem to recall one of the mods on these pages saying he rejected Velikovsky's ideas because no cometary dust of the period had been found in the oceans. Oops.........I didn't say that.
The Venus of Velikovsky was a planet in transit that appeared to be a comet to ancient observers. As it would. 8)

 

[eburacum]

Velikovsky's 'predictions' are almost all not original with him; he seems to have read the popular science literature of the day (perhaps Scientific American, or Nature) and picked out the most interesting new nuggets of data, then (without any clue about the science involved) concocted a fantasy about how that may have come about.
Sometime he was just wrong.

Terence Hines, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, New York, 1988), writes:

"Velikovsky and his followers often claim that his theory made several correct predictions about the nature and characteristics of the planets. One such prediction concerns the temperature of Venus and Mars. Velikovsky said in Worlds in Collision that Venus was hot. Although his precise meaning is unclear, he apparently meant that Venus was giving off more heat to space than it was receiving from the sun. This additional heat was said to come from Venus's cometary travels when it passed close to the sun. Velikovsky also said that Mars gives off more heat than it receives from the sun, heat received when it encountered Venus in its travels. Neither Venus nor Mars radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. In this sense, then, both of Velikovsky's predictions were wrong. When it was discovered in the early 1970s that the surface temperature of Venus was high, about 850 degrees Fahrenheit, Velikovsky and his followers changed the nature of the prediction after the fact and claimed that it was correct. They conveniently forgot the prediction about Mars, which is wrong no matter how one interprets it." (pp.231-232)

http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0054.html

 

[rynner2]

The interpretation of Velikovsky's works does seem to have a lot in common with interpretations of Nostradamus - it can be very changeable!

 

[Ghostisfort]

I have read Worlds in Collision (more than once), but many years ago.

Perhaps you could summarise his predictions, and their subsequent proofs, with appropriate references (preferably online)?

I would think that this should suffice for a start?

In 1963, Professor H. H. Hess, then Chairman of the Space Board of the National Academy of Science, wrote to Velikovsky:

"We are philosophically miles apart because basically we do not accept each other's form of reasoning — logic. I am of course quite convinced of your sincerity and I also admire the vast fund of information which you have painstakingly acquired over the years.

"I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly has had successes. You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.
http://www.velikovsky.info/Predictions

I don't think that Nostradamus had friends like Einstein and H.H.Hess?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Velikovsky's 'predictions' are almost all not original with him; he seems to have read the popular science literature of the day (perhaps Scientific American, or Nature) and picked out the most interesting new nuggets of data, then (without any clue about the science involved) concocted a fantasy about how that may have come about.
Sometime he was just wrong.

Terence Hines, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, New York, 1988), writes:

A book about a book is how most debunkers handle Velikovsky. They never seem to want to read the original.
There are some mistakes in the above, but that has never been a problem.
The "Venus hot" original quote comes from Donald Menzel:

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. '

Menzel was the author of several howlers that no doubt will surface during this thread.

"

Velikovsky also said that Mars gives off more heat than it receives from the sun, heat received when it encountered Venus in its travels. Neither Venus nor Mars radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. In this sense, then, both of Velikovsky's predictions were wrong.
Terence Hines, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal"

The "Mars hot" in this excerpt is news to me, something original I fear, from the fevered mind of a misguided debunker. The "Venus hot" has already been discussed above.

 

[eburacum]

There are some mistakes in the above, but that has never been a problem.
The "Venus hot" original quote comes from Donald Menzel:

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

 

[Ghostisfort]

There are some mistakes in the above, but that has never been a problem.
The "Venus hot" original quote comes from Donald Menzel:

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

No, it was Menzel who was surprised. The quote in the thread above is a criticism of Velikovsky by Menzel. I was referring you to the source of your debunkers information.

The article continues:

This is all Menzel had to say about the temperature of Venus, although in 1955 he himself revoked his own estimate of two decades earlier that the ground temperature of Venus would be 50 deg C. The revocation was explained by saying that the temperature must surely be much lower. In 1959 the ground temperature of Venus was still estimated to be 17 deg C. Mariner II found it to be at least 430 deg C, or about 800 deg F.
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... air_02.htm

 

[Ghostisfort]

Jerry_B
Giving support to that which cannot be supported, like the actions of those involved in Climategate is a kind of denial.
It would be impossible to deny that global warming is political and that the scientists involved are more political than scientific. I would have thought that everyone already knows this?

No. It's perhaps instead your opinion (and that of some others perhaps) on such matters. To confuse that with actuality may be a little wide of the mark.

Academia know all about this, but have continued to deny it for fifty years or more. I think this is glaring proof of suppression.

That would imply an active and organised plan in order to carry out and sustain any suppression. Feel free to supply evidence of this, should you have it.

The Times March 24, 2010
"Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition"
"The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the publics reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 073272.ece

As for suppression of Velikovsky's ideas, just Google 'Velikovsky' and you will see a large percentage of the 420,000 hits with examples of suppression that date back to the 1950's. You will see misquotes, misrepresentations and outright lies. But you will never know which is which until you read his books.

 

[eburacum]

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

No, it was Menzel who was surprised. The quote in the thread above is a criticism of Velikovsky by Menzel. I was referring you to the source of your debunkers information.

As far as I can see Menzel is irrelevant.
Either Velikovsky said that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, or he didn't.

If Velikovsky did state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then (according to F W Taylor, who has revised his calculations since your original cite) he was wrong. Taylor now believes that Venus is hot because of solar heat and the greenhouse effect.

If Velikovsky did not state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then there is no controversy. Apart from a small amount of radioactive heat and tidal friction from the core, that is the normal state of all terrestrial planets, and it takes no skill to predict the null case.

 

[Jerry_B]

The Times March 24, 2010
"Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition"
"The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the publics reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 073272.ece

That doesn't answer anything. So we still really just have your opinion about this on the matter.

As for suppression of Velikovsky's ideas, just Google 'Velikovsky' and you will see a large percentage of the 420,000 hits with examples of suppression that date back to the 1950's. You will see misquotes, misrepresentations and outright lies. But you will never know which is which until you read his books.

Again, that is not an answer. Various people disagreeing with Velikovsky is not proof of suppression - it just means that a fair few people think that his ideas are bunk. It doesn't prove that there's any organised plan, let alone any 'glaring proof of suppression'. You seem to be confusing 'dislike of certain ideas' with 'a plot to suppress certain ideas'.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I shudder to even think what you would have said about the Inquisition. :shock:

 

[Jerry_B]

Hardly an accurate or useful analogy - insulting even.

If there was some sort of organised Inquisition-like organised front to suppress Velikovsky's work, the you would perhaps have a case. We are still really just talking about your opinion in relation to those that don't share it. There seems to be no actual evidence of any suppression (unless you prove otherwise) and to confuse such thing with a mere difference of opinion is only going to work against whatever point you're trying to prove.

 

[Ghostisfort]

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

No, it was Menzel who was surprised. The quote in the thread above is a criticism of Velikovsky by Menzel. I was referring you to the source of your debunkers information.

As far as I can see Menzel is irrelevant.
Either Velikovsky said that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, or he didn't.
If Velikovsky did state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then (according to F W Taylor, who has revised his calculations since your original cite) he was wrong. Taylor now believes that Venus is hot because of solar heat and the greenhouse effect.
If Velikovsky did not state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then there is no controversy. Apart from a small amount of radioactive heat and tidal friction from the core, that is the normal state of all terrestrial planets, and it takes no skill to predict the null case.

I'm sure that I already posted to the effect that Velikovsky said that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun. This was also verified by radar and Venus probe data.

Additionally, I've posted a thread about the admission of meteorologists that the workings of the weather circulation on our own planet is something of a mystery.

You are trying to tell us all that Taylor has cracked a similar problem on a distant planet with almost zero data?
I would say that there is one hell of a controversy about his methods.

Menzel is typical in that his methods were not dissimilar to those of Taylor.