Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?

[#juan]

Velikovsky's Folly

I have done a lot of reading since I started this topic. My initial feelings about Velikovsky were that he was kind of a corrupt charlatan. If anything,
those feelings have been reinforced. I think that almost all of Velikovsky's work is a reverse engineered farce. He layed out a series of ancient, biblical, or mythical
catastrophies and invented a whole astrophysical program to fit that list of catastrophies. It is my feeling that Velikovsky was clever enough to know that major parts of his
theory were errors but he was writing to the lay audience, because that's where the money was. "Worlds in Collision" was a best seller for at least ten weeks.

One of Velikovsky's assertions is that that around 1500 BC Venus was miraculously ejected from Jupiter, but earier cunneiform texts from 3000 BC mention that the morning/evening star
was here before that. Nor does Venusian geology support a young Venus. Radar studies of the planet's surface show a landscape saturated with impact craters. Far more craters
than would be accumulated in 3500 years.

Velikovsky submitted his book; "Worlds in Collision" to Albert Einstein and received the following answer:

Dear Mr. Velikovsky:

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus.
There is much of interest in the book which proves that
in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be
attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is
evident to every sensible physicist that these catast-
rophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and
that also the direction of the inclination of the
terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have under-
gone a considerable change without the total destruction
of the earth's entire crust. It were best in my opinion
if you would in this way revise your books, which contain
truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this,
then what is valuable in your deliberations will become
ineffective, and it would be difficult finding a sensible
publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy setback
upon himself.

I tell you this in writing and return to you your manu-
script, since I will not be free on the considered days.

With friendly greetings, also to your daughter,
Your
Albert Einstein

I think Einstein's answer would have destroyed Velikovsky and his book had it been made public.

 

[eric2009]

I have done a lot of reading since I started this topic. My initial feelings about Velikovsky were that he was kind of a corrupt charlatan.

And a charge that is impossible to counter. Since you quoted Einstein, I note that he also wrote to Velikovsky:

"your book must appear to an expert as an attempt to mislead the public. I must admit that I myself had at first this impression, too. Only afterwards it became clear to me that intentional misleading was entirely foreign to you." (Ref)

Note

My previous post suddenly required "moderation". It seems that mere discussion of Velikovsky is taken as tacit support, regardless of my own personal views, and suppression concerning Velikovsky is back... 60 years after Harlow Shapley forced Macmillan to drop his book.

 

[eric2009]

One of Velikovsky's assertions is that that around 1500 BC Venus was miraculously ejected from Jupiter, but earier cunneiform texts from 3000 BC mention that the morning/evening star was here before that. Nor does Venusian geology support a young Venus. Radar studies of the planet's surface show a landscape saturated with impact craters. Far more craters than would be accumulated in 3500 years.

Actually Velikovsky does not give a date for the ejection of Venus from Jupiter (unless you can provide a source?), which might explain why earlier sources note the morning/evening star.

Again, I am not supporting Velikovsky, only ensuring that the criticisms are presented fairly. Incidentally, many Velikovskians also dispute the idea that Venus was ejected from Jupiter.

 

[#juan]

In my opinion Velikovsky was far too intelligent to believe that Venus created all the havoc that he attributed to it. I got the feeling that Velikovsky was simply writing to make money. He recognised that pseudoscience sold books and he wrote a number of pseudoscience books. Let's face it. If Einstein had wrote a book on nuclear science it would have sold about eleven copies.

 

[#juan]

Actually Velikovsky does not give a date for the ejection of Venus from Jupiter (unless you can provide a source?), which might explain why earlier sources note the morning/evening star.

Actually, Velikovsky states in "Worlds in Collision" that Venus did not exist before 1500 BC. when it was ejected from Jupiter.

 

[eric2009]

Actually, Velikovsky states in "Worlds in Collision" that Venus did not exist before 1500 BC. when it was ejected from Jupiter.

You are correct. Velikovsky writes:

Venus experienced in quick succession its birth and expulsion under violent conditions; an existence as a comet on an ellipse which approached the sun closely; two encounters with the earth accompanied by discharges of potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal effect caused by conversion of momentum into heat; a number of contacts with Mars and probably also with Jupiter. Since all this happened between the third and the first millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must still be hot. ("The Thermal Balance Of Venus", Worlds in Collision), my emphasis

 

[darkbeaver]

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Astronomers Admit Defeat, Plagiarize Democritus/Velikovsky

Newtonian astrologers and scientologists are now hedging against the ignorance of their 17th century religion by admitting defeat.

Democritus/Velikovsky 1 - Newton/Lyell 0.

BBC: 'Tiny chance' of planet collision. (Hat tip: Anaconda via Wattsupwiththat)

Astronomers calculate there is a tiny chance that Mars or Venus could collide with Earth - though it would not happen for at least a billion years.

The finding comes from simulations to show how orbits of planets might evolve billions of years into the future.

But the calculated chances of such events occurring are tiny.

Writing in the journal Nature, a team led by Jacques Laskar shows there is also a chance Mercury could strike Venus and merge into a larger planet.

Professor Laskar of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues also report that Mars might experience a close encounter with Jupiter - whose massive gravity could hurl the Red Planet out of our Solar System.

Astronomers had thought that the orbits of the planets were predictable.​

LOL @ astrologers.

"Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame...." -- Isaiah 37:13-14

But 20 years ago, researchers showed that there were slight fluctuations in their paths.​

Worlds In Collision was published in 1950 so that would be 59 years ago, not 20 years ago.

Now, the team has shown how in a small proportion of cases these fluctuations can grow until after several million years, the orbits of the inner planets begin to overlap.

The researchers carried out more than 2,500 simulations. They found that in some, Mars and Venus collided with the Earth.

"It will be complete devastation," said Professor Laskar.

"The planet is coming in at 10km per second - 10 times the speed of a bullet - and of course Mars is much more massive than a bullet."

Professor Laskar's calculations also show that there is a possibility of Mercury crashing into Venus. But in that scenario, the Earth would not be significantly affected.

"If there is anyone around billions of years from now, they'd see a burst of light in the sky and the two planets would be merged," he said.

"The new planet would be a little bit bigger than Venus, and the Solar System would be a little more regular after the collision, but the Earth's orbit would not be affected."​

 

[darkbeaver]

Velikovsky's Folly

I have done a lot of reading since I started this topic. My initial feelings about Velikovsky were that he was kind of a corrupt charlatan. If anything,
those feelings have been reinforced. I think that almost all of Velikovsky's work is a reverse engineered farce. He layed out a series of ancient, biblical, or mythical
catastrophies and invented a whole astrophysical program to fit that list of catastrophies. It is my feeling that Velikovsky was clever enough to know that major parts of his
theory were errors but he was writing to the lay audience, because that's where the money was. "Worlds in Collision" was a best seller for at least ten weeks.

One of Velikovsky's assertions is that that around 1500 BC Venus was miraculously ejected from Jupiter, but earier cunneiform texts from 3000 BC mention that the morning/evening star
was here before that. Nor does Venusian geology support a young Venus. Radar studies of the planet's surface show a landscape saturated with impact craters. Far more craters
than would be accumulated in 3500 years.

Velikovsky submitted his book; "Worlds in Collision" to Albert Einstein and received the following answer:
I think Einstein's answer would have destroyed Velikovsky and his book had it been made public.

Most of them aren;t impact craters, anything thats circular is from electrical discharge which always hit at 90 degrees, matter can't do that. You will also note many splatter holes surrounding the circular craters, just likes an arc welding rod leaves. Real physics is catching you Juan, it's just a matter of time.:smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

This perspective view of two large craters south of Coprates Catena in Valles Marineris exaggerates depth in
order to give a clear impression of the “crater within a crater.” Credit: Photo courtesy of Michael Gmirkin and
NASA’s World Wind 3D visualization software.

May 23, 2007
Bull's-Eye Craters

Impacts that "hit the bull’s eye" of a previous impact are "high-odds" improbable. But lightning—even planet-scale lightning—can strike twice in the same spot.​

One of the principal claims of the Electric Universe model is that many features on the surfaces of rocky bodies are scars left by electrical activity. A crater is produced when an electrical arc, consisting of two or more Birkeland currents rotating around a central axis, “sticks” to one location and “drills out” a circular depression.​

Because electrical forces constrain an arc to strike a surface at a right angle, the crater will tend to be circular. Because the forces are distributed cylindrically, the crater will tend to have steep sides and a flat floor. Electrical forces lift debris from the surface, leaving no rim or a rim of “pinched-up” material. The properties of flat floor, steep edge, and removal of debris are why electrical etching has been developed into the industrial process of electrical discharge machining (EDM).​

If the rotating currents do not touch at the central axis, they will leave a “peak” of undisturbed material. A sudden change in current or in current density, due to pinching forces in the arc or to the influx of charge-carrying debris, may cause the arc to “shrink” to a smaller diameter, leaving a terrace around the wall. Because the arc is maintained for an appreciable time by a continuous electrical current, melting of surface materials may be extensive.​

In contradistinction, craters formed by mechanical impact tend to have rounded floors and rims. Because the forces are distributed sspherically, debris is thrown out of the crater ballistically and deposited radially in a gradation of fineness and volume. The energy of the impact is dissipated in shock displacement of material: solids will “flow” as if liquefied and suddenly “freeze” when the impulsive force drops below a threshold. Very little melting occurs.

Careful inspection of rocky-body craters discloses their conformity with EDM.​

The two craters in the above image are a variation on the EDM theme. They display the typical flat floors, steep sides, and pinched-up rims. They have terraces around their walls. But instead of central peaks, they have central craters. Two more craters that are similar lie to the southwest. ​

Our colleague Michael Mirkin, in pointing these craters out to us, has christened them “bull’s-eye craters,” in reference to the middle concentric circles of a dart board, emphasizing the difficulty of hitting the precise center consistently.​

Under the impact interpretation, central craters could only be caused by a second impact that coincidentally struck exactly in the center of the previous impact. The impactors that created the craters would have to hit a perfect “bull’s eye” to create this effect. It might happen once. Twice in close proximity is extremely unlikely. But four times in the same neighborhood stretches the meaning of “coincidental” beyond the covers of the dictionary.​

If the arcs that machined the large craters persisted until they pinched down into a very small diameter, or if a second return stroke followed the ionized path left by the first and persisted long enough, the central peaks (if they were not already machined away) would have been “drilled down,” perhaps even to a depth below the original craters’ floors. Such an event would not be the norm, but several “bull’s-eye craters” in a particular area would not be surprising. It may be significant that the four examples noted here lie on the plain just south of Valles Marineris, the largest EDM channel (from a traveling arc) in the Solar system.​

See also:
Martian Butte and Crater, Layered Crater, Domed Craters on Mars

​

 

[darkbeaver]

 

[darkbeaver]

Military Hush-Up: Incoming Space Rocks Now Classified


Leonard David
SPACE.com
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:36 UTC


© Unknown
What fireball? Nothing to see here folks, just move along please

For 15 years, scientists have benefited from data gleaned by U.S. classified satellites of natural fireball events in Earth's atmosphere - but no longer.

A recent U.S. military policy decision now explicitly states that observations by hush-hush government spacecraft of incoming bolides and fireballs are classified secret and are not to be released, SPACE.com had learned.

The satellites' main objectives include detecting nuclear bomb tests, and their characterizations of asteroids and lesser meteoroids as they crash through the atmosphere has been a byproduct data bonanza for scientists.

The upshot: Space rocks that explode in the atmosphere are now classified.

"It's baffling to us why this would suddenly change," said one scientist familiar with the work. "It's unfortunate because there was this great synergy...a very good cooperative arrangement. Systems were put into dual-use mode where a lot of science was getting done that couldn't be done any other way. It's a regrettable change in policy."

 

[#juan]

Most of them aren;t impact craters, anything thats circular is from electrical discharge which always hit at 90 degrees, matter can't do that. You will also note many splatter holes surrounding the circular craters, just likes an arc welding rod leaves. Real physics is catching you Juan, it's just a matter of time.:smile:

I don't think I'll worry about that "science". One of the other things about impact craters is their high concentration of Iridium. How did that electrical discharge transport all that Iridium to those craters? Your science is literally full of holes....Holes full of iridium...;-)


Meteorite Impacts

 

[darkbeaver]

They say every element is conducted through current either into or off of celestial bodies, and those transfers of matter are limited only by the size and intensity of the birkland currents, that is how all matter is formed and positoned initially. Of course my science is still full of holes.

 

[#juan]

They say every element is conducted through current either into or off of celestial bodies, and those transfers of matter are limited only by the size and intensity of the birkland currents, that is how all matter is formed and positoned initially. Of course my science is still full of holes.

In my world matter is formed in stars, from the lightest and simplest elements to the heaviest and most complex. I see no reason to change that thinking. I'm not a physicist but some things are gospel until a major discovery dictates profound change. To my knowledge, that has not yet happened.

 

[darkbeaver]

A lightning strike is pretty hot since it's plasma, so element can be made on the spot. By now you should have done the math on cratering and you should know there's only one way to get them round.

 

[#juan]

A lightning strike is pretty hot since it's plasma, so element can be made on the spot. By now you should have done the math on cratering and you should know there's only one way to get them round.

That patterning on the floor of this crater. Do you think it is caused by plazma or is it Martian breezes
fiddling with Martian dust?

 

[darkbeaver]

That patterning on the floor of this crater. Do you think it is caused by plazma or is it Martian breezes
fiddling with Martian dust?

The same ridges are repeatable in plasma labs. In any case there is absolutely no chance of impact being the cause of that crater. If there is you should show me. There is not enough atmosphere on mars to move a fart.

 

[#juan]

The same ridges are repeatable in plasma labs. In any case there is absolutely no chance of impact being the cause of that crater. If there is you should show me. There is not enough atmosphere on mars to move a fart.

It is also repeatable in Martian sand dunes:

Mars Odyssey: Multimedia

 

[darkbeaver]

The ridges/dunes often intersect at right angles. How,s wind do that and how would a planet with very thin atmosphere do that? They say that those formations are likely made of glass.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

By now you should have done the math on cratering and you should know there's only one way to get them round.

I presume you mean an electrical discharge, and if so you're wrong again. Impact craters are explosive events, it takes a VERY shallow impact angle to create one that isn't round.