The Ghost of Velikovsky

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
TPOD Subject Index

Velikovsky's Ghost Returns




[SIZE=+1]By Michael Goodspeed
thunderbolts.info
[/SIZE] AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article has no copyright. It is intended for duplication and re-distribution, so long as no alterations are made to the contents herein, including the author and cited URL's.

[SIZE=+1]"Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions." ~ Alan Barth[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]It has been said that an error is often made more dangerous by the TRUTH it contains. In the hands of a good manipulator, a compelling or surprising fact can give believability to a sea of falsehoods.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Today, this danger is particularly serious due to the concentration of power in media. We've all seen how this works. On controversial issues, where the public is simply not aware of key facts, an artfully orchestrated presentation can determine the public's posture on an issue for years to come.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]By following the evidence, Velikovsky discovered that Venus holds a special place among the world's first astronomers. In both the Old World and the New, ancient stargazers regarded Venus with awe and terror, carefully observing its risings and settings, and claiming the planet to be the cause of world-ending catastrophe. These astronomical traditions, Velikovsky reasoned, must have had roots in a traumatic human experience, though modern science has always assumed that the planets evolved in quiet and undisturbed isolation over billions of years.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Based on extensive cross-cultural comparison, Velikovsky concluded that the planet Venus, prior to the dawn of recorded history, was ejected violently from the gas giant Jupiter, displaying a spectacular comet-like tail. Its later catastrophic approach to the Earth (around 1500 B.C.) provided the historical backdrop to the Hebrew Exodus, Velikovsky claimed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]In Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky argued that the terrifying "gods" of the ancient world were planets -- those inconspicuous specks of light we see moving with clock-like regularity, as if to deny their chaotic roles in the past. The book recounted two close encounters of the comet or protoplanet Venus with the Earth. Included in the same volume was a large section on the ancient war god, whom Velikovsky identified as the planet Mars. He claimed that centuries after the Venus catastrophes, Mars moved on an unstable orbit intersecting that of Earth, leading to a series of Earth-disturbing events in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]With the first reviews of the book, the publisher Macmillan came under fire from astronomers and scientists. But sales of Worlds in Collision skyrocketed, and it quickly soared to the top of the bestseller lists. Dr. Harlow Shapley, director the Harvard Observatory, branded the book "nonsense and rubbish," but without reading it. A letter from Shapley to Macmillan threatened a boycott of the company's textbook division. The astronomer Fred Whipple threatened to break his relations with the publisher. Under pressure from the scientific community, Macmillan was forced to transfer publishing rights to Doubleday, though Worlds in Collision was already the number one bestseller in the country. Macmillan editor James Putnam, who had been with the company for 25 years and had negotiated the contract for Worlds in Collision, was summarily dismissed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]In the wake of Macmillan's publication of Worlds in Collision, one scientific journal after another denounced Velikovsky's work. The eminent astronomer and textbook author Donald Menzel publicly ridiculed Velikovsky. Astronomer Cecilia-Payne Gaposchkin launched a campaign to discredit Velikovsky, without reading Worlds in Collision. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists produced a series of articles grossly misrepresenting Velikovsky. And Gordon Atwater, curator of the respected Hayden Planetarium, was fired after having proposed in This Week Magazine that Velikovsky's work deserved open-minded discussion.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]For many years after publication of Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky was persona non grata on college campuses. He was denied the opportunity to publish articles in scientific journals. When he attempted to respond to critical articles in such journals, they rejected these responses. The attitude of established science was typified by the reactions of astronomers. Michigan astronomer Dean McLaughlin exclaimed, "Lies -- yes lies." In response to a correspondent, astronomer Harold Urey, wrote: "My advice to you is to shut the book and never look at it again in your lifetime."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]For Velikovsky, this was the beginning of a personal "dark age". But remarkably, his friendship with Albert Einstein was unaffected, and Einstein met with him often, maintaining an extended correspondence as well, encouraging Velikovksy to look past the misbehavior of the scientific elite. In discussion with Einstein, Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter would be found to emit radio noises, and he urged Einstein to use his influence to have Jupiter surveyed for radio emission, though Einstein himself disputed Velikovsky's reasoning. But in April 1955 radio noises were discovered from Jupiter, much to the surprise of scientists who had thought Jupiter was too cold and inactive to emit radio waves. That discovery led Einstein to agree to assist in developing other tests of Velikovsky's thesis. But the world's most prominent scientist died only a few weeks later.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Velikovsky expected other discoveries through space exploration. He claimed that the planet Venus would be found to be extremely hot, since in his reconstruction, the planet was "candescent" in historical times. His thesis also implied the likelihood of a massive Venusian atmosphere, residue of its former "cometary" tail. And he claimed that the Earth would be found to have a magnetosphere reaching at least to the moon, because he was convinced that in historical times the Earth exchanged electrical charge with other planetary bodies.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Arrival of the space age was a critical juncture for Velikovsky, as data returned from the Moon, from Mars, and from Venus begin to recast our vie[/SIZE]
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
10
Aether Island

The Venus de Velikovsky
Notice, no arms!
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Thanks--------
Rejoinder to Tim Thompson


Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal



In 2001 Tim Thompson wrote a 9300 word ‘critique’ of certain points I first mentioned on my website and later detailed in my book, The Electric Sky . This critique is filled with misinterpretations, errors of understanding and distortions. It also overflows with gratuitous ad hominem remarks. In some circles his piece has been touted as an ‘authoritative refutation’ of my work. On the contrary, close examination reveals it to be merely an attempt to evade facts and ideas that challenge his personal belief system.[1] Dr Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSICOP, coined the term pseudoskepticism to denote what is becoming an increasingly common form of scientific fundamentalism and vigilantism. Thompson adopts the stance of the pseudoskeptic, one of “those who shout their objections but don’t take proper note of what is going on.” [2] Since there is not room on this single page to present all the evidence supporting Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Sun hypothesis, I will restrict myself here to dissecting Thompson’s arguments point by point. For a full supportive exposition of the concepts and hypotheses I believe to be important, see Alfvén’s Cosmic Plasma, Thornhill & Talbott’s The Electric Universe, and my book, The Electric Sky. I also suggest Thunderbolts home/ as a prime and always topical source of information. Now let me address Thompson’s points in the order in which he makes them:
Missing Solar Neutrinos

(1)Thompson says, “…scientists have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion.” This is incorrect. The fusion reaction hypothesized by the standard solar model to be occurring inside the Sun’s core must emit a flood of electron neutrinos. Although the total observed neutrino flux (of all types of neutrino) may approximate the required level for electron neutrinos, a sufficient flux of these crucial electron neutrinos can only be inferred if it is shown that they (e-neutrinos) can ‘oscillate’ into different types of neutrinos (types which were not measured). The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that “the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en route to Earth” is false on its face. There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).
Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago. It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere? The results of another more recent neutrino experiment, Fer------------------------------continued


Call it what you will, Plasma Cosmology, the Electric Universe or the Electric Sky – the thrust of what was started by Kristian Birkeland (when he discovered the true electrical nature of the auroras), Hannes Alfvén, and Irving Langmuir (each of whom were awarded Nobel Prizes for their work) continues. And it will take more than the confrontational, parochial, pompous smoke screens of pseudoskeptics such as Tim Thompson to stop it.

Donald E. Scott – Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
In my opinion, Velikovski is a nut, but he has passionate, committed followers, who would follow him to the bitter end. They remind me of UFO enthusiasts, Star Trek fans, Tolkien fans (who speak fluent Elvish among themselves) etc.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
In my opinion, Velikovski is a nut, but he has passionate, committed followers, who would follow him to the bitter end. They remind me of UFO enthusiasts, Star Trek fans, Tolkien fans (who speak fluent Elvish among themselves) etc.

In my opinion he was not. Which of his books or papers have you the least respect for SJP, surely you can cite some tract or statement that displeases you. Velikovski was persecuted and punished by the establishment for his ideas, many of which have led to discovery. There is a very basic reason we are not taught the electric nature of the universe and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with maintenance of the wider establishment. Admission of the catostrophic nature of the earths past offers nothing less than revolution in human developement.
You get one more swing.;-)
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
That looks like one of those gross looking fish - the ones that latch onto other fish and suck their blood and stuff.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Credit: Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez 2002




Feb 11, 2005
Thirty Years Later
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." (Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947)

"The evidence that many objects previously believed to be at great distances are actually much closer confronts us with the most drastic possible revision of current concepts." Halton Arp.


One of the more famous of those "many objects" is the galaxy imaged above, NGC 7603. Its fame is due to Fred Hoyle selecting it to illustrate his 1973 Russell Lecture before the American Astronomical Society. He referred to its connection with a higher-redshift companion as prototypical of observations that required an advance in physics beyond currently accepted theories. For the first time in the history of the prestigious Russell Lectures, the Astrophysical Journal didn't publish the address.

The advance in physics that Hoyle anticipated was an explanation for the ubiquitous shift toward longer wavelengths of the lines in galaxies' spectra. For over 70 years astronomers have insisted that such redshift was an indicator of distance. NGC 7603, with a redshift of .029, was 400 million light years away, and the companion, with a redshift of .057, was 780 million light years away—almost twice as far. The filament connecting the two had to be only apparent, a chance alignment of a foreground galaxy with a distant one.
But that facile dismissal of evidence strained one's confidence in coincidence. NGC 7603 was a Seyfert galaxy, a class of galaxies characterized by their activity, especially the activity of ejecting material such as this companion. And the interior of NGC 7603 was torn up: There was no other galaxy nearby, except the companion, to exert that kind of influence. And the unusual single arm ended on the companion—exactly what one would expect of an ejected, or even of a passing, galaxy. Straining coincidence even further was the observation that the companion had a deformed shape and a bright rim around it. The rim brightened exactly at the point of connection with the filament from NGC 7603.
If it were admitted that these two galaxies were physically connected, it would have to be conceded that at least some of the redshift in spectra was intrinsic, due to an unknown mechanism, and not an indication of distance. The theoretical edifice of the expanding universe and the Big Bang would be undermined if not demolished. The carefully built up map of the universe would have to be scrapped.
If astronomy were a science, astronomers would have made the investigation of anomalous redshifts and the discovery of an intrinsic redshift mechanism their top priority. Instead, they reacted by not publishing Hoyle's lecture and by denying telescope time to follow-up studies of NGC 7603. Arp noted, "It is a rare occasion when a person, even a scientist, is able to really look at a picture without forcing it into a frame of prior reference."
For 30 years institutional astronomy has buried its head in the sands of denial. But in 2002, two astronomers at La Palma took spectra of the galaxies and the connecting filament. They not only confirmed the discrepancy in redshifts of the galaxies but also discovered that the two quasar-like objects embedded in the filament (objects 2 and 3) have even greater discrepancies in redshift. If redshift indicated distance, the small objects would be 7 and 11 times farther away than NGC 7603. To dismiss this alignment as coincidence is to breathe sand.
On the 30th anniversary of Hoyle's lecture, Arp wrote: "I now personally regret that a generation has passed and we are further than ever from making that advance."
[See Arp's lecture video, "Intrinsic Redshift," for more details of this new picture of the universe.] Available from Mikamar Publishing
For good articles that deal with time and space see:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
One thing that catches my eye is Velikovski's assertion that Venus joined the solar system some 3500 years ago after being ejected from Jupiter. After flitting around the solar system helping biblical events like the parting of the Red Sea, it attained a very nice circular orbit between Earth and Jupiter. The thing is that Venus has very little hydrogen, and Jupiter is almost all hydrogen. Velikovski was probably a fairly good psychiatrist, but he was not a physicist.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Jeez DB, just type NGC 7603 into google, you'll get over 7000 references to it. "Conventional" cosmology is well aware of its anomalous nature, there's been a lot of work done on it by a lot of different people, and a lot of different possible explanations offered about it. You seem determined that there's some sort of conspiracy in science that just rejects anomalies in favour of some presumed orthodoxy, but that's not how science works. Anomalies are its lifeblood, they're the signs pointing to new developments and better understanding, but the standards of evidence demanded are very high. Halton Arp first presented his ideas about quasars over 40 years ago, and observational technology has advanced significantly since then, but he's never wavered from his original ideas in spite of new and better evidence. Velikovsky's ideas were rejected because the evidence doesn't sustain them, if you know anything about physics you need to read only the first half dozen pages of Worlds in Collision to know that he didn't understand such basic concepts as the conservation of angular momentum. I almost gave up reading him when I saw his claim that no body can orbit another body faster than the larger body rotates. There's no connection between those phenomena at all. The electric universe ideas are rejected for similar reasons; electromagnetic forces are so much stronger than gravity--about three dozen orders of magnitude stronger--that if the cosmos was not electrically neutral on balance things would be very different than they are. Those ideas simply don't work. I've read a lot of the electric universe stuff you've pointed us to, but nowhere have I found the mathematical analyses to match the detailed Newtonian analysis of gravity you can find in any first year physics textbook. Without those analyses, there's no theory, just speculation.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Jeez DB, just type NGC 7603 into google, you'll get over 7000 references to it. "Conventional" cosmology is well aware of its anomalous nature, there's been a lot of work done on it by a lot of different people, and a lot of different possible explanations offered about it. You seem determined that there's some sort of conspiracy in science that just rejects anomalies in favour of some presumed orthodoxy, but that's not how science works. Anomalies are its lifeblood, they're the signs pointing to new developments and better understanding, but the standards of evidence demanded are very high. Halton Arp first presented his ideas about quasars over 40 years ago, and observational technology has advanced significantly since then, but he's never wavered from his original ideas in spite of new and better evidence. Velikovsky's ideas were rejected because the evidence doesn't sustain them, if you know anything about physics you need to read only the first half dozen pages of Worlds in Collision to know that he didn't understand such basic concepts as the conservation of angular momentum. I almost gave up reading him when I saw his claim that no body can orbit another body faster than the larger body rotates. There's no connection between those phenomena at all. The electric universe ideas are rejected for similar reasons; electromagnetic forces are so much stronger than gravity--about three dozen orders of magnitude stronger--that if the cosmos was not electrically neutral on balance things would be very different than they are. Those ideas simply don't work. I've read a lot of the electric universe stuff you've pointed us to, but nowhere have I found the mathematical analyses to match the detailed Newtonian analysis of gravity you can find in any first year physics textbook. Without those analyses, there's no theory, just speculation.

Science is not the problem, science is one of the pillars of humananity and it always has been. Now you may want to argue that point but you will loose if you do. Science is inherantly human.
Administration of science is not science, organization of science is not scientific, funding and supervision and ultimately subject matter is all controled and directed by non science. You can easily understand that science in no way prevails over those same human institutions who in the first instance employed stoning and or burning to correct the inquiring minds. That control is no less evident today. Science is held in bondage by politics and wealth same as the rest of humanity.
The fact is that scientificaly revealed truth has a long history of supression first by village elders next by the godwhacks and finally the masters of the economies.
If it were possible for science to have silenced Velikovsky and Arp and thousands of other very intelligent and very accomplished scientists, with science, we would not now be having any conversation. So the rift exists not between the unschooled public and science but internally within science itself. Certainly there is no conspiracy in science itself that would be the same as a conspiracy in my toolbox. If the cosmos was electrically neutral it would not exist. Nobodys perfect Velikovsky and ARP included, nor is science.

"You seem determined that there's some sort of conspiracy in science that just rejects anomalies in favour of some presumed orthodoxy, but that's not how science works."

I know how science works Dex, I employ it every day, nuts and bolts and wires offer very little room to indulge in flights of fancy.Certainly that's not the high end but very close to the primary, I have yet to circumvent reality with respect to science.
Follow the money, where there's humans there's conspiracy, that's a biological scientific fact. The proof of the solar systems catostrophic near past (within human memory) is etched on every body in the solar system and history records much of it. Velikovskys brilliance was the questions not necessarily the answers.
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Velikovsky had a nice and wide imagination; but not everything he said was true. I mean one shouldn't be enthusiastic about him.

The electricity is prevalent in the entire universe; but there are many other energy kinds like the heat and many other fields some we know and others we may not know.

Moreover, the planets have not been imported from outside the solar system; they are the parts of the broken up sun that was before the present Sun. And these planets have been arranged according to their masses: the smaller is the nearer and the bigger is the farther.

Such planets of the solar system have their particular orbits, specific for them: such orbits may change when the planet gets somewhat nearer to the Sun, if the planet loses some of its heat by time.

It is very good that Velikovsky explained such events as the parting of the Red Sea for Prophet Moses – salam be to him; it may there had been some natural factor, but God does not need anything to do any miracle.

Moreover, suppose that some celestial object came near to the earth and exerted its effect on Earth: will that be only on the Red Sea in that particular region? Then will that last for one hour of time only?

Anyhow I don't think that Venus had any role in that miracle: to come like an appointment: at the same time that Moses and his people were at the danger of the approach of Pharaoh and his host.