The Ghost of Velikovsky

[eanassir]

My father, may God's mercy be on him, admired Einestein, and he said many times while shaking his head: "Einestein was truly a genius."
I also at the start followed his footsteps in admiring this Einestein, but later on I saw that there had been much propaganda about him; yes he was genius and intelligent; but he also was not infallible; he also was a politician, and was prepared to have some political positions, and had some activity in this respect.

 

[darkbeaver]

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.​

"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."

Velikovsky does not impress me like god does EA, I'm certainly not suggesting he was god or interferred with god in any way. Anode overload explains the multiple bodies in our solar system, the initial sun undergos fission to provide more surface area for available current, I guess.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First published in Catastrophes, Chaos & Convolutions, Baen Books, December, 2005[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE COSMIC POWER GRID[/FONT]

"The extraordinary thing is that
scientists accept the Big Bang and in
the same breath deride the Creationists."
-- Wallace Thornhill​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]takes no account of it.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In a book called Worlds in Collision, published in 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky presented a case for Venus being a young, recently incandescent object that interacted with Earth in historically recorded times, and was ridiculed by the scientific Establishment. One of their principal objections was that a highly eccentric, comet-like orbit such as Velikovsky described (he maintained that Venus was ejected from Jupiter) could never have circularized to the degree seen today in a few thousand years. The equations of celestial mechanics didn't allow it. As the missing factor to explain what he insisted the myths, religions, and art forms of ancient peoples said had happened, Velikovsky suggested that the Sun and planets must be electrically charged, and that electrical forces, which would be quite capable of cushioning encounters, altering rotations, tilting axes, and circularizing orbits rapidly, must play an unrecognized role in celestial events. The retort, of course, was that conventional mechanics based on gravity alone had shown itself perfectly capable of predicting the motions of the Solar System, and electrical forces were not needed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It seemed to follow that the bodies of the Solar System couldn't be charged. If they were, the effects on planetary motions would have been obvious; yet no such effects had been detected. Having reached this conclusion, the scientific community was compelled to devise exotic theories to explain away evidence that the Sun, Earth, and other bodies do indeed carry a charge. The Sun, for example, possesses a complex magnetic field that exhibits an agitated structure in the lower atmosphere and a dipole component with configuration similar to the Earth's field. Only electrical currents give rise to magnetic fields, and the simplest explanation is that the solar gases carry an excess charge of one kind or another, positive or negative. (In an ionized mixture where the charges balance, the random thermal motions will cancel, yielding zero net current and hence no magnetic field.) Rotation of the Sun as a whole would produce the dipole component.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The existence of a downward electric field above the Earth's surface was first demonstrated in 1803 by a Professor Erman of Berlin, using a gold-leaf electroscope. The field strength has since been measured at 100 to 500 volts per meter on a clear day. (Voltage, also referred to as "potential," is a measure of the difference in electrical "pressure," analogous to a head of water in hydraulics. The field strength expresses the pressure drop per unit of distance through the field, or "potential gradient." In this case, the direction is downward, toward the ground.) The most straightforward explanation would be that it arises from a negative charge carried by the Earth. Nikola Tesla discovered that the Earth constitutes an enormous reservoir of free electrons, and one of his obsessions was to utilize this property for worldwide electrical transmission. In 1971 this finding was repeated for the Moon, when signals from the Apollo 15 command module were received at a time when the craft was behind the supposedly radio-opaque body. They had been carried around from the far side by electric currents in the Moon's surface layers.[/FONT]


​

 

[eanassir]

Velikovsky does not impress me like god does EA, I'm certainly not suggesting he was god or interferred with god in any way. ​

​

​

DB, to this I agree with you completely and I greet your good manner; but the rest I have to study. :smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

[/left]

DB, to this I agree with you completely and I greet your good manner; but the rest I have to study. :smile:

It is my feeling that if we allow for a god why not allow for one smart enough to use electricity to bind his/her/its universe and power it rather than clunky old gravity precipitated nuclear fussion.

 

[eanassir]

It is my feeling that if we allow for a god why not allow for one smart enough to use electricity to bind his/her/its universe and power it rather than clunky old gravity precipitated nuclear fussion.

What is his/her/its ?
God is Almighty: the Creator is Glorious and Great.
This is in the Quran 112: 4

وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ​

The explanation:
("And none [of creatures] is equivalent to Him [in managing the universe.]")​

 

[darkbeaver]

My father, may God's mercy be on him, admired Einestein, and he said many times while shaking his head: "Einestein was truly a genius."
I also at the start followed his footsteps in admiring this Einestein, but later on I saw that there had been much propaganda about him; yes he was genius and intelligent; but he also was not infallible; he also was a politician, and was prepared to have some political positions, and had some activity in this respect.

Yes a smart very smart human after all, and none of us are infallable so his few mistakes should not deter anyone from admiration for his good work.

 

[darkbeaver]

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.

I was reading a bit about this last night, Ill find it again.

 

[darkbeaver]

picture of the day

chronological archive subject archive

NGC 1365 supposedly harboring a supermassive black hole in the center.
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/INAF/Risaliti Optical: ESO/VLT Vampire Astronomy
Dec 03, 2008

A complex central network of filamentary structure spirals down to the center of the galaxy. Astronomers say it provides new insights into super-massive black holes. It is more likely that it demonstrates electrical effects. If John Wheeler hadn’t invented black holes, Bram Stoker would have had to. These vampires of deep space suck the mass out of any star or hydrogen cloud that wanders within their reach, and the x-ray shrieks of their dying victims transmit gravitational dread across the cosmos. High-tech telescopes can image the mangled remains of the corpses and plot the decaying energies of their final electromagnetic wails. They have bewitched both the popular and the scientific imaginations. But these are not creatures of natural physics; they are supernatural monsters that have been created from dividing by zero.
In November of 1915, Karl Schwarzschild worked out a solution to Einstein’s gravitational equations. A year later, David Hilbert worked out a similar solution, which has since been called the Schwarzschild solution, but he made a couple of errors. His solution “differs in the range of values allowed for the incorrectly assumed radius variable…that enabled the black hole to be obtained. The variable…is in fact not a radius at all, being instead a real-valued parameter by which the true radii…are rightly calculated.”
Several mathematicians pointed out these errors in the ensuing years, but their objections were ignored and their work was buried in neglect. Work on the Hilbert solution culminated in the unnatural object that, in the 1960s, John Wheeler branded a black hole.
In recent years, Stephen J. Crothers, a kind of “black hole slayer” from Australia, has published papers that disinter Hilbert’s errors. The standard “Schwarzschild’s solution” is usually given as:

The standard interpretation is that r is the distance from the center of the gravitating mass, m. With sufficient mass that is sufficiently compacted, the gravitational force will be stronger than all forces that oppose it, and the mass will become infinite as r goes to zero—a black hole. But this entails dividing by zero, a forbidden move. Schwarzschild’s actual solution was:

​

R is the distance from the center of the gravitational field and r is a parameter of the curvature of the space. In Euclidian space, R=r. But the space of General Relativity—and of black holes—is Euclidian. In Schwarzschild’s actual solution, as r goes to zero, R—the actual distance variable—goes to α, a non-zero number. There can be no point mass and therefore no black hole. Black holes, like vampires, are purely figments of imagination.
So what are astronomers looking at when they see black holes? They observe an explosion of energy where there isn’t enough gravity to generate it. Because they are ignorant about plasma phenomena, they can’t imagine anything but gravity that might produce such energy. Electricity, which could generate such energy, is taboo, and so they must resort to the sorcery of division by zero.
By Mel Acheson

 

[darkbeaver]

And that's the end of Black Holes.

 

[eanassir]

As I said the electricity is there all over the entire universe; it is one form of energy, like heat for example.
Atoms also prevails, heat and cold is there, magnetism is there, as is gravity and many other known and unknown things that God - be glorified - inserted in His creation.

 

[darkbeaver]

oops

 

[darkbeaver]

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.

Jan 26, 2006
The "Iron Sun" Debate (4)
Meteorites and the Modern Myth of Solar System Genesis
In his “Iron Sun” theory, Oliver Manuel has developed an unorthodox answer to puzzles concerning the birth of the solar system, recorded in meteorites and lunar samples. But in interpreting these samples, he has fallen prey to a conventional myth as to their origins.
The popular theoretical picture of our solar system today is strongly wedded to the “nebular hypothesis”. The theory traces the origin of the Sun and planets to a primordial cloud of gas and dust, in which the gravitational force led to the cloud’s progressive collapse into a spinning disk. Within this disk, the Sun formed at the center and all of the secondary bodies from planets and moons down to asteroids, comets, and meteorites accreted from leftover debris.
But how did gases in a diffuse “cloud” collapse against the inherent tendency of gases in a vacuum to expand and rotating systems to fly apart? Why is the Sun tilted 7 degrees to the ecliptic? Why should giant planets, recently discovered in distant planetary systems, favor a close orbit about their star, while Jupiter and Saturn orbit far from the Sun? And if the different bodies in our solar system arose from a homogenous cloud, why does their composition vary so?
Plasma cosmology provides the simple answer to the question of how stars are formed. They are formed by the powerful and long-reaching electromagnetic force of a “plasma pinch”, a principle well researched in the laboratory and now observed in detail in high resolution images of planetary nebulae.
According to Hannes Alfvén and other pioneers of plasma cosmology, a stellar system gives way to gravity only after the star is formed and as the plasma pinch subsides. In this view it is not correct to look to gravity as the cause of star formation. It is also normal for a number of stars to be formed along the axis of the plasma pinch and subsequently scatter "like buckshot" following the collapse of the pinch. Planets are generally not formed at this stage. We should expect that stars formed in this manner would, as a group, tend to have their rotational axes aligned along the direction of the galactic magnetic field.
The “Electric Universe” model of stars takes the role of the electric force further, suggesting that evolving star systems move through phases of electrical instability before achieving the equilibrium that marks our own solar system today. Stellar companions and gas giant planets are "born"—ejected—fully formed from a star before it achieves electrical balance with its new environment. That explains both the preponderance of multiple star systems and the close-orbiting gas giants. Rocky planets and moons are similarly born at intervals by means of electrical expulsion from gas giants. Rings about gas giants and stars are principally a result of electrical expulsion, not gravitational accretion.
In this view, the electrical birth pangs associated with newly-born planets and moons can immerse celestial bodies in violent plasma discharge, sculpting the surfaces of the newcomers. Planets and moons are charged objects, and subsequent encounters in an unstable system can leave surfaces dominated by electrical craters, vast trenches, and other scars. Much of the excavated material can then be lofted by the discharge into space as comet nuclei, asteroids, and meteorites, while portions of the material may fall back to form strata of shattered rock and loose soil. Electrical interactions between planets also have the beneficial effect of quickly restoring order out of chaos.
Like any biological family, the planets of our solar system were born at different times and from different parents. They have a complex history that includes electrical exchanges capable of upsetting atomic clocks and producing numerous isotopic anomalies. As rocky surfaces are excavated electrically, for example, the resulting short-lived radioactive isotopes may wind up in the grains of meteorites.
Proponents of the Electric Universe suggest that most conventional claims about the birth of the solar system, though stated with great confidence, are highly conjectural. And if one discerns something fundamentally wrong in a common teaching in the sciences, a skeptical posture toward other conventional assumptions is also appropriate. We have already suggested that Oliver Manuel, in developing his argument for the “Iron Sun”, was too willing to accept orthodox assumptions.
Manuel writes, for example: "The Apollo mission returned from the Moon in 1969 with soil samples whose surfaces were loaded with elements implanted by the solar wind," we can see that it is an assumption based on an undisturbed, clockwork planetary system. But in this case the more telling facts may relate to lunar soil isotopes that do not appear in the solar wind.
Based on the isotopic composition of meteorites, Manuel has suggested that the nascent solar system must have experienced a very close supernova explosion before meteorites were formed. But the idea that either the Sun or any other body in the solar system is the remnant of a supernova is unnecessary. There is no necessary connection between supernovae and meteorite isotopes. In fact, it was suggested long ago that the many strange features of meteorites could have been formed in gargantuan lightning flashes within a solar nebula. And Manuel has noted that grains in the Murchison meteorite have isotope abundances related to grain size that "mimic the properties of 'fall-out' grains produced after the explosion of a nuclear weapon…" The Electric Universe model satisfies both ideas.
As we have already suggested, supernovae are emphatically an electric discharge phenomenon. So the many puzzling features of meteorites may be explained by their formation in the debris of any high-energy plasma discharge. In these pages, we have documented the recent electrical sculpting of planets by cosmic scale discharges in the solar system. We have suggested that meteorites are the debris of planetary encounters, a conclusion now supported by direct observation of planetary surfaces and by the study of meteorites, the latter revealing the effects of flash heating, ion implantation, and the isotopic anomalies that would be expected from an interplanetary thunderbolt.
Of course, the close encounters required for electrical exchanges mean that the planets were not formed in their present orbits, as astronomers commonly assume. And there is good reason why virtually every rocky body in the solar system shows evidence of catastrophic encounters. The history of the solar system is one of "punctuated equilibrium" – long periods of stability punctuated by brief episodes of chaos as new members are accommodated. The fact that no simple gradation of planetary characteristics occurs within the solar family needs no other explanation.

​