Subject: Worlds in Collision/collusion/confusion -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Subject: Worlds in Collision/collusion/confusion -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- I would like to thank the various members of the INTERNET and BITNET community of assisted me in proofing the document, providing numerous suggestions along the way. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Permission is given for this article to be copied and printed for non-profit use showing counter arguments to Velikovsky. Permission must be given for other uses. If you have any items which you believe should be included, please email me. ........................................................................ jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET ........................................................................ Since my expertise is not in history, I shall only address those points made which have physical, astronomical, chemical, or general scientific basis and are addressed in "Worlds in Collision" or in Velikovsky's work which addresses his central thesis in that work. Additionally, I am only going to be covering Immanuel Velikovsky's work itself - not what someone said he said. James W. Meritt &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& In Immanuel Velikovsky said: }[moon count in the solar system] }[page 5] No particular suprise that he missed the count. We find more quite often. Not something to hold against him, but it does give a readily verifiable example that what he thinks that is demonstrated not to be correct. I find the defense of "he didn't know that in the 1950's to be odd, considering that most of this book is supposidely conclusions of the same type that wasn't known in the 1950's, either, but suppose to be gospel by his followers... }" it is assumed that mercury permanently shows the same face to the sun" } [page 5] It doesn't The days are weird, though, because the period of its day is longer than the period of its year. (88 earth-day "year", 59 "earth-day" long days. Venus has a period of rotation of 243.09 earth-days, and a year of 224.70 earth days. Oh yes, this rotation is retrograde. Guess it didn't sync with earth like Velikovsky thinks mars did - in spite of a lot (according to Velikovsky) more opportunity. It does have a tidal lock with earth so that, in its present orbit, every time it is at close approach with earth the same side is facing us. This tidal lock would take a LONG time in its present position. If it had passed nearer earth it would have acquired a radically different rotational momentum and would not, after only a few thousand years, been able to do this. } [birth of comets by being expelled from the sun - not his idea] } [page 14] Velikovsky is against this idea because "birth of a comet in this manner has never been observed" (page 14), but that doesn't seem to bother him that a comet has not been observed being expelled from a gas giant, either. While Velikovsky doesn't mind using "myths" in support of his wild ideas, other people must meet more stringent criteria. Interestingly enough, the S2 molecule has been identified as existing in comets. This is interesting because it is not stable. If you warm it, it ceases to exist. Therefore, however comets are made, it cannot involve a lot of heat. Either from being ejected from the sun, a gas giant, or anything else. Some take partial comfort that volcanoes don't have to be molten silicate - as Io showed. But this is STILL too hot for S2. Not to mention that the core of Jupiter is itself too hot (and the core is the only place you will find other than light gases), and this mythical ejection process, unless it is 100% effecient production of kinetic energy, would be too hot. Even the frictional heating of going out of the atmosphere of a gas giant (think of it as reentry in reverse) would be too high. Thus, comets CANNOT currently be ejected. BTW: While looking through the journal Icarus, volume 86 Number 1, July 1990, I found the following article entitled "The Origin of Short-Period Comets" by Mark Bailey and Chris Stagg. The first paragraph reads as follows: It has recently been shown (Stagg and Bailey 1989 Monthy Notices of Royal Astronomical Society 241, p507) that the observed number of short-peroid is consistent with a spherically symmetrical Oort cloud source, provided that it contains a moderately centrally condensed inner core parameterized by an "inner edge" corresponding to orbits with a minimum semimajor axis a_0 \approx 4000 AU and an energy spectrum power law-index \gamma \geq -1. Although a core of this general type is predicted on the basis of the planetesimal theory of cometary origin (e.g., Opik, 1973, Shoemaker and wolfe 1984, Fernandez 1985a, Duncan et. al. 1987), evolutionary arguments based on the disruption of the Oort cloud (e.g., Bailey 1986) show that the inner core probably has to be at least this centrally condensed (see Bailey 1989 for an introductory review). The combination of these independent constraints provides a stringent test of the planetesimal theory of cometary formation. (thanks to Greg Hennessy) } "the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the }core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to }have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order }to spread throughout the crust, the explosions must have been followed }immediately by cooling." Why must ALL the iron have EVER been in the core? In all the planetary formation models I have read it started evenly distributed and migrated to the core due to the density difference while the planet was molten. Obviously not a 100% efficient method of separation. Especially since the metals are so common - witness the primary constituents of meteorites, for instance. And one of the methods of concentrating what will become ores is biological. Bacteria, for instance, concentrate different elements. The massive banded iron formations around the world, for another example, were formed when the oxygen-releasing stromatolite-building microorganisms released oxygen into the oceans. The oceans had iron dissolved in it. The iron oxide precipitated out. Slow and easy. No explosion. Heck, even meteoric bombardment leaves concentrations of iron on the surface (theorized origins of lunar mascons, for instance). } "... the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained." } [page 16] Perhaps the concept of "photosynthesis" (can you say 'plants'?) was foreign to him. Most other people have no problem explaining it at all. In fact, the time when this "pollution" occurred has been dated and is the first really big extinction as the non-oxygen bacteria got wiped out by the waste product of the plants. We are looking at around 1.4 to 1.5 billion years ago. } "The deep strate of igneous rock contain no signs of fossil life." } [page 17] igneous: formed by solidification of molten magma. Webster's dictionary. Don't you think that being in molten rock would probably do in any fossil, not to mention that very few life forms live in lava? I find it interesting here that the apologist decide that what he meant is not what he said. } [mountains formed by pushing from below. He has no idea why] } [page 18 - 19] Collision of continental plates. Simple, really. A friend at one of the laboratories made a program that models this process [using the supercontinent cycle explained in scientific american] to produce very realistic planetary "maps". And this plate relative movement has been directly measured in a number of places: europe wrt north america, and the plate junctions in california are CLOSELY monitored. For an even more interesting view, check the midatlantic ridge - the activity there (which is the "gap" from which they spread) is quite fascinating. The magnetic reversals (which have occurred) show up as "stripes" on each side of this band, demonstrating not only the spreading but the timing and the magnetic fields at the times. (none recently. Sorry, Velikovsky) This is an example of one of his wild ideas having a straightforward explanation. } "That a comet may strike our planet is not very probable, but the idea } is not absurd." } [page 40] It would have been nice if he were to work out the math. Fortunately, it has been worked out elsewhere to come to about thirty thousand to one for a millennium. Velikovsky [page 388] has 5-6 near collisions between Venus, Mars, and Earth in a "brief" period. If these events were independent, that is about a trillion quadrillion to one. As a lower limit. S. F. Kogan's letter in Sept., 1980 Physics Today or article in KRONOS VI;3. Using Sagan;s statistical approach and V's actual scenario (e.g., no grazing encounter). Korgan shows that the chance for a collision is 1 in 12 per 1000 years, not 1 in 30,000 per 1000 years that Sagan derived. Another interesting feature is that while there is a BIG object wandering around (venus/comet and sometimes mars) and a lot of tiny objects (meteorites that hit people) there does not seem to be a whole lot in between. Where are the craters from asteroid/lunar size masses? Grieve lists nine impact craters comparable to the arizona crater or larger that have formed on land within the last 2.5 million years. Where are all these hits that Velikovsky thinks are here?!?!? And what was the moon doing during all of this?!?!? Why is it still here?!?!? } [descriptions of comets and meteorites] } [page 40-41] He seems to be very confused and uses the terms as the mood hits. A comet is mostly a snowball (we've sent probes). A meteor is a rock (either iron-nickel or stoney) We have chunks. You can turn a comet into a bunch of meteorites (we believe we have seen this occurring) by evaporating away all the ice and leaving the pebbles. There have been meteor showers when the earth passed through the "tail" of extinct comets. The meteorites which make it to the ground, however, do not seem to be associated with comets. The observed air drag on the shower meteors indicates low-density material ( < 1 g/cm^3 ) compared to meteorites (typically 3 (stony) to 7 (Ni-Fe) g/cm^3). The low density of the shower meteoroids suggests fluffy aggregations of cometary dust & debris. } [discussion on changing earth's angular momentum via a close encounter } with a comet, problems heating the planet when it does ("since the world }survived, there must have been a mechanism...", and some alteration of }the direction of the rotational axis due to a strong magnetic field] } [page 43 -44] If it were fast, there have been plenty of delicate structures which would have been destroyed (in Luray Caverns, for instance). If it were slow, the temperature would have gone up an average 100 degrees K, and 240 degrees K at lower latitudes. I think that would have been noticed. "Fast" and "slow" seem almost as vague as "venus is hot", except that there are measurables associated. But, just for estimating the problem, this entire encounter could only have lasted hours because there could not have been a low-velocity encounter between planetary-sized masses - they would not have been able to separate afterwards! So the entire kinetic energy of the earth HAD to be converted to heat in hours. Which should have heated the planet (not the water - that is merely a convenient measure). No accounts that I have seen of the ground heating up even more than the boiling water. And if you wish to believe all the water was heated as it must have if this theory is correct, why are there fish? They ALL would have been killed. And plants do not survive real well when their roots are cooked, nor the seeds baked (after being shaken to the ground by the quakes. Oops, no quakes!) Of this "strong magnetic field" there is no trace. I propose that the search for any mechanism will fail, because the reason for it to exist is nonexistant. BTW: How did earth get started back up? Velikovsky didn't seem to notice this little problem in his discussions on how it stopped... From a Velikovsite: He doesn't say that the whole earth stopped rotating. On page 44 he suggests that as one possibility to consider. He talks about the problems that would ensue IF the world stopped rotating. On pages 44 and 385 he suggests a tilting of the earth's axis as a way to produce the visual effect of a retrogressing or arrested sun without stopping the rotation of the earth about it's axis. .......... The problem here is that it introduces a tumbling. Nothing to stop that is mentioned, either. We are not now rotating around more than one axis... Other interesting item: The acoustic propagation time within the earth (the time it takes the earth AS A WHOLE to respond) is 85 minutes. No way a stop-start is going to take place in the Gideon account without ripping the planet apart with the dissimilar motions. Oh yes - the magnetic field around the earth has been dipolar for the past 1 million years, with the axis within 3 degrees possibly inclined to the earth's rotational axis by 3 degrees. Obviously, another pole was NOT nearby (i.e. a major magnet i.e. a highly-magnetized planet/comet). } "The tails of comets are composed mainly of carbon and hydrogen gases. } Lacking oxygen, they do not burn in flight, but the inflammable gases, } passing through an atmosphere containing oxygen, will be set on fire" } [page 53] Not to mention that they lack the density. You are talking about a VERY thin gas. It is also tough to make a carbon gas... BTW: The volatiles in the tails of comets appear to be mostly water. Water burns rather poorly... } "binding all the oxygen available at the moment" } [page 53] And would kill off all life IF that were to occur. We breath oxygen. Yet, Velikovsky seems to think that there were human witnesses to this in both hemispheres. Wonder what the observers breathed? to counter the Velikovsite dream of: "...if the fire in the air is extinguished before new supplies of oxygen arrive from other regions." Consider how well a gas could be aimed at a specific local, such that it would not cover the entire planet. From the distance we are talking about (trans-lunar) you can't even focus a beam of light that well, let alone a gas that would be diffusing as it traveled. BTW: water does a rather poor job at binding oxygen... } "All the countries whose traditions of fire-rain I have cited actually } have deposits of oil" } [pages 55-56] Since even Velikovsky notices that it is a common geological feature in the area, why must any other contortion be required? That is a perfectly straightforward terrestrial explanation - that there is oil in the ground of these regions. } [people's time estimation accuracy bad] - [page 59] } [people's clocks accuracy excellent] - [page 323] See anything odd here? } [ plagues kill "chosen", not "first borne"] } [page 63] OK. So the Old Testiment is wrong... If it doesn't agree with Velikovsky, just make it up as he goes. For those who think that this Russian psychiatrist showed some phenomenal linguistic insight in his "explanation" instead of making it up as he goes, don't you think that this would have come out/been confirmed in some of the many, many translations made of the OT? There have been many linguistic and religious scholars who have spent their lives on the work in question, and they don't seem to agree with Velikovsky's spur of the moment rationalization. As Ted Holden points out: . . .I KNOW that nobody who claims any expertise in Hebrew or biblical studies would ever claim that numerous wholesale mistakes in translation were made by the committee of scholars who created the King James Bible. Which demonstrates the likelihood of this "error" creeping in (a funny item - Ted is a Velikovsite himself.). } [tides from Venus close approach at least miles high] } [pages 70 and 71] Since the tidal height is proportional to the mass of the tide producing body and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the entire planet would have been caught up in the tide. Seems that Egypt, for instance, didn't notice as the tremendous wave went over on the eighth or fifteenth century BC. Or Aztec, or Chinese,... Not a global "flood" but a global "wash" that should have wiped it smooth quite a few times. Obviously, it didn't. } "... head of the comet. This head only shortly before had passed close } to the sun and was in a state of candescence." } [page 77] Since there is no temperature prediction given, it is hard to see how a prediction could have been matched. "candescence" and "incandescent state" don't really cut it... Makes one wonder why the manna wasn't baked... Perhaps the 6000 degrees K that the photosphere is? Guess the wanderers got baked bread. And the oil burned, the flies were killed,...... Do Velikovsites know that the sungrazing comet of 1882 developed bright iron lines in the spectroscope because it came so close to the sun that the heat could vaporize refractory metals? The temperature of that one went up to 3,000 degrees F. }[changing funny shapes in the sky - comet tail] }[pages 77, 264, 306, 310] Apparently Velikovsky was never illuminated by the work of Rorschach, which show that the same nondescript shape can be "seen" as many things by different people. There is absolutely nothing which requires that the same object change shape, or that it even BE the same object. That is a very strange thing for a psychiatrist to be unaware of... One other thing I find interesting is that both writing about the same thing AND writing about different things are BOTH evidence to Velikovsky. } "a tremendous spark flew between the earth and the globe of the comet" } [page 77] First, how is such an electrical potential suppose to be formed between the two objects? Second, if there were, would not the tail have the same charge as the comet, in fact it would be carrying the charge away as the potential would be concentrated on the protrusions and then the particles electrostatically repelled. IF the earth were immersed in the charged particles AND it had a radically different potential, the particles would be attracted to the earth and the two objects would rapidely reach an equipotential state. The earth had been in the tail a LONG time. Finally, objects from earth have travelled to comets. No large electrical potential is observed. In fact, probes have gone to Venus and not found any such indication. Heck again, EARTH has been inside of other comet tails and no such thing occurred. } " A phenomenon that has not been observed in modern times is an electrical } discharge between a planet and a comet and also between the head of a comet } and its trailing part" } [page 78] Interesting, in that earlier he uses this reason to discard someone's theory, but not to discard his own. As he said - "not been observed in modern times". Why set standards for others he himself does not match? Again, even those these approaches HAVE been seen, his "hypothesized event" did not occur. In fact, earth as passed near to/within Halley's comets tail. No electrical discharge. No manna, flies,..... either. And again, the tail should have the same electrical potential as the head, since it came from there. You need a potential difference to have a discharge. Doesn't Velikovsky understand this simple fact? I can think of a good reason it has not been observed: it doesn't happen. There have been opportunities... } "The head of the comet did not crash into the earth, but exchanged } major electrical discharges with it" } [page 85] Sort of like Halley's did in 1910? I've already gone into why this is absurd. } [The collapsed sky] } [page 89] Nothing here to show any reason why these various stories referred to the same time. I think Velikovsky uses "ancient" to mean "when I want it to". } [volcanism and lava flows in Greek, Mexican and Biblican traditions] } [page 91] Nothing here to show that the quoted events are even approximately comparable times, so no common exogenesis event should be implied. }"the celestial body.... sent close, made contact...,retreated, and } approached again... about two months" } [page 94] I cannot come up with any pair of orbits in which two solar orbitting objects come together in two months. Even Galileo which is carefully aimed, left earth in October 1989 and will not be back until December 1990 after passing (gasp!) venus. And then it'll be back two years later. And then on its way to (gasp! again) Jupiter. Something else neat - here we have close encounter after close encounter after close...... Suddenly a circular orbit pops out, without ever coming close again. As Ric Werme wrote: The problem is that in a two body system, an orbit is invariant. That is, its period is constant, its eccentricity is constant, its foci are constant, its path is constant. Should something perturb the orbit, once the perturbing force is removed, the perturbed body will be in a new orbit and it will return to the spot where the perturbing force ended. So, as you should see, if something perturbs the orbit, the two objects should meet again - be it venus, mars, or earth. They are not. } [all volcanoes active, all continents quake] } [pages 96 and 97] Volcanic flows can be easily dated. It is trivial to show that not all volcanoes were active between 1500 and 600 BC. Not to mention the rest of the devastation he alludes to. } [a "pure" note making recognizable voices] } [page 97 - 100] Get real. People who played musical instruments would mistake a single pitch ("same pitch throughout the world" - page 99) for voices? That said different, clearly (and loudly) recognizable complicated speaches? } [thunderbolt reverses the poles of a magnet] } [page 114] Huh? That's news to me. I know you can heat one past its curie point and demagnetize it, but reverse it? } [geomagnetic reversals are caused by comet near-approaches] } [page 114-115] The reversals are recorded in the ocean bed. As the ocean floor spreads from the mid-atlantic ridge, the magnetism is recorded into the solidifying lava. Thus, a continuous record of the earth's magnetic field is readily available for the life of the atlantic ocean. You see a reversal about every million years, though not in the last few thousand. He hinted that lava could be used to verify his theory, but missed where. Unfortunately for him, it disproves it. } "We can at least maintain that the earth did not remain on the same orbit." } [page 116] I reckon he has no idea on the dimensions of the ecosphere around sol or he would be MUCH more careful. For instance, to maintain a temperature consistent with habitability, the low equatorial illumination should be between 0.65 and 1.35 times that of earth. Of course, since he has flies evolving on jupiter and then surviving after being incandescent, his concept of "same orbit" must be MUCH broader than mere liquid water! ("same" being "enough like the present one to allow it to be livable".) } [changes in the times and the seasons] } [pages 120 - 125] Cute, but coral beds faithfully record such events, as do tree rings. We have records going WAY before a couple of millenium ago, and no such changes are evident. } "When the air is overcharged with vapor, dew, rain, hail, or snow falls. } Most probably the atmosphere discharged its compounds, presumably of }carbon and hydrogen, the same way. } [page 134] It will have to be REAL cold before it rains hydrogen! } "Has any testimony been preserved that during the many years of gloom } carbohydrates precipitated?" } [page 134] Wait one. Back around page 55 this stuff was hydrocarbons. Am I to take it that Velikovsky cannot tell the difference between gasoline and sugar? These must be the same "intelligent molecules" he discusses later in reference to the problems associated with detecting hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of venus. Somehow, the hydrocarbons hit the ground but the carbohydrates hit the people. Neat trick! } "... quantity which fell every day would have sufficed to nourish the } people for two thousand years." } [page 138] Hmmmmm. With hundreds of thousands of Israelites (according to exodus) at 1/3 a kilogram a day falling (timed!) from the air for forty years we get enough to cover the entire surface of the earth to about an inch. Noplace else noticed? Now, since all of it could not have hit the earth (timed and aimed release?) we would get the release about 10000000000000000000000000000 grams in the inner solar system, somewhat more massive than all of Venus. And that is just the manna - not to mention the ice and rock that we KNOW is in a comet or the rock and CO2 we KNOW is on venus. There is also the minor problem that visits to comets and venus have not found any manna... In fact, the recent visit by Kohoutek shows it contains large quantities of simple nitriles- bad things like hydrogen cyanide and methyl cyanide. Not good components for manna, but fine for gas chambers... And that the manna was baked after being heated to "candescent" temperatures, ejected from venus at over 6.4 miles per second, then surviving reentry. And this cooked manna still tasting like "wafers made from honey" and so sensitive that sunlight evaporates it. Right. For a nearby check, results from the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: "A survey of organic constituents by a pyrolysis-flame ionization detector method and by means of a very sensitive mass spectrometer, provided an estimate of the indigenous organic content of the lunar samples. The values published give the organic content as under 10 parts per million.... No evidence of biological matter" Does not look like evidence of either megatons of manna, nor of vermin, descending from interplanetary space through the earth-moon system. } "The Greeks as well as the Carians and other peoples on the shore of the } Agean Sea told of a time when the sun was driven off its course and disappeared for an entire day, and the earth was burned and drowned." } [page 143] I just finished reading the book "End of Atlantis". It was written by an archeologist. He compiled a lot of evidence, added some interpretation, and concluded that around 1470 BC, an island in the southern Mediteranean, near Crete, erupted. It was about 4 miles across. All that is left is some tiny islands around the 'rim'. He compared it to a volcano in the south Pacific that erupted around 1890 or so. If he is right, than the entirity of the Mediteranean would have been hit by tidal waves. Also, the sun would have 'disappeared' for several days, followed by several days of heavy rain. Thanks to Ron Wigmore } [first sighting of venus from earth] } [page 158] Untrue. Venus was known as the morning and evening star certainly by 1900BC, and clearly discussed in connection with the rising and setting sun at 3000BC. According to sixteenth century BC records (-1580 to -1560) the observed motion of venus was almost identical with todays orbit. Cuneiform writings of the Babylonian astronomers were quite clear. There were even pre- babylonian indications from Sumerian and Mesopotamian writings. I guess "ancient" writings are only used if they support Velikovsky. For instance: The sumerian version of "Inanna's descent to the neither world" that is in copies made in the second millennium BC has "I am Inanna of the place where the sun rises." (i.e. the morning star). One that refers to King Iddindagan of Isin (ca. -1909 to -1889) identified her as both the evening star and the morning star, which is an orbit INSIDE of earths. The lowest known written documents on earth are excavated from Uruk (Mesopotamia). The tablets at level III (next to lowest) refer to Inanna associating her with the star of both the rising and setting sun. This is around 3000 BC. During the reign of Ammizxaduga, king of Babylon (between -1701 and -1581) there were a series of observations of venus appearing and disappearing with the rising and setting of the sun (it is either the morning star or the evening star, but both never appear at the same time. They apparently recognized this fact.) The text covered 21 consecutive years. It included periods of inferior and superior conjunction. From this data, we can determine that the orbital data from this period is compatible with modern orbital elements within the limits of Babylonian observational accuracy. The Venus Table in the Dresden Codex comes from twelfth-century AD Yucatan. They not only observed the orbit, but had its period and a close approximation to the complete cycle. There were five iterations of ephemeris data, bringing the orbit of venus as indicated to within two hours of the place/time modern orbital calculations would have it. And as for "unknown" The Greeks called the evening star Hesperos. The Greeks called the morning star Phosphorus. the Romans called the evening star Vesper ("evening" in Latin) The Romans called the morning star Lucifer ("light-bearer") }"I assume also that in the third millenium only four planets could have } been seen, and that in astronomical charts of this early period the } Planet Venus cannot be found." } [page 160-161] He assumes wrong. When the facts do not support him (see above), he substitutes his assumptions. } "One of the Planets Is a Comet" } [page 161] We know what a comet is. Probes have gone to one. They are basically big dirty snowballs. We know what Venus is. Probes have gone to it. It is a BIG nasty ball of rock. A comet is ice cold. Venus is molten-lead hot. They are very, very different. A few neat things have been found- like Halley's comet (the 15 km comet itself, not the corona and tail) is BLACK. Blacker than any black paint you can buy. And small. And peanut shaped. And hot crust (100 degrees celsius from the soviet on-site probe) with a cold interior (an aircraft monitored jets out of it during the recent passage, find that they are ejected from a 32 degree source). } [long discussion of comet tail of venus] } [page 163-167] Even if everything else was right, there is no way this stuff is going to get up to escape velocity for a planetary size body. And the material HAS to get off-planet to form a tail. It is easy on comets because the head is very small with a trivial escape velocity. Simple warming will accelerate the stuff to escape the head. Even heated to a dull red glow, Venus's atmosphere is tightly held. Not to mention the tiny detail that the atmosphere of Jupiter is mostly hydrogen and helium, the tail of a comet is mostly water, and the atmosphere of venus is mostly carbon dioxide. Yet Velikovsky thinks these are ALL the same gases (jupiter -> comet -> venus) } [Pallas Athene] } [chapter page 168-172] Athena is not the goddess associated with Venus. The guy is now making up his own mythology. } "birth of Athena (planet Venus)" } [page 173 Gummed up mythology again... } [rain of cosmic flies, ants, and other critters] } [page 183-187] Really odd. This species, which is adapted to breath a nitrogen-oxygen mixture as an adult evolved in an environment that had neither oxygen nor liquid water? And would not it be the case that after reentry any insect would greatly resemble an ash? And I find it unsubstantiated that, on earth, flies are separated biologically from every other insect. They seem to match proteins, DNA, general physical structure,... } "The ability of many small insects... and to live in an atmosphere } devoid of oxygen..." } [page 187] Not that I know of. Not to mention the minor detail that a metabolism which obviously runs in an oxydizing atmosphere just would not make it in a neutral (like Venus and Mars) or reducing (like Jupiter) atmosphere. } "Venus moves Irregularly" } [page 199-202] Not for the last few thousand years it hasn't. Say, at least four thousand. See above. } "Gaseous masses reaching the atmosphere could asphyxiate all breath in } certain areas" } [page 234] Interesting. A density WAY above current comets (Halleys, for instance, is known as a dirty one. One probe even flew through a jet. A cup of tail has something like one chance in 25,000 of containing one dust particle) somehow aims at parts of the earth. I wonder if Velikovsky realizes that during the 1910 pass of Halley's comet a lot of people stayed indoors because they were afraid of the "lethal gas" in the cometary tail. Guess what? Nobody was killed. } "I could not find the publication" } [page 237] We have here a common usage of defense between most Velikovsites and Velikovsky. } [Rotation of the earth stops and starts] } [pages 236 and 385] I am aware of tidal locks "freezing" the rotation of one body relative to another, but not one body locking the revolution of a second body onto yet a third, nor of any way to restart the spin to the same value it had before. Please see above for the shock and thermal considerations. } "The planet Mars was feared for its violence" } [page 242] The GOD Mars was feared for his violence - remember, the God of War? Mars was associated because it appeared (blood) red. Still does. In fact, from the surface the sky appears pink. } "the unpredictable planet" - page 242 } "retrograde motion of the planet" - page 243 That is why they were called "planets". They wandered. The word "planet" is from the greek "wanderer", "to wander", or "to rush around". Look it up. This is a simple result of the orbits instead of the (relatively) fixed stars. It is how we find asteroids and planets NOW. You take two pictures and look for relative movement between blinks. } "Mars did not arouse any fears in the hearts of the ancient astrologers" } [page 244] I thought he just got through (page 242+) telling us how much it was feared? Odd... } "A conflict between Venus and Mars, if it occurred, might well have } been a spectacle observable from the earth" } [page 245] Even IF such were to occur (at the orbit of mars), I would be slow to call it a "spectacle". You really have to look at the right place to FIND mars. Two tiny dots would hardly constitute a "spectacle". } [names of Gods and planets identical, Athena ejected from Jove] } [page 247] First, the planets were named after the gods. Second, Aphrodite is the greek equivalent to Venus, not Athena. } "Aphrodite, the Goddess of the Moon" } [page 247] Huh? Aphrodite is the goddes associated with Venus. Selene is the goddess associated with the moon (hence "selenology - a branch of astronomy that deals with the moon.). }"But what might it mean, that the planet Mars destroys cities, or that } the planet mars is ascending the sky in a darkened cloud, or that it } engages Athena (the planet Venus) in battle?" [ page 251] How about "The God of War chieftain of valor, was inspiring the warriors"? And again, Athena is NOT associated with Venus, except, of course, to Velikovsky. } "Lucian is unaware that Athena is the Goddess of the planet Venus" } [page 251] So is everyone else, since she isn't. Aphrodite is. } "The Greeks chose Athena, the Goddess of the Plane Venus, as their } protector, but the people of Troy looked to Ares-mars as their } protector" } [page 253] The Greeks did not associate Athena with the planet Venus. Troy had a very warlike history. They chose the God of War. }"Mars... was instrumental in bring Venus from an elliptical orbit } to a nearly circular orbit." } [page 259] First, Venus has not been in a very elliptical orbit for at least four thousand years (see above). Second, this circular orbit would not be inside of the orbit of earth if it were done so. You don't circularize an orbit someplace else. }"the swordlike appearance of the atmosphere of Mars, elongated on its } approach to earth.." } [page 262] First, people can't see a thin atmosphere. Maybe the clouds or suspended dust? Second, to make the clouds "swordlike", the tidal stress would do in the solid part of the planet. But there it sits. } [mars changing shape to look like animals equated to "Egyptians worship } animals"] } [page 264] The close approach was suppose to significantly distort the spherical shape of a planetary body without destroying it? Perhaps a review of the tidal destruction of bodies would have been a nice thing for him to know. Does the name "Roche" ring a bell? } "The Babylonians called the year of the close opposition of mars }"the year of the fire god"" } [page 267] And the Chinese have "the year of the rat" and "the year of the snake". I am more inclined to believe the reverse - given that Velikovsky decided on mars to have an close approach, he looked up a place/time/name that would fit. }"But if for some reason the charge of the ionsphere, the electrified layer } of the upper atmosphere, should be sufficiently increased, a discharge }between the upper atmosphere and the ground, and a thunderbolt would } crash from a cloudless sky." } [page 268] If, for some reason, the ionization level of the ionsphere were to be increased it would become a better conductor. Period. The rest is absurd. Does Velikovsky know what "ionized" means? }"These ever recurrent earthshocks in a country as rich in oil as }Mesopotamia also caused eruptions of earth deposits: ":The earth threw }oil and asphalt," observed the official astrologers, as the effect of }an earthquake. } [page 275] Earlier this stuff was suppose to be oil descending from the comet. His story changes to match what he wants it to say. Not to worry - he has it swapping back and forth and coexisting (though not delivered at the same time/place together) all thorough his works. }"Mountain building is a process the causes of which have not been } established; the migration of continents is but a hypothesis." [page 277] The mountain ranges are quite well constructed at the points of collision between continental plates. That and volcanic building work quite well, are very predictable, and easily modeled. See above. }" Pull, torsion, and displacement were responsible for mountain building, } too." [thinks mars & venus pulled mountains up} } [pages 277-278] First, that model does nothing to explain the distribution. Second, to have enough tidal pull to distort the rigid components of the surface permanently by miles (i.e. so far that will not even settle after miles of displacement) you would first strip the hydrosphere and atmosphere off the planet. Third: You cannot focus gravity from a planet onto a small point at a distance. The entire earth would become oblate, and but not just select points. In fact, this effect is observed on a number of moons, as they have become tidally deformed while they were plastic. Finally, we have a fairly simple, straightforeward, and displayable explanation. That isn't it. } "They rushed in front of and around mars (it's satellites); in the } disturbance that took place, they probably snatched some of mars's }atmosphere, dispersed as it was, and appeared with gleaming manes" } [page 280] Come on. The escape velocity for these moons is around 20 mph and they are amongst the DARKEST objects in the solar system. Direct observation of them from satellites around mars shown no atmosphere at all. These little moons would have been flung away if there were such a near encounter. That they are there at all is proof that no such event has happened in their lifetimes. } [independent books of Joel and Vedas] } [pages 281 and 288] If the books are independent, how can Mars and Marut be cogitates? } [meteorites noisy reentry] } [page 283] Nonsense. They are generally observed to be silent. I've seen quite a few, but haven't heard any. There is an electronic crackle often associated with their ionized contrail... Of course, if you managed to get wacked by one.... } [Isiah predict time of return of mars] } [page 307] Very good. Isiah could solve the full three-body problem with electric and magnetic forces added. Wish he had included the formulation in the Old Testament... } [a lot of talk on summer solstice and shadows] } [page 315] Good point. And gives one cause to wonder why the sites at Stonhenge and the Pyramids align with the sun on exactly where the sun would have been using only slow, predictable, and current progression and absolutely NOTHING about V's sillyness is evident. And so he left it out. } [Babylon move south ] - [page 315 to 316] } [Faijum moves south ] - [ page 321] } [ Thebes moves north] - [ page 321] Notice anything odd here about nearby cities moving hundreds to thousands of miles in different directions? } [mammoth stuff] } [page 326-327] The original article extracted here is cited as "Farrand, Wm. R.; _Science_,133:729-735, March 17, 1961 (Copyright, 1961 American Association for the Advancement of Science)" My comments are in []; the material in () is included in the article. "...In contrast to scientific efforts, a number of popular and quasi-scien- tific articles have appeared in recent years, in which fragnmentary knowledge, folk tales, and science fiction are combined under the guise of veracity-- much to the chagrin of scientists and the confusion of the public. The most recent of such articles is that of [Ivan] Sanderson, who comes to the conclusion that the "frozen giants" must have become deep-frozen within only a few hours time. Such a thesis, however, disregards the actual observations of scientists and explorers. Adding insult to injury, Sanderson proceeds to fashion a fantastic climatic catastrophe to explain his conclusions.... "...The cadavers are unusual only in that they have been preserved by freez- ing; the demise of the animals, however, accords with uniformatitarian concepts...The ratio of frozen specimens (around 39) to the probable total population (more than 50,000) is of the order of magnitude expected among terrestrial mammals on the basis of chance burials. Furthermore, the occurance of whole carcasses is extremely rare (only four have been found)... "...There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death. In fact, the healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue against death by _slow_ freezing. [their emphasis] On the other hand, the large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatable with _sudden_ freez- ing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten...only dogs showed any appetite for [the flesh]...'the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.' "Histological examination of the fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth show- ed, "deep, penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid odor, implying decay before freezing [actually, no--the ground could have thawed after the mammoth was frozen and permitted decay, then refrozen. ERE] Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berazovka mammoth were, "a hundred per cent invention." "...The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud- flow...Asphyxia is indicated by the erection of the penis in the case of the Berazovka mammoth and by the blood vessels of the head of a wooly rhinoceros from the River Vilyui, which were still filled with red, coagulated blood. "The specific nature of the deposits enclosing the mammoths is not known well enough to be very helpful as an indicator of the mode of death or burial. Most of the remains are associated with river valleys and with fluviatile and terrestial sediments, but whether the mammoths bogged down in marshy places or fell into 'riparian gulies' or were mired in and slowly buried by sticky mudflows is not clear...in Siberia only mammoths and wooly rhinoceroses have been found frozen and preserved... "...so far no other members of the contemporary Eurasian fauna [except mammoths and wooly rhinos]...have been found frozen and well preserved. That only the bulky and awkward 'giants' of the fauna are so preserved points to some pecularity in their physique as a contributing factor...the mammoth, with his stiff-legged mode of locomotion would have difficulty on such [Siberian] terrain and moreover would not be able to cross even small gullies. It would be nearly impossible for him to extricate himself if he had fallen into a snow filled gully or had been mired into boggy ground... "The stomach contents of the frozen mammoths indicate that death occured in the warm season...when melting and soluflication would have been at a maximum and, accordingly, locomation would have been difficult. "...Digby was impressed by 'countless riparian gullies' that would have been ideal mammoth traps...Vollosovich...theorized that an animal so trapped might fall on its side and act as a dam, being slowly buried and suffocated by mud. The Berezovka mammoth is commonly regarded as having fallen as a cliff slumped beneath it; its broken bones attest to such a fall...the Mam- ontova mammoth perished in a bog...Quackenbush [wasn't he also Groucho Marx?] believed that his specimen from Alaska perished on a floodplain and that most of the flesh rotted away... "...All of these theories are credible and can be accepted as possibilities. There seems to be no need to assume the occurance of a catastrophe." Thanks to edeck@av8or.enet.dec.com }"A year of 360 days" an entire chapter (8) } [page 330 - 359] A simpler explanation is that they used base 60 math and just added holidays as needed. And as recorded they did. (You know base 60: like we do time (60 seconds, 60 minutes) and angles (360 degrees) Then there is the minor detail that coral reefs indicate that the earth had a LONGER year in the past - the opposite of Velikovsky's "theory" } [lunar craters from molten surface bubbles] } [ pages 360 - 362] 1. Rock does not cool from molten to solid nearly fast enough to leave rings. 2. No combination of orbit and spin could have produced the current shape from a molten body. 3. The Apollo astronauts would have noticed this trivial detail. They didn't. 4. The rocks have been solid for millions, even billions, of years. 5. You get craters with impact on solids. No "semiliquid mass" is needed. In fact, you get very nice looking, and similar appearing, craters by impacting projectiles onto solids FAST (rail-gun fast). You even get that central peak. From the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: seven rocks were dated using the K-AR method. They yielded consistent dates of 3.0+/-0.7 X 10^9 years. Radiation exposure ages varied from 10X10^6 to approximately 160X10^6 years. This surface was NOT molten recently and the rocks were NOT "bubbled up" from beneath the surface. As an aside and relating to his magnetic points, the rocks brought back solidified in the presence of a magnetic field that was only a few percent of the present terrestrial field. It was NOT molten in the presence of a megagauss field. } [spectacular catastrophies on mars since it is smaller] } [page 363-265] Mariner 9, for instance, showed the surface and it had no such thing. The planet is, if anything, less active than the earth. }"The atmosphere of mars is invisible" }[page 365] Interesting, since it looked like a sword just a little while back... (when it was "a comet approaching earth") BTW: From the surface it looks pink. National Geographic ran a rather interesting series on the Mars pictures a while ago. Pretty. }"The white precipitated masses on mars, which form the polar caps, are }probably of the nature of carbon, .... keeps this "manna" from being } permanently dissolved under the rays of the sun." } [page 366] Carbon is black. Maybe he means Carbon Dioxide? That would be true, in part (the permanent part is water), but that would disagree with his dreams. Carbohydrates have a strong 3.5 micron absorption feature. The martian polar cap doesn't. Mariners 6,7, and 9 have found abundant evidence for frozen water and carbon dioxide, though. }"The main ingredients of the atmosphere of Mars must be present in }the atmosphere of the earth" [gas exchange during encounter] } [page 366] CO2 is the main component at the atmosphere of mars. It is a very minor component of the atmosphere of earth. Nitrogen is the main component of the atmosphere of earth, with oxygen coming in second. These gases are not major components of the atmosphere of mars. }".... argon and neon...on mars... Mars should be submitted to the test. } If analysis should reveal them in rich amounts, this would also answer } the question: What contributions did mars make to the earth when the } two planets came in contact." }[ page 367] Viking landers: 96% Carbon dioxide, 2.5% nitrogen, 1.5% argon. Very small traces of oxygen, krypton, and xenon were found. So the answer is: None at all. BTW: The heavier noble gases (krypton and xenon among them) have yet to be found associated with comets... "Mars emits more heat than it receives from the sun." } [pages 367] Mars does NOT emit more heat than it receives from the sun. It has been observed from earth, orbit, mars orbit, and by landers. This simply is not so. As a result of the studies from Mariner 6, 7, and 9 mapping mars in broad infrared bands near 10-20 microns, the thermal map of mars is known almost as well as earth and the moon. All the temperatures are consistent with thermal equilibrium conditions, there is no indication of an internal heat source. }[more destruction on mars during encounter than on earth] }[page 368] Not where the landers have put down there isn't. Nor on the pictures from orbit. }"The planet (venus) is covered by clouds of dust." } [page 368] What kind of dust? This is a zero statement. It does have clouds of sulfuric acid droplets, though... (between 75% and 85% concentration) }"...I assume that Venus must be rich in petroleum gases." }[page 369] It isn't. 'Nuff said. Of the sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and hydrochloric acid we see nothing. No hydrocarbons. No carbohydrates. ESPECIALLY not from Mariner 2. Read the data, not the press release. The reporters made that "petroleum found" up. Sagan was, BTW, one of the scientists directly associated with this probe and that instrumentation in particular. What he finds funny is that it was postulated to fill the greenhouse hole (filled by CO2 and HOH) to support the temperature. Immmanuel used non-data that was used to support a theory he disclaims. Double wrong! }"If the petroleum that poured down..." }[page 369] Again, this confusion between hydrocarbons (petroleum) and carbohydrates ("manna") appears. Velikovsky appears to add the lack of knowledge of chemistry to his lack of knowledge of astrophysics. }"The fact that methane has been discovered on Jupiter- the only known }constituents of its atmosphere are the poisonous gases methane and }ammonia - makes it rather probable that it has petroleum. } [page 369] Unfortunately, the major constituents of the atmosphere of Jupiter are hydrogen and helium, neither of which appear too abundant on Venus. And the presence of methane, a VERY simple molecule, says nothing about the presence of petroleum extraterrestrially. What you do is take whatever Carbon happened to be there and chemically combine it with the hydrogen that is EVERYWHERE. Presto! Methane. }"... Venus - and therefore Jupiter - is populated by vermin; this organic }life can be the source of petroleum." } [page 369] HEHEHEHEHEHehehehehehe. First, Venus has been directly visited on the surface by landers, in the air by balloons, and from low orbit. NO indication of such "vermin" exist. Just for fun, let's say "vermin" existed on Jupiter. Now, given that Venus is ejected at over 60 km/sec (Jupiter's escape velocity) and less than 67 km/sec (vector addition of 60 kps jupiter escape and 20 kps solar escape), which is WAY above the speed at which meteorites land on earth, and the atmosphere of Jupiter is THICK, what's keeping these things from being baked off as it exits by "reentry" (going up instead of down) heat? BTW: What mystical mechanism ejects a planetary at 60-67 kilometers per second from a very select site (in the plane of the elliptic, on the "back side" of the orbit so it will spiral inward)? We are talking 10^41 ergs here. That is about 9 1/2 months worth of the sun's _entire_ energy output, which suddenly is released in one moment! }"The night side of venus radiates heat because Venus is hot" } [page 371] No kidding! Enough to melt lead on most of the surface. How much do you think an entire world would cool overnight, if it started at molten lead temperatures, the atmosphere formed a blanket that retained the IR, and there are STRONG winds that redistribute the heat? }"The reflecting, absorbing, insulating, and conducting properties }of the cloud layer of venus modify the heating effect of the sun }upon the body of the planet..." }[page 371] True, and apparently even more than he thought. The common label fastened to this observation is "greenhouse effect" The same should happen to any terrestrial world that receives that much sunlight. The calculated trigger for a runaway greenhouse is about 1.4 times the solar flux on earth. }"Venus gives off heat." }[page 371] Correct, but misleading. It gives off just as much energy as it receives. The thermal flux ("gives off heat") matches the incoming sunlight. This is why, for instance, microwave brilliance readings have stayed constant for decades. Besides which, you can measure the flux directly. It matches. Just for fun: If venus was travelling 500 kilometers per second (not odd for outter sol system origin), and the sun's radius is 7x10^10 cm, the transit time is appox 3000 seconds, less than an hour. How hot could it get? The solar source in the photosphere is 6000 degrees K. Now, using the Stefan-Boltzman law of thermodynamics, if there were NO other heating, by now it would be 79 degrees kelvin. Cold. Real, real cold. Now, just what happens to rock when you heat it to 6000 degrees? And the vermin, manna, oil,..... }"The core of the planet venus must be hot." } [page 371] Big deal. The core of EVERY planet is hot compared to its crust. Even the moons of of the outter planets. Remember that volcano of sulfur (dioxide?) on Io? }"Astronomers will see the planets stop or slow down in their rotation, }cushioned in the magnetic fields around them..." [pluto and neptune] } [page 372] The magnetic fields of neptune and pluto are nowhere NEAR strong enough to do this. We have sent probes, and these little metallic items were not influenced in the least. We have sent a couple of Voyagers through the entire solar system, with a few close approaches (Neptune included). In spite of coming REAL close, and in spite of having a lot of iron in their construction, the force in their precision navigation was gravity. A force that did not measurably influence a chunk of steel smaller than a car does not seem likely to be able to bounce planets. Sagan did the calculations as to what field strength would be required - about 10 megagauss. This is a BIG magnetic field! Since earth is .5 gauss, Mars and Venus are about .01, and Jupiter is less than 10, and the interplanetary flux is about 10^-5, and NO rock shows sign of solidifying in a 10 megagauss field, I would say this is totally unsubstantiated. }"Comets may strike the earth, as Venus did when it was a comet" } [page 373] Astounding, isn't it. Direct physical contact that didn't destroy both. Look at the hole in arizona a LITTLE object made. Look at the iridium layer that may have come from a meteorite a bit larger that exterminated (possibly) most life on earth. Think what a planetary mass would do. I doubt if the crust would survive anywhere on either. And they would STAY in one piece, not split off again. For some more fun: Total kinetic energy in the collision: KE = 0.5 (M_e + M_v) v_rel^2 where v_rel is the relative velocity. v_rel has to be _at_least_ 11.2 km/s (Earth's escape velocity), and should be larger (gravitational focussing; difference in orbital velocities). This gives KE = 7 x 10^39 ergs. Considering the binding energy estimate obtained previously, the collision bids fair to disrupt both planets. It would be astounding if Earth_after were anything at all like Earth_before! (thanks for this from Mr. Gaetz!) }"Facing many problems" } [epilogue] No kidding. Nothing but, the way I see it. To pick a couple from Yaron P. Sheffer: Point A. After very close encounterS with Earth, which have involved such drastic effects as tidal disruptions, a complete halt of our planet's rotation, then a restart at exactly the previous rate, etc., one would expect lots of space debris to float around both planets, maybe even around Mars. A formation of ring systems seems to be very plausible under the circumstances, YET NONE IS OBSERVED AROUND THESE THREE TERRESTRIAL PLANETS. In fact, Venus has no natural sats whatsoever, which are expected after a launch from Jupiter plus the following planetary encounters. (Not to mention that Venus has been refered to as a COMET, just about 1,000,000,000 times heavier than any normal comet we usually see.) NOTE: 4000 YEARS OR SO IS AN INSUFFICIENT TIME SPAN TO HAVE PLANETARY RINGS COMPLETELY DECAYING. Point B. Major effects should have involved our moon, YET ALL WE SEE ARE QUITE LUNAR MARIA AND UPLANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DATED TO HAVE BEEN METEORITICALLY ACTIVE NO LATER THAT 3 BILLION YEARS AGO. Point C. Has anyone noticed any other events in which one planet launches another towards other regions of the solar system...?? UH-UH!! Even given "plausible" trajectories which stabilize within 4000 years into almost circular (and at the exact available slot) orbits, people IGNORE the machanism by which Venus has been Jovianly launched. Point D. There are careful Sumerian records of their skies from ca. 5000 years ago... which give accounts of observing Venus in its ever-normal orbit, AS IF NOTHING HAS EVER HAPPENED VELIKOVSKY-WISE! Just a reminder: Earth has stopped its rotation (legend-wise of course) about 2000 years after the Sumerian observations of Venus... Point E. As has been mentioned already: The chemical composition of Venus is very different from that of Jupiter. Instead of dealing with this simple (yet anti-Velikovsky) hard fact from Reality, people went on to "reconsider" plausibilities of orbital mechanics. But if there is no way to launch Venus in the first place.... Point F. The solar system (INCLUDING VENUS) is 4,600,000,000 years old. Why do people still consider "scenarios" for "events" which supposedly occured in the last 0.000001 part of the solar system's age as "favorable"? Or are these only people who are not updated with the latest knowledge about our solar system? Hmmmm... }[venus changed into a comet] }[page 379] We know what venus is. Landers have been there. We know what comets are. Probes have been there. Venus is not a comet. BTW: If Venus was/is a comet, where is the tail? It is closer to the sun now than it "was" during this supposidely dashing around. So where is the tail now? And, given that the escape velocity is 6.4 miles per second, how did it EVER have a tail? And for the "it is its atmosphere" crowd, why is it bound now and wasn't earlier? The mass of venus was HIGHER back "when it was a comet", and so its gravity was higher, so the atmosphere would have been bound even tighter. Velikovsky tries to convince us (later works) that the tail got wrapped around the planet and is now the atmosphere. Nice to know how this happened... }"Magnetic poles of earth became reversed only a few thousand years ago." }[page 380] Nope. There are reversals, but none that recently. There is NO evidence of such a proposition. }[changing months/days/years] }[page 380] One would think that there would be some indicator, say in corals or tree rings, of such. Velikovsky presents none. His only dream is that of people using simpler math using a different base recorded what he wants and not what was.. As a minor note, "december", means "tenth month". Are we really only using ten now? The earlier civilizations often didn't even NAME the latter months. The were more interested in the growing season. That did not mean it was never winter. }[venus night side heat] } [page 380] Absurd. See above. }"solved the problem of mountain building..." }[page 380] Absurd. See above. }"This could be caused by the earth's passing through a strong magnetic } field at an angle to the earth's magnetic axis." } [page 385] One would think that some indication of this magnetism would be found in the rocks. It has not. And the spacecraft that measure the field-strength near Venus found it to be significantly less than even the earth's. }[slowing of the earths rotation] [page 385-386] Lets say that it was NOT done suddenly, since we can see features in Luray Cavern that are older than this that could not take the stress. BUT, with the earth's specific heat taken into account, and the rotational energy, the earth would warm an average of 100 degrees celsius, more than enough to boil the oceans. At low altitudes near the surface (where the people usually are) the temperature would go up by 240 degrees. Yet, the inhabitants didn't notice. } [more on the magnetic slowing] } [page 386] Absurd. See above. No evidence at all. }[decides an atom is a good model of the solar system] } [page 387-388] This flies in the face of observed QM effects. }[A nova the result of the collision of two stars] }[ page 388] A nit here. Bear in mind the distinction between novae and supernovae. Novae are thought to result from thermonuclear flashes on accreting white dwarfs. Type II supernovae (like SN 1987A) are thought to result from core collapse of massive stars upon exhaustion of nuclear fuel. (The detection of neutrinos from SN 1987A was a welcome confirmation of the core-collapse hypotheses. Modelling core collapse is extremely tricky because the explosion itself is a minor perturbation on the dynamics. I don't recall the exact figures, but I seem to remember that about 10^54 ergs is released in neutrinos, compared to only 10^51 ergs in the explosion itself. It doesn't take much of an error in the numerics to convert an explosion to a fizzle.) (another from Mr. Gaetz.) odd thought, indeed! Maybe "some" or "one" or "maybe oughta"? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& In Immanuel Velikovsky said: }I came upon the idea that traditions and legends and memories of generic }origin can be treated in the same way in which we treat in psychoanalysis }the early memories of a single individual. } [page 272] Surely this psychiatrist recognizes the fact that memories do not have to reflect reality. Many of the trips to psychoanalytic facilities are BECAUSE they do not. }...the volcano on the island of Thera exploded with almost unimaginable }force. } [page 276] It is a not uncommon opinion that this volcano was the CAUSE of the local disasters which Velikovsky describes. Good to see that he knew about it... }carbon analysis of the wooden sarcophagi of Seti, Ramses II, Merieptah and }Ramses III, or the furnature and sacred boats of Thutmose III or }Tutankhamen, would yield dates 5 to 7 hundred years younger than those }assigned by adherents of conventional history. } [page 278] We'll see... } Recent finds in Geology } [pages 281 - 282] Velikovsky obviously had absolutely no concept of continental drift. Wegener proposed it later, it has been experimentally verified, and it will explain quite easily most of his "mislocated" sites. }reversely magnetized rocks are a hundred times more strongly magnetized }than the earth's magnetic field could cause } [page 282] I cannot locate any recent support for this statement (supposidely made in "Science News", July 1949) }Chubb crater (northern Labradore)... covers an area of four square miles... }It must have been created by the impact of an asteroid... the asteroid }must have fallen about four thousand years ago. } [page 286 - 287] Velikovsky must have a rather small idea of what an "asteroid" is. Interestingly enough, he finds the large craters on earth formed by "asteroid" impacts, but the craters on the moon are suppose to be "bubbles". }age of oil is measured in thousands of years, not millions } [page 288] This is suppose to support his "recent" origins. What I find odd is that Velikovsky seems to miss that the radiocarbon is formed in the air and the date should be the date that the plant stopped taking in replacement carbon (i.e. died). If it came from extraterrestrial origins (as he is proposing) it should be dated at an infinite age, since there was NEVER any radioactive carbon (C14) incorporated from the atmosphere into any plants. }hydrocarbons have been identified in cometary tails by spectral analysis; }also carbohydrates (edible products) } [page 288] Water appears very abundant, there are traces of ammonia and methane, there is carbon monoxide and dioxide, atomic sulphur, CS, S2, H2S+, hydrogen cyanide, methyl cyanide, formaldehyde, and HCO. The sungrazers have shown potassium, calcium, iron, cobalt, nickel, and copper. No helium, neon, argon, nor krypton has been found. This is VERY nonedible (cyanide is a no-no), and the gases supposidely tagging along that should be in the atmosphere of mars and venus and earth (the heavy noble gases) are notably absent. For where he picked up this odd bit, Huggins found some bands in the comet's spectrum that coincided with "hydrocarbon" bands produced in the laboratory by spark discharge through ethylene (C2H4). The bands are actually radiated from the double carbon molecule C2. The spark has been found to separate the C2 from the H4. These bands are called the Swan bands of carbon. Velikovsky apparently didn't bother to read the entire experiment. No hydrocarbons. (BTW: This was the great comet of 1881. Huggins also identified the sodium yellow lines. This was in the infancy of spectroscopic examination of the heavens) Violet bands were found to arise from the unstable CN molecule - the stable form is called cyanogen. } (lunar craters from bubbles) } [page 289] As I said before: 1. Rock does not cool from molten to solid nearly fast enough to leave rings. 2. No combination of orbit and spin could have produced the current shape from a molten body. 3. The Apollo astronauts would have noticed this trivial detail. They didn't. 4. The rocks have been solid for millions, even billions, of years. 5. You get craters with impact on solids. No "semiliquid mass" is needed. In fact, you get very nice looking, and similar appearing, craters by impacting projectiles onto solids FAST (rail-gun fast). You even get that central peak. From the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: seven rocks were dated using the K-AR method. They yielded consistent dates of 3.0+/-0.7 X 10^9 years. Radiation exposure ages varied from 10X10^6 to approximately 160X10^6 years. This surface was NOT molten recently and the rocks were NOT "bubbled up" from beneath the surface. } (cosmic rays are caused by positive charges rushing towards a negatively }charged earth. Get real. There is no way earth has such an absurd electrical potential to serve as a particle accelerator to those near-light speeds. }...Worlds in Collision, which claims only the effects to be expected }if a magnetic body like the earth should come very close to another magnetic }body } [page 297] You can't get a lot closer to the gas giants than the Voyager probes did without entering their atmosphere. Their motions were unaffected by a mystical magnetic field. }Jupiter...it appears probable to me it sends out radio waves as do the }sun and the stars. } [page 297] It doesn't. It does emit strong, nonthermal, polarized, intermittent radio emissions that are NOTHING like the sun and the stars. And of the actual distinguishing characteristics Velikovsky mentioned nothing. }gases on Uranus... have a smooth reflective surface. } [page 298] WOW!!!! A gas/vacuum interface that is optically smooth!!!!!! Not a prayer. }light reflected from the polar regions of Uranus to be polarized } [page 298] I scanned a lot on the optical observations of Uranus. There is a lot to be found relating to the light, but nothing in what I read on polarization. And if it were, there would be something. Does "phase angle" ring a bell? That was there... In Immanuel Velikovsky said: }I claimed that venus possesses a massive atmosphere, a high surface }heat, abnormal (disturbed) rotation, and hydrocarbon gases in its }atmosphere } [page 164] "massive atmosphere" = Cute enough, he also claims that it is the tail of it when it was a comet wrapped around it - the tail that would pass for a good vacuum if it were on earth. "high surface heat" = "venus is hot" Another precise prediction. Like those numerical estimates? "abnormal (disturbed) rotation" = Interestingly enough, mars was suppose to have its 24 hour day because of its close passage to the earth. Since he couldn't see what venus's was, he cleverly didn't say. Guess he couldn't think that they would be consistent with his "theory". "hydrocarbon gases" = }I stipulated that hydrocarbons are present in condensed form (producing }a reflected spectrum). } [page 165] Odd, since just the previous page he said "gases". Perhaps he does not know the different phases of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) just like he doesn't know different chemistries (hydrocarbons and carbohydrates) Besides which, in 1969 Plummer (with the university of Massachusetts) looked at the reflected spectrum of venus specifically for condensed hydrocarbons. He didn't find them. That was when the bug V shifted to gases - when his "prediction" measurably failed. }I located them in the upper (reflecting) layer of the clouds. } [page 165] Clever - first, say you cannot get a decent observation from space, then say you cannot from the surface, either. Safe bet. Unfortunately, they don't show up in the reflecting spectrum, either (as shown just above). }I maintained they are the sole constituents of the clouds. } [page 165] Unfortunately, he already said that some mysterious dust is there. Equally unfortunate, other chemicals have been ID'd there. }The evidence of the presence of hydrocarbons and their derivatives should }be sought in the deeper infrared... (3.4 - 3.5, 8-12 micron regions) }hot and oxydizing atmosphere of venus }[page 167] }... upper atmosphere is reducing... }[page 168] }... polymerized and therefore heavy molecules of petroleum hydrocarbons }are not necessarily present in the upper layer of the dense atmosphere. }[page 165] Talented hydrocarbons. When he wants them in the upper clouds they are in the upper clouds. When he wants them off into space and travelling to other planets (earth, for instance) they are free of the bounds of gravity. When he wants them to avoid the upper layer of the atmosphere, they are not necessarily present. When he wants them to be gases, they are. When he wants them condensed, they are. When he wants them to change to carbohydrates, they do. And back to hydrocarbons on demand. Immanuel Velikovsky's will must have more impact on these molecules than gravity, heat, chemical bonding,... }bacterial transformation of hydrocarbons into carbohydrates and }proteins }[page 168] Where? The lower atmosphere is lethal to any and all bacteria unless they can live in molten lead instead of water. The hydrocarbons avoid the cooler upper levels. Not to mention the minor detail that there is no indication at all that such bacteria exist. (not the conversion part - the part about evolving in a reducing hydrogen-helium atmosphere with ammonia and methane, then in a CO2 atmosphere) }the envelope of venus may well contain some ferruginous particles }and ash }[page 168] Ferruginous = iron containing. His "may well" should be "better", since that is what he based his "water to blood" spiel in Worlds in Collision. The odd part is that, if it were present in anything like those amounts, venus should appear red. It obviously doesn't. ash = burned cellulose containing material. Like, what burned? Got it! It is the remains of his "vermin" after being heated to "candescence"! }My claim regarding the presence of organic molecules in the atmosphere }of venus awaits future testing. }[page 168] It has been tested. None found. I suppose those clever hydrocarbon/ carbohydrate/gas/condensed/upper layer/not upper layer molecules are also clever enough to hide. }Venus is very, very hot (about 1000 degrees) }[page 169] Nice of him to provide any numerical estimate at all. Of course, waiting until AFTER it is measured on site gives one reason to wonder about the origins of this postdiction. }in rotating, it turns the same face to the earth at every inferior }conjunction. This "resonance effect" could indicate that venus passed }near the earth at some point in its path }[page 169] What it indicates is that it did not. For this resonance effect to be in place, venus would have to be in its current orbit for a significantly longer period than Velikovsky proposes. At that distance, earth and venus are not exerting a very significant tidal force on each other. Since venus has no moon, it gradually (under the effect of a REAL small periodic force) synchronized. This is not something that would happen quickly. If venus had been in another orbit, the period would have been different and it would not sync now. If it had passed close to earth, the tidal effects would have imparted a significant amount of angular momentum to venus and insufficient time would have passed (by now) to dampen it. }venus...body plastic or molten...molten crust...plastic rock }(attributes mountains to ground tides) }[page 169] There are mountains, for instance, of 13 kilometers high. That does not sound like a molten or plastic crust. It would have sagged like hot butter. Ground tides from what? There is no moon. Perhaps solar tides? But that would have these mountains migrating. Not an observed phenomena. Also, tides are caused in the same plane as the two bodies are in. Please note: There's a wide variation of altitude across Ishtar. The following table is taken from "Kliore, A. J., V. I. Moroz, and G. M. Kesting, The Venus international reference atmosphere, Adv. Space Res. 5, no. 11, 1985, Pergamon Press. (also: COSPAR Report JPL-D-2216)." Altitude Temp Pressure (km) (K) (bars CO2) Feature --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 743.0 98.12 "Average" lowland plains +3 720.2 81.09 Southern Lakshmi Planum +4 712.4 76.01 Northern Lakshmi Planum +7 688.8 62.35 Summits, Akna & Freya Montes +13 643.2 41.12 Summit, Maxwell Mons --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What we have here is a pretty rough mountain. No sagging evident. Also, this particular mountain is in the north polar region. No tides. }It must be noticeably cooling. In 1967 I offered this additional }crucial test of my thesis. }[page 169] It isn't I see no significant trend in the surface temperature of venus using the microwave brilliance values for the last twenty years. (reading chart prepared by David Morrison). And for those who want to argue over interpretations, note that Velikovsky said NOTICEABLY. It clearly is not noticably cooling or there wouldn't be a disagreement. In Velikovsky rights: }Venus' incandescent heat, its massive atmosphere (140 atmospheric }pressures!), its retrograde motion controlled by the earth; its }mountain-high ground tides... }[page 215-216] One hardly knows where to begin... Where is venus incandescent (besides, of course, in the minds and hearts of true Velikovskians)? 140 atmospheres is only off by 50% or so (and this is AFTER direct measurements) Motion controlled by the earth? Influenced, perhaps. Controlled? I am inclined to believe its primary, the sun, has a bit more to do with its orbit... mountain-high tides? Tides from WHAT? There is no moon. Ground has a lesser tidal bulge than water. The solar tide of water on earth isn't mountain-high. Also, astounding that these tides don't seem to move around the planet like the other tidal effects do... Mobile mountains... hehehehehehe } I maintain that less than three thousand years ago the moon's surface }was repeatedly molten and its surface bubbled }[page 216] From the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: seven rocks were dated using the K-AR method. They yielded consistent dates of 3.0+/-0.7 X 10^9 years. Radiation exposure ages varied from 10X10^6 to approximately 160X10^6 years. This surface was NOT molten recently and the rocks were NOT "bubbled up" from beneath the surface. }the moon has a weak magnetic field; yet its rocks and lava could }conceivably be rich in remanent magnetism }[page 216] Note the "could conceivably be". This is a good "plausable deniability" statement like he had just used. As an aside and relating to his magnetic points, the rocks brought back solidified in the presence of a magnetic field that was only a few percent of the present terrestrial field. It was NOT molten in the presence of a megagauss field. (from the Lunar Receiving Laborator results) }I would not be suprised if bitumens (asphalts, tar, or waxes) or }carbides or carbonates are found in the composition of the rocks, }although not necessarily in the first few samples. }[page 216] "would not be suprised" - so he can deny it as a "prediction" when it fails. the carbon compounds, results from the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: "A survey of organic constituents by a pyrolysis-flame ionization detector method and by means of a very sensitive mass spectrometer, provided an estimate of the indigenous organic content of the lunar samples. The values published give the organic content as under 10 parts per million.... No evidence of biological matter" "although not necesarily" - so he can always say we just haven't found those trickey molecules. Must be related to those hiding on venus... }In my understanding, less than ten thousand years ago, together with }the earth, the moon went through a cosmic cloud of water (the deluge) }[page 217] "In my understanding" - the same deniability dodge. (the deluge) - his words. Here we see the biblical basis. }...excessively strong radioactivity....from interplanetary discharges. } [page 217] An electron flow causing transmutation of the nucleii?!?!?!? No ____ing way. In ) Planets for Man Dole Our Evolving Atmosphere Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov Second Planet, Second Earth S. L. Gillett, Analog Dec 84 The Steady State of the Earth's crust, atmosphere and oceans Siever, Scientific American, May 1974 The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978 Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986 The Atmosphere of Venus Schubert & Covey, Scientific American, July 1981, p66 The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere Rasool & Bergh, Nature, vol 226, June 13 1970 The Volcanoes and Clouds of Venus Prinn, Scientific American, Mar 1985 Venus, Near Neighbor of the Sun Isacc Asimov Structure of the Lower Atmosphere of Venus C. Sagan, Icarus 1, 151-169 (1962) Astronomy of the Ancients K. Brecher and M. Feirtag The Mystery of Comets Fred L. Whipple Geochemical exploration of the Moon and Planets I. Adler and J. I. Trombka The Planet Uranus: a history of observation, theory, and discovery A. F. O'D. Alexander The Planetary System Morrison & Owen ........................................................................... references from Matt Briggs on venus's atmosphere: Dickinson, R. E. (1986). "Venus mesosphere and thermosphere, pt. 1, heat budget and thermal structure," Jounral of Geophysical Reasearch: 91 (70-80). Kasprzak, W. T. (1986). "Wavelike perturbations observed in the neutral thermosphere of Venus," Jornal of Geophysical Research: 93 (11237- 11245). Hou, A. Y. (1989). "Further studies of the circulation of the Venus atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 46 (991-1001). Lacis, A. A. (1975). "Cloud structure and heating rates in the atmosphere of Venus," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 32 (1107-1124). Walker, J. C. G. (1975). "Evolution of the atmosphere of Venus," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 32 (1248-1255). ........................................................................... reference from Perry G. Ramsey: There is an article in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, June 1975 (in fact, the entire issue is about the atmosphere of Venus) by James Pollack and Richard Young describing a radiative-convective model of the Venusian atmosphere. ........................................................................... Articles relating to geomagnetism: Evolution of Overlapping Spreading Centers: A Sea MARC II Investigation MacDonald, K. C. ; Fox, P. J Stratigraphic Aspect of Paleomagnetic Studies of Bottom Sediments in Seas and Oceans Tretyak, A. N. ; Vigilyanskaya, L. I. ; Dudkin, V. P. Magnetic Anomalies and Sea-Floor Spreading in the Western North Atlantic, and a Revised Calibration of the Keathley (M) Geomagnetic Reversal Chronology Tucholke, p857-876 1979 Vogt, P. R. ; Einwich, A. M An Analysis of Near-Bottom Magnetic Anomalies: Sea-Floor Spreading and the Magnetized Layer Geophysical Jnl. of The Royal Astronomical Society v43 p387-424 1975 Klitgord, K. D. ; Huestis, S. P. ; Mudie, J. D. ; Parker, R. L. Magnetic Study of Basalts from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Latitude 37 N Geological Society of America Bull. v88 n70503 p637-647 May 77. Johnson, H. Paul ; Atwater, Tanya Geochronology of the Neogene Paleomagnetic Polarity Epochs Proceedings of the Congress (6th), International Union of Geological Sciences, Bratislava (Czechoslovakia), 4-7 Sep 75, v1 p303-305 Theyer, F. ; Hammond, S. R. A Revised Time Scale of Magnetic Reversals for the Early Cretaceous and Late Jurassic Jnl. of Geophysical Research, v80 n17 p2586-2594, 10 Jun 75. Larson, Roger L. ; Hilde, Thomas W. C. Magnetic Lineations Observed near the Ocean Floor and Possible Implications on the Geomagnetic Chronology of the Gilbert Epoch Geophysical Jnl. of the Royal Astronomical Society, v28 p35-48 1972 Klitgord, K. D. ; Mudie, J. D. ; Normark, W. R. Evidence for the Opening of the South Atlantic in the Early Cretaceous Nature, v246 n5430 p209-212 23 Nov 73. Larson, Roger L. ; Ladd, John W. Faunal Extinctions and Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field Geological Society of America Bulletin, v82 p2433-2447 Sep 71. Hays, James D. Age of the North Atlantic Ocean from Magnetic Anomalies Earth and Planetary Science Letters 11 p195-200 1971. Pitman, III, W. C. ; Talwani, M. ; Heirtzler, J. R. Magnetic Reversals and Sedimentation Rates in the Arctic Ocean Geological Society of America Bulletin, v81 p3129-3134 Oct 70. Clark, David L. Palaeomagnetism of Deep-Sea Sediments International Dictionary of Geophysics, v2 p1134-1141 1967 Harrison, C. G. A. Magnetic Anomalies over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge Near 27 Degrees N Science v157 n3791 p920-3 Aug 1967 Phillips, J. D. Reference for volcanic activity: The End of Atlantis ........................................................................... References for the tree-ring data: Scientists Hope Tree Rings Will Answer Questions About Past THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DATE: June 16, 1988 12:44EDT (Chris Stassen provided these) Scientists Confront Creationism_, L. Godfrey, Ed.; New York: Norton, 1983. p. 35 Timescale N. Calder; New York: Viking, 1983. pp. 28-29, 224, 271-273 Principles of Isotope Geology G. Faure; New York: Wiley, 1986. pp. 390-39 Science and Earth History A. N. Strahler; New York: Prometheus, 1987. pp. 155-158 Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism Dalrymple, G. B.; USGS Open-File Report 86-110, 1986. pp. 39-41 The Unexplained: A Sourcebook of Strange Phenomina Wm. Corliss Science,133:729-735, March 17, 1961 Farrand, Wm. R. =================================================================== "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein ............................................................................. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank