• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Forbidden Science

love said:
That's right, he put a bunch of stuff together and then made some predictions to test his theory. Yes the theory may not be completely right. But that's how you make advances in science - putting forward hypotheses and testing them.
Click to expand...


I think I have seen enough evidence for me to conclude that no amount of facts or evidence will get you to even consider the possibility that Velikovsky's theories were completely wrong. So I'm done with that topic. The last thing I will say about it is that you might have been better off focusing on how unfair the establishment treated Velikovsky.

Carl Sagan (from Cosmos):
The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's work.

Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights.
Click to expand...


As I said earlier in this thread, Velikovsky got a bum deal. Threatening book publishers is not how science advances. Closely examining theories is how science advances. Velikovsky's theories have been closely examined and have been found to be false. He was not "on to something;" he was not close to something. He was wrong.
 
Dirty snowball theory

Terry said:
Ridiculous experimentally-verified theory, you mean?

no, it's not a primary source. Sue me.
Click to expand...

From your source:
So far, Spitzer has detected clays; iron-containing compounds; carbonates, the minerals in seashells; crystallized silicates, such as the green olivine minerals found on beaches and in the gemstone peridot; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon-containing compounds found in car exhaust and on burnt toast.
Click to expand...
clays, iron-containing compounds, minerals, silicates,... seems more like a rock with an atmosphere to me.
 
love said:
From your source:

clays, iron-containing compounds, minerals, silicates,... seems more like a rock with an atmosphere to me.
Click to expand...

From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/media/deepimpact-090605.html

For example, comet Tempel 1 has a very fluffy structure that is weaker than a bank of powder snow. The fine dust of the comet is held together by gravity. However, that gravity is so weak, if you could stand on the bank and jump, you would launch yourself into space.

. . . .

According to A'Hearn, one of the more interesting findings may be the huge increase in carbon-containing molecules detected in spectral analysis of the ejection plume. This finding indicates comets contain a substantial amount of organic material, so they could have brought such material to Earth early in the planet's history when strikes by asteroids and meteors were common.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. . . fluffy structure, substantal amount of organic material. . . yep, sounds just like Venus to me. I'm convinced!

:wink8:
 
Looks like I missed out on a lot of fun in this thread.

love, what sort of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?
 
love said:
From your source:

clays, iron-containing compounds, minerals, silicates,... seems more like a rock with an atmosphere to me.
Click to expand...

Dude, do some googling on the composition of rocky planets, types of materials and their proportions.

Here´s a summary:
Fe/Ni core (mostly metallic alloys)
Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, Ca, etc. mantle (silicates mostly)
Fe, Mg, Ca, K, Na, Al crust (mostly silicates)

Now check the rest of the description of comets composition that you -quite conveniently- chose to ignore.

Still think they look the same?
 
Genesius said:
Hmmm. . . fluffy structure, substantal amount of organic material. . . yep, sounds just like Venus to me. I'm convinced!
Click to expand...

How do you know it has a fluffy structure? Because the grown-ups at NASA told you so?

The spectral analysis gives clues as to the components of the comet. The coments on the structure is speculation based on a pre-conception that comets are dirty snowballs. Using that as evidence to support the theory would therefore be highly circular.

BronzeDog said:
Looks like I missed out on a lot of fun in this thread.

love, what sort of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?
Click to expand...
Evidence that actually contradicts Velikovsky's thesis.
 
JamesM said:
According to Wikipedia:
Despite having present-day climates similar to those of glaciated areas in North America, East Asia and parts of Alaska were unglaciated except at the highest elevations. This anomaly was caused by the fact that the ice sheets in Europe produced extensive anticyclones above them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ah, so the glaciation didn't appear evenly over the poles because of the weather...it simply didn't rain there.
From Siberia - The Land of Wonders:
Very unusual kinds of animals lived in Siberia during the Ice Age.
Click to expand...
I'd say... ones that could live in sub-zero conditions, without precipitation.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, Siberia and Western Alaska were temporate during the last ice age.
 
love said:
How do you know it has a fluffy structure? Because the grown-ups at NASA told you so?
Click to expand...
Because the evidence says so. From the same site:

It is this diligent and time consuming analysis of spectral data that is providing much of the "color" with which Deep Impact scientists are painting the first ever detailed picture of a comet. For example, researchers recently saw emission bands for water vaporized by the heat of the impact, followed a few seconds later by absorption bands from ice particles ejected from below the surface and not melted or vaporized.

"In a couple of seconds the fast, hot moving plume containing water vapor left the view of the spectrometer, and we are suddenly seeing the excavation of sub-surface ice and dust," said Deep Impact co-investigator Dr. Jessica Sunshine, with Science Applications International Corporation, Chantilly, Va. "It is the most dramatic spectral change I've ever seen."
Click to expand...
Hmmm. . . absorption bands for ice particles. Sounds like what you'd expect from whacking a giant frozen snowball with a hunk of metal.

love said:
The spectral analysis gives clues as to the components of the comet. The coments on the structure is speculation based on a pre-conception that comets are dirty snowballs. Using that as evidence to support the theory would therefore be highly circular.
Click to expand...
Scientists have a theory that comets are dirty snowballs. They then examine the evidence to see if it supports their theory. Son of a gun, it does!

love said:
Evidence that actually contradicts Velikovsky's thesis.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. Velikovsky predicted hydrocarbons in Venus' atmosphere, there's none. Velikovsky predicted Venus' should have the same composition as comets, it doesn't.

Oh, but I forget! It's the "grown-ups at NASA" who are telling us this, and we know they all cover up the truth so we won't find out that Mr. super-genius Velikovsky was right all along. Yeah love, you can prove anything if you ignore the evidence that disagrees with your position. And since all the scientific evidence disagrees with your position, you're left with :words:
 
The evidence against Velikovisky´s "theory" are there.

Example- if comets were not "fluffy" the behavior of the probes sent to meet them would be different. Why? Check an equation derived by a certain Newton.

And yes, animals lived in Siberia in the last Ice Age. Animals adapted to cold. Can you prove otherwise?

But a grown-up wrote a book (full of flaws) saying that Velikovisky was right...
 
What sort of evidence would you accept as contradicting Velikovsky? You seem to dismiss any reports from NASA out of hand--why?
 
Correa Neto said:
Example- if comets were not "fluffy" the behavior of the probes sent to meet them would be different. Why? Check an equation derived by a certain Newton.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, in what way?

And yes, animals lived in Siberia in the last Ice Age. Animals adapted to cold. Can you prove otherwise?
Click to expand...
OK, so animals lived in Siberia. How did they adapt to a sub-zero climate and having zero precipitation?

But a grown-up wrote a book (full of flaws) saying that Velikovisky was right...
Click to expand...
Velikovsky may or may not be right. It seems to me though that the arguments made against Velikovsky don't hold much water or simply appeal to dogma.
 
UrsulaV said:
What sort of evidence would you accept as contradicting Velikovsky? You seem to dismiss any reports from NASA out of hand--why?
Click to expand...
I am dismissing conclusions that are simply stated without referring to the actual evidence they are based on. I am not simply going to accept conclusions drawn without seeing the reasoning.

I prefer to start from the facts and then come to my own conclusions.

The facts that I have actually seen on the NASA site are a list of ingredients from the spectral analysis. They seem to include materials one would expect to find in the crust of an earth like planet and hydrocarbons.

This seems to support Velikovsky's ideas rather than refute them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom