Forbidden Science

[Ashles]

Just to clarify:
"The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts?"
YES.

That's kind of what "wrong" means.

And he would have gotten away with it, too...

I wondered why no-one else had pointed that out thus far. It did make me laugh.

Love, do you know what 'facts' are?

Once you start rejecting actual facts because they don't fit in with your theory, you have already lost.

There is clearly literally nothing that could convince you your theory is wrong. You believe made up up facts. Make incorrect assertations. Ignore offered refuting evidence. And then dismiss information provided by sources like NASA.

All because you want myths to make more sense than they do.

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

I am afraid the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite of this claim.

 

[Correa Neto]

Hey love, what about the fact that there was no recent resufacing of the Moon, as Velikovisky's theories require?

The Moon is no Venus, right?

What about the fact that your claims on the Ice Age are also bogus?

 

[CurtC]

As if there's not enough evidence to falsify Velikovsky a million times over, I don't think it's been mentioned yet about the impossibility of the orbits.

If Venus had been ejected from Jupiter and passed by the Earth, etc, etc, there is no way that the planets could all then end up in concentric, nearly-circular orbits around the Sun. At least one of the bodies would necessarily have to be in an eccentric orbit that would overlap the orbit of another planet.

 

[PixyMisa]

As if there's not enough evidence to falsify Velikovsky a million times over, I don't think it's been mentioned yet about the impossibility of the orbits.

I did say that, somewhere along the line. Doesn't hurt to say it again.

If Venus had been ejected from Jupiter and passed by the Earth, etc, etc, there is no way that the planets could all then end up in concentric, nearly-circular orbits around the Sun. At least one of the bodies would necessarily have to be in an eccentric orbit that would overlap the orbit of another planet.

Not to mention what would have happened to the Moon.

 

[Ducky]

....snip...Ignoring the ad hominem attacks, ....snip...

Funny, you were full of the ad hominem attacks when discussing my cancer.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Funny, you were full of the ad hominem attacks when discussing my cancer.

Say it, Mister!

 

[burrahobbit]

The main reason I believe Velikovsky is that it explains many things so well. It explains the mystery of our modern calender. It explains why so many cultures developed myths about planetary gods and their destructive power from what we currently observe as faint dots in the sky. It explains why so many scholars simply recorded the fact that Venus was a comet. ... It explains why people believe in religions and fear an apocalypse or return of the Lord, where they will be judged. It explains why certain symbols were used in representing the planets. It explains why people wrote about before there was a moon in the sky, or when the days were shorter. It explains why people have explicitly stated different measurements for the number of days in a lunar month and in a year, and talk about the calendars being adjusted or recalculated.

The only thing that Velikoivsky explained was what he invented in the first place.

The myths "studied" were primarily middle Eastern and European. Data from them was ruthlessly cherrypicked to suit the theory. The fact that there is very little convergence with the Myths out of India and China is happily forgotten. (Or covered up with a theory of "racial Amnesia" or some such thing. Where the myth supports Velikovsky, it is the gospel. Where it does not, it is false.

There is no record of different no of days in lunar months or length of the day OR absence of the moon in Indian records or (as far as I know) Chinese records. Both civilisations had excellent astronomers in the relevant periods.

The symbols of the planets and their significance is very different in different cultures.

There is no equivalent reporting of the plagues (or Manna) in Indian and Chinese myths.

Either the venus of Dr Velikovsky miraculously affected only the middle east!!

Or the whole theory is BULL****

 

[burrahobbit]

The science I can actually discern for myself simply makes my belief in Velikovsky stronger.

You seem to have trouble discerning science

There is almost no ozone in Earth's lower atmosphere, yet quite a bit in the ozone layer.

So it simply isn't as simple as Venus is 97% CO2 and 3% N2 therefore no hydrocarbons, because there is a structure to the atmosphere.

The issue is not whether there are traces of Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of venus (AFAIK there are not but I am not an expert). The issue is whether there is enough to explain manna etc.

The ozone in the earths upper atmosphere, while very important, is, in absolute quantitative terms, infinitesimal. A typical analysis would fail to detect it. If Venus has hydrocarbons in its atmosphere in the same proportion, we would be justified in saying that there were NO hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

Of course, the problem of how hydrocarbons change to carbohydrates by "interaction" with the atmosphere remains. The only thing that happens to hydrocarbons on interaction with the atmosphere is that they BURN.

 

[burrahobbit]

I genearlly do not understand why evangelical christians are drawn to Velikovsky. Someone who has no trouble believing the numerous impossible things in the Bible should have no trouble beleving that

1. God stopped the revolution of the earth (Even that he stopped it in only one location)

2. God caused the plagues, manna etc

3. Anything else necessary as specified in the Bible (My old testament knowledge is a little rusty)

Why do you need Velikovsky or Venus.

Do you not believe the Bible (in your heart of hearts).

Why do you look so desperately for external confirmation of scripture?

 

[wollery]

The main reason I believe Velikovsky is that it explains many things so well. It explains the mystery of our modern calender. It explains why so many cultures developed myths about planetary gods and their destructive power from what we currently observe as faint dots in the sky. It explains why so many scholars simply recorded the fact that Venus was a comet. It explains the unusual distribution of ice in the last ice age. It explains why people believe in religions and fear an apocalypse or return of the Lord, where they will be judged. It explains why certain symbols were used in representing the planets. It explains why people wrote about before there was a moon in the sky, or when the days were shorter. It explains why people have explicitly stated different measurements for the number of days in a lunar month and in a year, and talk about the calendars being adjusted or recalculated.

It was designed to explain those things. It was designed to give a physical explanation for miracles and other events in the bible.
The fact remains, however, that Velikovsky's theories are physically impossible for a large number of reasons, most of which have already been posted, which you choose to dismiss or ignore.

I feel the science will eventually catch up, but astronomy is quite young, and is not yet settled in its views. It was built on a belief in a basically unchanging solar system. The stories I have heard about the formation of planets, the mass of the universe, the Hubble constant etc. have changed within my lifetime. It is no big stretch to believe they will change again.

Astronomy's a young science you say? Not according to this site or this one or this one or any number of others. To quote the first site, "Astronomy is the oldest of the sciences."

The stories you have heard have changed in your lifetime? Wow, who would have guessed that science advances knowledge?

It may seem impossible to you now, but I am also aware that science declared many things to be impossible before they were done e.g. manned flight.

"Science" doesn't make declarations, individual scientists do. Sometimes they're wrong, but science goes on finding the truth regardless.

The science I can actually discern for myself simply makes my belief in Velikovsky stronger.

Then you're "discerning" some very strange and highly selected bits of science.

Ignoring the ad hominem attacks, the actual arguement against Velikovsky seems to be based on the accepted fact that Venus is
a) not a comet, and
b) does not have hydrocarbons in its atosphere.

I have tried to reconstruct how the conclusion of (b) was reached.
So far I have discovered that a KOH manometer was used to measure CO2 in the earlier probes. I am not sure how well this works with hydrocarbons, but it should be possible to find out.

I also understand that the clouds surrounding Venus are in the upper atmosphere. So any ideas about the composition of the lower atmosphere is largely irrelevant.

There are conjectures about the clouds containing sulphuric acid. I cannot find a source that says that they do not contain hydrocarbons, and how this is determined. Can anyone point me at one?

Here is a particularly telling quote:


There is almost no ozone in Earth's lower atmosphere, yet quite a bit in the ozone layer.

So it simply isn't as simple as Venus is 97% CO2 and 3% N2 therefore no hydrocarbons, because there is a structure to the atmosphere.

I also believe that iron and sulphur (brimstone) were detected higher up in the atmosphere of Venus, which explains Velikovsky's red dust preceding the plagues. I find it very confirming when this sort of evidence presents itself, when I am not even looking for it.

I'd say that the real argument against Velikovsky's work is that what he did isn't science, not even close. He took the bible and a bunch of myths, cherrypicked the parts he liked, and made up a story that was physically impossible in an attempt to give a physical explanation for various biblical stories.

In other words, he started from a conclusion (ie, that the biblical stories were true) and made up a scenario to fit the data. He offered up two facts which were testable; that Venus should be hot, and that its atmosphere should contain hydrocarbons.

Even if they were both correct neither of them is unique to his theory, both could be due to any other number of scenarios. And they aren't both correct, only one is, and the one that is correct is so for a different reason than the one he offered.

Velikovsky was wrong. What part of this aren't you getting?

 

[CurtC]

The main reason I believe Velikovsky is that it explains many things so well...

Did you ever watch the kids' show Santa Claus is Coming to Town?

You know how there are a bunch of seemingly unconnected myths relating to the whole Santa story? This show weaves a story that explains them all. Why he goes by Santa Claus and Kris Kringle. Why he delivers toys. Why at Christmas. Why he has elves, why he comes down the chimney and puts toys in stockings. Why he lives at the North Pole, and has a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Why kids sit in his lap and send him letters. It explains it all.

This seems pretty equivalent to the Velikovsky story - a "just so" story crafted to explain the details of a mix of facts and untrue myths. Do you "believe" Santa Claus is Coming to Town?

 

[love]

OK.

Why does slowing down the rotation of the earth necessarily kill every living thing on the planet?

Why is it not possible to affect earth's rotation without intersection?

You can assume I have a basic grounding in rotational mechanics. I will ask questions if your explanations are too advanced for me.

 

[love]

I don't believe Santa Claus is Coming to town, because I have better explanations for the things it explains.

I currently have no alternate explanations for why the calendar changed in the way it did, why ancient scholars wrote what they did, or that big list of other things I describe.

OK, I do have an alternate explanation for the shifted ice, cap. Apparently in the last ice age, the world was colder than it is now, and so much of europe and the middle of northern america became covered in glaciers. Glaciation never reached western alaska or siberia, because it never snowed there, because of the winds and the weather. As it became warmer, glaciers formed all over Alaska and Siberia, freezing the animals there in the ice.

However, I regard this as a bit far fetched compared to the explanation and fact documented in at least three separately traditions that the Earth has had a different pole star. Particularly when one realizes that the glaciated region was not really any different in size in the last ice age from what it is now.

Do you have any other explanations for, e.g. the calendar change from 360 days to 365?

 

[PixyMisa]

Why does slowing down the rotation of the earth necessarily kill every living thing on the planet?

A couple of reasons. One, the surface of the Earth is moving at a thousand miles an hour at the equator. If you stop it suddenly, inertia causes everything else - people, animals, buildings, trees, the ocean - to keep going. SPLAT.

Two, all the energy of rotation is converted to heat, just like it is in the brakes of a car. The Earth is very very large, and it is rotating very fast, and almost all of it is already hot enough to kill you instantly. When you dump all that extra heat into the system, the thin crust that is all that stands between us and flash-incineration goes bye-bye.

Why is it not possible to affect earth's rotation without intersection?

Because all you have to work with is gravity, and Venus's gravity isn't remotely strong enough to do the job. Consider the Moon, which has been acting as a tidal brake on the Earth's rotation for billions of years - and yet, here we are, spinning merrily away.

Velikovsky would have it that Venus, in a single approach, stopped the Earth's rotation completely, then came back the next day and started it up again. The only way to transfer sufficient energy in a single pass to cancel out the Earth's rotation would be to actually have the two planets collide - on a very exact trajectory, even then. That would, of course, destroy the Earth completely.

 

[Hutch]

OK.

Why does slowing down the rotation of the earth necessarily kill every living thing on the planet?

Ever been in a car accident, love? The car going from 30mph to 0 mph almost instantaneously, but the driver/passenger, et. al. continuing onward until they encounter something (i.e., dashboard, window). I hope you haven't had to see the results...some of the folks on this board have.

Now go from revolution in 24 hours speed (figure about 20,000 miles/24 hours = 834MPH) to 0. Planet stops. Things on it (like us) don't. WHOPPING BIG EFFECT!! And then the acceleration (where did that energy come from, anyway?), which would also lead to quite a tossing a turning by the world's population. But nothing like this has been reported in the time frame specified by Veliokovsky.

Why is it not possible to affect earth's rotation without intersection?

Not sure what you are asking here. Affecting earth's rotation by any means requires a HUGE amount of energy (Earth weights 5.9 x 10^21 moving at the 834MPH speed--do the figuring on how much energy would have to be added to the system to make that happen--probably enough to melt the surface and evaporate the oceans.

So why are we still here?

You can assume I have a basic grounding in rotational mechanics. I will ask questions if your explanations are too advanced for me.

Well, I don't, so I will defer to others in this discussion. There is one thing that hasn't been brought up, however, IIRC--and if you have the necessary math, I would appreciate your help. If Venus came out of Jupiter, what would be the escape velocity and how much energy would be need to eject a planet-sized object from Jupiter's gravity well?

Edited to add--PixyMisa beat me to it and said it much better.

 

[UrsulaV]

Do you have any other explanations for, e.g. the calendar change from 360 days to 365?

Better math?

Seriously. If I'm inventing a calendar, I may work out that there's about twelve months in a year. But after awhile, I'm going to discover that there's a certain degree of error in my calculation, and that there must be extra days because gee, this sure doesn't LOOK like the equinox. So I'm gonna go check with the astronomers, and we're going to stop and figure out how many days it looks like we're off, vs. how many years we've been using this calender, and then we're going to slot in however many extra days we think we'll need. This doesn't mean that the earth actually took less time to go around the sun before, it means the human-made calendar was imperfect.

The Julian calendar determined that they'd been so far off with the wacky way they'd been calculating, they need two whole extra MONTHS, which were inserted in 45 BC so they'd get the equinox in on the right date. However--and let's be real clear on this--the year 45 BC was NOT actually fourteen months long. The earth did NOT actually take fourteen months to go round the sun. The calendar was at fault, not the rotation of the earth, and it had to be corrected by fooling with the calendar, not the rotation of the earth. And even this was faulty, and the Gregorian calendar was introduced to fix it, which knocked ten days off the total. This does not mean that the year 1582 took only 355 days to orbit the sun, however, just that the calendar had to be adjusted.

Calendars are often imperfect and always require complicated math. Sometimes the calendar makers are wrong and correct themselves. Human error is well proven as a source of calendar error--planets tripping the light fantastic...eh, not so much. I would suggest that at least some of your calendar shifts are nothing more than the self-correction of the system. (Now, if there are some you feel strongly aren't, feel free to mention the specific calendar and culture, and I'm sure somebody can tackle it.)

The fault, dear love, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

 

[love]

A couple of reasons. One, the surface of the Earth is moving at a thousand miles an hour at the equator. If you stop it suddenly, inertia causes everything else - people, animals, buildings, trees, the ocean - to keep going. SPLAT.

As the comet approaches, the rotation is gradually changed. The idea of suddenly stopping, is a common mistake and a false extrapolation of the theory.

You can stop a planet's rotation in the same way you can stop a car travelling at 30mph (or more) without being killed: by slowing down gradually.

Two, all the energy of rotation is converted to heat, just like it is in the brakes of a car. The Earth is very very large, and it is rotating very fast, and almost all of it is already hot enough to kill you instantly. When you dump all that extra heat into the system, the thin crust that is all that stands between us and flash-incineration goes bye-bye.

How is it like the brakes of a car? In a car the brakes are held in a fixed position relative to the wheel. In our cosmic example all the bodies involved are free to move.

Why can not the energy of rotation remain kinetic?

Because all you have to work with is gravity, and Venus's gravity isn't remotely strong enough to do the job. Consider the Moon, which has been acting as a tidal brake on the Earth's rotation for billions of years - and yet, here we are, spinning merrily away.

How is Venus' gravity not strong enough?

The moon is in a stable orbit. Why would it cause an acceleration of the earth's crust? Could it not, if it was not in orbit?

Velikovsky would have it that Venus, in a single approach, stopped the Earth's rotation completely, then came back the next day and started it up again. The only way to transfer sufficient energy in a single pass to cancel out the Earth's rotation would be to actually have the two planets collide - on a very exact trajectory, even then. That would, of course, destroy the Earth completely.

Why would you need a collision to transfer sufficient energy? How are you calculating this?

I do not think you have actually hit on anything that would actually make it impossible.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Better math?

....snip..
Calendars are often imperfect and always require complicated math. Sometimes the calendar makers are wrong and correct themselves. Human error is well proven as a source of calendar error--planets tripping the light fantastic...eh, not so much. I would suggest that at least some of your calendar shifts are nothing more than the self-correction of the system. (Now, if there are some you feel strongly aren't, feel free to mention the specific calendar and culture, and I'm sure somebody can tackle it.)

The fault, dear love, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

Anyone who has done any kind of genealogical research will find out that some folks were a little late in adopting the Gregorian calendar. Which is why two dates are often given for the birthdays of notable folks in the American Revolution:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-British.html

Also, in many cultures the "New Year" is in the spring. Until the law listed above, the official legal New Year in Great Britain and its colonies (including the uppity 13 colonies that revolted) was March 15th. More about that confusion here:
http://www.genfair.com/dates.htm

Anyway, just look at the month names starting with September. The names are numbers. September should be the 7th month, not the 9th... and December should be the tenth month, not the 12th. Nothing mystical or fantastic about it. Just trying to make sure the date occurs at the same location around the sun.

 

[love]

There is one thing that hasn't been brought up, however, IIRC--and if you have the necessary math, I would appreciate your help. If Venus came out of Jupiter, what would be the escape velocity and how much energy would be need to eject a planet-sized object from Jupiter's gravity well?

Now this is a perhaps a point that deserves some attention. How could mass be ejected from a planet like jupiter?

Hmm, well just being big doesn't stop you ejecting mass. The sun ejects mass during solar flares, they are called "coronal mass ejections". However, this is not mass ejected as a single lump, more as a stream. But at least we have an example of overcoming the gravity well of a much larger body.

My first thought is to ask the questions: Are planetary bodies stable? What perturbations of a planetary body are automatically corrected? What happens during the correction?

We could start with the model of a spinning ball and see what happens if we set the axis slightly out of alignment. Unfortunately Jupiter is quite a bit more complicated than that.

I could throw out some conjectures: what would happen if there was some process that caused the atmosphere around the solid core of jupiter to accrete preferentially in one region?

Definitely an interesting question. And yes, calculating the energy and escape velocity would be a good start.

 

[Terry]

Definitely an interesting question. And yes, calculating the energy and escape velocity would be a good start.

Off you go then.