Forbidden Science

[Genesius]

Love, having read this thread, and other threads you have contributed to, and having repeatedly observed your total inability to learn or understand anything based in science, I now realize you are the person spoken of by the prophets John and Paul when they wrote:

"He's as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
Nowhere man, can you see me at all?"

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that any approach by Venus close enough to effect the Earth's rotation is also going to cause massive tides and very likely earthquakes? And then again 24 hours later when Venus comes back for its next pass? Ever stopped to consider that, outside of the Bible, there is NO RECORD of any of these events in ANY civilization? The Chinese for one were avid stargazers in this time, and any such events would have been recorded and passed down for centuries. I've never heard of any such records, have you?

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?

Any time you're changing the movement of an object you're expending energy. Since nothing is 100% efficient, any time you expend energy you're also creating waste heat. Can you imagine how much energy it would take to stop the Earth's rotation and then restart it?

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

You could have stopped that sentence after the 4th word and it would have been the smartest thing you ever said on this board.

Love, I'd like you to read a quote from http://www.unmuseum.org/velikov.htm . Please feel free to explain what, if anything, the author got wrong. If the author didn't get anything wrong, then will you be willing to publicly admit that Velikovsky actually got something wrong?

Even in the realm of anthropology there seems to be problems with the Velikovsky theories. According to Worlds in Collision Venus did not exist before about 1,500 B.C.. In his book Velikovsky says that neither the Hindus or the Babylonians recorded the planet Venus. However Peter Huber, from the Edgennossische Technische Hochschule, Zurich, reports that in Cuneiform texts stetching as far back as 3,000 B.C., Venus is mentioned as the star connected with the rising and setting sun. Clear evidence that it occupied an orbit in between the Earth and the sun as it does today. Also in records from 1580 to 1560 B.C. observations were made of Venus that clearly puts it in an orbit identical with the planet's current orbit.

There you go, Love. Velikovsky says Venus didn't exist before 1500 B.C. Science has records showing Venus existed back to 3000 B.C. Who wins?

 

[CurtC]

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.

Getting back to the question of how a pass-by of Venus would slow the Earth down...

Imagine that you're in charge of plotting a course for Venus (like it's a maneuverable spaceship). Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out how to pass by the Earth and make its rotation slow to a stop. Later we can worry about speeding it back up. How are you going to stop it? Wouldn't you need some kind of handle to grab on to? But you can't touch it. What are you going to do?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

That's not supported by the text that Velikovsky is trying to explain.

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?

How? You are trying to stop the Earth's rotation. Where does all the energy go?

How is Venus' gravity not strong enough?

It's not strong enough. Not by many orders of magnitude.

The moon is in a stable orbit. Why would it cause an acceleration of the earth's crust?

Gravity. The Moon produces tides, remember? Tides cause friction in the Earth, gradually slowing it down. Very gradually. Very very gradually. As I said, after several billion years of this, the Earth is still rotating.

Could it not, if it was not in orbit?

Huh?

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

Simple acceleration.

Venus's surface gravity is 9ms^-2. If you could somehow decelerate the Earth's rotation like that, it would take less than a minute to bring the Earth to a halt.

You can't, though; because that would require the Earth and Venus to be in contact (bringing about the immediate destruction of both), and gravity goes in all directions, not just against, say, Earth's rotation.

You can transfer angular momentum by sending Venus in a slingshot orbit around Earth, or by using it as a tidal brake. In either case the encounter would be both brief and distant, and the effect would be very small. And it would be mechanically impossible to reverse the effect the next day.

Look, you could park Venus where the Moon is, and in a million years it still wouldn't have slowed the Earth's rotation significantly. And the Bible somehow fails to mention an enormous disk in the sky at the time. Venus at that distance would be something like twenty times as bright as the Moon.

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

Because you are ignoring all the laws of physics.

 

[burrahobbit]

If you do the calculations, it is possible to stop the earth from rotating in about an hour without shaking people off the earth. However, the crust temperature will increase by well in excess of 100 dec C (212 F for you benighted Americans). With that the seas would have evaporated. Strange that no legends have recorded this.

Also, how in hell does Venus come back in 24 hours to restart the rotation. What POSSIBLE orbit could cause that?

And why on earth would the new rotation period be 24 hours again? What's so special about 24 hours. Why not 26? Or 14? Or rotation in the reverse direction? How did Venus KNOW????? Feminine intuition?

There is also NO evidence that Venus was not observed by Indian Astronomers before 1500 BC. Seems to have been made up from whole cloth.

Love, each of the so called predictions and proofs have been systematically disproved. Not that I expect you to notice.

I still would like to know why you have greater faith in the Venus of Velikovsky than in the God of Abraham.

 

[Mojo]

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

Before the change, they hadn't quite figured out the length of the year properly. This was a correction, not an actual change in the length of the year.

Let's look at another time when the calendar was changed. In September 1751 the calender in England was changed, to adjust from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. This necessitated removing 11 days from the calendar. Do you think that this meant that the Earth only took 354 days to go round the sun in 1751?

 

[Mojo]

Why can not the energy of rotation remain kinetic?

Because if you stop the Earth's rotation, it is no longer rotating.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you do the calculations, it is possible to stop the earth from rotating in about an hour without shaking people off the earth.

Oops! You used the word "possible'. Baaad move. (Yeah, it's possible in the sense that that deceleration wouldn't wreck everything. Not possible in the sense that such a deceleration could happen in the first place.)

 

[Chris Haynes]

...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.

Here is an idea for you to test this statement about not requiring a collision to transfer energy. Go to your nearest pool or billards hall... or tavern that has a pool table. Go in and declare that you can play anyone in the place and beat them without hitting the cue ball with a stick and by not colliding the cue ball with any other ball (you also cannot touch the table nor any balls with your hands, nor can you blow air at them).

It should make for a fun evening. And you might learn some physics.

 

[Lynx2174]

yeah love, the moon does slow the earth's rotation all the time, and yet we're still merrily spinning away. note that this is the reason that the moon always has the same face towards us; the earth's gravity has caused tides on the moon which eventually stopped it's rotation. if the earth was a moon of jupiter, it might have stopped due to tidal braking. there's no way venus could slow the earth's rotation in any noticible way over a million years, short of actually ramming the earth.

and we'd notice if venus hit us. albiet not for very long, but we'd have noticed. right before complete extinction in firey death.

there's just no way to slow things on anything except a geological scale using gravity.


and solar flares from the sun are made of superheated light gas plasma. venus is made of rock. one of these things is really light, and has the energy of a star pushing it away. the other isn't and doesn't.

 

[bruto]

Speaking of comets, I see that a small payload of actual comet dust recovered by a NASA probe has reached earth. I wonder what Velikovskian fundamentalists like love will make of that? A hoax?

 

[love]

Briefly, most of your questions are answered simply by reading Velikovsky, who actually presents most of the evidence you say is missing. This includes the boiling of seas.

I can see how you have become so misinformed; it is because you read his critics who misrepresent him. For example:

Even in the realm of anthropology there seems to be problems with the Velikovsky theories. According to Worlds in Collision Venus did not exist before about 1,500 B.C.

No, he claims it was a comet before then.

In his book Velikovsky says that neither the Hindus or the Babylonians recorded the planet Venus. However Peter Huber, from the Edgennossische Technische Hochschule, Zurich, reports that in Cuneiform texts stetching as far back as 3,000 B.C., Venus is mentioned as the star connected with the rising and setting sun.

In early texts it missing from the list of planets. Saying that it was observed before 1500BC, simply does not contradict anything Velikovsky says, because he doesn't specify when it came into being as a comet.

Clear evidence that it occupied an orbit in between the Earth and the sun as it does today. Also in records from 1580 to 1560 B.C. observations were made of Venus that clearly puts it in an orbit identical with the planet's current orbit.

Now that does contradict Velikovsky. Do you have a reference?

Most of the rest of your questions can be answered by having a better understand of mechanics. It is simply not true that all the rotational motion has to become heat. Kinetic energy and rotational momentum can be transferred to other heavenly bodies. And as I claimed, the crust can move independently of the mantle; even Einstein accepted that.

May I suggest you actually read Velikovsky, so that you get more than a vague picture of what he claims and the evidence he presents.

 

[geni]

No, he claims it was a comet before then.

In early texts it missing from the list of planets. Saying that it was observed before 1500BC, simply does not contradict anything Velikovsky says, because he doesn't specify when it came into being as a comet.

Any comet that followed an orbit that allowed it to be an evening star would not not look like a star. It would look like a comet (tail and all) every night.

Most of the rest of your questions can be answered by having a better understand of mechanics. It is simply not true that all the rotational motion has to become heat. Kinetic energy and rotational momentum can be transferred to other heavenly bodies. And as I claimed, the crust can move independently of the mantle; even Einstein accepted that.

Evidence that a)Einstein thought that and b) Einstein was a qualified geologist.

Anyway slowing down the crust only does result in heat since you would have massive friction between the crust and mantel.

 

[clarsct]

Wow.


I can't believe this thread is still going on.

love: Go get a bench mounted electric grinder. Turn it on low. Try to stop it with your hand.

That pain you are feeling is from heat. When you slowed the wheel down, your hand experienced both heat and friction, as did the wheel. Now make the wheel the size of the Earth.

Do you see, now?


Turn the speed on the wheel up to ~800MPH. Try putting your hand on it now.

Hurts, eh?

Now go pick up your hand and head to the ER.

 

[PixyMisa]

Most of the rest of your questions can be answered by having a better understand of mechanics. It is simply not true that all the rotational motion has to become heat. Kinetic energy and rotational momentum can be transferred to other heavenly bodies.

How?

And as I claimed, the crust can move independently of the mantle; even Einstein accepted that.

At a thousand miles per hour? Everyone would be dead.

May I suggest you actually read Velikovsky, so that you get more than a vague picture of what he claims and the evidence he presents.

He claims that

* Venus is a comet. It isn't.
* Venus was spat out by Jupiter. It wasn't.
* Venus contains hydrocarbons in its atmosphere. It doesn't.
* Hydrocarbons can turn into carbohydrates on contact with the Earth's atmosphere. They can't.
* Venus stopped the Earth's rotation, without any side effects such as the complete destruction of both planets. This is impossible, by the straightforward application of those same mechanics you cite.
* Venus started the Earth's rotation again the next day. This is impossible, as above.
* Venus had a close encounter with Mars in the past 3500 years or so. This is impossible, because Mars has two small moons in stable orbits, and they wouldn't be there if Venus had been anywhere in the vicinity.
* Venus then settled down in its present circular orbit, somehow dumping enormous amounts kinetic energy. This is impossible.

Do you claim that Velikovsky doesn't say this? Because if he does say this, we don't need to read his book; he is spouting utter nonsense. Even if he says that God attached giant rocket engines to Venus to send it careering around the solar system, it would still be impossible.

 

[PixyMisa]

Evidence that a)Einstein thought that and b) Einstein was a qualified geologist.

Anyway slowing down the crust only does result in heat since you would have massive friction between the crust and mantel.

The crust can move independently of the mantle... At about an inch per year.

 

[sionep]

I've read another book of his called The Facts of Life. It's interesting, but ultimately goes nowhere, and having heard that (in the book you've just mentioned) he actually thinks cold fusion (a la Fleischmann and Pons) is real, and a few other off-the-wall ideas, I doubt that he's really a credible player.

Rolfe.

The main issues with Pons & Fleischmann was when Quantum Mechanics say, that the process they have seen and claimed to have happened is impossible to take place at that sort of temperature, but the 2 inventors insisted that it did. That was what alarmed scientists of the day, because they have overthrown Quantum Mechanics. At the end Quantum Mechanics stayed true to its prediction and overthrew the 2 scientists from their academic professions.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip.... And as I claimed, the crust can move independently of the mantle; even Einstein accepted that.
...snip...

(I) Source, please?

(II) Even if it could, there'se one little word you must remember: friction. Imagine the heat that would build up at the crust/mantle interface if such motion happened... Or there's some über-lubricant there?

Oh, don't even try to argue about the Mohorovičić discontinuity if you don't really knows what it is. Please avoid embarassing yourself anymore.

 

[Dave_46]

May I suggest you actually read Velikovsky, so that you get more than a vague picture of what he claims and the evidence he presents.

I tried reading Worlds in collision about 35-40 years ago. I realised it was rubbish before I got 1/4 into it.

Dave

 

[love]

Yes, a lot of heat was generated. However, it is incorrect to assume all rotational momentum was converted to heat.

The objections to idea that man could survive the Earth slowing down remind seem similiar in character to earlier misconceptions. When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph. It was also claimed by Scientific American that manned flight was impossible when the Wright brothers started making their experimental flying machines.

 

[Correa Neto]

So, love, where's the evidence of all this heating?