Velikovsky, Hero or Villain? Plasma Cosmology Astronomy -YouTube video

Velikovsky revisited... YouTube video PING!

If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.

It has been said that no great advance has ever been made without controversy. More than 5 decades after the Velikovsky firestorm, questions first posed by Velikovsky can no longer be ignored. At stake here is not just the billions of dollars NASA has wasted chasing chimeras, but the very integrity of scientific exploration. Also at stake is the ability of the sciences to attract and inspire new generations. And nothing is more inspirational than a sense of being on the edge of discovery.

No matter the outcome of this long-standing battle, the time of reckoning is at hand. The voice of Velikovsky's ghost WILL be heard.

Immanuel Velikovsky Papers, 1920-1996 (bulk 1930-1979)BIOGRAPHY; LINK.

Thanks for the links. I remember reading Velikovski’s books, Ages In Chaos, Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval, when they first were published in paperback. They were compelling...and sometimes, the sheer poetry and scope of Velikovski’s writing was breathtaking.

He will always have his defenders: men and women of true science.

thanks for the response, I always keep a Velikovsky book on my bedside table. Are you aware of the VArchive?

Unpublished writings:

http://www.varchive.org/

Sagan’s greenhouse explanation for the lead-melting surface temperature of Venus is basically idiotic and the only other explanation out there is Velikovsky’s. It seems clear enough that we cannot proceed much further into the space age without coming grips with this guy.

I'm quite surprised that this video which presents Velikovsky in a positive light also presents Carl Sagan apparently speaking positively about Velikovsky or maybe just about Velikovsky like challenges to the conventional wisdom. (It's hard to tell which.) People who care to know the truth should read Ginenthal's Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky.

ML/NJ

I have a book by Velikovsky checked out of the library right now, but I haven’t started reading it yet. I may start it tonight and put away the History of Modern Greece, which has terribly small type!

Thanks swordmaker!




· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

At least now my admiration for the man can be told without fear of reprisal. Thanks!

They were compelling...and sometimes, the sheer poetry and scope of Velikovski’s writing was breathtaking.
***That’s a good way of describing Velikovsky’s writings. I love the boldness of his theories, even if they’re wrong. Kinda like why I liked Erik Van Danniken for the same reason, though Van D’s stuff was even more outlandish.

Here’s a taste of another outlandish theoretician, Dr. Paul La Violette:

SubQuantum Kinetics, wide ranging unifying cosmology theory by Dr ...Posted on 08/22/2007 12:00:43 PM PDT by Kevmo ...... KEYWORDS: astronomy; catastrophism; cosmology; electrogravitics; grainofsalt; pioneeranomaly; science; ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884938/posts

Physicists have ‘solved’ mystery of levitationAdditional information about electrogravitic propulsion may be found in the book Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology, ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1877078/posts?q=1&;page=101

electrogravitics and an article published by Dr. Paul La Violette.

Electrogravitics Systems:
Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology

Edited by Thomas Valone

Integrity Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1994
ISBN 0-9641070-0-7 $15 USD

The last I heard about him was that he was terminated from the US Patent office because he “believed in” Cold Fusion.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2002_March/ai_86472886

Cold fusion confusion the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s incredible interpretation of religion in LaViolette v. Daley
Army Lawyer, March, 2002 by Drew A. SwankIs cold fusion (1) the equivalent of Catholicism? Is believing in extraterrestrials the same as being an Episcopalian? In the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision of LaViolette v. Daley, (2) the EEOC held that the complainant’s unusual beliefs regarding cold fusion, cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, and other “scientific” beliefs are entitled to the same protection in the workplace from discrimination as religious beliefs. (3) This note, by examining the facts of the case, the relevant statutes, agency regulations, and case law, will demonstrate that the EEOC’s ruling has impermissibly expanded the definition of “religion” to the point that it has created a new cause of actionable discrimination—something the EEOC has neither the power nor the authority to do.

Genesis

Paul LaViolette had been a patent examiner with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) until he was fired on 9 April 1999. (4) On 28 June 1999, LaViolette filed a formal complaint of discrimination, alleging that the PTO fired and refused to rehire him based upon his “unconventional beliefs about cold fusion and other technologies.” (5) The Department of Commerce, of which the PTO is part, dismissed LaViolette’s complaint on 13 September 1999, for failure to state a claim within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (6)

LaViolette appealed the dismissal, arguing that “`discrimination against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of discrimination on the basis of religion.’ Therefore, he contends, his scientific beliefs in cold fusion are protected.” (7) The EEOC reversed the agency’s dismissal of his complaint and remanded it for further processing. (8) While an agency must dismiss a complaint of discrimination that fails to state a claim, (9) here the EEOC held:

In determining which beliefs are protected under Title VII, the Supreme
Court has held that the test is whether the belief professed is sincerely
held and whether it is, in his own scheme of things, religious....
Moreover, in defining religious beliefs, our guidelines note that “the fact
that no religious group espouses such beliefs ... will not determine
whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee ...

In the instant case, complainant argues that his unconventional beliefs
about cold fusion and other technologies should be viewed as a religion and
therefore protected. Complainant claims he was terminated and denied the
opportunity to be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold
fusion beliefs. Therefore, under the applicable law noted above, we find
that the agency improperly dismissed complainant’s claim of discrimination
for failure to state a claim. (10)
While the EEOC subsequently stated that it did not determine the validity of LaViolette’s complaint, (11) by allowing the case to go forward, it has extended Title VII protection to scientific beliefs. In doing so, the EEOC not only misapplied its own regulations, but also ignored the statutes and case law that govern it and exceeded its statutory mandate as well.

Numbers

The ultimate question presented by LaViolette’s complaint is whether his scientific beliefs deserve the same protection from discrimination as another’s religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (12) provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” (13) It defines religion to “include all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” (14) Title VII has been interpreted “to protect against requirements of religious conformity and as such protects those who refuse to hold, as well as those who hold, specific religious beliefs.” (15)

The EEOC, responsible for enforcing Title VII, (16) is required by its own regulations to adopt Title VII’s definition of religion. (17) As Title VII’s definition of religion is circular (religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice), (18) the EEOC’s regulation further adds that

[i]n most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at
issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the
Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical
beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the
strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard
in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or
the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to
belong may not accept such a belief will not determine whether the belief
is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase
“religious practice” as used in these Guidelines includes both religious
observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).
(19)

http://blog.hasslberger.com/mt/mt-view.cgi/1/entry/45/print_entry

In 1978, while still a doctoral student at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, Paul LaViolette made a prediction, which like Einstein’s prediction of the bending of starlight may one day be destined to shake the world. At that time, he was developing a unified field theory called subquantum kinetics. Unlike string theory, which has never made any testable predictions, LaViolette’s subquantum kinetics theory makes several, ten of which have thus far been confirmed. One in particular challenges the most fundamental of physical laws, the law of energy conservation. Subquantum kinetics predicts that a photon’s energy should not remain constant but rather should change with time, that photons traveling through interstellar space or trapped within stars or planets should continually increase in energy, although at a very slow rate. For example, his theory predicts that a photon traveling through our solar system should increase its energy at a rate of somewhat greater than one part in 1018 per second.

While this rate of energy change is far too small to measure in the laboratory, if present it would be extremely significant for astrophysics. Essentially, it would require that astrophysicists scrap all their existing theories on stellar evolution and stellar energy production. Subquantum kinetics predicts that all celestial bodies, whether they be a planet or star should produce energy in their interior. Although the energy excess produced by any given photon each second would be incredibly small, when the cumulative effect of trillions upon trillions of photons inside a planet or star are added up, the amount of energy becomes quite sizable. LaViolette coined the term “genic energy” to refer to this spontaneously created energy.

Thanks to Andrew Michrowski of PACE for sharing this release (PDF) by the Starburst Foundation in Athens, Greece. Read more...

- - -

The Pioneer Effect Discovery and the Amazing Theory that Predicted it
Journal article announces early prediction of the Pioneer Effect
Paul A. LaViolette, “The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of
spontaneous photon blueshifting.” Physics Essays 18(2) (2005/2007): 150-163. In print as of January 2007.

The article is available on line at arxiv.org:

The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting

The implications of LaViolette’s genic energy prediction may extend far outside the battle with the white tower physics establishment to embrace society as a whole. Routinely the U.S. Patent Office rejects patents on so called free-energy devices that claim to generate energy without burning any kind of fuel. To do this they cite violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even though the inventor in many cases provides signed affidavits of witnesses claiming to have tested the device and affirming that it works just as claimed, usually the patent is rejected in deference to the sacred law of energy conservation. As a result, many inventions that attempt to provide us with an alternative to burning fossil fuels end up in society’s trash bin. By casting doubt on the absolute validity of this law, the genic energy prediction could help to thaw patent examiners’ prejudiced stance on these technologies. With global warming well upon us, it is time the physics community takes a fresh look at LaViolette’s prediction and does some deep soul searching.

In this context, see also another article by LaViolette:

Moving Beyond the First Law and Advanced Field Propulsion Technologies

and an article on self-organizing criticality:

Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality

See also:

Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology

Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation
by Paul A. LaViolette

Newfound Data Could Solve NASA’s Great Gravity Mystery
“I would like to see this story reach its finality,” said Slava Turyshev, an astrophysicist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) who has spent the last 14 years—some of it on his own time—studying the Pioneer Anomaly. “So if it’s conventional physics, that’s fine and we can all go about our daily business. But if it’s something else, there may be another page.”

.

Electrogravitics Systems:
Reports on a New Propulsion Methodology

Edited by Thomas Valone

Integrity Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1994
ISBN 0-9641070-0-7 $15 USD

To order by check call 1-800-715-9993 or, click here to place an internet order.

The book contains:

1) the paper entitled “The U.S. Antigravity Squadron” by Paul LaViolette (© 1993) which presents evidence that the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber may use electrogravitic propulsion to enhance its flight capabilities. This paper, the first to reverse engineer the mysterious B-2 bomber was presented in 1993 at the International Symposium on New Energy (Denver, Colorado) and reprinted in Electrogravitics Systems.

LaViolette’s findings about the B-2 were reviewed in 2000 in an article in Aviation International magazine. Nick Cook, former aerospace editor for Janes Defense Weekly also has described these findings in his book The Hunt for Zero Point.

Shortly after it was published, this copyrighted paper was illegally scanned and its text was posted on the internet. Even though copyright notifications have been posted at numerous websites, postings of it have reappeared from time to time, often with the author’s name omitted. Please help to stem further postings by emailing the author at SphinxStargate@aol.com to alert of pirate postings. Also, if you have read or downloaded this paper, we urge you to please invest in a copy of the book Electrogravitics Systems. You will find that the paper’s nine diagrams make its concepts much more understandable. The book also contains other very interesting electrogravitics papers, described below.

2) The book also contains the intelligence think tank paper “Electrogravitics Systems” (prepared in 1956 by the Special Weapons Study Unit of Aviation Studies Ltd., a UK-based aviation industry intelligence firm). Formerly classified as confidential, this paper is now available for public view and reveals early interest by the U.S. and European aircraft industry in pursuing the electrogravitics gravity control technology pioneered by Townsend Brown. Paul LaViolette first discovered this paper in 1985 while browsing a card catalog at the U. S. Library of Congress in Washington, looking for information on electrogravitics. He was keenly interested in anything on the subject because the field theory he had been developing predicted the electro-gravitic coupling effect. He was surprised to find that this study, the only one of its kind listed in the catalog, was missing from the stacks! A quick library search indicated that only one library in the U. S. carried this study, the Wright Patterson Air Force Base Technical Library. He submitted an interlibrary loan request and to his surprise a copy was sent.

3) The book also includes the 1956 paper “The Gravitics Situation” (prepared by a division of Aviation Studies Ltd.), a paper by Banesh Hoffman entitled “Negative mass as a gravitational source of energy in the quasistellar radio sources and a copy of Townsend Brown’s 1929 gravitor patent.

Excerpt from “The U.S. Antigravity Squadron”

by Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D.

Electrogravitic (antigravity) technology, under development in U.S. Air Force black R&D programs since late 1954, may now have been put to practical use in the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber to provide an exotic auxiliary mode of propulsion. This inference is based on the recent disclosure that the B-2 charges both its wing leading edge and jet exhaust stream to a high voltage. Positive ions emitted from its wing leading edge would produce a positively charged parabolic ion sheath ahead of the craft while negative ions injected into it’s exhaust stream would set up a trailing negative space charge with a potential difference in excess of 15 million volts. According to electrogravitic research carried out by physicist T. Townsend Brown, such a differential space charge would set up an artificial gravity field that would induce a reactionless force on the aircraft in the direction of the positive pole. An electrogravitic drive of this sort could allow the B-2 to function with over-unity propulsion efficiency when cruising at supersonic velocities.

For many years rumors circulated that the U.S. was secretly developing a highly advanced, radar-evading aircraft. Rumor turned to reality in November of 1988, when the Air Force unveiled the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber. Although military spokesmen provided the news media with some information about the craft’s outward design, and low radar and infrared profile, there was much they were silent about. However, several years later, some key secrets about the B-2 were leaked to the press. On March 9, 1992, Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine made a surprising disclosure that the B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its wing-like body.(1) Those familiar with the electrogravitics research of American physicist T. Townsend Brown will quickly realize that this is tantamount to stating that the B-2 is able to function as an antigravity aircraft.

Aviation Week obtained their information about the B-2 from a small group of renegade west coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects. In making these disclosures, these scientists broke a code of silence that rivals the Mafia’s. They took the risk because they felt that it was important for economic reasons that efforts be made to declassify certain black technologies for commercial use. Two of these individuals said that their civil rights had been blatantly abused (in the name of security) either to keep them quiet or to prevent them from leaving the tightly controlled black R&D community.

Several months after “Aviation Week” published the article, black world security personnel went into high gear. That sector of the black R&D community received VERY STRONG warnings and, as a result, the group of scientists subsequently broke off contact with the magazine. Clearly, the overseers of black R&D programs were substantially concerned about the information leaks that had come out in that article.

To completely understand the significance of what was said about the B-2, one must first become familiar with Brown’s work. Beginning in the mid 1920’s, Townsend Brown discovered that it is possible to create an artificial gravity field by charging an electrical capacitor to a high-voltage.(2) He specially built a capacitor which utilized a heavy, high charge-accumulating (high K-factor) dielectric material between its plates and found that when charges with between 70,000 to 300,000 volts, it would move in the direction of its positive pole. When oriented with its positive side up, it would proceed to lose about 1 percent of it’s weight.(3, 4) He attributed this motion to an electrostatically-induced gravity field acting between the capacitor’s oppositely charged plates. By 1958, he had succeeded in developing a 15 inch diameter model saucer that could lift over 110% of its weight!(5) Brown’s experiments had launched a new field of investigation which came to be known as electrogravitics, the technology of controlling gravity through the use of high-voltage electric charge.

Additional information about electrogravitic propulsion may be found in the book Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology, by Paul LaViolette. The book presents a field theory which forms an excellent basis for understanding electrogravitic phenomena. This new physics framework played a key role in allowing Dr. LaViolette to reverse engineer the B-2’s propulsion system.
We believe that in the future subquantum kinetics will be the main physics reference that will allow engineers to construct the aerospace vehicles of the future. When these principles are completely understood, superluminal propulsion is real, not science fiction. Future aerospace pilots will use the term “gradient drive,” not “warp drive.” As pointed out in subquantum kinetics, gravitational force is created not through the “warping” of space-time (that is an impossibility), but through the imbalances which gravity energy potential gradients induce, which alter the reaction-kinetic processes that continually generate the field patterns composing material bodies. Those who have no previous exposure to subquantum kinetics may find the above terminology confusing. However, things should become clearer once you have made the paradigm shift that subquantum kinetics entails.

Acclaim for Electrogravitics Systems

This 111-page book presents information indicating that antigravity has been and is being seriously investigated by leading aircraft companies as well as governments. An underlying theme is that T. T. Brown propulsion, once developed, will usher in an age of flight so revolutionary it will make all previous aviation, from the Wright brothers to space shuttles, constiute the Stone Age of flight.
This book can be appreciated by anyone who is interested in electrogravitics. It contains basic information for the neophyte (such as glossaries, patent lists and basics on T. T. Brown research) as well as clippings and information which make a case for the reality of electrogravitics technology. . . The book is thought-provoking.
Having made a theoretical case for electrogravitics, the book also makes a historical one. Hints of electrogravitics in the history of aviation, revealed through developments and statements made by major aircraft companies in articles from Aviation Report in the mid-1950’s are reprinted. T. T. Brown’s work is described in detail.
The paper by Paul LaViolette is an intriguing speculation that the B-2 stealth bomber operates on T. T. Brown’s principle of propulsion. Statements from government and ex-government workers and officials are shown to fit in nicely with this possibility. LaViolette argues that several disclosed as well as probable technological details of this classified design are consistent with design specifications for a would-be T. T. Brown aircraft.

Leslee Kulba,Electric Spacecraft Journal

Accidental B-2 Electrocutions?

According to a former WW2 pilot, it is rumored that up to 20 ground crew may have been fatally zapped by touching the B-2 too soon after it landed. Also the tires were reportedly built with external stainless steel casings to permit charge bleed off at touchdown.

Thanks, I’m downloading the video right now.

Velikovsky did much good work digging up facts from around the world. His attempt at synthesizing all that into a coherent story was not bad. The relation of that story to reality is nonexistent.

NASA Searches for a Snowball in Hell
Why Velikovsky Matters...Today More Than Ever
By MARK GAFFNEY

On January 12, 2005 NASA launched its latest space probe, Deep Impact, named after the recent Hollywood science fiction film. Recall, in the cliffhanger a team of courageous astronauts (led by tough guy, Robert Duvall) sacrifice their lives to deflect a speeding comet from its collision course with earth, thus saving human civilization from catastrophe. NASA’s newest mission is also a last-ditch gambit, of sorts: an attempt to save the current comet model.

Open any astronomy book and you will read that comets are dirty snowballsconglomerates of ancient rock and ice left over from the creation of the solar system. And it must be true, right? After all, it says so in the textbooks, and surely the university professors can’t be wrong. The problem is that over the five decades since Fred Whipple first proposed the snowball model in 1950, neither NASA nor anyone has proved that comets are actually made of ice. Every time NASA scientists focus their instruments on the surface of comets, they see only rocky stuff. Comets look like asteroids. So, where’s the ice? After failing repeatedly to find it, NASA has concluded that the ice must be hidden by surface dust, or is buried out of sight. Deep Impact will attempt to resolve this question by looking below the surface.

Next July, if all goes well, the unmanned Deep Impact spacecraft will rendezvous with a small comet named Tempel 1, not to avert a collision, but for the purpose of causing one. Once in position, the craft will send a 300+ pound “impactor”essentially a 3 foot diameter copper projectiledirectly into the speeding comet’s path. No nuke or explosive charge will be needed to blast a hole in the comet’s surface. The comet’s tremendous kinetic energy will do that. Tempel 1 is clipping along at an estimated 12 miles a second.

The plan is to study the 100-300-foot crater excavated by the collision. During its fly-by, the spacecraft will also gather spectroscopic data from the ejected gas, dust and debris. Much planning has gone into the selection of the impact site, to (hopefully) assure that the crater will be in full sunlight, instead of shadow. Comet Tempel 1 has an irregular shapeit is only about 5 miles in diameter. With a bit of luck, NASA’s cameras will obtain a good look at the comet’s freshly excavated surface. It will be the first time that NASA has actually probed the interior of a comet. NASA expects to confirm the presence of ice.

Will they find it?

For the answer we will have to wait until next summer. When the rendezvous happensassuming things go according to planearth bound folks with binoculars will be treated to a show of celestial fireworks; although exactly how bright and visible the collision will be is open to question. The event will take placebelieve it or noton the fourth of July, independence day. One wonders if the neocons in Washington had something to do with this. At very least, the date shows the extent to which science has been politicized.

Snowball in Hell

But, somewhere, God must be laughing at us silly humans, because NASA has about as much chance of finding ice in Tempel 1 as the proverbial snowball in hell. It just ain’t going to happen. There’s too much contrarian evidence. It’s been accumulating for years, and should have melted the ice model, long ago. Yet, NASA stolidly presses onward. The agency greets every new anomaly with ad hoc improvisations, and has gone to increasingly outlandish lengths to preserve its ice theory. Why? Answer: because so much hangs in the balance. The stakes are very high. More is involved than simply comets. At issue is the Red Shift, the expanding universe, the theory of black holes, and yes, even the big bangall at risk if NASA’s cometary house of cards comes crashing down.

To see why the ice model is wrong, let us look at several anomalies:

In 1991 Halley’s Comet caused a stir by announcing itself from so far awayit was then between the orbits of Saturn and Uranus. Halley’s is one of the smaller comets, yet it became visible at fourteen times the distance of the earth from the sun, a fact that solar heating cannot explain. The standard explanation is that the sun’s warmth is responsible for the cometary coma and tail. But at that enormous distance the sun was simply too faint.

Evidence of an even more remarkable phenomenon, the sunward spikepreviously unknownwas first documented in a 1957 photograph of the Comet Arend-Roland. This stunning feature must be seen to be believed. (For a look at a spike go to http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/)

Over the years since the first sunward spike was photographed, dozens of other comets have been shown, at times, to display this amazing phenomenon. The spikes always point toward the sun. Yet, NASA has dismissed the photographic evidencehowever compellingas nothing but an optical illusion, an artifact, a play of light, etc. Obviously, NASA is in robust denial. Why? Sunward spikes are incompatible with the current ice model.

On May 1, 1996 the Ulysses spacecraft documented another previously unknown feature of comets, when it crossed the tail of Comet Hyakutake at a point more than 350 million miles from the comet’s nucleus. The ephemeral tail, in other words, stretched across the equivalent of three and a half times Earth’s distance from the suna number that is astonishing. The discovery was accidentaland wholly unexpected. Scientists had never guessed that comet tails were so long. Ulysses had been studying the solar wind, and so, had the necessary equipment on board to detect the ions typically associated with comets. The satellite also recorded the magnetic field directional changes that are associated with comet tails. Detailed analysis showed that both kinds of data were in agreement. For most scientists, this was enough to confirm the discovery. Notice, the remarkable tail length means that when Comet Hyakutake moved around the sun toward its minimum point (perihelion), the invisible portion of its tail arced across a vast reach of the solar system. The fact that the tail maintained its integrity at such extreme distance is incompatible with the standard view that the tail is composed of materials blown away from the nucleus. Something more is going on, here. The question is: What?

But the big event, also in 1996, was the discovery of X-rays coming from the head of Hyakutake. This discovery set the scientific world on its ear, because naturally occurring X-rays are associated with extreme temperatures: in the range of millions of degrees Kelvin. Yet, here they were coming from a supposed ball of ice. There was no immediate word from NASA about how or why an icy cold comet could produce X-rays. The discovery was the work of the German ROSAT satellite, and no mistake about it. During the next few years X-radiation was detected in half a dozen other cases, including the Comet Hale-Bopp.

Four years passed before NASA finally announced a solution to the puzzling anomaly. In April 2000, NASA conceded that extreme conditions are necessary for X-ray emission to occur. But, rather than call into question its own theory that comets are cold, NASA attempted to square the circle. The agency explained that the X-rays had been produced by the solar wind, whichit assertedwas merely an extension of the extremely hot solar corona. NASA’s explanation explained nothing, and amounted to a contradiction, as any intelligent high school science student should have been able to judge. The official word showed that NASA was fumbling with a mystery it did not understand, grasping at air like a blind man trying to steady himself. (For NASA’s official word go to http://spacescience.com/)

Next summer, when NASA fails to confirm the presence of ice in the nucleus of Tempel 1, the question that the space agency should have been asking in 1996 will become paramount. (Of course, this does not mean that NASA will come clean. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how far NASA is prepared to go to defend its ice model. Probably the contortions will continue. Not for no reason the agency acronym has been subject to redux: NASA Never A Straight Answer.)

Everyone agrees that comets have an atmosphere. It is known as the coma, and has been shown to include significant amounts of water vapor, along with hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, gaseous hydrocarbons, and various other compounds. The proportions vary from comet to comet. The present model holds that the water comes from the cometary nucleus. The thinking is that the sun’s warmth causes the icy head to sublimate, or out gas, and the solar wind pushes the vapors away in the amazing tail that has always been a source of wonderment and inspiration here on earth. No question, comets are beautiful to behold on a starry night. But neither NASA nor anyone has shown that the water actually comes from the nucleus. Such a deduction is understandable, but it remains unsupported by evidence, and it is almost certainly wrong. I have already cited the puzzling case of Halley’s Comet, whose visibility at extreme distance was incompatible with solar warming. Here’s the key question: If the head is NOT made of ice, how then to account for the known presence of water in the coma and tail? It’s a safe bet that, next summer, NASA will have no answer to this simple question. After all, they couldn’t explain the X-rays.

Not everyone was surprised by the discovery of X-rays. One astronomer named Jim McCanney actually predicted them. He did so as early as 1981 in a scientific paper first published in the journal Kronos. McCanney even urged NASA officials to look for X-rays when the agency was preparing a fly-by of Comet Giacobini-Zinner in 1985. At the time, NASA’s ISEE-3 satellite had already completed its original mission, and was being reprogrammed for comet study. The spacecraft had X-ray equipment on board, and McCanney urged NASA to use it. Instead, NASA shut down the equipment to conserve power. NASA’s experts concluded that there was no point in leaving the X-ray detector on, since there couldn’t possibly be X-rays coming from a cube of ice.

Fortunately, German scientists do not labor under NASA’s ideological thumb. The Germans took McCanney’s recommendation seriously. In 1990 they launched a satellite of their own, the Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), which was equipped with an X-ray telescope. ROSAT continues to search the heavens for high frequency X-rays. Earth-based X-ray telescopes are not feasible, because earth’s protective atmosphere absorbs X-radiation. This was the satellite that independently made the big discovery in 1996.

The Plasma Discharge Comet Model

McCanney is the originator of an alternative comet theory, what he calls the Plasma Discharge Comet Model. His model challenges several key assumptions current in today’s science, which, he says, must be overturned to correctly understand the nature of comets and the workings of the solar system. One of these assumptions is that space is electrically neutral. “Not so,” says McCanney. His comet model is, in fact, but a subset of a grander theory that describes the electrical nature of the sun. McCanney refers to it as the Solar Capacitor Model. He argues that most of the energy released by the sunby faris electrical, rather than in the visible spectrum. According to this view, the sunward spikes are titanic bolts of solar electricity, and comets are anything but cold. On the contrary, they are incredibly hot and fiery crucibles in which chemical and nuclear transmutations are occurring constantly.

McCanney thinks our earth and the other planets were originally comets that were drawn from their more elliptical orbits into more circular orbits. He is also quick to credit another maverick thinker who preceded him: Immanuel Velikovsky. In 1950 Velikovsky authored a controversial book, Worlds in Collision, in which he argued, among other things, that science had failed to account for the electromagnetic nature of comets. Even as the book topped the bestseller charts, several prominent figures in science, among them Carl Sagan, ridiculed Velikovsky and eventually succeeded in destroying his reputation. Velikovsky’s name became almost synonymous with wacko nonsense. How ironic this isbecause the 1996 discovery of cometary X-rays has made Velikovsky look like a prophet. If the Plasma Discharge Comet Model turns out to be correct, McCanney will earn his rightful place alongside Kepler, Galileo, and Newton; and the names Velikovsky and McCanney will be remembered long after NASA and Sagan have been forgotten.

Next time: Why it matters. How the Solar Capacitor Model could save our civilization from self-destructionnow imminent.

To be continued...

Mark Gaffney is the author of a 1989 pioneering study of the Israeli nuke program, Dimona the Third Temple. Mark’s latest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, has just been released by Inner Traditions Press.
He can be reached at mhgaffney@aol.com.

Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky
Book announcement
Preface
Dr. Carl Sagan, a professor of astronomy from Cornell University, a well known public personality and writer of popular books of science, in 1974 at a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) delivered a paper, “An Analysis of Worlds in Collision”. This paper was later edited and presented in a book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, published by Cornell University Press. The paper was further edited and presented in Sagan’s book Broca’s Brain, under the title “Venus and Dr. Velikovsky”. Sagan’s paper is a critique of Immanuel Velikovsky’s book Worlds in Collision.

Having read Velikovsky, I also read Sagan’s paper; I thereafter discovered that a group of scientists and scholars had written critiques of Sagan’s analysis. After reading these criticisms I began a search of the literature and over a period of time I became convinced that Sagan’s critique lacked substance. Most surprising was the number of statements made by Sagan that proved to be clearly untrue. Further reading reinforced this discovery of the glaringly unscientific and unscholarly quality of Sagan’s paper. What was much worse, was that it was difficult to imagine that even Sagan was unaware of the misrepresentation of evidence presented as scholarly criticism by him and offered to the public.

Thereafter, I encountered a colleague who, learning that I was interested in the thesis of Dr. Velikovsky, informed me that in Broca’s Brain was an essay by Professor Sagan that demolished Velikovsky and his thesis. When he informed me that he had not read any of Velikovsky’s books nor any criticisms of Sagan’s article I asked, “How can you make a proper judgment if you haven’t read both sides of the issue.” To my astonishment he replied, “I don’t have to read both sides to know which side is right!” His closed-minded attitude made discussion futile and I let the remark pass. Several days later I received a letter in which he presented citations from Sagan’s paper and posed, “What possible arguments could be raised on Velikovsky’s behalf?”

In response I composed a long letter which dealt with merely one of Sagan’s criticisms. This posted I awaited his response-none came. A few weeks later at a monthly conference, we ran into each other. In a very friendly manner he approached me, smiling broadly, he shook my hand. “What did you think of my reply to your letter?” I asked. He admired the scholarship of my reply to Sagan and admitted frankly, “There are two sides to this Velikovsky business.” This I followed up by asking if there were any other aspects of Sagan’s criticism which he wished to clarify. He shook his head ‘no’ and I dropped the matter. However, I noted that he seemed shocked by the evidence of the rebuttal presented.

It was at that moment that the realization struck that Carl Sagan’s cnticisms had been uncritically read by a wide audience. This was soon discovered to be the case among friends and relatives. Seemingly, they had all read Sagan’s side, but not Velikovsky’s. With little or no scientific background with which to judge, they had accepted Sagan’s word on all matters. It was then that I conceived the idea for this book. It is hoped that reading the other side will permit laymen to clarify the issues.

I must admit that doing the research for this book over about an eight-year period has brought to my attention much more than I had imagined regarding Sagan’s critique. It has been a deeply saddening experience to discover again and again the crassness of Sagan’s work on Velikovsky. It has also been a deeply shocking experience to learn the political nature of the way science operates. Even if Velikovsky’s theories are completely wrong, no one deserves to be maligned as he has been. The deceit exposed in the following pages is an outrage to decency.

Publishing Details
Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky
by Charles Ginenthal. (C) 1995 New Falcon Publications
448pages. ISBN 1-56184-075-0. $16.95. Paper bound.

New Falcon Publication
1739E. Broadway Road, Suite 1-277, Tempe, AZ 85282. USA
(Add $2 shipping to US destinations)

If you can actually capture it to a file, let me know.

My pleasure.

Thanks FN, I’m saving that.

:’) That may be a little optimistic, but every little bit helps.

I really enjoy reading his work. It’s logical.