Skip to comments.The Science Cartel vs. Immanuel Velikovsky
Posted on 10/03/2009 8:26:10 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Immanuel Velikovsky was too eminent a scholar to be dismissed outright as a kook, and he counted some respected people among his friends... Nevertheless, his Catastrophism was rejected outright by a scientific establishment that couldn't stomach an interdisciplinary challenge to its dogmatic Uniformitarianism, even after Velikovsky's predictions about the temperature of Venus and radio activity from Jupiter were proven true.
Stephen Jay Gould summed up mainstream scientific opinion, saying, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan -- although to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends." Velikovsky would counter that "the ancient traditions are our best guide to the appearance and arrangement of the earliest remembered solar system, not some fancy computer's retrocalculations based upon current understanding of astronomical principles."
(Excerpt) Read more at freedominion.com.pa ...
I have a couple of his books! Passing them down to future generations. Along with some UFO books from the early days.
parsy, who thinks outside the box but not as far as him
:’) Thanks P.
If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
But i don't see it happening anytime never.
“Worlds in Collision” should be must reading for all.
Earth and Mars do not resemble that in any way, shape, or fashion, and you have to figure that, at least viewed as a collection of rocks, they are older than that. Not hundreds of millions or billions of years old of course, but older than 5K - 10K.
Sagan's super greenhouse theory for explaining the surface temperatures on Venus in particular is patently idiotic and the scientific establish has not done themselves any favors by buying it. The light on the surface of Venus is entirely local; probes see pitch darkness in the middle cloud layers and then light increasing as they approach the surface, that being some combination of electrical discharge and chemical reactions. Again, the claim that such temperatures could be genned by a non-measurable uv flux which cannot re-radiate as IR due to the CO2 cloud layers would be idiotic even without the knowledge that any such sunlight would be a drop in the ocean of the local light sources at the surface.
When those temperatures were first ascertained there should have been a line of scientists five miles long in front of Dr. Velikovsky's door waiting to apologize.
Velikovsky is/was awesomely accurate. I have no argument with his ideas.
Velikovsky said Venus was the loose cannon in the solar system in ancient times. Donald Patten said it was Mars. They both draw upon ancient history to establish their theory. Which is right?
I'd figure there were a half dozen or so starting points for trying to understand ancient history, or at least as much of it as we have. You might have noticed the funny thing about our supposedly being around in one form or another for a million years or more and for some inexplicable reason only having 3000 or 4000 years worth of history...
I mean that would at least do for starters.
Velikovsky said both Venus and Mars had been “loose” in recent BC times, i.e. within the last 3500 years.
But which, or was it both, that caused consternation on the earth in ancient times?
When Albert Einstein died in 1955, a heavily annotated copy of “Worlds in Collision” was the book found on the table next to his hospital bed.
Both, albeit Venus created the larger problems.
Velikovsky was a man who believed in what he had found. He is NOT someone to be laughed at.
It all makes sense to me...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.