Skip to comments.
Long-Destroyed Fifth Planet May Have Caused Lunar Cataclysm, Researchers Say
SPACE dot COM ^
| 18 March 2002 ,posted: 03:00 pm ET
| By Leonard David, Senior Space Writer
Posted on 03/25/2002 2:42:10 PM PST by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
To: The UnVeiled Lady
There's a HUGE differnce between Velikovsky (who was full of it and has been totally discredited, though there's still a hard-core foil hat brigade that promotes him) and this. Velikovsky thought planets were flying around recently...in human history, causing disasters.
This is talking about stuff billions of years ago.
21
posted on
03/25/2002 5:00:57 PM PST
by
John H K
Comment #22 Removed by Moderator
To: Capt. Tom
a LOT of Speculation about a "Lost Planet" which "Broke Up" & formed the Asteroid Belt.
Most of the early Speculation involved a "Near Miss" of Jupiter, resulting in the "Tidal Forces" of intense gravitation ripping the "Planet" apart--Thus the "Asteroid Belt..."
But there's also the "Velikovsky Model," in which the Planet Venus is the "Stray Astronomical Body" responsible for both the Moon & MANY Other Phenomena in the Skies!
One MINOR point----Velikovsky DID predict "surface Conditions & Chemistry" on Venus FAR More Accurately than "Astronomers" of his time! (surface Temperatures ~ 700+degrees; Chemistry Mostly Hydrocarbons!)
But--of Course--Velikovski was a "Von Daniken-Level" "Whack-Job!!"
Only goes to show the depth of our Ignorance!
Doc
To: T. P. Pole
There are a number of other radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives that can be used. For example, K-40 has a half-life of 1.25 billion yrs and can be used for rocks with ages 100,000-4.6 billion yrs.
24
posted on
03/25/2002 5:30:06 PM PST
by
NoAction
To: buffyt
May I take the liberty of suggesting that we send all liberal Democrat politicians and movie stars to the new lunar settlement? I will start a collection to pay for it. You are a kind and generous soul.
However, back in August, Alec Baldwin said that if Bush's approval rating ever rose above 60%, he would colonize the moon. He has alreaddy renigged on his promise, stating that ex-wife was quoted out of context and was punch drunk at the time anyway.
25
posted on
03/25/2002 5:40:25 PM PST
by
TC Rider
To: Capt. Tom
When I was a kid I remember hearing there were calculations made that posited another planet because of the orbits of existing planets. They called it Vulcan. The planet Vulcan is supposed to be in the same orbit as Earth, just directly opposite the sun, and thus perpetually invisible to us from Earth. Well, that's the so-called theory, or notion, at any rate! ;-)
26
posted on
03/25/2002 5:40:43 PM PST
by
Jay W
To: Chad Fairbanks
that if we don't stop the Leftists, and soon, there will be 962 9-hour days per year...Your math is backwards. Slowing the rotation of the Earth will present fewer days of longer duration. Try 243 36-hour days per year or some other convenient variant that totals 8760 hours per year.
27
posted on
03/25/2002 5:45:00 PM PST
by
lafroste
To: RightWhale
van Flandern says Mars was a moon of the 5th planet, which would have made it the 4th planet at that time. Why did it explode? It may have been a duplicate thread planet.The structure of a planet could cause it to explode as it cooled. Kind of like an implosion.
28
posted on
03/25/2002 5:45:32 PM PST
by
#3Fan
To: Jay W
I believe you're thinking of "nemesis".
To: NativeNewYorker
PlaNet x2004 ... The MiSSing PLaNeteeR Returns .. An AlBert Gorebels / Ed Wood Production
SEMPER FI
To: Doc On The Bay
The comment made earlier that Velikovsky "who was full of it and has been totally discredited" is full of it. Velikovsky was never given a fair hearing. He was attacked by the orthodoxy for not being one of the club, working outside of his "field of expertise", and for trying to find correlations between disciplines. His ideas were never properly addressed.
As you pointed out, in the early 50's he predicted that Venus would be much hotter (specifying the temperature that would be found within 35 degrees) than can be accounted for by "greenhouse" effect at a time when "astronomers" and "planetologists" were confident that Venus was covered by water oceans and temperatures only 50 deg. F. above Earth's, accurately described the chemical makeup of the atmosphere of Venus that was later corraborated by probes when most astronomers and planetologists were convinced that Carbon Dioxide (actually almost non-existent) would be the primary component, and that they would find some strange things about the actual rotation of the planet... and we find that not only is Venus revolving retrograde, it is apparently tidally locked on Earth!
More and more archealogical anomolies are being found that calls our current orthodox chronology into question.
It seems to me that the test of any theory is how well does it predict actual events. Using this as a criteria, Velekovsky seems to doing all right.
To: The UnVeiled Lady
Sorry, but you are incorrect. You are perhaps referring to the Sagan event? While all well and good for his posturing of academic status quo, his objections were found to be more emotionally sound than relational.
Actually a large number of his theories have been confirmed during the late 1980's and the 90's. Historians generally shrug off his theories, for the most part, however, geologists now are firmly camped in the doctrine of catastrophe theory. It is actually taught in schools and is now fundamental in the study of earth sciences. Check out "Catastrophe Theory by Alexander Woodcock and Monte Davis. ISBN 0-525-07812-6.
For a summary of the poor handling of the matter by Carl Sagan, I suggest you read "Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky" by Charles Ginenthal ISBN 1-56184-075-0.
Certainly there is a large non-mainstream contigent that ascribes to the Velikovsky theories. Colin Wilson who wrote "From Atlantis to the Sphinx" ISBN 0-88064-176-2, Graham Hancock "Fingerprints of the Gods" ISBN 0-517-88729-0, "The Sirius Mystery" by Robert Temple. ISBN 0-89281-750-X, "The Atlantis Blueprint" by Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath. ISBN 0-385-33479-6 and of course all of David Hatcher Childress and Zecharia Sitchin. But from their humble beginnings and followings a number of very serious investigations were found to support some, and some very surprising predictions and theories.
Modern Archaeologists are now beginning to embrace the theories of Hugh Fox "Gods of the Cataclysm" (RARE BUT EXCELLENT) ISBN 0-06-122496-0. Supported by the textbook "Archaelology" by Paul Bahn. ISBN 0-500-27867-9. And the most controversial of all is the "Forbidden Archeology" by Cremo and Thompson. ISBN 0-89213-294-9.
I know that it is alot of fun to debunk others. And point out their fallicies. But the truth is that Velikovskies theories have been gaining substantial acceptance from a number of braches of the sciences.
32
posted on
03/25/2002 6:18:10 PM PST
by
vannrox
To: blam
bump to blam.
To: NoAction
There are a number of other radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives that can be used. Thanks for the answer. That leads to another question. C14 works because something alive "eats" the carbon, and when it dies, no more carbon is collected in it. By measuring the C14, and knowing the half-life, a good guess to the age the thing died can be determined.
What is the process that causes rocks to collect whatever is being used (potassium?), then stop collecting it so the age can be determined? Wouldn't all rocks show the age they were formed? Or could they be formed out of older rocks, and show that age? And if a planet exploded and showered rocks on the moon, would the age be when they were formed or when they showered? Couldn't they shower down at different times, yet show the same age?
I'm sure it is something simple that I am missing, here, isn't it?
To: vannrox
To: Swordmaker
For the readers who may not be aware at all of what we are discussing. I would also like to present the following:
"Worlds in Collision" by Velikovsky ISBN 0-671-81091-X
"Earth in Upheaval" by Velikovsky
"Velikovsky Reconsidered" ISBN 0-446-82358-9
36
posted on
03/25/2002 6:26:32 PM PST
by
vannrox
To: Arkie2
In an oak cask I like the answer. Guess I was asking for that.
I'll try again. How does one determine the age of a rock? And counting the rings won't quite work here.
Maybe counting the candles on the cake?
To: Chad Fairbanks
.....Commie Pinko Leftists. They keep wanting to cut the work week, for the same pay, to create 'more jobs'... and this slows progress, and since we all know that the universe revolves around them...... Well finally, after so many centuries dominated by Archimedes, Ptolemy, Galileo, Kepler and many others, the truth comes out.
A CommiePinkoLeftistcentric Cosmology. Will wonders never cease?
;^)
38
posted on
03/25/2002 6:31:11 PM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: vannrox
We all know what a mess exploding planets can make. When Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, the shock shifted the orbit of Ceti Alpha 5 and everything was laid waste.
39
posted on
03/25/2002 6:37:38 PM PST
by
Redcloak
To: vannrox
[A} lot of potential orbits in the Solar System are chaotic and unstableSire, je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese.
When Newton presented his work on Celestial Mechanics, he stopped short of a complete work--treating the planets and the Sun as a series of individual two-body problems. At the time, he is said to have remarked concerning the remaining and unaccounted for perturbations in the orbits of the planets: "The rest is in the hands of the Creator."
Laplace, the great mathematician, set himself the ambitious task of refining and perfecting Newton's calculations involving mechanics in a book that should offer a complete solution of the great mechanical problem presented by the solar system. The result was the highly acclaimed five volume set, Mecanique Celeste. In it he shows that the (current) solar system is stable and self-regulating.
When Laplace presented the first edition of his work to Napoleon--so the story goes--Napoleon alluded to Newton and remarked, "Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." To this Laplace replied bluntly, "Sire, I had no need for that hypothesis."
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson