[plusone]

Okay while I wait for the others, let's debate. Considering that we don't really know how the planets formed, there is nothing unscientific about his hypothesis. He made many predicitons about Venus (once he got his book published, and that in itself is a sad testament to the openmindedness of science) which turned out to be true. He said that Venus, being a young planet, was at the boiling point of lead. Science at the time thought it was only slightly warmer than Earth. Vel. was right. He said Jupiter emmited radio signals. Science laughed. Vel was right. He has offered a testable theory, since he made predictions that have turned out to be correct (not all, but many). And he was given the 'Gallileo' cold shoulder. Many scientists villified him without bothering to read his book. Carl Sagan wrote the difinitive attack on his theories, which, years later, were point by point discredited by another researcher, who accused Sagan of bad science. (Can't recall the name off hand).

[general_re]

He said that Venus, being a young planet, was at the boiling point of lead. Science at the time thought it was only slightly warmer than Earth. Vel. was right.

Assuming you've accurately presented his theory here, he was only "right" for fairly flexible values of "right" - the surface temperature of Venus is less than 1/3 of the boiling point of lead, 900 ºF, versus almost 3200 ºF for lead's boiling point.