Drs Marsden,Murray,Matese find Velikovskys Visionary PX

[Archer17]

You took the words out of my mouth R.A.F.

A.DIM, it took you as long as your second post in this thread to mention Sitchin and Nibiru so spare me this righteous stuff. If you want to make a case for a "perturber" and all that asteroid belt, "flaying of Mars" stuff I suggest you start. All you do is ask rhetorical questions in your posts and seem to ignore the points that have already been made in this thread. You mention other scientists and astronomers. The BA is an astronomer too. Did you read his posts in this thread? Or, like Vianova, is it only fun when you cherry-pick and only cite only those you feel help the agenda that you insist you don't have?

[Archer17]

some of the evidences for PX are attribited to Interplanetary Arc

It has been suggested that the giant rift on Mars ,
Valles Marineris,
is an interplanetary arc hit , gashed across the surface of the planet.
Official interpretations are that this rift is a giant separation of tectonic plates.
See Valles Marineris
http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/...p;t=30&v=f

then read some of the discussion at Graham Hancocks site on electric universe and interplanetary arc at the aforementioned link

****

Found this on GLP last night.
Minbari theorizes comets "seeding" the sun producing wild CMEs
Relating to Interplanetary Arc,
the CMEs show distinct helical elctromagnetics in the CME
http://mars.012webpages.com/Sohomovie.html

Scroll to the page bottom to see the last 2 SOHO images,
which were 1998/06/02/1331
and 1999

this link of Minbaris may be not up on the net very long...
Later Gators...Im off to work

Graham Hancock, eh? I know there's a thread somewhere dealing with this woowoo. Vianova, your references are starting to go downhill in a hurry. Valles Marineris? I'm almost afraid to ask how you thing our Grand Canyon was formed. I suggest an internet search re: this Martian canyon to broaden your knowledge. Interplanetary arc? Sounds like something McCanney would be shoveling.

[Vianova]

Phantom Wolf and others say

I'd just like to say WooWoo....

here I'll say it for you

WOO-WOO....woowooowoo...wow...what a woo woo

None of you have a sense of humor.
It was a TIME OUT, for a quick joke.
You are all tied up in knots with science fever,
take a break , and go fishing,
get some sunshine,
breath some fresh air,
laugh at life a bit.
Enjoy.

I just tried to break up the seriousness with a little fun.

Seeing how Phil will block me , as I have 2 strikes without even doing anything ,
I guess I cant cast aspersions on to specific circus entities with bright red noses that want to call me a woowoo.
Thats OK,
I dont mind being called a woowoo,
SMILE, the Colonel loves everybody.
I will stick with the issues,
and leave the Velikovskian poetry aside,.. maybe baby.

By the woo woo ways, {of which I am so wondrously endowed},

Where is my favorite orbital mechanics PhD,
Dr P.?

Newtonian orbital mechanics on the run...........
Velikovskys Venus had all the fun,


Comet Woo-woo on the way,
woo woo nibiru....................cosmic payday.
Velikovsky gets shortchanged,
At BABB he is quickly hanged.
In the Court of Cosmic Entropy.


[-X
no woowoos allowed here


Am I still good boy "bad newbie", Phil ?
You know how it is ,
Colonel Vianova and his polished boot toe,
kicking woowoobooty on GLP,
I m being pretty socially sedate here at BABB arent I , Phil ?
Im trying to be a nice guy woowoo,
Colonel Electric Universe,
like a Flash Gordon movie...woowoo cinematics
Marsden is the Emperor Ming,
John Carter of Mars is more my style.
Cometary relief.
And Phil,
thanks for your input on this thread.

speaking of woo who what the hey
my favorite SOHO picture of the comets Woo and Woo Hoo,
above and below the sun as debris particles.
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea...20_2342_c3.gif
2 days after the passage of NEATV1

[SkyEyeGuy]

Huh?

No, forget I said that.

I keep forgetting this is a 'Planet X' thread. Things don't have to make sense.

Carry on.

[R.A.F.]

You took the words out of my mouth R.A.F.

I knew you would like it.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Vianova, I suggest you stay on target here, for one, especially about why you are so wrong about brown dwarfs. For another, you should address some of the points made here. You have addressed some, but none of any consequence.

And you do have two strikes, for the very reasons I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Stating that you posted while drinking, and then rambling, is a good way to get that third strike. Read the FAQ.

[freddo]

Peotry was a Sumerian invention, so was Nibiru.

You know, if I were a nasty person, I could claim this is your admission that the Sumerians invented Nibiru. But I'm sure that's not what you're saying is it...?

[Charlie in Dayton]

Oh dear. Another poor persecuted PX'er who was only spouting their effluvia in good clean fun, never meant to offend, just can't understand what everyone's so upset about, etc etc etc ad nauseam...I can see someone of this stripe staggering into the local Republican committee meeting with a 'Kerry in '04' button and wondering why all the hoopla...apparently the concept of being appropriate to the situation isn't taught like it used to be...but enough with the social commentary, let's move to financial issues...time to put my 2¢ in.

Vianova, there have been many proponents of PX/Nibiru/the death planet of the week here over the ages, and the conversations eventually bog down in minutiae concering this ancient text or that orbit or the other webcam image...it all gets sort of tiring after awhile. I do wish someone would come up with something new for us to flex our mental muscles over.

It all boils down to the level of observable evidence, though. Point out the object. Direct us to the planetary wobble. Give evidence of the gravitational disturbance and/or light lensing of distant galaxies. Make it known to us something of the physical.

No more interpreting or theorizing or scrying or remote viewing or the like...be specific, and the sooner the better.

SHOW US PLANET X!

[Vianova]

Ok Phil,
No ramblin'....
You say stick to the issue of why I am so wrong about brown dwarves...
You mean obviously, a brown dwarf possibility JUST in this solar system.

Basically,From the links supplied,
I showed that the southen hemisphere observatories of note , are for the most part under construction,the main one is burnt to the ground and the rest of them are under obvious stringent scheduling of tasks for various contactors and science projects.
"Anita Cochran,
astronomer and comet specialist at the University of Texas at Austin,
Most prominent among these, she says, is the fact that there are more observers in the Northern Hemisphere to discover comets than in the Southern Hemisphere, thus a number of long-period comets are probably escaping detection and analysis"


Not a lot of time is being devoted to
PX or brown dwarf search in any observatory, or in,

Dr Browns .,
"...20% of the unexplored sky.."

I showed distinctly how it is hard to find brown dwarfs, and their elusiveness to detection.
The existence of brown dwarfs in binary star systems,

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pre...ases/95-48.txt
"The brown dwarf, called Gliese 229B... Estimated to be 20 to 50 times the mass of Jupiter...At least 100,000 times dimmer than Earth's Sun, the brown dwarf is the
faintest object ever seen orbiting another star."
If the dwarf formed as a binary companion,
its orbit probably would be far more elliptical, as seen on most binary stars."
Astronomers have been trying to detect brown dwarfs for three decades.
Their lack of success is partly due to the fact that as brown dwarfs age they become cooler, fainter, and more difficult to see."
"Another reason brown dwarfs were not detected years ago is thatimaging technology really wasn't up to the task,"

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sour...ndwarf_fg.html
It is now estimated that brown dwarfs are approximately as numerous as normal stars in our galaxy.

http://www.bahnhof.se/~davidgr/browndwf/bd_def.html
"..."Missing Mass". ...we have only been able to identify about 10% of the mass of the universe.... the other 90%? One theory is that it is bound up in brown dwarfs, so the discovery of vast numbers of Brown dwarfs... "

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mmw1/
It is clear that our ideas of planet formation based upon one object, the solar system, needs some revision in the light of the newly discovered extrasolar planets and their unexpected locations close to their parent stars.


Also
Brown dwarves with planets,
and brown dwarves ejecting CMEs....
then coupled with Murray and Matese,

Murray´s research suggests that the some of the **incoming comets include a group coming from directions in space that are aligned in an arc across the sky. This arc, he asserts, could mark the wake of some large body moving through space in the outer part of the Oort cloud. A similar theme arises in Dr. Matese´s research. His study of 82 Oort cloud comets indicates that approximately 25 percent of these have an "anomalous distribution" in the sky that can best be understood if there exits some **perturbing force in the Oort cloud, i.e.,
a large, as yet undetected, body.
By analysing the orbits of 13 of these comets, Dr Murray has detected the tell-tale signs of
***a single massive object that deflected all of them into their current orbits.

"Although I have only analysed 13 comets in detail," he told BBC News Online, "the effect is pretty conclusive. I have calculated that there is only about a
***one in 1,700 chance that it is due to chance."

all this in addition to Dr Browns
"20 % of the unexplored sky,',
Certainly does not eliminate a brown dwarf out there perturberating everything that goes thru the Oort cloud, or even acting as the binary star to Sol.
Though Murray does not validate a brown dwarf but proposes a multi
Earth-mass Jupiter, Matese at least gives the idea research and mathematical analysis.

Well Phil, I guess the million dollar question is again,
{needing our orbital mechanics PhD Dr P. here},
Just what is the orbital status of Murrays and Mateses
Huge body of planetary mass,
Is it a stable orbit?
Is it also radically elliptical like Sednas ?
Does it affect Sednas orbit as Murray and Matese describe, it affecting cometary orbits ,
Could it obviously have planets/moons of its own ?
How large is large enough to affect the paths of comets across an arc of the sky?
and swing them into changing orbits towards the inner sloar system?
If there is one, could there be more?
If this is what dragged Sedna into its orbit, then the object has a radical elliptical orbit as well.

Or Phil do you belive that this planet does not exist ?
and that Sednas orbit is stable, perfectly normal, and totally unaffected by the no show brown dwarf/Jovian size planet?

that the Oort cloud is devoid of anything larger than Marsdens "plutinos" ?

Phil,
have you ever talked to Murray or Matese ?

[Vianova]

Charlie in dayton says

Oh dear. Another poor persecuted PX'er who was only spouting their effluvia in good clean fun, never meant to offend, just can't understand what everyone's so upset about, etc etc etc ad nauseam...I can see someone of this stripe staggering into the local Republican committee meeting with a 'Kerry in '04' button and wondering why all the hoopla..."

Poor persecuted PXer ?
You have got to be kidding.
I could care less.
I just want to see if anyone here will take the latest ideas by Murray and Matese and give them some consideration as evidence that this solar system is FAR from being fully understood, and defined.
That Velikovskys cometary Venus is not so far fetched after all..
The implications by Murray and Matese and Marsden are astounding ,and the reaction here at BABB was expected.
Thus the merry go round of poetry and drink last night.

I think LOTS of objects swing thru the solar system, and that there have been lots of large and small objects thru here in near misses, and collisions.
including dramatic events,

One look at Shoemaker Levy hitting Jupiter makes that fairly clear.

Solar CMEs hitting NEATV1...
Martian polar caps melting, and ancient oceans on Mars...,
Huge objects in the Oort cloud affecting cometary orbits...,
Huge Helical spiral waves generated in CMEs..,
Brown dwarves with planets and even CMEs...,
Sedna with an unexplainable orbit...,
all indicate that the astronomy now, wont be the steadfastly certain science tomorrow.

Newtonian Orbital Mrechanics on the run.
Velikovskys Venus has all the fun.

"I can see someone of this stripe staggering into the local Republican committee meeting with a 'Kerry in '04' button "

I will be fishing for 4 pound rainbow in the N central Wa state mountains,
when they impose the draft, and declare martial law.

man oh man...
Bush vs Kerry
Clown vs Clown
3 ring war
Iraq Iran N Korea
but China owns the circus tent.

[Vianova]

and the awesome image of Valles Marinares
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...viking_big.jpg

I think it was Archer 17 giving me grief about Interplanetary arc and Valles Marineris..
your example of the grand canyon is not a tectonic plate feature , it is an erosional topography. some have implied it to be a possibility of arc strike, as the valles marineris fissure lets say, but I dont.

Howver the tectonic plate theory can explain some of theMartian planets long gash, but not all, and erosional features and volcanic depositonal and catastrophic influences do not add it all up either .
Interplanetray arc is a possibility as shown here

Electric craters

"For example, British amateur astronomer Brian J. Ford published a paper some years ago in which he presented a strong case for the idea that most of the craters on the moon are marks left by electrical discharges on a cosmic scale
9. He backed up his arguments with a report on laboratory experiments in
which he had used spark-machining apparatus to reproduce in miniature such otherwise-mysterious features of the moon as craters with central peaks,small craters preferentially perched on the high rims of larger craters, and craters strung out in long chains. "

VELIKOVSKY AND ELECTRIC UNIVERSE

And Velikovsky pointedly asks: "When we measure the age of the universe, why
do we assume that at creation the heavy elements like uranium predominated
and not the simples ones, hydrogen and helium? It is philosophically simples
to assume that all started- if there ever was a start- with the most
elementary elements. A catastrophic event or many such events were necessary
to build uranium from hydrogen. Although the radioactive clock cannot be
disturbed by heating or hitting, it can be disturbed by discharges of
interplanetary potentials..."

The cosmologist will, of course, reply: "We do assume that the heavy elements
have been built from the lighter ones, starting with hydrogen; it starts in
stars like the sun, and the ultimate creation of the heaviest elements take
place in supernova explosions." But Velikovsky's point-and it's a good one-
is that no theorist stops to consider the atomic-fusion possibilities of the
electric discharge; the uranium-lead ratios found in the rocky materials of
the universe may just as easily reflect a partial conversion of lead to
uranium as a decay of uranium to lead. But of course the stumbling block
here is the continuing resistance of theorists to the idea that electrical
discharges have taken place, or ever could take place, on a cosmic scale.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/failed_star.html

NASA´s latest observatory, designed to see the most violent and stunning cosmic phenomena, captured something unexpected. The Chandra X-ray Observatory, orbiting in space about one-third of the way to the moon,
***saw the first-ever flare from what´s known as a brown dwarf, or failed star.

"We were shocked," said Dr. Robert Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, CA, the lead author on the discovery paper to appear in the July 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters. "

The energy emitted in the brown dwarf flare was comparable to a small solar flare, and was a billion times greater than observed X-ray flares from Jupiter.
***The flaring energy is believed to come from a twisted magnetic field.
"This is the strongest evidence yet that brown dwarfs and possibly young giant planets have magnetic fields, and that a large amount of energy can be released in a flare," said Dr. Eduardo Martin, also of Caltech and a member of the team.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mmw1/
"MA409 is about the formation of planets and brown dwarfs through Woolfson´s ´Capture Theory´, in which massive interstellar clouds are tidally disrupted and induced to fragment by encountering a compact star in a young stellar cluster...
.Spiral waves are generated, travelling both inwards and outwards from the planet´s orbit. Those moving outwards carry angular momentum that is deposited when the energy in the spiral wave is dissipated...



NOW TELL ME
if this russian research is geared towards solar fusion-electric universe and plasma discahrge...?

Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning

http://balllightning.narod.ru/hvewd.html

Formation of plasma column and/or mushroom-shaped object

Now check out the reference

Emelin S.E., Pirozerski A.L., Egorov A.I., Stepanov S.I., Bychkov V.L. Ball lightning modeling via electrical discharge through the surface of a weak water solution. //Submitted to the 10th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning (RCCNT&BL –10), Dagomys, 2002, and to international conference
** "Abnormal effects in physics of high densities of energy (macro and microcosmos)", Yalta, 2002.

then go to

http://balllightning.narod.ru/wdemf.html

and you will see little dome shaped lightnings from a test tube

Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning

http://balllightning.narod.ru/golub02/mw/wires11e.html
great pics here !

"Investigation of long-living plasma formations...The burning of metal wires by electric current of medium magnitude, at proper choice of the discharge conditions, results in generation of long-living plasma formations. "


Now go back and see the helical electromagnetic solar plasma CMEs in the link supplied earlier{if it still works}
this starts with 2 comets hitting the sun and the subsequent wild CME
http://mars.012webpages.com/Sohomovie.html
scroll down to the last 2 lasco pics for the CMEs




i

[John T]

Dr P. feels Velikovsky was insane, and so do many here at BABB as well.

Well, I don't feel that Velikovski was insane...just that he was very confused as to what constitutes reality. I mean he confuses hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Doesn't that sound a bit confused??

It sure does sound confusing especially when the real "confusion" appeared to remain with the late Carl Sagan and not Velikovsky.

[John T]

BA wrote:

"5) I don't know if Velikovsky was insane, but he was certainly wrong. You quoted Einstein: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance". The irony of this is supreme: I have studied Velikovsky, quite a bit. I read "Worlds in Collision", and several books and websites discussing his theories. I wrote a chapter in my own book about his theories. I have studied his physics, and came to the conclusion that his theories are ludicrous. That was not a jump to a conclusion; that was after months of research."

Fair enough!

However, perhaps "ludicrous" might be a little strong in my view, because even Carl Sagan remarked in 'Broca's Brain' that "... if even 20% of the legendary concordances that Velikovsky produces are real, there is something important to be explained."

No doubt the majority of posters on this site will also agree with your conclusions, many without even having read the book 'Worlds in Collision' themselves!

I think we should consider nevertheless that 'Worlds in Collision' took around ten years to compile and write and was eventually published by Macmillan's in 1950, which as you know started a huge furore, with the astronomer Harlow Shapley and others taking the lead...some of whom equally had not even read the book or prior manuscript.

So Velikovsky's thinking on the subject actually began in the early 1940's.
This at a time when astronomers of the day were satisfied that Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, was just slightly warmer than the Earth.
Counter to this notion, Velikovsky proposed at that same time (1950) that Venus must still be very hot, because of the circumstances of its recent birth and subsequent career.

Amongst other predictions, this turned out to be correct.

Obviously you have derived your conclusions based on "months of research" as the chapter in your book declares (Worlds in Derision?)

Carl Sagan wrote 'Worlds in Collusion'?

Actually the book is definitely entitled 'Worlds in Collision', because I checked.

John

[TriangleMan]

So Velikovsky's thinking on the subject actually began in the early 1940's.
This at a time when astronomers of the day were satisfied that Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, was just slightly warmer than the Earth.
Counter to this notion, Velikovsky proposed at that same time (1950) that Venus must still be very hot, because of the circumstances of its recent birth and subsequent career.

Amongst other predictions, this turned out to be correct.

But if the mechanism is incorrect then the prediction is not right. If I were to say that the Sun is a ball of fire because it is made of coal am I "correct" because I got the first part right even though my reasoning was completely wrong?

[R.A.F.]

Dr P. feels Velikovsky was insane, and so do many here at BABB as well.

Well, I don't feel that Velikovski was insane...just that he was very confused as to what constitutes reality. I mean he confuses hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Doesn't that sound a bit confused??

It sure does sound confusing especially when the real "confusion" appeared to remain with the late Carl Sagan and not Velikovsky.

WHAT IN THE WORLD does Carl Sagan have to "do" with Velikovski stating that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance???

[TriangleMan]

WHAT IN THE WORLD does Carl Sagan have to "do" with Velikovski stating that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance???

Perhaps John T is saying that the hydrocarbon/carbohydrate criticism originated with Sagan's critique but that Sagan was incorrect?

[John T]

WHAT IN THE WORLD does Carl Sagan have to "do" with Velikovski stating that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance???

Perhaps John T is saying that the hydrocarbon/carbohydrate criticism originated with Sagan's critique but that Sagan was incorrect?

Indeed.

Sagan critisized Velikovsky's apparent misunderstanding in 'Problem Five' of 'Scientists Confront Velikovsky' and again in his book 'Broca's Brain'.

I won't copy out the quote, but it appears that Sagan was confused between two sub-chapters which explain different events.

"Naptha" deals with an earlier period when liquid petroleum fell from the skies, burning in many places, as reported by many ancient sources.

The chapter "Ambrosia", deals with a later period, following the near collision, when the hydrocarbon gases still remaining in the atmosphere were converted into carbohydrates.
This substance, now called "manna" subsequenly fell from the skies as morning dew and as reported by many ancient sources, was edible.

It seems to me by reading the critisizm, that Sagan thought both events occurred together, hence the remark that the Israelites "must have eaten the motor oil."

Where did Velikovsky actually say that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance?[/i]

[Kaptain K]

Vianova,

Brown dwarfs have been difficult to find because they are much fainter than ordinary stars (even red dwarfs). They are also light years away (the nearest we've found so far is 12 light years away). A brown dwarf in the outer reaches of the solar system (light hours) would be very conspicuous (especially in the infra-red).

[R.A.F.]

I was going to look for my copy of "Worlds", but I see now that I don't have to...you just stated it yourself...

...when the hydrocarbon gases still remaining in the atmosphere were converted into carbohydrates.

Care to explain the process involved in this "conversion"??? Was it magic??

It seems to me by reading the critisizm, that Sagan thought both events occurred together, hence the remark that the Israelites "must have eaten the motor oil."

No, Sagan wasn't confused...he (like I) just want to know HOW you "convert" hydrocarbon gases into carbohydrates????

Where did Velikovsky actually say that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance?[/i]

You're saying it right now!!!

[John T]

R.A.F. wrote:

> "Care to explain the process involved in this "conversion"??? Was it magic??"

> "No, Sagan wasn't confused...he (like I) just want to know HOW you "convert" hydrocarbon gases into carbohydrates????

There are apparently six such natural processes by which hydrocarbon gases can be converted into carbohydrates.

To mention but one, in 'The Synthesis of Manna', Wong Kee Kuong writes:

"1) When the Venusian hydrocarbons shrouded the Earth, part of it would mix with hydrogen of the hydrogen layer and another portion would be oxidized by the oxygen of the oxygen layer. The main products of combustion are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapour. Hydrogen can be released from water vapour through cosmic irradiation, as laboratory experiments suggest. The action of cosmic radiation on the carbon dioxide/hydrogen/carbon monoxide/water vapour mixture would generate formaldehyde. Once formaldehyde is formed, various types of sugars and starches would be generated by the process of polymerization and adol condensation. The general formula for this process is:

nCH2O --> (CH2O)n

In the above equation n is any integer. If n = 5, the product is a pentose; if n = 6, the product (isomers also exist) is a hexose; etc.

Formaldehyde should be formed during the day when the gaseous mixture is bombarded by particles from the solar furnace. The product would polymerize in the cool of the night, particularly on dust particles, and rain down in the early morning. If one refers to Exodus and Numbers, one finds that manna was deposited early in the morning with the dew.

Further, towards the end of the paper, Wong Kee Kuong writes:

"It was the hydrocarbon cloud that supplied the Israelites with manna. It could be brought about by any of the six processes outlined above. Hydrocarbons can also be converted into edible materials by the action of micro-organisms in the air."

Also, Dr. A. J. Swallow, in his text, Radiation Chemistry of Organic Compounds, writes:

"The synthesis of organic compounds through the agency of high-energy radiation has been amply demonstrated in the laboratory, an elementary example being the alpha-induced reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen to give formaldehyde, which then reacts further."

"Carbon monoxide can be reduced similarly. The main final product of irradiation in both cases appears to be a white solid of composition (CH2O)n, which is presumably produced by polymerization of formaldehyde."

White solid?..."milk and honey"? another description of manna.

[R.A.F.]

Sorry, but I don't accept the conclusions of the 2 examples you cited.

Mr. Kuong is obviously not an objective researcher. And I can't find any information about Dr. Swallow concerning this subject...care to provide a link?

[John T]

Sorry, but I don't accept the conclusions of the 2 examples you cited.

Mr. Kuong is obviously not an objective researcher. And I can't find any information about Dr. Swallow concerning this subject...care to provide a link?

Sorry, no link but the reference to Dr. Swallow was from Kuong's paper printed in Pensee ie

A. J. Swallow, Radiation Chemistry of Organic Compounds (Pergamon Press, Oxford. 1960).

[SkyEyeGuy]

I'll just chime in to say that the hydrocarbon to carbohydrate bit is the funniest thing I've read all morning -- and that *INCLUDES* posts at GLP.

Seriously, doesn't that whole bit -- Venus ejected from Jupiter just in time to swing by the Earth and rain down Jovian insects (yes, that's in Velikovsky's book, can't have a plague on Pharoah without big angry Jovian locusts fresh from outer space!) and tasty offworld hydrocarbons which are then converted, by a highly suspect chain of coincidences, into pastries for the wandering Isrealites?

I won't even mention the lack of any Venusian material on Jupiter from which an ejected Venus could be formed, or a mechanism by which this non-existent Venusian mass could be 'ejected' in the first place..

Sorry, but in my book Velikovsky should have tried his hand at submitting manuscripts to Astounding or Thrilling Planet Stories, not mainstream publishers. It's just space opera with a smattering of archaelogy thrown in for flavor.

[Archer17]

Vianova, care to condense your posts somewhat? Posting rambling Fidel Castro-length speeches largely composed of copy & pasting isn't cutting it. Take that Martian canyon/"arcing" for instance. I'm sure there are a few people out that that would embrace such a concept but copy and pasting the words of others instead of supplying your own isn't cutting it. I could go fishing and post lengthy mainstream snippets from a large variety of sources instead of speaking for myself but then that wouldn't be discussion, would it? Size matters, but not on this board :wink:

[Archer17]

..
Seriously, doesn't that whole bit -- Venus ejected from Jupiter just in time to swing by the Earth and rain down Jovian insects (yes, that's in Velikovsky's book, can't have a plague on Pharoah without big angry Jovian locusts fresh from outer space!) and tasty offworld hydrocarbons which are then converted, by a highly suspect chain of coincidences, into pastries for the wandering Isrealites?

I won't even mention the lack of any Venusian material on Juptier from which an ejected Venus could be formed, or a mechanish by which this non-existent Venusian mass could be 'ejected' in the first place..

Sorry, but in my book Velikovsky should have tried his hand at submitting manuscripts to Astounding or Thrilling Planet Stories, not mainstream publishers. It's just space opera with a smattering of archaelogy thrown in for flavor.

Right on .. I was going to post about Velikovsky but you basically sum it up SkyEyeGuy. There's a reason the scientific community doesn't take much of his tripe seriously.

[ToSeek]

So Velikovsky's thinking on the subject actually began in the early 1940's.
This at a time when astronomers of the day were satisfied that Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, was just slightly warmer than the Earth.
Counter to this notion, Velikovsky proposed at that same time (1950) that Venus must still be very hot, because of the circumstances of its recent birth and subsequent career.

Amongst other predictions, this turned out to be correct.

Venus is hotter than most astronomers in the 1950s thought it would be, but it's still not as hot as Velikovsky's theories would require. Additionally, the temperature is explained easily based on the makeup of the Venusian atmosphere. There's no mystery about it.

[R.A.F.]

Sorry, but I don't accept the conclusions of the 2 examples you cited.

Mr. Kuong is obviously not an objective researcher. And I can't find any information about Dr. Swallow concerning this subject...care to provide a link?

Sorry, no link but the reference to Dr. Swallow was from Kuong's paper...

Why am I not surprised.

[Vianova]

Archer 17 says
Vianova could you shorten your lengthy posts..."

and then some derisive comments.

I have a business and a girlfriend.
And a rental house to remodel
I am very busy , and am ogff to the shop in Seattle for 2 days .
I have to post a lot at once

You are lucky Archer, that Phil has me hamstrung with 2 strikes from the start.
I am sorry that your poor attention span is lacking in abilities of common comprehensive reading and analysis...your BABB observational capacity is a symptom of B ADD....

Anither poster says
" A brown dwarf in the outer reaches of the solar system (light hours) would be very conspicuous (especially in the infra-red)..."

Not so, as a matter of fact most of the solar sysyem search for "10th planet"
or PX was from IRAs data in the 80s that apparently was faulty from the start.

Dr P. along with van Flandern, Anderson, Harrington all were in a viirtual space race to find PX
many different assignments of orbits and earth masses were applied to the
"10th planet'
All were revised many timesl
when the astronomers could not find PX with their own many timed revisions of IRAs data, they basically gave up and declared it could not exist because they could not find it,
except for Harrington whi searched for it till his death shortly before he was off to New Zealand to continue his search.

A HISTORY OF PLANET X SEARCHES
in this link , all the way back to the 19th century

Including the Dr P. assessments of planet X
from IRAs data

http://www.apollonius.net/nemesis.html

scroll down to "planet X"


In 1976 Tom van Flandern became convinced that there was a tenth planet. After the discovery of Charon in 1978 showed the mass of Pluto to be much smaller than expected, van Flandern convinced his USNO colleague Robert S. Harrington of the existence of this tenth planet.

In 1987, *John Anderson at JPL examined the motions of the spacecraft Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, to see if any deflection due to unknown gravity forces could be found. None was found -- from this Anderson concluded that a tenth planet most likely exists

*** DrP. is ...Conley Powell, from JPL, also analyzed the planetary motions. He also found that the observations of Uranus suddenly did fit the calculations much better after 1910 than before. Powell suggested a planet with 2.9 Earth masses at 60.8 a.u. from the Sun, a period of 494 years, inclination 8.3 degrees and only a small eccentricity. Powell was intrigued that the period was approximately twice Pluto´s and three times Neptune´s period, suggesting that the planet he thought he saw in the data had an orbit stabilized by mutual resonance with its nearest neighbours despite their vast separation. The solution called for the planet to be in Gemini, and also being brighter than Pluto when it was discovered. A search was performed in 1987 at Lowell Observatory for Powell´s planet -- nothing was found. Powell re-examined his solution and revised the elements: 0.87 Earth masses, distance 39.8 a.u., period 251 years, eccentricity 0.26, i.e. an orbit very similar to Pluto´s! Currently, Powell´s new planet should be in Leo, at magnitude 12, however Powell thinks it´s premature to search for it, he needs to examine his data further."

....hmmm from 2.9 earth masses to .87 earth masses to "does not exist"
Now THATS Bad Astronomy...to continue..

"In 1950, K. Schutte of Munich used data from eight periodic comets to suggest a trans-Plutonian planet at 77 a.u. Four years later, H. H. Kitzinger of Karlsruhe, using the same eight comets, extended and refined the work, finding the supposed planet to be at 65 a.u., with a period of 523.5 years, an orbital inclination of 56 degrees, and an estimated magnitude of 11. In 1957, Kitzinger reworked the problem and arrived at new elements: dist 75.1 a.u., period 650 years, inclination 40 degrees, magnitude around 10. After unsuccessful photographic searches, he re-worked the problem once again in 1959, arriving at a mean dist of 77 a.u., period 675.7 years, inclination 38 degrees, eccentricity 0.07, a planet not unlike Sevin´s "Transpluto" and in some ways similar to Pickering´s final Planet P.


http://dosxx.colorado.edu/Pluto/PlanetX.Anderson.html

A few investigators, including Dennis Rawlins,
*** Conley Powell, P. Kenneth Seidelmann and
***Robert S.Harrington of the Naval Observatory,
and Adrian Brunini, R.S. Gomes and S. Ferraz-Mello in South
America, concluded that the evidence for PIanet X was suggestive, though far from conclusive. They
agreed, some with more conviction than others, that unmodeled forces were acting on Uranus and
Neptune, and most of them predicted the general location of Planet X if that were the cause, but
they arrived at no consensus on either its location or its orbit. At JPL E. Myles Standish, Jr
took exception to the conclusion that there were problems with the orbits of Uranus and Neptune.
He insisted that any failure to fit the astrometric data over the past two centuries could be
explained by systematic errors in the observations, and, in some cases by faulty data reduction
and interpretation.

On the other hand, in 1986, A.S. Guliev in Azerbaidzhan used orbits of
long-period comets to derive the orbital elements of a single Planet X at a distance of 36.2 AU,
and more recently the orbital planesówith inclination of about 30 arc degrees to the eclipticófor
two Planets X at distances of 48.5-56.6 AU and 102-112 AU respectively. Unfortunately the Pioneer
data could not rule out these planets, or for that matter other predictions based on the Uranus
and Neptune data.

"An unambiguous detection of Planet X requires
a determination of its proper motion. Unless Planet X were moving fast enough to be identified in
two confirmed IRAS scans of thc same location (HCONs) separated by 1-2 weeks, it could easily go
undetected. Otherwise, only 72% of the sky was covered with HCONs separated by 6 months or more. A
group at the University of Toronto (Hogg, Quinlan and Tremaine, 1991) concluded that it was
unlikely that any Planet X large enough to exert significant perturbations on the known planets
would have escaped detection by IRAS; but they admitted that a smaller planet could have been
missed for a variety of reasons. Considering all the evidence, we must conclude that the possible
existence of Planet X is still an open question."

*John D. Anderson ....{stated this above}

here is an interesting history of planetary moons and more on PX with Dr P.

http://library.thinkquest.org/25401/.../text/hyp.html

Powell was intrigued that the period was approximately twice Pluto´s and three times Neptune´s period, suggesting that the
planet he thought he saw in the data had an orbit stabilized by mutual resonance with its nearest neighbors despite their vast
separation. The solution called for the planet to be in Gemini, and to be brighter than Pluto when it was discovered. A search
was performed in 1987 at Lowell Observatory for Powell´s planet - nothing was found. Powell re-examined his solution and
revised the elements: 0.87 Earth masses, a distance of 39.8 AU, a period of 251 years, and an eccentricity 0.26. The orbit was
very similar to Pluto´s orbit. Currently, Powell´s new planet should be in Leo, at magnitude 12; however, Powell thinks it´s
premature to search for it until the data is analyzed further.

************************************************** ************

...Harrington died quickly and mysteriously on his way to New Zealand to search for Planet X.
the official version is that he died of throat cancer suddenly
*****************************************

[Vianova]

Quickly on Interplanetary arc

the passage of NEAT V1 animated still works

allow time to load


http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather...eb03/soho1.gif

then view the tiny comets that induce the helical CMEs in this persons analyisis

http://mars.012webpages.com/Sohomovie.html

then ask yourself, if these tiny comets react with the sun as a "starseed" as the link poster claims, what would have a giant monster like
NEATV1 caused if it had hit the sun.Or a planet ?
Look at the CMEs leashing out and spanking NEATV1.

then take Murrays huge object in the Oort cloud ,
realigning cometary orbits,
and the scenario of Velikovskys Venus interacting with the palnets and specifically Mars is still not so far fetched.

If we are in a binary star system...then could a lrage enough object like a brown dwarf passing thru the solar system also eject huge CMEs at the planets?

http://www.holoscience.com/news/failed_star.html

NASA´s latest observatory, designed to see the most violent and stunning cosmic phenomena, captured something unexpected. The Chandra X-ray Observatory, orbiting in space about one-third of the way to the moon,
***saw the first-ever flare from what´s known as a brown dwarf, or failed star.

"We were shocked," said Dr. Robert Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, CA, the lead author on the discovery paper to appear in the July 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters. "

The energy emitted in the brown dwarf flare was comparable to a small solar flare, and was a billion times greater than observed X-ray flares from Jupiter.
***The flaring energy is believed to come from a twisted magnetic field.
"This is the strongest evidence yet that brown dwarfs and possibly young giant planets have magnetic fields, and that a large amount of energy can be released in a flare," said Dr. Eduardo Martin, also of Caltech and a member of the team.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980925.html
binary system with planets that "may be ejected"

[SkyEyeGuy]

Vianova pastes -- er, writes:

"...and the scenario of Velikovskys Venus interacting with the palnets and specifically Mars is still not so far fetched."

Is that Velikovsky's Venus with or without Jovian space-locusts, Vianova?



And how does all that Venusian jive with use of the phrase 'not far fetched?'

Why would anyone consider Velikovsky as anything but a wildly imaginative author of bad space opera fiction? There's not a shred of physical evidence to support any of his claims, and there's a mountain of solid physical reasons to dismiss his theories.

So why the belief at all?