Drs Marsden,Murray,Matese find Velikovskys Visionary PX

[PhantomWolf]

Have you read the account of Joshua ben Nun?

Similarly explained all over the world?

What do you think?

Cheers

John

Actually you don't have to stop the rotation of the planet to explain it. That there are similar tales about the globe including the Greeks and on the opposite side of the world tales from Mexico and even the Maori about a night that lasted longer than normal, this could have been done by temperarily introducing a "wobble" into the Earth's rotation (basically tilting the axis towards the sun, then back again) allowing the sun and moon to appear to stand still in the sky. It'd also have been a lot easier that stopping the planet which would have then meant stopping the oceans etc, and to have stopped the moon would have required even more trouble.

[The Bad Astronomer]

If Carl Sagan said that (I should try to find the quotation) then he was invoking a logical fallacy. What I said still stands.

If you think Velikovsky was right, I suggest you read the book "Beyond Velikovsky" by Bauer. He actually goes to some length discussing V's science, and showing how it is wrong. He also discusses how scientists behaved badly (which is what I said in my book, which I wrote before I had ever heard of Bauer's!).

Maybe at some point I'll put up a page about V, but since his following has shrunk so drastically, it hardly seems worth it. There are bigger fish to fry.

[Wolverine]

"Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science." -- Henry H. Bauer

The above comes from atop this somewhat condensed page by Carroll. Knew I'd heard the name before.

Nice quote, and most applicable to a host of characters who've been discussed in this very forum.

[shash]

I want to know, in what context did Sagan write that? Was he just doing a "for argument's sake" thing, or was he actually agreeing?

[John T]

I want to know, in what context did Sagan write that? Was he just doing a "for argument's sake" thing, or was he actually agreeing?

Perhaps the best thing I can do is to type out the entire paragraph.

The quote by Carl Sagan that I mentioned was from 'Broca's Brain' (paperback - ninth printing 1986) Chapter 7 'Venus and Dr. Velikovsky' page 101.

Sagan wrote:

"Velikovsky has called attention to a wide range of stories and legends, held by diverse peoples, separated by great distances, which stories show remarkable similarities and concordances. I am not expert in the cultures or languages of any of these peoples, but I find the concatenation of legends Velikovsky has accumulated stunning. It is true that some experts in these cultures are less impressed. I can remember vividly discussing Worlds in Collision with a distinguished professor of Semitics at a leading university. He said something like "The Assyriology, Egyptology, Biblical scholarship and all of that Talmudic and Midrashic pilpul is, of course, nonesense; but I was impressed by the astronomy." I had rather the opposite view. But let me not be swayed by the opinions of others. My own position is that if even 20 percent of the legendary concordances that Velikovsky produces are real, there is something important to be explained. Furthermore, there is an impressive array of cases in the history of archaeology - from Heinrich Schliemann at Troy to Yigael Yadin at Masada - where the description in ancient writings have subsequently been validated as fact."

There you have it...the entire paragraph and with the quote put in "bold" by yours truly.

In the next paragraph Sagan writes:

"Now, if a variety of widely separated cultures share what is palpably the same legend, how can this be understood? There seem to be four possibilities: common observation, diffusion, brain wiring and coincidence. Let us consider these in turn."

Trust this is of help.

John

[shash]

Ah! It then seems to me that he's just admitting it for argument's sake. And I would suppose that in the next few paras, he goes on to quash it all? I really must get my hands on a copy!

I submit that this is out of context, most probably.

[TriangleMan]

I really must get my hands on a copy!

I'll check my copy but in any case you really should get a copy of Broca's Brain as it is an excellent book!

[A.DIM]

The currently accepted (although admittedly incomplete) model that explains the magnetic field of the earth is mentioned here

Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has "hurricanes"--whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth's rotation. These complex motions generate our planet's magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.

So basically while the mentioned "dynamo effect", is akin to that of an electric generator it's due to the motions of the outer core of the nucleus of the earth with respect to the inner core, therefore a magnetic pole shift would not have any effect on the rotation of the earth.

Yes, but recent research shows how the mantle might also have a role in reversal, as was noted in the When North becomes South:
"The process is not completely understood. In fact, one study suggests the planet's mantle, which surrounds the core, also plays a role."

Which gives you Tracking Earth's Magnetic Field.

So if inner & outer core, and the mantle, too, are moving to create the dynamo, is it still unlikely to result in actual stoppage or reversal of rotation?
I'll be interested to see more on the mantle being involved, that's certain.

[TriangleMan]

So if inner & outer core, and the mantle, too, are moving to create the dynamo, is it still unlikely to result in actual stoppage or reversal of rotation?
I'll be interested to see more on the mantle being involved, that's certain.

There's an "alternative mantle theory" thread currently active here.

[John T]

Ah! It then seems to me that he's just admitting it for argument's sake. And I would suppose that in the next few paras, he goes on to quash it all? I really must get my hands on a copy!

I submit that this is out of context, most probably.

Therefore (without you having even read the succeeding paragraphs, then basing your apparent "conclusions" on pure assumptions), Sagan is/was absolutely right!

Savvy?

With respect, keep this "attitude" up and you will do well on this site.

Everyone will agree with you!

[A.DIM]

I'm intrigued by the fact that Sagan, as astronomer, was "impressed" by the Myth/Religion aspect while discounting the astronomy, and the Semitics professor was "impressed" by the astronomy and not the Myth/Religion. :-k So paradoxical that it seems a nerve was touched for both.
And...
"Furthermore, there is an impressive array of cases in the history of archaeology - from Heinrich Schliemann at Troy to Yigael Yadin at Masada - where the description in ancient writings have subsequently been validated as fact."
... I wonder if he meant "myths" and "religious texts?"

I think I should read that book.

[John T]

I'm intrigued by the fact that Sagan, as astronomer, was "impressed" by the Myth/Religion aspect while discounting the astronomy, and the Semitics professor was "impressed" by the astronomy and not the Myth/Religion. :-k So paradoxical that it seems a nerve was touched for both.
And...
"Furthermore, there is an impressive array of cases in the history of archaeology - from Heinrich Schliemann at Troy to Yigael Yadin at Masada - where the description in ancient writings have subsequently been validated as fact."
... I wonder if he meant "myths" and "religious texts?"

I think I should read that book.

Indeed.

Your responses would be most interesting.

John

[R.A.F.]

I'm intrigued by the fact that Sagan, as astronomer, was "impressed" by the Myth/Religion aspect while discounting the astronomy...

I don't particularly care what Sagan, or Asimov, or the grand high Poobah "says". If what they say is wrong, or not demonstrated by observation, I'm not going to "follow blindly" along and agree. I thought you would have "figured" that out by now.

"Furthermore, there is an impressive array of cases in the history of archaeology - from Heinrich Schliemann at Troy to Yigael Yadin at Masada - where the description in ancient writings have subsequently been validated as fact."

So, somehow that "validates" all myths and legends??...no way!!

[SkyEyeGuy]

John T., I have read Worlds in Collision, though it has been some time ago. I wasn't impressed then, and I'm even less likely to ascribe any value to the book now.

Do you deny that Velikovsky posited the theory that 'vermin' from Jupiter hitched a ride to the Earth on the freshly 'ejected' Venus? Or that he stated that hot gases from the Venusian atmosphere caused Earthly vermin to quickly multiply, thus adding to the Egyptian plagues of the Old Testament?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but since Velikovsky has been cited as a source I feel it's only fair to examine all of his claims.

Bugs not to your taste? Fine, let's examine the mechanism by which a Jovian gas giant suddenly 'ejects' a rocky Venus. Rudimentary calculations of the forces required to launch Venus out of Jupiter pretty much render the entire scenario dead in the water, then and there.

In my view, Velikovsky is comic-book science at best. That's not a slur, but a statement of fact -- show me why Planet Krypton of Superman fame is any LESS likely to exist than Velikovsky's ping-pong Venus?

I doubt we'll ever agree on whether Velikovksy was kook or visionary. I'm just trying to gain an inkling of insight into why intelligent, well-spoken persons -- such as yourself, sir -- see any value in the man's work.


If I have given offense, let me know and I'll apologize. For the record, I may (and do) question Velikovsky's claims, but not your right to accept them.

[A.DIM]

There's an "alternative mantle theory" thread currently active here.

Thanks!
It sounds as if Andre is on to something, no?


Somewhat back on topic:

Weird Object Beyond Pluto Gets Stranger.

So if there's no moon.... :-k

[Archer17]

..So if there's no moon.... :-k

Wow, we were just talking about Velikovsky and Venus doesn't have a moon either!! :-k On a more serious note, do you know why we thought Sedna might have a moon A.DIM?

[John T]

If Carl Sagan said that (I should try to find the quotation) then he was invoking a logical fallacy. What I said still stands.

If you think Velikovsky was right, I suggest you read the book "Beyond Velikovsky" by Bauer. He actually goes to some length discussing V's science, and showing how it is wrong. He also discusses how scientists behaved badly (which is what I said in my book, which I wrote before I had ever heard of Bauer's!).

Maybe at some point I'll put up a page about V, but since his following has shrunk so drastically, it hardly seems worth it. There are bigger fish to fry.

I have read the book "Beyond Velikovsky" by Bauer...but I am not convinced!

However, I do not say that Velikovsky was completely right per se.

All I do say is that the man had a point, which in my view should not be written-off as being some kind of a pseudoscientific crank.

You have apparently debunked 'Worlds in Collision', albeit in one short Chapter of your book (but of course, never mind debunking the other eight published books by Velikovsky and numerous papers etc...can you debunk those too?)

As for "bigger fish to fry"...

Who? I wonder...McCanney et al?

Well, might I suggest (albeit prematurely) that in the interim, you gear yourself up to respond to the forthcoming book 'Thunderbolts of the Gods"?

The book/s will be a serious re-evaluation of the present-day "Velikovskianism" thinking (in a manner of speaking), but under a slightly and somewhat modified guise.
However, the "point" will be more or less the same as before.

The 'point' (to my mind) is this:

It is the enormously powerful electric force that "rules" the universe... not the infinitesimally weak force of "gravity" (whatever that is supposed to be)

Cheers

John

[A.DIM]

I don't particularly care what Sagan, or Asimov, or the grand high Poobah "says". If what they say is wrong, or not demonstrated by observation, I'm not going to "follow blindly" along and agree. I thought you would have "figured" that out by now.

So who's asked you to "follow blindly along and agree" to anything, RAF?
It appears my post for some reason or other "touched a nerve" for you too. Curious.
And why so abrasive?

So, somehow that "validates" all myths and legends??...no way!!

Is "all" in that statement? :-?

Talk about "out of context."

Sheesh! Some "skeptics" :roll:

[A.DIM]

..So if there's no moon.... :-k

Wow, we were just talking about Velikovsky and Venus doesn't have a moon either!! :-k On a more serious note, do you know why we thought Sedna might have a moon A.DIM?

Surely you're not "serious," Archer.
You must think I don't read even the articles I link to?

On a lighter note: Do you think Sedna's moon is only "hidden" from us? OR do you think Sedna revolves much faster than what astronomers say?

[R.A.F.]

It appears my post for some reason or other "touched a nerve" for you too.

Not at all, I just see "where" you were "going" with your statement...and I've seen you do it before...

If a scientist appears to agree wth one of your "pet" theorys, you think he's the smartest guy in the world. Yet, if a scientist disagrees with said theory, he's uninformed or worse...I'd call that scientifically hypocritical.

So, somehow that "validates" all myths and legends??...no way!!

Is "all" in that statement?

OK, how about this..."So somehow that "validates" your "pet" myth or legend.??...no way!!

[John T]

John T., I have read Worlds in Collision, though it has been some time ago. I wasn't impressed then, and I'm even less likely to ascribe any value to the book now.

Do you deny that Velikovsky posited the theory that 'vermin' from Jupiter hitched a ride to the Earth on the freshly 'ejected' Venus? Or that he stated that hot gases from the Venusian atmosphere caused Earthly vermin to quickly multiply, thus adding to the Egyptian plagues of the Old Testament?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but since Velikovsky has been cited as a source I feel it's only fair to examine all of his claims.

Bugs not to your taste? Fine, let's examine the mechanism by which a Jovian gas giant suddenly 'ejects' a rocky Venus. Rudimentary calculations of the forces required to launch Venus out of Jupiter pretty much render the entire scenario dead in the water, then and there.

In my view, Velikovsky is comic-book science at best. That's not a slur, but a statement of fact -- show me why Planet Krypton of Superman fame is any LESS likely to exist than Velikovsky's ping-pong Venus?

I doubt we'll ever agree on whether Velikovksy was kook or visionary. I'm just trying to gain an inkling of insight into why intelligent, well-spoken persons -- such as yourself, sir -- see any value in the man's work.


If I have given offense, let me know and I'll apologize. For the record, I may (and do) question Velikovsky's claims, but not your right to accept them.

Hey "Sky" (shortened version),

Apologies?

I can assure you, there is no need for apologies of any kind and certainly no offence (on my part) will be taken on anything you may have to say.
(In fact I am not too sure what you meant by saying this.)

Fire at me what you will, feel free.
I welcome all that you might have to say.

Then of course and perhaps without assumed preconditions etc (and I know you might disagree with that, but see my post below to the BA), we can engage in as many meaningful exchanges as you like.

I am a little tired now, but I will get back to you later about the "vermin" etc.

Cheers

John

[R.A.F.]

On a lighter note: Do you think Sedna's moon is only "hidden" from us? OR do you think Sedna revolves much faster than what astronomers say?

No and no.

[SkyEyeGuy]

Thanks, John T. It's just so easy for these discussions to get out of hand; I have a tendency to be a smart-butt and though I'm re-reading these posts before I hit submit I'm always worried my Evil Side will pop out at the wrong time.

I'll be the first to admit that the net brings out the worst in me. I tend to forget there is a living breathing human on the other end of the words.

So I'm just being extra careful.

[John T]

Thanks, John T. It's just so easy for these discussions to get out of hand; I have a tendency to be a smart-butt and though I'm re-reading these posts before I hit submit I'm always worried my Evil Side will pop out at the wrong time.

I'll be the first to admit that the net brings out the worst in me. I tend to forget there is a living breathing human on the other end of the words.

So I'm just being extra careful.

Okay, so who's smart!

I certainly am not.

Like it or not, we're all in the same boat and yes (at least the last time I checked) I am like yourself "a living human being"

Peace always.

Cheers

John

[Archer17]

..So if there's no moon.... :-k

Wow, we were just talking about Velikovsky and Venus doesn't have a moon either!! :-k On a more serious note, do you know why we thought Sedna might have a moon A.DIM?

Surely you're not "serious," Archer.
You must think I don't read even the articles I link to?

On a lighter note: Do you think Sedna's moon is only "hidden" from us? OR do you think Sedna revolves much faster than what astronomers say?

It was your ":-k " at the end of the post that made we wonder. On a more astronomical note: We either didn't image Sedna's moon or it doesn't have one. Sedna's rotation appears slower than thought but it's no big deal (to me anyway). I'm impressed that we can even measure things like axial rotation at this distance so I'll cut 'em a break here.

[A.DIM]

It appears my post for some reason or other "touched a nerve" for you too.

Not at all, I just see "where" you were "going" with your statement...and I've seen you do it before...

Pray tell, where was I going with that statement?
You presume too much.
And is it deserving of such negative drivel as what spewed forth from you?

And Archer had the temerity to accuse me of being "compelled to post when you have nothing to say!" =D>

If a scientist appears to agree wth one of your "pet" theorys, you think he's the smartest guy in the world. Yet, if a scientist disagrees with said theory, he's uninformed or worse...I'd call that scientifically hypocritical.

Ridiculous.
Have I ever claimed anyone to be the "smartest guy in the world?"
Have I ever said a "scientist is uninformed?"
NO and NO.
I submit then, that your statement is utterly meaningless.

OK, how about this..."So somehow that "validates" your "pet" myth or legend.??...no way!!

Even still, RAF, I was not looking for validation. I asked a genuine question about whether or not Sagan might've meant "myths and religion" where he carefully used "ancient writings." Besides, in order for it to validate anything, I'd have to read it first. But I can see that's NOT how you operate, and so according to your logic I would immediately have to jump to some conclusion about it being "validation" for something, which is what you did. Not me.
Again, you presume too much. [-X

[A.DIM]

On a lighter note: Do you think Sedna's moon is only "hidden" from us? OR do you think Sedna revolves much faster than what astronomers say?

No and no.

Interesting

So what else might be responsible for such a slow rotation, and while we're at it, for such an elliptical, seemingly stable, orbit?

[Archer17]

On a lighter note: Do you think Sedna's moon is only "hidden" from us? OR do you think Sedna revolves much faster than what astronomers say?

No and no.

Interesting

So what else might be responsible for such a slow rotation, and while we're at it, for such an elliptical, seemingly stable, orbit?

Do you know? Since astronomers don't know (yet), how do you expect R.A.F. to answer that? Should we all data-mine, latch on to our favorite speculation, and debate by sympathetic links some more?

[A.DIM]

On a lighter note: Do you think Sedna's moon is only "hidden" from us? OR do you think Sedna revolves much faster than what astronomers say?

No and no.

Interesting
So what else might be responsible for such a slow rotation, and while we're at it, for such an elliptical, seemingly stable, orbit?

Do you know? Since astronomers don't know (yet), how do you expect R.A.F. to answer that? Should we all data-mine, latch on to our favorite speculation, and debate by sympathetic links some more?

I expected RAF to answer as he did with the previous queries, in his opinion, and of course, matter-of-factly.

But I'm unsure what it is about "datamining" and "sympathetic" resources that bothers you so, Archer. I mean, do not scientists cite others in their research, whether in speculation, hypotheses, or theories? Come on, this is something one looks for when reading "peer reviewed" and scientific journals, is it not? I usually want to check sources and citations, don't you?

Personally, I'm rather fond of being able to sit down here and research anything I dare.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Archer and A.DIM, drop the accusatory tones and jabs, please. You can disagree with each other, and even discuss that disagreement, without sarcasm and veiled attacks.