Wednesday, May 13, 2009

1994: Myth or History?



"Physical scientists were outraged in 1950 when Immanuel Velikovsky published historical evidence from around the world suggesting that the order and even the number of planets in the solar system had changed within the memory of man. Ideas in nearly every field of scholarship were challenged, but most seriously challenged of all were certain dogmas in the field of astronomy which had only in recent centuries succeeded in convincing mankind that Spaceship Earth was a haven of safety. The emotional outburst from the community of astronomers that so blackened the name Velikovsky and so successfully - if only temporarily - discredited Worlds in Collision has been laid to many causes, from the psychological and the political to simple resentment against invasion of the field by an outsider. Whatever the nature of such intensifying factors, however, I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972

Are uniformitarian cranks, Newtonian crackpots, and anti-Velikovskians stupid enough to think Shoemaker-Levy 9 was a myth?

33 comments:

Quantum_Flux said...

I would say that World's in Collision is based on mythology, while Shoemaker-Levy 9 was confirmed by telescopic observations. ;)

OilIsMastery said...

Why would you say that? Have you read Worlds In Collision? Did you observe Shoemaker Levy 9 through a telescope?

I would say Worlds In Collision is based upon telescopic observations as well as naked eye observations.

Are the telescopic and naked eye observations in Worlds In Collision based upon mythology?

However, telescopic observations are not the sole criteria for truth because most people did not observe Shoemaker Levy through a telescope but nevertheless accept it as history.

If comets are based upon mythology, why do you think they are real?

Louis Hissink said...

How about studying the YouTube video?

The observation point of the video was behind the track of comet Shoemaker-Levy, and the tails of the cometary bodies is clearly to the left, suggesting that the Sun was to the right of the field of view.

Given these facts, the video seems artifical.

Prove me wrong.

Anaconda said...

WATTS UP WITH THAT?, POSTS SCIENCE REPORT OF NATURAL OIL SEEPS (LITERALLY TONS OF OIL)

(@ Louis Hissink:

I don't think there is any question that the video is an animation, and as you point out, not a very accurate animation at that.)

Watts Up With That?, one of the most active websites in the world (averaging 31,000 hits per day, and over 800,000 per month) has a post on natural oil seeps of Santa Barbara, Natural petroleum seeps release equivalent of eight to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills, May 15, 2009.Don’t kid yourself, as long as oil has been in the Earth’s crust (millions of years?) there have been oil seeps. It’s as natural as a mother breast feeding her child.

(If the oil has been seeping for millions of years how come it never runs out? Could it be that oil isn’t a product of squashed plants and algae?)

The oil industry has made amazing technological advances in recent years in off shore drilling techniques.

Believe it or not environmental groups have encouraged drilling off Santa Barbara.

Why?

To reduce the amount of oil going into the environment by reducing the pressure in the faults where the oil seeps.

Talk about a WIN/WIN situation — More domestic oil for America, less oil in the marine environment, and, yes, more tax revenue for cash strapped coastal states and the federal government, and jobs, too. Don’t forget those jobs in today’s economy.

Off shore oil drilling — Good for America — Good for the Environment.

That’s a winning proposition!

Abiotic Oil -- that is the only explanation for why oil seeps keep flowing after millions of years.

Want more people to know about the reality of Abiotic Oil?

Make a comment over at Watts Up With That?

Jeffery Keown said...

Louis-

When did anyone suggest that the video was real-time footage? If the sun is to the right (given Jupiter's phase this seems correct) then the comet tails should fall off to the left.

Nothing wrong with the video. It is a fine illustration of the actual event.

Jeffery Keown said...

Oils-
What telescopic evidence is found is WiC? Naked eye accounts, I'll grant you given that he drew on myths and legends and religous nuttery of all sorts, but what telescopic evidence is available via Velikovsky?

Quantum_Flux said...

I don't read science fiction OIM. I read a synopsis on Worlds in Collision, and that's how I know that the story is based on a loose foundation of historical mythology. I also read a synopsis on Shoemaker-Levy 9 and that's how I know it was widely observed at observatories. From Wikipedia:

astronomers trained terrestrial telescopes on Jupiter. Several space observatories did the same, including the Hubble Space Telescope, the ROSAT X-ray observing satellite, and significantly the Galileo spacecraft .... the Ulysses spacecraft, primarily designed for solar observations, was pointed towards Jupiter from its location 2.6 AU away, and the distant Voyager 2 probe, some 44 AU from JupiterIf you can't trust Wikipedia, then you should probably try changing what it says.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"What telescopic evidence is found is WiC?"

If you had ever read the book for yourself instead of blinding believing what people tell you, you might be able to answer that for yourself.

"he drew on myths and legends and religous nuttery of all sorts"

Why do you think comets are mythological?

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"I don't read science fiction OIM."

Worlds In Collision is definitely science but in no way fiction. It is historical fact. However, it's obvious you don't read "science" fiction, because if you did you would be familiar with Newtonianism.

"I read a synopsis on Worlds in Collision, and that's how I know that the story is based on a loose foundation of historical mythology."

In other words, you have never read Worlds In Collision and have no idea what words are contained therein. Why do you think history is mythology? Why don't you beleive in history?

Quantum_Flux said...

The level of rigor involved in discussing history is a few notches below the level of rigor involved in news broadcasting. What is fiction concerning Newton's physical equations?

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"What is fiction concerning Newton's physical equations?"

F = G x m1m2/r^2 does not describe the motion of anything in the known universe.

OilIsMastery said...

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

Quantum_Flux said...

Except for the trajectory of every single satellite and rocket ship that was launched in the last 50 years....Newton's equations clearly work for all of that. What equation would you use for determining the trajectories of all of those objects put into gravitational orbits?

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"Except for the trajectory of every single satellite and rocket ship that was launched in the last 50 years...."

You sound like the geocentrists who said, "except for every single eclipse in the last 2000 years."

"Newton's equations clearly work for all of that."

Ptolemy's equations clearly work as well. Do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Quantum_Flux said...

You didn't address my question:

What equation would you use for determining the trajectories of all of those objects (spaceships and artificial satellites) put into gravitational orbits?

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"What equation would you use for determining the trajectories of all of those objects (spaceships and artificial satellites) put into gravitational orbits?"

I wouldn't use any equation to determine the trajectories of extraterrestrial objects and orbits, rather I would use observation to determine them.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, that's not what NASA does when it launches the Space Shuttle or lands a Rover on Mars....NASA uses Newton's equations for gravitation for computing the trajectories and the energies required from getting from Earth to some other point in the solar system.

OilIsMastery said...

NASA also uses Genesis and the Holy Bible to get into space but you don't believe in that now do you?

Quantum_Flux said...

Now you are just being silly OIM.

Quantum_Flux said...

I personally like this one which shows less gravitation on the moon according to Newtonian Gravitation:

Apollo 17: Singing on the Moon

OilIsMastery said...

Apparently gravity on the moon is so weak (i.e. nonexistant) that the Earth falls away from it at 3.8 cm per year.

Quantum_Flux said...

Apparently that curiousity has been answered already using perfectly legitimate Newtonian Mechanics.

OilIsMastery said...

Um, no. I'm not a Newtonian Cultist so it hasn't been explained to my satisfaction.

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time — the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)." — Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." -- George E. Williams, geologist/geophysicist, 2000

"Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"…it does not seem likely that it will ever be possible to evaluate the effective rigidity of the earth's mass by means of tidal observations." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1907

"…in the course of our experiments, we were led away from the primary object of the Committee, namely, the measurement of the Lunar Disturbance of Gravity…." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882

"...the pre-Hellenic Pelasgian inhabitants of Arcadia called themselves Proselenes, because they boasted that they came into the country before the Moon accompanied the Earth. Pre-Hellenic and pre-lunarian were synonymous." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1851

"We shall commence with a few of the principal passages from the ancients, which treat of the Proselenes. Stephanus of Byzantium (v. 'Apkas) mentions the logographs of Hippys of Rhegium, a contemporary of Darius and Xerxes, as the first who called the Arcadians proselenous. The scholiasts, ad Apollon. Rhod. IV 264 and ad Aristoph. Nub. 397, agree in saying, the remote antiquity of the Arcadians becomes most clear from the fact of their being called proselenoi. They appear to have been there before the Moon, as Eudoxus and Theodorus also say; the latter adds that it was shortly before the labours of Hercules that the Moon appeared. In the government of the Tegeates, Aristotle states that the barbarians who inhabited Arcadia were driven out by the later Arcadians before the Moon appeared, and therefore they were called proselenoi." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1851

"The passages in Ovid as to the existence of the Arcadians before the Moon are universally known." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1851

"In the remotest times, before the Moon accompanied the Earth, according to the mythology of the Muysca or Mozca Indians, the inhabitants of the plain of Bogota lived like barbarians, naked, without any form of laws or religious worship." --Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, Researches, 1814

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632

"...surnamed Pelasgian from Pelasgus, son of Triopas, its founder, and not far from the sanctuary is the grave of Pelasgus." -- Pausanias, geographer, Description of Greece: Argolis, 2nd century

"It is said that it was in the reign of Pelasgus that the land was called Pelasgia." -- Pausanius, geographer, Description of Greece: Arcadia, 2nd century

"After this king the land was called Arcadia instead of Pelasgia and its inhabitants Arcadians instead of Pelasgians." -- Pausanias, geographer, Description of Greece: Arcadia, 2nd century

"These were Arcadians of Evander's following, the so‑called Pre-Lunar people." -- Plutarch, historian, Moralia: The Roman Questions #76, 1st century

"'The stars did not yet revolve in the heavens; the Danaides had not yet appeared, nor the race of Deucalion; the Arcadians alone existed, those of whom it is said that they lived before the Moon, eating acorns upon the mountains." -- Apollonios Rhodios, librarian, Argonautica, ~246 B.C.

Quantum_Flux said...

None of those quotes changes the fact that the tidal forces are attributed to the moon's orbital fling.

OilIsMastery said...

Read them again.

Pay particular close attention to these:

"…in the course of our experiments, we were led away from the primary object of the Committee, namely, the measurement of the Lunar Disturbance of Gravity…." — George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882

"Among the great men who have philosophized about [the action of the tides], the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, [but he] became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness." — Galileo Galilei, physicist, 1632

Jeffery Keown said...

Why do you think comets are mythological?You are barking mad, do you know that?

At no time did I say I consider comets to be mythological. OTOH, Velikovsky got all of his WiC material from mythology.

Why don't you try a different tact than putting words in folks' mouths? I know why, because you are incapable of it, you dispicable troll.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

If Velikovsky said 2+2=4, would you conclude 2+2=5?

Why do you say comets in history and Worlds in Collision are mythology?

Jeffery Keown said...

If Velikovsky said 2+2=4, would you conclude 2+2=5?Nope. But if he told me the sky was blue, I'd look out a window.

Why do you say comets in history...I didn't. You put words in my mouth. You do it often as a method of obfuscating the discussion.

...and Worlds in Collision are mythology?Because it is. If Venus flew past Earth close enough to deliver chemicals into our atmosphere, it would have altered the Moon's orbit. It didn't.

OilIsMastery said...

If Velikovsky said the sky is blue you'd really have doubts about it?

History is not myth. Rather the standard models are myths.

Quantum_Flux said...

My synopsis says that Velikovsky had a momentary vendetta against Newton because Velikovsky's book was rejected by the mainstream on the grounds that his claims severely violated basic physics principles such as (1)conservation of linear and angular momentum, and (2) conservation of energy. After that rejection had occured, Velikovsky tried to attribute the erratic motions of his vaague planetary historical accounts and myths to electrical phenomina.

In my opinion, that is fine if he wanted to do that (it doesn't violate basic Newtonian Mechanics or anything), but I don't see where adequate proof has been furnished showing these immense electrical force fields that push charged comets and asteroids around (they should still be around today). Perhaps you should know about NASA's NEO project where they track the orbits of thousands of nearby asteroids .... I'm sure they'd notice if the gravitational orbits (planes, eccentricities, angles of ascension and descention, etc) of these objects were being perturbed all the time as one might expect from such unpredicatable electrical forces.

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"My synopsis says that Velikovsky had a momentary vendetta against Newton because Velikovsky's book was rejected by the mainstream on the grounds that his claims severely violated basic physics principles such as (1)conservation of linear and angular momentum, and (2) conservation of energy. After that rejection had occured, Velikovsky tried to attribute the erratic motions of his vaague planetary historical accounts and myths to electrical phenomina."

Um no. If you'd ever read Worlds In Collision you'd know that's not true. Velikovsky rejected Newton because he had eyes and a brain and he knew how to read. Velikovsky was rejected by the anachronistic and outmoded 17th century Newton Cult.

You've never read Velikovsky's affadavit (1942), Cosmos Without Gravitation (1946), or Worlds In Collision (1950). They all predated the rejection of reality.

Nothing in Velikovsky violates conservation of energy. Rather, the Big Bang model violates conservation of energy.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, I don't know what to tell you other than Newtonian Gravitation explains the orbits for thousands of NEOs that NASA has been tracking. The problem is all entirely on the side of electric cosmos then.

Jeffery Keown said...

17th century Newton Cult

You really need to stop doing that. You elevate occultism and folklore in place of science and accuse scientists of doing the same.

It is tiring. I quit your blog from time to time because I get sick to death of hearing it.