Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Cosmetologists and Astrologers Vs. Immanuel Velikovsky

"I who am a specialist in the field am moved to ask myself, 'Did this physician [Immanuel Velikovsky] writing in 1954 know more about physics of radio emissions than this physicist [Carl Sagan] writing 20 years later?'" -- James Warwick, astronomer, 1974

"Dr. Velikovsky pointed out that the collisions were not independent; in fact, if two bodies orbiting the Sun under the influence of gravity collide once, that encounter enhances the chance of another, a well known fact in celestial mechanics. Professor Sagan's calculations, in effect, ignore the law of gravity. Here, Dr. Velikovsky was the better astronomer." -- Robert Jastrow, astrophysicist, December 1979

"This Sagan assumption is so disingenuous that I do not hesitate to label it as either a deliberate fraud on the public or else a manifestation of unbelievable incompetence or hastiness combined with desperation and wretchedly poor judgement." -- Robert W. Bass, astronomer, 1976

Joshua Snyder: The Science Cartel vs. Immanuel Velikovsky. (Via Louis Hissink's Crazy World)

In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky culminated decades of research with a book titled Worlds in Collision that "proposes that many myths and traditions of ancient peoples and cultures are based on actual events." His approach was interdisciplinary, a rarity in the 20th century, taking into account astronomy, physics, chemistry, psychology, ancient history, and comparative mythology.

He noted, for example, that Venus, the second brightest object in the night sky, was not mentioned by the earliest astronomers. He proposed that the planet was a newcomer to our solar system, a comet, appearing in historical times with an irregular orbit that caused catastrophic events on our own planet.

Coming in close contact with the Earth, the latter's rotation altered, making it appear that The Sun had stood still, a phenomenon reported on in the Book of Joshua. What has come to be known as Joshua's Long Day is corroborated by the texts of the ancient Chinese, Japanese, Egyptians, Babylonians, and Mayans; the East Asians reporting a extremely long sunset, the Mexicans reporting an extremely long sunrise.

Immanuel Velikovsky was too eminent a scholar to be dismissed outright as a kook, and he counted some respected people among his friends. (See The Einstein-Velikovsky Correspondence). Nevertheless, his Catastrophism was rejected outright by a scientific establishment that couldn't stomach an interdisciplinary challenge to its dogmatic Uniformitarianism, even after Velikovsky's predictions about the temperature of Venus and radio activity from Jupiter were proven true.


Jeffery Keown said...

...Velikovsky's predictions about the temperature of Venus...

Venus is hot because of greenhouse effects, not because it is newly formed. Velikovsky didn't understand it's atmosphere to begin with.

OilIsMastery said...

LOL @ U.

Louis Hissink said...


The Greenhouse effect on Venus is patent nonsense. It's not physically possible.

Jeffery Keown said...

Neat. 2 replies.

1. lolspeak. Very concise, yet meaningless.

2. a distinct lack of citation.

Louis, let me channel OiM real quick.

Why don't you believe in CO2?

Jeffery Keown said...

Morrison points out several other misleading claims about Velikovsky being right. For example, Velikovsky was right that Venus is hot but wrong in how he came to that conclusion. He thought it was because Venus is a recent planet violently ejected from Jupiter and having traveled close to the sun. Venus is hot because of the greenhouse effect, something Velikovsky never mentioned. As to the composition of the atmosphere of Venus, Velikovsky thought it was hydrogen rich with hydrocarbon clouds. NASA put out an erroneous report in 1963 that said Mariner 2 had found evidence of hydrocarbon clouds. In 1973 it was determined that the clouds are made mainly of sulfuric acid particles. Velikovsky was also right about Jupiter issuing radio emissions, but wrong as to why. He thought it was because of the electrically charged atmosphere brought on by the turbulence created by the expulsion of Venus. The radio emissions, however, are not related to the atmosphere but to "Jupiter's strong magnetic field and the ions trapped within it" (Morrison 65).

OilIsMastery said...


Where are all the man made automobiles on Venus that cause the anthropogenic global warming there?

Mars's atmosphere is 95.72% carbon dioxide. Too bad anthropogenic carbon dioxide can't cause a runaway greenhouse effect there because Mars has mean surface temp of minus 40 below C.

Jeffery Keown said...

I was not talking about anthropogenic greenhouse effects.

Obviously humans didn't cause it. Do not shift the discussion. Velikovsky was wrong about a number of things. Your "victimization hat" apparently covers your eyes.


OilIsMastery said...


Carbon dioxide does not cause a planetary greenhouse effect because Mars is freezing cold.

Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming on Earth because as you say, "Obviously humans didn't cause it."

Jeffery Keown said...

In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 °C could be as low as −18 °C.

Mars would be even colder without its CO2.

OilIsMastery said...


"Mars would be even colder without its CO2."

You have no evidence of that.

Jeffery Keown said...

You're right... I have only the flimsy evidence of physical reality. The martian atmosphere traps heat that would otherwise be reflected away. It is farther from the sun than Earth, recieving less energy as a result.

This is elementary school stuff here. Did you pass 6th grade?

Seriously... who the hell doubts that air holds heat and that CO2 holds heat even better. CO2 + Methane even moreso.

If you doubt this then, pray tell, how is Earth's surface heat retained?

OilIsMastery said...


No amount of Darwinist or atheist prayer can make a 95% CO2 atmosphere on Mars have a greenhouse effect.

Why do you think Mars is hot?

"If you doubt this then, pray tell, how is Earth's surface heat retained?"

Ever heard of the Sun?

Jeffery Keown said...

So atmospheres do not hold in the heat from the sun? There's no prayer involved (it's science we're talking about, remember?).

Note that I said "retained."

re⋅tain  /rɪˈteɪn/ [ri-teyn]
–verb (used with object) 1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom.
3. to continue to hold or have: to retain a prisoner in custody; a cloth that retains its color.
4. to keep in mind; remember.
5. to hold in place or position.
6. to engage, esp. by payment of a preliminary fee: to retain a lawyer.

You make no sense at times.

Jeffery Keown said...

Why do you think Mars is hot?

I don't. You know that. It is warmer than it would be with out an atmosphere.

Read it slowly... maybe that will help.

OilIsMastery said...

How come CO2 doesn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

OilIsMastery said...

What temperature would Mars be if, like the Earth, it had no significant CO2 in the atmosphere? This ought to be good.

Jeffery Keown said...

It is estimated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars warms the atmosphere at the surface by less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

If the atmosphere were thicker, and able to retain more heat, the greenhouse effect would be even greater. As it is, Mars has a thin atmosphere that allows a great deal to escape back into space. But it does hold in some heat.

OilIsMastery said...

"It is estimated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars warms the atmosphere at the surface by less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit."

Venus has the same percentage of CO2 so it only can account for 10 degrees of Venus's 800 degree temperature.

How do you account for the other 790 degrees? I'll give you a hint from customarily ignored reality:

"As Zeus's daughter [Venus] she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.

Assuming our atmosphere goes from 0.038% CO2 to 95% CO2, you're saying the Global Warming Cult is crying over a ten degree F increase? You've got to be kidding.

Jeffery Keown said...

I frequently fail to avoid ad hominem attacks. Here I go again.

You are a troll.

Venus has the same percentage of CO2 so it only can account for 10 degrees of Venus's 800 degree temperature.

Allow me to repeat myself, and type louder.

If the atmosphere were thicker, and able to retain more heat, the greenhouse effect would be even greater. As it is, Mars has a thin atmosphere that allows a great deal to escape back into space. But it does hold in some heat.

Venus' atmosphere is over a thousand times thicker than Mars' atmosphere. The funny thing is, you know this, and cling to your nonsense because you can't bring yourself to agree with anything mainstream science postulates. It would be a compromise; something your head, as far as it is up Velikovsky's ass, cannot comprehend.

Euripides doesn't know what he's talking about. Venus was not ejected from Jupiter to be a navigational aid or for any other reason. It is a planet. Not a comet. Learn to tell the difference.

OilIsMastery said...

"You are a troll."

And you are an idiot.

I take your ad hominem attack and failure to answer any direct questions as a sign of utter logical defeat.

Too bad C02 can't cause a runaway greenhouse effect and it never will.

"Euripides doesn't know what he's talking about."

On the contrary Jeffery, it's you who don't know what you're talking about because you are a history denier.

"It is a planet. Not a comet. Learn to tell the difference."

There is no difference. Learn that Venus has a cometary tail.

"Some of the Italians called Pythagoreans say that the comet is one of the planets [Venus]." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, 350 B.C.

All comets were planets at one point or another.

"Is there other evidence that comets and minor planets originated in the 'recent' explosion of a planet? Yes, a great deal. We can study the orbits of comets, and by using the laws of gravitation we can do what amounts to tracing those orbits back in time. We find a statistical tendency of those orbits to emanate between a common point between Mars and Jupiter about 3 million years ago...." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

Jeffery Keown said...

How do you account for the other 790 degrees?

Is that the direct question you are referring to?

If it is, I answered it. We're done here.

Louis Hissink said...

The other 790 degrees is due to Venus' internal heat.

Louis Hissink said...


"Why don't I believe in CO2" Because of the simple physical fact that there isn't anything like a greenhouse gas - greenhouses work by blocking convection.

IF you filled a small greenhouse with 100% CO2 and allowed it to be warmed up by the sun, then according to prevailing logic it's temperature should rise dramatically. Neat way of getting energy except it doesn't happen.

Venus is hot because Venus seems to be a newly formed planet, not necessarily according to Velikovsky's interpretation.

I suggest you become familiar with the facts pertaining to this area rather than resorting to Harlow Shapley style refutations.