Immanuel Velikovsky

[OilIsMastery]

Vellikovsky's [sic] work has pretty much been universally discredited and debunked.
Let us examine this false claim.

Trippy is making a claim about "universality" therefore, according to Trippy, this is an a priori synthetic judgement, the truth of which is linked to the consciousness of it's necessity.

However, Albert Einstein and myself are "part of the universe" and we do not "universally" discredit and debunk Velikovsky's work, therefore Trippy's claims (as "pretty much" all of his other claims) are shown to be false.

For example, Velikovsky made several predictions which were proven to be correct.

I would like to discuss 3 of Velikovsky's claims in particular to show how they have not been "universally discredited and debunked" as claimed by Tripppy.

Claim Number 1 (Uniformitarianism is false)

"The sea erupted. Often the sea and land changed places. The immobility of contours of continents and seas, a dogma in geology, has no basis in fact. And immediately there is the problem of the climate. There were ancient climates that were very different from what they are today. If those corals grew where they were found, certainly the Earth was not travelling with the same elements of rotation and revolution which means not in the same orbit, not with the axis directed in the same position as it is today. If you don't believe it, try to conservate corals on the North Pole." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1974

Claim Number 2 (Venus is hot)

"And Venus must be hot if the history of the solar system is not the history of no change for billions of years. And Venus was found hot, not room temperature as was thought until 1959. In 1961 it was detected with radio means that it is like something like 600 Farenheit and Mariner 2 was sent out to find out true or not true? It was found that even more it is full 800 [degrees Farenheit]." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1974

Claim Number 3 (Jupiter emits radio waves)

"But then if there were events of this character, discharges between planets and so on, I put one of the most outrageous claims before the scientific readers, that in the solar system and in the universe generally, not just gravitation and inertia are the two forces of action but that also electricity and magnetism are participating in the mechanism, so the Lord was not just a watchmaker. The universe is not free of those forces with which the man makes his life easy already more than 100 years. They were unknown practically or little known in the time of Newton in the second half of the 17th century. But today we know that electricity and magnetism, these are not just small phenomena that can be repeated as a kind of a little trick in the lab, that they permeate every field from neurology into botony and chemistry and astronomy should not be free...and it was admitted by authorities that this was the most outrageous point in my claims. But the vengeance came early and swiftly. In 1960, already in 1955, radio noises from Jupiter were detected and this was one of the crucial tests that I offered for the truth of my theory. In 1958, the magnetosphere was discovered around the Earth, another claim. In 1960, the interplanetary magnetic field was discovered and plasma, so-called solar wind, moving rapidly along the magnetic lines and then it was discovered that the electromagnetic field of the Earth reaches the moon ." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1974

"Our debate ended on Friday, April 8, 1955, only nine days before Einstein’s death. I think I was the last person with whom he discussed a scientific problem. On that day I brought him the published news that Jupiter sends out radio noises; ten months earlier, in a letter to him, I had offered to stake our dispute on this my claim of an as yet undiscovered phenomenon..." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1976

Radio noises of Jupiter that were only predicted by Velikovsky are available on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3fqE01YYWs

[Betrayer0fHope]

The pretty much clause he used pretty much makes this post pretty much useless.

[OilIsMastery]

The pretty much clause he used pretty much makes this post pretty much useless.
Ah, I see, the "pretty much clause" makes his claim useless and meaningless.

There always has to be a qulifier, an if, a but, a hedge, a backpedaling, or something to cover all the bases.

That way they can say anything they want no matter how absurd and ridiculous and there is still an escape and evasion route.

I guess Einstein has also been "pretty much" universally discredited and debunked.

[Trippy]

You're a liar, and you're twisting my words out of context - something you have repeatedly been warned, and banned for.

Let us examine this false claim.

Trippy is making a claim about "universality" therefore, according to Trippy, this is an a priori synthetic judgement, the truth of which is linked to the consciousness of it's necessity.

However, Albert Einstein and myself are "part of the universe" and we do not "universally" discredit and debunk Velikovsky's work, therefore Trippy's claims (like almost all his other claims) are shown to be false.

For example, Velikovsky made several predictions which were proven to be correct.

I would like to discuss 3 of Velikovsky's claims in particular to show how they have not been "universally discredited and debunked" as claimed by Tripppy.

In the context of the conversation, the word 'universally' was used to indicate that I was referring to the scientific community in general, or as a whole.

The 'pretty much' was in aknowledgement of the fact that there are some few who accept his work, and that there are some things he got right.

Equally to the point , and supporting the idea that OIM is deliberatly and malicously misrepresenting my post is the fact that OIM appeared to understand this at the time, because here:

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104700&postcount=75 (Post 75)

What work are you referring to?

We have OIM seeking clarification as to which work of Veliokovsky's had been universally discredited and debunked. Now, why would someone who thought I meant all of his work, and is now assuming I meant all of his work, seek clarification. Clarification, which, at the time I thought that Ophiolite had provided (however, in retrospect I see that wasn't quite the case) namely: Most, but not neccessarily all of it.

Having said all of that, I should have been quite clear (and I assumed it was) from the context of the situation that I was implicitly referring to Velikovsky's thesis that Venus had formed as a comet, and emerged fully fledged from Jupiter, and carrened around the inner solar system, causing such things as the ten plagues in the old testament, and Noahs flood. I say this, because that was the context, in the the thread, that Velikovsky's work was bought up in, and the thread was about giant comets.

So, hopefully anyone can see that OIM is blatantly and dleiberately misrepresenting what I said by taking it out of context, something for which he has just recently gotten back from a 3 day ban for.

And hopefully the Mods will recognize this thread for what it is - a blatant lie, and a pretty poor attempt at flaming and antagonizing another user, and lock, or cess-pool this this thread.

[Fraggle Rocker]

And hopefully the Mods will recognize this thread for what it is - a blatant lie, and a pretty poor attempt at flaming and antagonizing another user, and lock, or cess-pool this this thread.Yeah, we've got him on a short leash. This isn't my board but we all watch each other's backs.

You don't have to wait for a Moderator to notice a post. You can hit the Report button and add a short explanation.

In the past a thread about Velikovsky might have been moved to Pseudoscience. But now the attitude seems to be that the Crackpottery boards are there for scientific discussions of crackpottery, not for crackpot discussions of science.

[Trippy]

Yeah, we've got him on a short leash. This isn't my board but we all watch each other's backs.

You don't have to wait for a Moderator to notice a post. You can hit the Report button and add a short explanation.

In the past a thread about Velikovsky might have been moved to Pseudoscience. But now the attitude seems to be that the Crackpottery boards are there for scientific discussions of crackpottery, not for crackpot discussions of science.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, and I reported it at the time, with much the same request.

My request to have the Cesspooled or locked has nothing to do with it being about Velikovsky, and is solely because of what the thread is - a poorly disguised flame attack of another user (namely me) based on something that is ultimately a lie.

[MetaKron]

You gentlemen baited OIM into the responses that he made and then penalized him for behavior that was no worse than yours. Did you know that mastery of the sciences is not accomplished by domineering others? For that matter, the kind of domination that you practice is immature and stupid and makes you look bad. If you really want to get the better of him, be men and women. Grow up.

[Trippy]

You gentlemen baited OIM into the responses that he made and then penalized him for behavior that was no worse than yours. Did you know that mastery of the sciences is not accomplished by domineering others? For that matter, the kind of domination that you practice is immature and stupid and makes you look bad. If you really want to get the better of him, be men and women. Grow up.

I did no such thing, and I strongly resent your implications that I did.

[John99]

Yeah, we've got him on a short leash. This isn't my board but we all watch each other's backs.

You don't have to wait for a Moderator to notice a post. You can hit the Report button and add a short explanation.



if they were so sure of their argument's then they would not need to censor him. seems odd that he would get banned for doing exactly what everyone else here does.

[rpenner]

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky


(1) Planet Earth has suffered natural catastrophes on a global scale, both before and during mankind's recorded history.
(2) There is evidence for these catastrophes in the geological record (here Velikovsky was advocating Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions) and archeological record.
(3) The extinction of many species had occurred catastrophically, not by gradual Darwinian means.
(4) The catastrophes which occurred within the memory of mankind are recorded in the myths, legends and written history of all ancient cultures and civilisations. Velikovsky pointed to alleged concordances in the accounts of many cultures, and proposed that they referred to the same real events. For instance, the memory of a flood is recorded in the Hebrew Bible, in the Greek legend of Deucalion and in the Manu legend of India.
(5)Velikovsky put forward the psychoanalytic idea of "Cultural Amnesia" as a mechanism whereby these literal records came to be regarded as mere myths and legends.
(6) The cause of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies within the solar system — not least what were now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory.
(7) To explain the celestial mechanics necessary to permit these changes to the configuration of the solar system, Velikovsky thought that electromagnetic forces might somehow play a greater role to counteract gravity and orbital mechanics.
(8) Velikovsky argued that the conventional chronology of the Near East and classical world, based upon Egyptian Sothic dating and the king lists of Manetho, was wholly flawed. This was the reason for the apparent absence of correlation between the Biblical record and those of neighbouring cultures, and also the cause of the enigmatic "Dark Ages" in Greece and elsewhere. Velikovsky shifted several chronologies and dynasties from the Egyptian Old Kingdom to Ptolemaic times by centuries (a scheme he called the Revised Chronology), placing the Exodus contemporary with the fall of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. He proposed numerous other synchronisms stretching up to the time of Alexander the Great. He argued that these eliminate phantom "Dark Ages", and vindicate the biblical accounts of history and those recorded by Herodotus. For further details, see the Ages in Chaos article.

Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:
(9) A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current solar orbit.
(10) That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space.
(11) A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe.
(12) Jupiter had been the culprit for the catastrophe which saw the destruction of the "Cities of the Plain" (Sodom and Gomorrah)
(13) Periodic close contacts with a cometary Venus (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c.1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" incident.
(14) Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.

Claim 1 made by OIM is not a positive claim, nor a primary claim made by Velikovsky. It isn't actually a claim based on geology but on trying to reconcile mythologies on various continents as part of global catastrophes which happened during human history. It carries about as much weight as Newton's guess that light was carried by particles, because the photons we describe now would surprise Newton.
Claim 2 is not a prediction made by Velikovsky in the quote. Even when Worlds in Collision was published in 1950 it was not a prediction.
Claim 3 is not a prediction made by Velikovsky in the quote. In 1953, Velikovsky wrote: "In Jupiter and its moons we have a system not unlike the solar family. The planet is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and the stars." But in actual fact, the mechanisms involved are not fundamentally mysterious. While Jupiter was the first planet (1955) discovered to have radio emissions, the observation is not unique to Jupiter and Velikovsky gives us nothing to understand this general phenomenon with. Indeed, "all planets are thermal radio emitters, all magnetized planets are nonthermal radio emitters as well."


Timothy S. Bastian. "Radio emission from the Sun, planets, and the interplanetary medium." Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 2 (2006), pp 362-364 doi:10.1017/S174392130701099X

[Trippy]

if they were so sure of their argument's then they would not need to censor him. seems odd that he would get banned for doing exactly what everyone else here does.

So the fact that the entire post is based on a false premise - namely something that I neither stated nor implied, is completely meaningless then?

[MetaKron]

So the fact that the entire post is based on a false premise - namely something that I neither stated nor implied, is completely meaningless then?

Whether that is actually a fact is debatable. I don't think OIM was lying.

[MetaKron]

Rpenner, I remember that Velikovsky went into lengthy explanations as to why he revised the chronology of history, and gave several reasons why two calendars should line up his way and not the usual way. Someone can make the claim that he did this to justify his hypothesis, but I always got the impression that his hypothesis grew from his best estimate of what his findings added up to. He was in more trouble trying to find physical theory to justify what history showed, although he made a reasonable guess as to physical theory. Electrically charged masses do generate forces many millions of times stronger than gravity generated by the same masses.

[D H]

Velikovsky made up lengthy explanations as to why he revised the chronology of history, and physical theories and physical evidence, and astronomical theories and astronomical evidence, and geological theories and geological evidence, and biological theories and biological evidence, and archeological theories and archeological evidence, and .... In short, he was a lying charlatan who found that there was a lot more money and fame to be made selling crackpottery to the gullible public than in being an obscure psychologist.

[MetaKron]

Velikovsky made up lengthy explanations as to why he revised the chronology of history, and physical theories and physical evidence, and astronomical theories and astronomical evidence, and geological theories and geological evidence, and biological theories and biological evidence, and archeological theories and archeological evidence, and .... In short, he was a lying charlatan who found that there was a lot more money and fame to be made selling crackpottery to the gullible public than in being an obscure psychologist.

Did you actually read the books?

Frankly, if Einstein was favorably impressed and tried to see if it fit physical theory, that's good enough for me. People tend to cherry-pick Einstein just like they do any other culture icon. I'm glad that at least Maxwell kept it plain and simple or we would be in such a world of hurt.

[James R]

Did you actually read the books?

Experts read his books and debunked his nonsense.

At the time of publication, there was a flurry of debate, following which Velikovsky was relegated to the dustbin of pseudoscience.

[MetaKron]

Experts read his books and debunked his nonsense.

At the time of publication, there was a flurry of debate, following which Velikovsky was relegated to the dustbin of pseudoscience.

Probably by people who handle things the way that you do. That is not a compliment.

[James R]

Chalk up one more piece of Woo that MetaKron will support wholeheartedly due to his antiestablishmentarianism.

(Hey, it's not everyday you get to use that word!)

[MetaKron]

Chalk up one more piece of Woo that MetaKron will support wholeheartedly due to his antiestablishmentarianism.

(Hey, it's not everyday you get to use that word!)

I am anti-lies and anti-stupidity. Authority uses lies and willful stupidity way too much for my tastes.

[Trippy]

Whether that is actually a fact is debatable. I don't think OIM was lying.

He was lying, about what I said and misrepresenting it, to argue against a point that I wasn't actually making.

[MetaKron]

He was lying, about what I said and misrepresenting it, to argue against a point that I wasn't actually making.

Are you saying that he misquoted you?

[John99]

He was lying, about what I said and misrepresenting it, to argue against a point that I wasn't actually making.

i dont understand it because like i said there are a number of people who do the exact same thing and nothing is even mentioned. as a matter of fact that is ALL they really do. none of this matters to me but it looks like someone is about to get railroaded.

[Trippy]

Are you saying that he misquoted you?

You don't have to misquote someone to misrepresent what they said, I thought I quite clearly explained myself in my first post in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and re-read it, and take the time to actually process and understand it.

[Trippy]

i dont understand it because like i said there are a number of people who do the exact same thing and nothing is even mentioned. as a matter of fact that is ALL they really do. none of this matters to me but it looks like someone is about to get railroaded.

If that's the way you genuinely feel, what, precisely have you done about it?

[MetaKron]

You don't have to misquote someone to misrepresent what they said, I thought I quite clearly explained myself in my first post in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and re-read it, and take the time to actually process and understand it.

It seemed like an honest assessment to me. I don't see what you are objecting to.

[Trippy]

It seemed like an honest assessment to me. I don't see what you are objecting to.

Seeing as how you obviously haven't read my repky to his post, he has completely, ans provably misrepresented what I said, and in doing so completely twisted the meaning if my words in the context of the discussion we were having at the time.

It's also not the first time I have been able to show that he's lied about what I or others have said.

[MetaKron]

Seeing as how you obviously haven't read my repky to his post, he has completely, ans provably misrepresented what I said, and in doing so completely twisted the meaning if my words in the context of the discussion we were having at the time.

It's also not the first time I have been able to show that he's lied about what I or others have said.

It looks like you're going to fit right in here. They will make you a moderator soon. Just continue to be passive-aggressive, that's the ticket.

[James R]

MetaKron:

Clearly you are trying to provoke a reaction from a moderator with your snide remarks spread across several threads.

You are hereby warned that if you continue to troll in this manner, you will be banned for 1 month.

[Trippy]

It looks like you're going to fit right in here. They will make you a moderator soon. Just continue to be passive-aggressive, that's the ticket.

I think you need to acquire a copy of the DSM IV before attempting to make psychiatric diagnoses over the internet, and look up what it means to be Passive Agressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_aggresive).

I'm not deliberately ambiguous.
I don't avoid responsibility.
I have no qualms about openly expressing hostility or anger.
I don't fear authority, competition, dependency, or intimacy.
I don't deliberately foster chaos.
I don't habitually lie, obstruct, or procrastinate.
I'm neither haditually sarcastic or stubborn, and I definitely do not willfully obstruct others understanding.

My actions on this forum - explicitly detailing and justifying why I consider OIM's post a lie, and doing so (or at least attempting to do so) in clear, unambiguous english, is actually the opposite of what people with passive agressive personality types do.

[eburacum45]

Any astronomer you ask might say that Velikovsky's cosmology was rubbish, but his revision of ancient history looks plausible. Any archaeologist* or expert in ancient history you ask might say that his revision of ancient history was rubbish, but his astronomy looks plausible.

That is what Velikovsky was- a plausible rogue who appealed to people who were not trained in the subjects he talked about.

*Actually the one archaeologst I did ask said that Velikovsky's astronomy and ancient history were both rubbish, so it seems that archaeologists are a little more savvy than one might think.

[Ophiolite]

Velikovsky was wrong. No doubt.
The manner in which Velikovsky was 'debated' was also wrong. The opposition used every technique to discredit him other than attacking his arguments. It was a sorry episode in the history of science and not to0 far removed from the treatment of Wegner who was condemned for dabbling in matters beyond his competence when he proposed continental drift.

[MetaKron]

Velikovsky was wrong. No doubt.
The manner in which Velikovsky was 'debated' was also wrong. The opposition used every technique to discredit him other than attacking his arguments. It was a sorry episode in the history of science and not to0 far removed from the treatment of Wegner who was condemned for dabbling in matters beyond his competence when he proposed continental drift.

So the manner in which they debated him indicates nothing about the accuracy of their counterclaims?

[MetaKron]

I think you need to acquire a copy of the DSM IV before attempting to make psychiatric diagnoses over the internet, and look up what it means to be Passive Agressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_aggresive).

I'm not deliberately ambiguous.
I don't avoid responsibility.
I have no qualms about openly expressing hostility or anger.
I don't fear authority, competition, dependency, or intimacy.
I don't deliberately foster chaos.
I don't habitually lie, obstruct, or procrastinate.
I'm neither haditually sarcastic or stubborn, and I definitely do not willfully obstruct others understanding.

My actions on this forum - explicitly detailing and justifying why I consider OIM's post a lie, and doing so (or at least attempting to do so) in clear, unambiguous english, is actually the opposite of what people with passive agressive personality types do.

Would it have been better if I had just called you a cocksucker?
Does it look better after I edit it, you asshole?

Somehow you just bring out the best in people. Take the pity party elsewhere.

[Trippy]

Would it have been better if I had just called you a cocksucker?

Somehow you just bring out the best in people. Take the pity party elsewhere.

Get real.

What pity party?

You think i'm interested in yours? You've shown yourself to be unintelligent, and incapable of considering a point of view that isn't yours?

You think i'm interested in offering you any? Get real, I wouldn't waste it.

Oh, and apparently you're unobservant as well, as you seem to have failed to notice that the background of the quote box is gray - unless you intend on editing your post after I reply, but then, that's what screen grabs are for (not to mention the time stamp associated with editing your post).

[MetaKron]

White on grey doesn't show up very well. Perhaps you should have edited out the color commands.

[Trippy]

White on grey doesn't show up very well. Perhaps you should have edited out the color commands.

Why would I do that?
You done trolling yet?

[MetaKron]

Why would I do that?
You done trolling yet?

What are you, about 16?

[Ophiolite]

So the manner in which they debated him indicates nothing about the accuracy of their counterclaims?Absolutely nothing. They may have been scientists, but they were debating him as human beings, ignoring the scientific method. Their motivation may have been a combination of fear, egotism, bullying ..... who knows. What was clear was that they did not - by and large - subject Velikovsky's work to a scientific critique. Other's did, eventually, but the initial reaction was a hysterical, knee-jerk explosion.
The counterclaims were independent of this embarrasing nonsense.

[Trippy]

What are you, about 16?

Funny you should mention that.

I'm not the one resorting to insults.
I'm also not the one hiding behind white text against a white background.

[Trippy]

Absolutely nothing. They may have been scientists, but they were debating him as human beings, ignoring the scientific method. Their motivation may have been a combination of fear, egotism, bullying ..... who knows. What was clear was that they did not - by and large - subject Velikovsky's work to a scientific critique. Other's did, eventually, but the initial reaction was a hysterical, knee-jerk explosion.
The counterclaims were independent of this embarrasing nonsense.

I agree with you, fortunately, it wasn't this hubris that I was referring to, it was the reasoned work that came out once the hubris had subsided.

[Ophiolite]

Absolutely. There is no doubt that Velikovsky was monumentally wrong in his fundamental thesis. By chance a handful of his 'predictions' matched reality, but this does not mean he was even slightly right - on those points he was simply lucky.
I am trying to recall things I read four decades ago, but I think he even managed to confuse hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Or maybe that was me. :)
I'm also not the one hiding behind white text against a white backgroundI believe I may be the one who introduced this technique to sciforums. I think it was in the dialogues with Happeh - an exotic individual who thought you could identify masturbators by the angle at which they held their heads.:shrug:

[Janus58]

I am trying to recall things I read four decades ago, but I think he even managed to confuse hydrocarbons with carbohydrates.

He did. He tried to use the fact that hydrocarbons had been detected in comets to explain why a close passage of Venus (as a comet) produced the manna from Heaven in the Bible.

[OilIsMastery]

if they were so sure of their argument's then they would not need to censor him. seems odd that he would get banned for doing exactly what everyone else here does.
They don't realize that banning me and censoring me makes my ideas even more powerful, compelling, and persuasive. These kids grew up on 1984 and Kurt Cobain. There is nothing cooler to them than reading banned literature and forbidden ideas and rebelling against outmoded mainstream orthodoxy.

[synthesizer-patel]

How long ago - according to Immanuel Velikovsky - did the earth settle into its current orbit?

[OilIsMastery]

How long ago - according to Immanuel Velikovsky - did the earth settle into its current orbit?
You tell me. I thought you've read all his work and are an expert on the topic so you should be able to provide a direct quote.

However, I wanted to focus on the 3 claims in the OP.

[D H]

However, I wanted to focus on the 3 claims in the OP.
First things first: The OP starts with a false claim.
Vellikovsky's work has pretty much been universally discredited and debunked.Let us examine this false claim.
So, let us examine OIM's false claim. OIM adroitly uses multiple logical fallacies in the OP. First off, Trippy was obviously referring to Velikovsky's key claims:
That Earth was once a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body,
That this proto-Saturn entered a nova state, triggered Noah's Flood,
That Venus was ejected from Jupiter in recent times,
That periodic close contacts with Venus caused the Exodus events ...
... including making the Sun stand still.

So, did OIM address any of these very specific and very extravagant claims? Of course not; these claims are completely indefensible. Instead OIM chose to focus on three lesser and very vague claims made by Velikovsky.

For the sake of argument, let's assume those lesser claims are correct. Do they add a scintilla of credence to his more extravagant claims? Of course not. The extravagant claims do not follow from these lesser claims. Velikovsky, as a master charlatan, knew full well that one of the best ways to promulgate a huge lie was to wrap it in lesser truths.

On to the claims.
Claim Number 1 (Uniformitarianism is false)
First off, this claim is so vague as to be meaningless as posed by OIM as to be meaningless. Secondly, Velikovksy simply latched on to an existing and growing controversy in science. The idea is not his. Thirdly, it poses a straw man argument. Scientists in 1959 were well aware of large changes in climate such as ice ages, drastic changes in the Earth such as earth quakes. Fourthly, the specific catastrophic claims made by Velikovsky are false. His specific claims depend on interactions between the Earth and Venus and Mars. Such events never occurred.

Claim Number 2 (Venus is hot)
Even crackpots get some things right: Venus is hot. Does this mean Venus sprang from Jupiter a few thousand years ago? Of course not. He got one fact right but completely missed the boat in the explanation.

Claim Number 3 (Jupiter emits radio waves)
Debunked here: http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/pseudosc/vlkovsky.htm
Velikovsky's supporters refer again and again to Velikovsky's address to the Princeton Graduate College Forum on October 14, 1953, in which he predicted, eighteen months before the actual discovery, that Jupiter should emit radio waves. Remarkably, they never quote what Velikovsky actually said during what is supposed to have been one of his greatest moments. Ferte' refers to the discovery of radio emissions from Jupiter, "supposedly a cold body encased in thousands of miles of ice." Evidently Velikovsky expected Jupiter to emit radio waves for the same reason Venus does--because it is hot. Any object above absolute zero will emit radio waves, so a "prediction" of this sort is a safe, so-what prediction. Jupiter actually emits radio waves because charged particles from the Sun are trapped and accelerated by Jupiter's magnetic field. Velikovsky no more foresaw this discovery than anyone else. In no sense of the word did Velikovsky make a real prediction. Here again we find a total absence of anything resembling a rigorous, step-by-step proof, or any evidence that Velikovsky and his supporters understand what a real proof is. A real prediction that Jupiter should emit radio waves would include a specific mention of the physical process responsible, as well as observational or theoretical reasons why that mechanism should be present on Jupiter.

[OilIsMastery]

First off, this claim is so vague as to be meaningless as posed by OIM as to be meaningless.
If it's meaningless then how can it be wrong?

Even crackpots get some things right: Venus is hot.
So you agree with a crackpot...lol.

Debunked here:
Debunked here: http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/540616ve.htm

June 16, 1954

Dear Professor Einstein: ...

Of course, I am a heretic, for I question the neutral state of celestial bodies. There are various tests that could be made. For instance, does Jupiter send radio-noises or not? This can easily be found, if you should wish. ...

Cordially,

Immanuel Velikovsky

[James R]

OilIsMastery:

So you agree with a crackpot...lol.

Once again, you are attributing a position to another poster that he obviously does not hold.

This is dishonest and constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.

Do it again and you will be permanently banned from sciforums. Last chance!

[OilIsMastery]

OilIsMastery:



Once again, you are attributing a position to another poster that he obviously does not hold.

This is dishonest and constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.

Do it again and you will be permanently banned from sciforums. Last chance!
Are you saying that D H does not agree that Venus is hot? If you are saying so then it is you who are being dishonest.

Even crackpots get some things right: Venus is hot.

[D H]

OIM, you are once again making a fallacious argument. Suppose someone claims that "1+1=2" and "100+100=10000". Just because 1+1=2" is universally accepted as true does not validate the other claim. Just because someone else acknowledges that "1+1=2" is true does not mean that that other person has somehow lost credibility in his rebuttal of the extravagant claim.

That is analogous to the situation here. To argue that Venus isn't hot is a ludicrous position. Just because I agree that Venus is hot does not mean I agree with everything Velikovsky had to say, and that is exactly what you were implying.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM, you are once again making a fallacious argument. Suppose someone claims that "1+1=2" and "100+100=10000". Just because 1+1=2" is universally accepted as true does not validate the other claim. Just because someone else acknowledges that "1+1=2" is true does not mean that that other person has somehow lost credibility in his rebuttal of the extravagant claim.

That is analogous to the situation here. To argue that Venus isn't hot is a ludicrous position. Just because I agree that Venus is hot does not mean I agree with everything Velikovsky had to say, and that is exactly what you were implying.
I said I want to discuss the 3 claims in the opening post. Not that I want to discuss anything else that someone may have said that was wrong. If you want to discuss another topic, start your own thread.

[James R]

Are you saying that D H does not agree that Venus is hot? If you are saying so then it is you who are being dishonest.

I was expecting this reply from you. Why can't you have some integrity?

[synthesizer-patel]

I thought you've read all his work and are an expert on the topic so you should be able to provide a direct quote.
.

whatever gave you that idea?

[Ophiolite]

I was expecting this reply from you. Why can't you have some integrity?I suspect brain damage.

[D H]

He's gone, Ophiolite. Check the ban list.

[Ophiolite]

Thanks DH. It was about time. Aspects of his arguments could have been occasionally interesting if he had dropped the deceitful debating tactics. I'm sure there will be another kook along soon.