I have their guidebook... "A Farewell to Arms" ;-)
Posted on 02/27/2008 4:50:10 PM PST by blam
Dr. Velikovsky had just visited Dr. Einstein less than two weeks prior to the latter's death, asking him to reconsider the Jupiter info in light of the recent believed discovery of some Jovian electromagnetic activity. Note that while Dr. Einstein had this book on his desk, evidently reading it just prior to his death, he was adding marginal notes like, "nonsense." Velikovsky disciples tend to leave that latter part out, I notice.
And you pretend also, when you want to. Else where did all the energy and angular momentum that exists now come from?
Huh? It didn't "come from" anywhere outside the system. It has been there since the Big Bang.
As for evidence based theories, you might read Earth in Upheaval, unless you feel that "stones and bones" are not evidence either.
I'll reply to this in another post.
I dunno... Velikovsky's lack-of-reality show might have a script something like this...
V-cultist: Wow! It was WINDY last night!
Non-Cultist: Huh? It was dead calm.
V-Cultist: No...Johnny said the power was out last night. Wind must have blown over a power pole.
Non-Cultist: [skeptically] Huh. Well, let's call the power company and find out for sure.
>Ring<
Non-Cultist (to phone): Hello. Did you lose any power poles last night?
Power Company Rep: Yes, we did... lost a pole over on Maple St. at about 10 pm.
V-Cultist: See? I'm right. It WAS windy last night!
Non-Cultist (to phone): So the wind blew over a pole?
Power Co. Rep.: Wind?!? There was no wind... A drunk driver who went off the road and took out the pole.
Non-Cultist (to phone): Thank you. Goodbye.
V-Cultist: SEE? I was right...it was windy and they confirmed the power was knocked out. I'm a genius, I tell ya!
Non-Cultist (to V-Cultist): The power was knocked out, but you were wrong about why!
V-Culist: OOH, you're suppressing me!
V-Culist (to bystander): I made a prediction that was right and now they're suppressing me cuz!
Couldn't be his politics. What could you possibly respect him for?
ML/NJ
and then you say:
Gondring, will you please consider this?
Wow, nice setup! You two are GOOD! :-)
Unfortunately for you, though, I don't think that rereading a worthless book is necessarily stupid, if it is necessary to correct something that's wrong.
But first, how about addressing some things that I can recall... such as how so many of his points have since been disproven...or that some were disproven before he published (since he just neglected later research and took only the stuff that fit his ideas)?
What about the bristlecone pines? What about the multiple layers of "fish-death catastrophes"? etc.
One example is an article that he wrote in the 80s about mathematics. He pushed for higher expectations of students’ use and understanding of mathematics, pointing out that kids can understand percentages and fractions just fine when it’s a “Batting Average.”
There you go...why get your information second-hand? Why not read Earth In Upheaval and make up your own mind? (Instead of asking me?)
Huh?
Bristlecone pines aren't even in there, are they?
You know, I’ve been to the museum that has her arms, as well as the heads and arms of other statues from around the world. /s. wright
I have their guidebook... "A Farewell to Arms" ;-)
First of all the "worthless book" was Worlds in Collision. Einstein wrote (someplace, probably in one of his letters to Velikovsky) that he wished Velikovsky had had Ages in Chaos published before WIC. I think he thought that in retrospect the academic community would have viewed WIC with less derision. Why do you think Einstein spent so much time on Velikovsky's stuff? It's probably the same reason the Princeton University Library houses his papers. (I'll give you a clue: it isn't worthless.)
As for stuff Velikovsky got wrong, if he did, well so what. (I don't remember anything about bristlecone pines and fish death catastrophes. I do know that in EIU he refers to a lot of stuff in the AMNH collection that the museum does not display. I wonder why.) Darwin seems to be doing pretty well and his stuff predicted nothing, and seems wrong about nearly everything so far as I can tell. I think it's pretty amazing that Velikovsky made as many completely off the wall accurate predictions as he did just by reading the Bible and other ancient literature.
I actually had the honor of meeting Velikovsky once. The guy was absolutely brilliant.
ML/NJ
THE PITFALLS OF RADIOCARBON DATING by Emmanuel Velikovsky
"...The combined efforts of several researchers led them to believe that one of the conditions stipulated by Libby for a flawless functioning of his method was not historically sustained; it is claimed that the influx of cosmic rays varied with time. Yet, since this influx comes from many sources, the sun being only one of them, sunspot activity could be related to the variation only in a very limited degree. Therefore the claim was made that the magnetosphere around the earth, discovered in 1958, suffered occasional weakening, thus allowing more cosmic rays to pass it and to hit the nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere, changing them to radiocarbon. It was further claimed that the magnetic field of the earth might have reversed its polarity in the last 40 thousand years, a phenomenon known to have happened in geological epochs. If such reversals were not instantaneous but required thousands of years, the atmosphere during that time would not be shielded from cosmic rays and substantially more of them would reach it. However, the scientific literature of the last few decades did not contain any reference to a reversal observed on human artifacts like pottery — though a paper by Manley in 1949 (Science News, Penguin Publication) told of the work of G. Folghereiter done at the turn of the century on Attic and Etruscan pottery: he found that the polarity was reversed in the eighth century before the present, era.
To determine the extent of correction necessary to render the radiocarbon method reliable, dendrochronologists devised a plan to control the radiocarbon dates by building a chronology of tree rings of the white bristlecone pine, the longest living tree. The method caught the fancy of the radiocarbon researchers. However, three or four rings formed in one year is not uncommon, especially if the tree grows on a slope, with the ground several times in a year turning wet and dry because of rapid outflow of water (Glueck et al., Botanical Review, 7, 649-713; and 21, 245-365). And certainly the building of tree "ladders," or carrying on the count from one tree to another may cause erroneous conclusions. One and the same year may be dry in South California and wet in the northern part of the state...
That's it? That's the best you can do? Sagan was a charlatan.
ML/NJ
Who cares, I always liked Serena better!
Why Velikovsky Matters...Today More Than Ever
"...McCanney thinks our earth and the other planets were originally comets that were drawn from their more elliptical orbits into more circular orbits. He is also quick to credit another maverick thinker who preceded him: Immanuel Velikovsky. In 1950 Velikovsky authored a controversial book, Worlds in Collision, in which he argued, among other things, that science had failed to account for the electromagnetic nature of comets. Even as the book topped the bestseller charts, several prominent figures in science, among them Carl Sagan, ridiculed Velikovsky and eventually succeeded in destroying his reputation. Velikovsky's name became almost synonymous with wacko nonsense. How ironic this isbecause the 1996 discovery of cometary X-rays has made Velikovsky look like a prophet. If the Plasma Discharge Comet Model turns out to be correct, McCanney will earn his rightful place alongside Kepler, Galileo, and Newton; and the names Velikovsky and McCanney will be remembered long after NASA and Sagan have been forgotten.
Bingo...
Would have been nice if he'd demonstrated it on paper and not just in person.
I suppose Velikovsky was trying to weasel out of his earlier statements, and claim that the bristlecone pines are actually young because they have multiple rings per year? There’s no evidence of that.
I can’t get Botanical Review from that far back online, but I would bet cash that neither of those articles he cited dealt with the bristlecone pine. Plus, he contradicts himself multiple times. He claims that the rings can’t be matched if from different locations—if that were the case, then he has no worry.
The fact that they match shows that it’s not a problem. Besides, they don’t have to be from multiple locations.
Why did Elizabeth Ralph refuse to allow publication of her correspondence to him?
Okay, this is bizarre. You're actually expecting me to defend a guy I despised?
How about a different view...that I must really be stronly convinced of how wrong Velikovsky was, to side with the likes of Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.