Famous theories about deep space and astronomy that have been proven to be wrong

[manila]

I think most of what Immanuel Velikovsky, mid century catastrophist and chronological revisionist, espoused fits the OP’s requirements.

Here’s a selection of conversations with Einstein.

http://www.varchive.org/bdb/main.htm

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@manila

I think most of what Immanuel Velikovsky, mid century catastrophist and chronological revisionist, espoused fits the OP’s requirements.

Here’s a selection of conversations with Einstein.

http://www.varchive.org/bdb/main.htm

Jeez, why not bring up John Cleves Symmes, Jr. while you’re at it? He believed that the earth is hollow and we live on the inside. That is good science compared to Velikovsky. No competent scientist at the time thought Velikovsky was anything other than a crank. He was a scientist the way anti-vaxers are scientists and his attitude toward facts would embarrass a moon-hoaxer. And Einstein crushed him like a bug.

I have read the whole book about the planet Venus. There is much of interest in the book which proves that in fact catastrophes have taken place which must be attributed to extraterrestrial causes. However it is evident to every sensible physicist that these catastrophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus and that also the direction of the inclination of the terrestrial axis towards the ecliptic could not have undergone a considerable change without the total destruction of the entire earth’s crust. Your arguments in this regard are so weak as opposed to the mechanical-astronomical ones, that no expert will be able to take them seriously. It were best in my opinion if you would in this way revise your books, which contain truly valuable material. If you cannot decide on this, then what is valuable in your deliberations will become ineffective, and it may be difficult finding a sensible publisher who would take the risk of such a heavy fiasco upon himself.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@MikeS

I suspect it was Popular Science, actually. See here. (Of course, Scientific American may have published a similar article around that time; hopefully El[e]ndil’s Heir can confirm or deny that this was the article in the presentation.)

I’m 95% sure it was Scientific American, but that article does look kind of familiar. I went to the lecture several years back.

[scr4]

@Mijin

Note that although olympus mons is the tallest mountain/volcano in the solar system, it only has a slope of about 5 degrees and has such a vast profile that, just based on sight, it would not be obvious you were climbing a mountain at all.

5 degrees is an 8.7% climb, or 1 in 11.4. It’s not exactly a challenging climb, but definitely looks and feels like a slope. It’s slightly steeper a wheelchair ramp allowed to be by the ADA.

[Derleth]

@scr4

5 degrees is an 8.7% climb, or 1 in 11.4. It’s not exactly a challenging climb, but definitely looks and feels like a slope. It’s slightly steeper a wheelchair ramp allowed to be by the ADA.

My God, wait until Ambivalid finds out!

[Mijin]

@scr4

5 degrees is an 8.7% climb, or 1 in 11.4. It’s not exactly a challenging climb, but definitely looks and feels like a slope. It’s slightly steeper a wheelchair ramp allowed to be by the ADA.

Yeah, I didn’t mean due to its slope you wouldn’t know you were climbing. I was saying it has a shallow slope and, as a separate point, from sight alone you would not know you were climbing.

[Doubticus]

I’m pretty sure the ADA allows slopes of 9% on Mars because of its lower force of gravity.