Yes, Carl Sagan was a pothead. Yes, Immanuil Velikovsky was the laughing stock for everyone who read his The Worlds in Collusion, except for the few nuts who took him seriously. Yes, there are approximately 360.25 days in a solar year.
And your point is?
Hmm. It looks kinda like the point is that, even though Carl Sagan smoked pot, which is something society as a whole frowns on, he’s still a respected scientist. So… we should respect Velikovsky, too. Or something like that… I’m still trying to figure it out, too.
Skeptic’s Dictionary: Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
Two threads in “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” have degenerated into Velikovskyite rants/flames: Why do circles have 360 degrees and The truth about Easter. Since I don’t believe Uncle Cecil ever wrote anything about Uncle Imanuil, I’m just trying to redirect the discussion to its proper venue. 
Happy Holidays.
Uh, guys, I hate to be the one to tell you - but you’ve been had. Did any of you go look at ‘Mr. Dark’s’ website?
I can’t believe any of you are taking this guy seriously - he’s pulling your leg (legs?), and you’re all falling for it! He must be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off!
I would say he’s a troll, but he’s too darn funny to be your typical troll.
Carpe diem - Seize the day
Carpe noctem - Seize the night
Carpe cerevisi - Seize the beer
What is the current theory on Venus’ unusual rotation?
I am not a Velikovskian, but I don’t understand what is so outrageous about major planetary catastrophes.
IIRC, Venus’ craters seem to be less than 700M years old, and it spins backwards.
Is it implausible that it might have been knocked senseless some years ago?
A particularly informative aspect to the whole Velikovsky business is the discreditable light it throws on scientific orthodoxy and how badly it reacts to any new or challenging idea. I am not in a position to say whether or not there is any truth in Velikovsky’s cosmological ideas - although I can’t see any prima facie reason why at least some of them shouldn’t be right - although in the sphere of archaeology and ancient history at least I would say that he had a very good case which was worthy of at least some serious consideration. (And I notice that many of his ideas now receive increasing credence, re-presented and usually shorn of the ‘taint’ of their origin.) But the reaction he received from the established scientific community was nothing short of scandalous, and gives the lie to any assertion that scientists are solely interested in nothing but dispassionate pursuit of the truth.
I agree that most of Velikovkie’s speculations about celestial mechanics were nonsense. However, in his book “AGES IN CHAOS” he talks about the confusion about dates in the Old Testament chrnology. Specifically, he notes the confusion about the near -mythical Queen of Sheba.He speculated that there were two confused accounst of the same events, cause by an 800 year gap in the narrative.
Has anybody ever taken this theory seriously?
Have the Velikovsky fans considered starting a thread in Great Debates? Seems that would be a more appropriate forum for a serious discussion of the subject.
Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Carpe diem - Seize the day
Carpe noctem - Seize the night
Carpe cerevisi - Seize the beer
Yea, but once it’s a cuckoo clock, it’s cuckoo forever.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Mjollnir wrote:
If by “some years ago” you mean “at least 700 million years ago”, sure.
Velikovsky’s timetable for this event places it juuuuuuuuuuuust a tad more recent than that. (Like about 699.99 million years more recent.)
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Do you suppose you could post a link to that website? My browser can’t seem to establish a connection to http://Hell, I forgot .
kaylasdad, try http://www.subbrilliant.com
It appears that the site is still under construction, but I think use of the term ‘subbrilliant’ should give everyone a clue . . .
Carpe diem - Seize the day
Carpe noctem - Seize the night
Carpe cerevisi - Seize the beer
You mean he’s even less than Phaedrus?
AArrgghhTThhah fajsdfljasdf;kljasd;l!!!
ok, look:
There are 360 degrees in a circle because of a mathematical concept of “perfect numbers”–not because of a rigid conformity to the exact length of the sidereal year when Earth was closer to the sun. OK? 'cos that would be too much a coincidence, dig?
Do you know what the numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, …[etc] are?
They’re derived from the formula x(x+1)/2.
They’re “triangles”, if you like, rather than squares.
1->1: .
2->3: .
…
3->6: .
…
…
4->10: .
…
…
…
What’s weird is this: The sum of the first three “triangles” is the fourth: 1+3+6=10. All four of these numbers have come to hold a certain cultural-mystical significance. Well, the number one is just there, indivisible and obviously <font color="#20A000">singular</font> :); three is the first true odd number, able to be split into two unequal parts (yes, i’m disregarding fractions–it’s a necessary assumption for this construction & there’s nothing wrong with that!); six is twice three (and more: see below); ten is the number of fingers a typical human has–thus the base of many human numbering systems.
Six, furthermore, is sum and the product of one, two, and three:
1+2+3=6
1(2(3))=6
…making it more “perfect” than practically any number.
So, for dividing a circle into a biggish number of sectors, as required in astrological measurements, and some architecture–not to mention just precise maths–multiples of 6 and 10 were desirable.
300 was good:
itself a “triangle”-- 24(25)/2 –
300 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 50, 60, 75, 100, & 150;
100 is a square, and a “place” in base 10 numbering; 60 = 6 times 10, thus mondo cool.
But a 300th was awful close to the awful close to a day’s journey of the sum through the heavens. Why not use 360, suggested the astrologers, and be even closer?
360 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, & 180.
36 is both a square & a triangle, 60 is there again…
Not only has 360 more whole factors than 300 (which is nice), but 360 is the product of two to the third, three to the second, and five (two plus three). Any numerologist worth his salt would see that that makes it the perfect union of male (=odd,3) and female (=even,2). That seen, the ancients latched onto 360 and held tight.
Also, isn’t the apparent diameter of the moon about a degree of the heaven (correcting for atmospheric distortion)? Or am I confused?
Further, 7 got to be a significant (“lucky”) number because
a) there were 7 planets known to the ancients–Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury, Jove, Venus, & Saturn–which lent names to the week (in that order).
b) it’s the one number less than 10 by which 360 isn’t evenly divisible–how annoying!
foolsguinea
A new world order has been formed/between the cheque book and the dawn/A new renaissance man is born"
Jim Moginie/Peter Garrett/Martin Rotsey(Midnight Oil), “Renaissance Man”
my triangles got awky:
triangle of 1=1
.
triangle of 2=3
.
…
triangle of 3=6
.
…
…
triangle of 4=10
.
…
…
…
better.