Why do circles have 360 degrees

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
81

Boy, I leave my machine off for a few days so I can teach a class in alternative physics and corrupt the souls of the younger generation and look what’s happened. You are all taking turns jumping on that nice Mr. Dark, who propably doesn’t need any help beating you off, but what the hell. A little light thrown on ignorance is my good deed for the day (have to make up for the corruption of those kids somehow).
Time you guys did some research to back up your comments (put out or get off the stool!).
I tried to be gentle in my first comments about the 360 day year and what did I get for my efforts? the barbarians continued to host wild and unsupported (and unreferenced) suppostions that get worse as the hours tick away. So class, let’s go through it in a little more detail (you’ll be tested afterwards).
The 360 day year is referenced in many scholary writings. See Brugsch, “Thesaurus Inscriptionum Aegyptiacarum,” Abt. ii. (Kalendarische Inschriften), Leipzig, 1883, pp. 479 - 480. Also see: Brugsch, “Aegyptologie,” p. 361. Also see: Chabas, “Le calendrier,” Paris (no date) p. 99 ff.
Also see:Chambers, 1889, Vol III, “Chronology,” Lippincott company, Philadelphia, pp 225 - 229.
“The earliest authentic date is that inscribed on the foundation stone of the temple to the sun-god at Sippara by Naram-Sin, son of Sargon. This was dug up by Nabonidus, who began to reign over Babylon about 554 BC., and who says that Naram-Sin reigned 3200 years before his time, thus giving a total of 3754 years BC., as the date of his building of the temple. Thus by the year 4000 BC., the nation had attained to considerable advance in literature, science, and art. Much of the greatness of Babylonia, foremost in culture for centuries, was afterwards reflected in Assyria, who inherited her civilisation and learning, as in a lesser degree also did Israel. Berosus gives a list of dynasties of 120 ‘saroi,’ and Ptolemy’s canon in the “Almagest,” gives the seventh dynasty in full from Nabonassar (747 BC) to Sineladanos (Assur-bani-pal, 668 - 626). From about 2330 BC., they used a regular calendar, with a week of seven days, and a year of twelve months, named after the zodiacal signs. Their year was of three hundred and sixty days (hear that you people, THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY days), which probably suggested that division of all circles into degrees which we have derived from them ((which we have derived from them!!!)). In astronomical chronology they had cycles of sixty years, six hundred years, and the ‘sar’ (=3600 Years)–the factor sixty running through all their arithmetic. The great Babylonian work on astronomy and astrology was the “Observations of Bel,” compiled at Accad for Sargon, and translated into Greek by Berosus.” Unquote.

So unless you guys take some time to do some referenced research that says otherwise, 'twas best you hold your peace, or stand in the corner with your dunce caps on and do what JWK suggested and turn your brain to mush like his must be by now. (I heard you can also go blind.)
For a few other notes.
Coosa, I’m not T. Dark. Great minds just happen to think alike.

Nebuli and your pal Rob Roy, I never speculate without a foundation of some sort. Just how do you differentiate days in coral growth?? I wait at your feet for enlightenment. Something like tree rings perhaps??

Tom Dark, you mentioned several unexplained portions of Newton’s theory of gravitation. I’m all ears . . . ears . . . ears. Please mention those if you will, I would really like to know.

JWK, if you accept outright miracles, how about this one? Think on Relativity a bit and you’ll come to the miracle that it is wrong.

Irishman, You are correct in what you said about legends and myths being created to provide morals, etc., but just because some were made up to do so, that doesn’t say they all were. What do you think the bible is based on?

Kinstu, the idea that they used 360 as a rounded-off 365 is laughable. Ha Ha. Are you a stand-up comic? Sounds like an idea that they could have used on Seinfeld?

Back to Velikovsky, T. Dark said that “V had the audacity to think . . .” You guys should do the same.
The Indian Ocean also has a MASCON which deviates satellites and shows that something hit it in the far past and which is still buried under the ocean floor.

Jon F, V postulated that some cosmic body came past the earth. Current scientific theory states that a Mars-sized body actually hit the earth and caused enough material to be thrown out into space that eventually coalesed into the moon. So why do you, et al, seem to have so much trouble accepting V’s contention that something much much less catastropic happened in historic times? Do you know what XF-11 stands for? If not, you well may by 2028.
Suggest you all read “Earth in Upheaval” before you blather out any more poorly supported comments as I refuse to do any more of your research for you.
Also your comment that there does not exist any “monolithic scientific establishment that squelches unpopular theories,” ever hear of Vera Rubin, Halton Arp, or the peer review process?? Go soak your head in cold water and take a reality check. Or better yet, come up with a theory (say of UFOs or something) that goes against current dogma and see how fast you can get published. Let me know how you do it and I’ll fire my present agent.

Wakey wakey, you all, it’s time to look around you and see what’s there.

PS. anyone want to bet that there never was a big bang? Or that politicians are always honest? AL

82

Larson! Genius! Thank you! Clapclapclapclapclap!

I came in this evening merely to box Kennedy’s ears with a quote I happened to come across in this morning’s news, but I see you have surrounded these huns virtually single-handed, a veritable Audie Murphy of the Mind! The carnage is impressive.

It’s true. We need stiffer competition.

I hope you all realize these teasings are indeed in good fun, modeled somewhat after professional wrestling traditions; the honored opponents chide each other gently to encourage greater feats of athletic prowess. Here of course we are looking for intellectual prowess, using that time-honored tradition. I am sorry to admit it doesn’t seem to be working much with poor Kennedy

<h3>BULLETIN! BULLETIN!
<H3>KENNEDY WRONG!
<H3>KENNEDY WRONG AGAIN, I MEAN!
<H3>BULLETIN! BULLETIN!</H3>

So this morning before work I’m reading the news, see. There’s this thing about “time tubes” from some San Francisco paper. Scientists are still picking over the bones of Einstein’s special Theory, see. Yup, maybe time can flow backwards after all, they’ve decided. So a group of them are going to jump into this time-tube they found and swoop back to 1955 and buy all the IBM stock they can get their hands on. Xerox, too.

All right, all right I made the latter part up. But I didn’t make this part up, Kennedy. Looks like I was right in the first place. Look here what this actual scientist said, quote:

“Time has a very different meaning from what it did a century ago. Einstein’s theory of relativity completely changed our concept of time, especially his first paper in 1905 [on] ‘special’ relativity,” said Raymond Chiao, a noted physicist at the University of California-Berkeley."

See that, son? What did the noted physicist say? And what did he call Einstein’s 1905 publication of his theory, boy? Thaaaaaat’s right. He called it “Einstein’s ‘special’ relativity.” The first one WAS renamed “Special” theory of relativity.

As to the rest of the postings, gentlemen, I regret I haven’t time tonight. But I’ll be back waggling my prodigiously muscled butt at the lot of you at the next available opportunity.

Larson IS very very right. Go look at EARTH IN UPHEAVAL or shut yer traps. Especially the Coral Reef boy.

And read some of the stuff at the Velikovsky site I posted, too. In case you’re too cheap to go buy a damned paperback at a used bookstore.

83

<h4>I stayed on an extra some minutes to respond to your Q., Larson, as it deserves an immediate answer (the rest don’t. Particularily the the aimless remark that Velikovsky’s claims “have been investigated by people who had a lot to gain, and found wrong.” Name one.)</h4>

The following is excerpted from V.'s 1946 thesis COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION. I’d like to read your thoughts and objections to it, should you find the time to read the whole thing. It’s not especially long. As follows:
<h4>To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:

Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.
Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” (De Sitter (28)). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.

A few additional remarks about the motion of bodies in the universe which bear upon the theory of gravitation are added here: The notion of the tangential escape or inertia of the primary motion of the planets and satellites, being adopted by all cosmogonical theories of post-Newtonian days, led all of them into insurmountable difficulties. The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties. The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an “expanding universe” “An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity.” (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm. (29)
</h4>

84

V postulated that some cosmic body came past the earth

He postulated that Venus, not just some cosmic body, came past the Earth.

Current scientific theory states that a Mars-sized body actually hit the earth and caused enough material to be thrown out into space that eventually coalesed into the moon

Yes, I am familiar with that theory (and I think it’s pretty likely to be true). You didn’t mention the important fact that (a widely but not universally accepted to the degree of Newtonian mechanics - jrf) current scientific theory states that a Mars-sized body actually hit the Earth long before the appearance of life on Earth (jrf) and …

So why do you, et al, seem to have so much trouble accepting V’s contention that something much much less catastropic happened in historic times?

The two scenarios aren’t comparable, because the moon-genesis impact occurred before life appeared and the Venus-grazing supposedly happened long after the appearance of life on Earth, and just about yesterday in terms of geologic time scale.

  1. Should the Venus-grazing have happened, there would be incredible amounts of different and widely spread evidence of it, but we can’t find that evidence.

  2. Should the Venus-grazing have happened after the appearance of life on Earth, even in historic times, we wouldn’t be here to look for the evidence.

  3. The postulate that Venus passed close to the Earth is wildly inconsistent with scientific theories (in the exact scientific sense of “theory”, not the vague popular sense) that have been proven and verified to such an extent that they’re unassailable.

Do you know what XF-11 stands for?

Yes. So what? The fact that an asteroid may impact the Earth in the future (and the fact that it appears that asteroids have impacted the Earth in the past) has no bearing on the question of whether Venus grazed the Earth in historic times.

Of course, if Velikovsky was right, we probably don’t need to worry about XF-11; the predictions of where it’s going are based on Newtonian mechanics, and Velikovsky’s theories require us to discard Newtonian mechanics and replace it with something which makes wildly different predictions. As far as I know, nobody has successfully worked out the math of this something. I’ll bet people have tried; the likelihhhod of success may be small, but the payoff for success would be gigantic.

Suggest you all read “Earth in Upheaval” before you blather out any more poorly supported comments as I refuse to do any more of your research for you.

I’ve read it. It’s just not convincing. There’s little evidence, and what evidence there is (that I’m competent to evaluate) is not valid. Many others who are competent to evaluate the evidence that I’m not competent to evaluate come to the same conclusions. The scenario is clever and interesting but inconsistent with the way the world is known to work.

Vera Rubin, Halton Arp

Nope, never heard of them.

the peer review process?

Yep, been through it a few times, and so has my wife.

Or better yet, come up with a theory (say of UFOs or something) that goes against current dogma and see how fast you can get published.

Sorry, I don’t have one. Wish I did. I’d gladly go through the process.

I mentioned one such incident already: the Alvarez theory of dinosaur extinction. The asteroidal-impact theory of moon formation that you mentioned is another. Will you discuss the process by which these theories arose and came to be widely accepted, in light of your contentions about the supposed “monolithic scientific establishment”?

There is always resistance to a new idea, and the degree of resistance is roughly proportional to the amount of “established wisdom” that must be discarded. Sadly, some of the resistance is due to the fact that scientists are human beings with human foibles. But that’s not the reason for all theories dtath fail. Velikovsky’s theories have, over and over again, failed the tests of making predictions and verifying them.

The process of acceptance of a scientific theory is dynamic and takes some time. There’s always someone who is willing to play with a radical theory, because (as I pointed out earlier) there’s a big payoff. There are still many cold fusion experiments running in this world.

People use a new theory to make predictions, such as “if the year were 360 days exactly before time X and 365.25 days (plus or minus a few fractions of a percent) after time X, then the growth patterns of coral reefs before and after time X should be different”. Or to ask questions, such as “If Venus actually moved as Velikovsky said it did, then what equations can be used to predict the motions of macroscopic bodies?”. If they can produce an internally consistent discussion of the answers to those questions, then they can get it published. Very few scientific papers are rejected for the (stated or unstated) reason that they contradict established thinking. Papers are often rejected because they don’t address (not necessarily answer, just address) obvious questions such as “How can we reconcile the inconsistencies between Newtonian mechanics, which are known to work so well, and Velikovsky’s postulated path for the motion of Venus?”.

I have published two scientific papers. Neither of them caused any rocking of the foundations of science. I happened to be attending a conference about 10 years after they were published, and there happened to be a guy presenting a paper in which he reviewed one of mine and showed that it was utter hogwash (I was attempting to calculate the growth of subsurface cracks very close to and parallel to a surface using the K1c stress concentration factor, and he showed that K2c was the factor that dominated). That’s just how science works.

I don’t know enough about ancient history to evaluate the claims about the historic record. I have enough acquaintance with geology to follow and understand the arguments about coral reefs and magma. I definitely know enough physics to evaluate the claims about planetary motion, and they, like one of my papers, are hogwash. I would gladly read a paper or listen to an argument that includes calculations of planetary motion that can be used to derive Venus’s supposed path, and then applies those same calculations to a scenario that we can test and verify, such as the orbit of an artifical satellite. I’ll bet it would be easy to publish such a paper. I’d be glad to help getting such a paper published. You claim expertise in physics; do you want to write that paper?

jrf

85

I see the mindless ones are still with us.

Yes, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity came first, idiot. But I didn’t say, idiot, that it didn’t. What I said, idiot, is that you, idiot, said that the Special Theory of Relativity explained the 42-second discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury (which you did say, idiot), and that you, idiot, were wrong, because, idiot, it was the General Theory of Relativity that did so.

You can’t even read, can you? Idiot.

Not to mention that your brother idiot seems to be an anti-Einstein crank, as well as a Velikovskian.

And any “natural” event, no matter how caused, that caused the sun to apparently stand still in the sky would involve the Earth stopping its rotation, and that would most surely involve a catastrophic physical shock involving the equivalent of hitting a brick wall at very high speed. I’m willing, in theory, to grant that God could do this by a direct miracle. I am not willing to believe that it all happened “naturally”, but that God conveniently performed a miracule to clean up the side effects; it’s just too goddamn stupid. (Or, to put it on more theological grounds, it violates the law of divine parsimony.)

And Velikovsky’s notion of a significant electrical element in astrodynamics only shows once again his wholesale ignorance of physics. You can’t have electric charges in orbit; that’s why the Bohr atom failed as a model almost as soon as it was proposed.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

86

I’d like to read your thoughts and objections to it, should you find the time to read the whole thing

I am sorry that I don’t have enough time to write the multi-page response that is warranted by your post. However, I’ll take a stab at a reasonably short answer.

Yes, Newtonian mechanics imply instantaneous propagation of gravitational effects. Yes, Newton realized that this is a problem, and many other people found the theory repugnant because of this apparent impossibility. Yes, it is possible to perform calculations and derive a speed of gravitational propagation that is greater than “c”, but it appears that such calculations are incorrect because they do not properly account for all factors or start from the correct equations.

However, we do not have to understand why equations work in order to verify whether or not they work. And Newton’s equations work. Fact. Any discussion of planetary motion that is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics is meaningless if it doesn’t adress this issue.

But people always want to understand why things work, so there’s been a lot of investigation and discussion of the issue of gravitational propagation speed. When you do the calculations with the real (and hairy) General Relativity equations, using “c” as the propagation velocity of gravitation, the right answers come out. If you must discuss it in terms of force vectors (which is not strictly valid in General Relativity, but can be a reasonable approximation at low field strengths), the direction of the gravitational force vector is slightly different than the direction predicted by Newtonian mechanics, and the difference is just enough to cancel the effects of propagation speed. This isn’t an arbitrary “cosmological constant” tossed in to make the numbers come out right; it pops out automatically when you manipulate the fundamental equations correctly.

Excerpt from Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?:

"In the simple Newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object’s present position. … Putting a “light travel delay” (technically called “retardation”) into Newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a “force” in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the “force” in GR is not quite central – it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field – and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.

This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction “conspire” to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations."

Note that the above URL includes references to the real technical stuff, which you are (of course) welcome to look up and digest if you wish.

As an aside, while searching for the above I came across The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say, which appears to disagree somewhat with the excerpt I posted above. However, it does so with appropriate references, and discussion of the problems and interactions with other theories and observations, which I have yet to see from any proponent of Velikovsky’s theories.

Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.

An excellent reason for believing that the universe is not infinite! That’s a new one on me, thank you. Olbers’ paradox is far more commonly presented, and has been discussed by the Master (see Why is the Night Sky Dark?. And Olbers’ paradox was proposed and resolved far before 1946, so Velikovsky’s reference to an infinite universe is a betrayal of ignorance of the subject.

The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties.

Perhaps, but I believe (but cannot prove or provide references right now) that this issue has been resolved.

The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an “expanding universe”

Gravitational attraction alone would indeed require the entire universe to ball together in one clump. Add the effects of initial conditions, radiation pressure, quantum effects, … and there’s no inconsistency.

Although the theory of the “life-cycle” of the universe has been significantly expanded since 1946, any 1946 scientist should immediately have seen that there’s not necessarily a contradiction between a universe that’s expanding now and a universe that will become one lump of matter in the future. (Of course, the question of the actual destiny of our universe is not yet resolved to everyone’s satisfaction). The fact that Velikovsky wrote these sentences tells me that he was unfamiliar with the technical scientific literature, the popular press interpretation of that literature, or the scientific method of thinking.

“An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity.” (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)

I don’t see the point. Of course, motions of subatomic particles in an atom (if “motion” even has a meaning in that context) are wildly different from the motions of macroscopic bodies under the influence of gravity. Gravity is insignificant compared to electrostatic force, and the “particles” in atoms are known to be charged. The nuclear forces are insignificant at distances larger than atomic or nuclear sizes. Quantum effects predominate at atomic scales. Almost all of this was known long before 1946.

If the quote had been "An atom differs from the solar system only by the fact that it is not gravitation…’, then I would say that sentence was garbage (see my comments on the Bohr model of the atom in another posting). However, the following sentence explicitly acknowledges the differences between the microcosm and the macrocosm, so it doesn’t make sense to assume that you forgot to type that “only”.

So, how is the fact that atomic “motions” differ from the motions of macroscopic bodies supposed to be a problem with gravitational theory? Gravitation is incredibly weaker than the forces that govern atomic “motion”

87

From A. Larson:

Fairy tales and delusions. :wink:

The bible is a conglomeration of poetry, allegory, myth, and parable cast over a glimmer of history, muddled by exaggeration, myth-building, and of course the fact that for a long time the stories were purely oral tradition, with no written material. Thus attributing “truth” to any statement in the Bible is a delicate operation. A myth may have had some minor basis in actual events, but be morphed by the processes of exaggeration, emphasis, embellishment, and of course corrupted recall so as to diverge from actual occurrences. Like TV Movies of the Week, “Based on the Actual Story”. Or like the disclaimer I saw on one movie, “This story was suggested by …” In other words, bears no resemblence in the final form.

From Tom Dark:

Never been a fan of wrestling.

Now I’ll insert some links and a few other comments.

For a discussion of the problems of catastrophism and Velikovskyism, I list two links.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-velikovsky.html

Regarding calendars, someone previously (way back up there) listed a link to a calendar page on the Mayan calendar. Poking around that site, I found lots of info on many calendar systems. Here is the excerpt for the Egyptian calendar.
http://webexhibits.com/calendars/calendar-other.html

Finally, regarding corals (not to be harping on a subject),

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

And here is another link discussing corals. Use your browser search in page function and set for “coral”.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html

Happy reading.

88

Opps! Hold the presses!

I just realized that I mad an egregious mistake in my posting at 11:47 1/6/2000.

Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.

Wrong. When Velikovsky makes this statement, he reveals that he is ignorant of college-freshman level Newtonian gravitation. And, in my response, I revealed that I had (for the moment) forgotten my college-freshman physics.

Assume for the moment that space is infinite. We can subdivide the universe into an infinite number of spherical shells centered on an arbitrary point. Let’s center them on the earth. Assume for now (see below) that we can choose the size of these shells so that the distribution of matter in each shell is homogeneous (at least to a first-order approximation).

It’s easy to prove (and possible to verify) that the Newtonian theory of gravitation leads to the result that the net attraction of each shell on any point mass inside the shell is zero, regardless of the position of the point mass. Since the attraction on any point mass is zero, the gradient of the gravitational field inside the shell is zero, and therefore the attraction of the shell on any mass inside the shell is zero, and the taidal effect induced by the gradient of the gravitational field is zero.

Since Newton’s equations are linear functions of the mass, we can use the well-known mathematical Principle of Superposition to calculate the effect of the entire universe by adding the effects of all the individual shells.

The infinite series 0+0+0+0… is easy to sum; the result is zero. Therefore the gravitational force tending to pull apart any object in a homogeneous infinite universe is zero. Any such forces (and the tides we see are a result of such forces, so they do exist) are the result of inhomogeneity. Obviously the inhomogeneity must be on a scale that is within an order of magnitude or two of the size of the shell in which it is contained.

Since only inhomogeneity can lead to gravitational forces pulling things apart, the Velikovsky quote is meaningless. The amount of matter in the universe doesn’t count, only how it is distributed counts. Near (astronomically speaking; that is, inside the Solar system) to us it is extremely inhomogeneous and we see and measure the effects, which are exactly what we predict using Newton’s equations. When was the last time that a tide table was wrong because of a reason other than a miscalculation or a misprint? Far away from us the universe appears to be homogeneous enough so as to not exert any significant forces pulling us apart.

jrf

89

Irishman- thanks for the coral reef references. I probably could have only done about 25% as good a job, but then I’m only 1/4 Irish :slight_smile:

John W., don’t let Tame Dork get your goat. [I apologize for any typos which may have crept into this post.]It is obvious that is his only real purpose here. As you’ve noted, he admittedly finds facts wearisome.

His screeds about monolithic Science silencing contrary views are laughable, especially since so many of the examples he and his alter ego Larsen put forth point to exactly the opposite conclusion. Vera Rubin’s views on the clumpiness of the distribution of matter in the universe are now the norm, not because she deserted scientific peer review and ranted to the gullible, but because she produced evidence to support her theories. Similarly, Alvarez’ catastrophism, and Plate Tectonics became the accepted models in their fields, despite initial vehement opposition, by their proponents producing scientificly acceptable evidence, not by trying to reinterpret previous scholars’ own interpretations of a mishmash of anthropological phenomena.

Even Halton Arp continued to try to defend his unorthodox views on quasars through scientific means, not by establishing some “Alternative Astronomy” cult.

In short, Tame Dork and Mr. Larsen, if you really wish to have your views accepted, stop ranting and provide real evidence. The track record shows it can be done, if there really is anything to your theories.

One of that dyad asked why we had such a hard time accepting that some sort of cosmic catastrophe could have occurred during historic times. No problem at all in accepting that possibility, except for the trifling stumbling block of a mountain of evidence showing that it didn’t. (And the proposed mechanism for the purported catastrophy- inasmuch as it violates numerous long-established and well-tested principles- doesn’t help the case)

90

A. Larson said:

Glad to!! (Actually, my earlier posts do contain some specific references to sources, but I’m happy to go into the points in more detail.)

Well, as I noted in an earlier post, the problem with relying on late-nineteenth-century scholarly works is that modern Assyriological scholarship, on the basis of further data and further study, has disavowed many (although certainly not all) of their conclusions. Let’s go through the disputed parts of your quote from Chambers (I presume it’s Chambers, though you don’t specifically ascribe it to him) step by step.

Again, around 2330 BCE we are talking not about Babylonians but their Mesopotamian predecessors, the Sumerians. It sounds as though this author has conflated a number of characteristics from different eras and cultures, as follows:
[list[li]For the Sumerians, “the months were strictly lunar; they began with the evening of the new moon and were 29 or 30 days in length. The names of the months, which were often derived from agricultural activities or from feasts in honor of certain deities, varied from city to city. To take care of the difference in length between the lunar and solar years, an intercalary month was introduced at regular intervals” (Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, University of Chicago Press, 1963, p. 91). We know very little about Sumerian constellations: “we have only a list of about twenty-five stars and nothing more from Sumer” (Kramer, p. 90).[/li][li]In the Code of Hammurabi (late 18th century BCE), there is a reference to the practice of decreeing an intercalary month to keep the calendar and the seasons in line (H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon, Mentor Books, 1962, pp. 81–87).[/li][li]The twelve Babylonian month names in Akkadian, with their Sumerian logograms, are Nisannu (BAR), Aiaru (GU4), Simanu (SIG), Du’uzu (SU), Abu (IZI), Ululu (KIN), Tesritu (DU6), Arahsamnu (APIN), Kislimu (GAN), Tebetu (AB), Sabatu (ZIZ), and Addaru (SE) (Hunger and Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, Brill, 1999, p. xiii). We see these month names (plus references to an extra or intercalary Addaru) in the earliest Babylonian astronomical sources, going back probably to the first half of the second millennium BCE (Hunger-Pingree, pp. 1–2, 41–43).[/li][li]The names of many stars and constellations are found in Babylonian texts starting around this period; some early star-lists, the “three-stars-each” texts, give the name of a constellation (or star, or planet!) in (or close to, or sometimes not close to) each of the three celestial “paths” (northern, middle, and southern) for each of the twelve standard months (Hunger-Pingree, pp. 50–51). These include the twelve constellations that became the Babylonian zodiac, but the twelve zodiacal constellations didn’t become a standardized measuring system until some centuries later (Hunger-Pingree, p. 198). The Babylonian names of the signs (most of them Sumerian logograms) beginning with Aries are: LU, MUL, MAS, KUSU, A, ABSIN, RIN, GIR.TAB, PA, MAS, GU, and zib (James Evans, The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy, Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 323).[/li][li]Once again, I’ve never seen a reference to an ancient Mesopotamian week, and I would very much like to know exactly which Mesopotamian text(s) are claimed to provide evidence of its existence.[/list][/li]

But I’ve been saying all along that this 360-day “schematic” or “ideal” year is well-attested, and that it was the ultimate source of the 360-degree circle. Our point of difference on this is that A. Larson rejects the possibility that the early calendar used intercalary months in addition to a 360-day year, whereas I think that the evidence for it (see references above) is quite conclusive.

This sounds rather like many of the rather number-mystical stories about the “Chaldeans,” with limited basis in fact (except for the base-sixty arithmetic, which is definitely true). But here’s what I know:
[ul][li]The Babylonians did use various kinds of cycles for astronomical purposes.[/li][li]One of them was the nineteen-year luni-solar intercalation cycle, established around the middle of the first millennium BCE (O. Neugebauer, _History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 vols., Springer-Verlag, 1975, pp. 354–355).[/li][li]Another was the “so-called Saros” period relation using 223 synodic months = 18 years, more or less; this is a cycle for eclipse possibilities (Hunger-Pingree, p. 183).[/li][li]There are different period relations cited in first-millennium texts for cycles of synodic planetary phenomena, anywhere from a few years to a few decades long (Hunger-Pingree, pp. 167–169). None of them is exactly 60 years.[/li][li]“The Sumerian sign SAR has, among others, the meaning “universe” or the like. As a number word it represents 3600…In the special meaning of 3600 years, “saros” is used by Berossos (about 290 BC)” (O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, Dover, 1969, p. 141). I don’t know of any instance of such large periods’ being used in real astronomy—cosmogonic legend, of course, is another matter.[/ul][/li]
And that brings us to

Alas, this sounds like more “Chaldean mystique” stuff: Sargon of Akkad (whose dynasty ran from 2371–2230 BCE) was a ruler in the Sumerian period (although his own lineage was Semitic, like that of the later Babylonians) (Saggs, pp. 66–67). And I’ve pointed out above how little real evidence there is about Sumerian astronomy. As for Berosos…“Scattered through many works of ancient literature are more or less secure ‘fragments’ of Berosos’ writings but these contain very little of astronomical interest and it seems to me one may doubt that between Babylonian cosmogony and mythological history much room was left for technical astronomical information” (Neugebauer, History, p. 607). I don’t know of any historian who believes that Berosos really translated a significant Sumerian astronomical work from two millennia before his own time—there certainly is no mention of the “Observations of Bel” in any of the sources I’ve cited, and I think if it was really “the great Babylonian [sic] work on astronomy and astrology,” it would get noticed.

Um, well, only insofar as every teacher has to be :-). And I must say that my students seem to be a much tougher audience than you are; I’ve never been able to raise a laugh from them by saying that a 360-day ideal year is an approximation to the true one. And as I keep saying, I can’t see what’s so funny about it myself—why shouldn’t the ancient Babylonians, and even Sumerians i

91

I wasn’t going to add any more comments, but this is fun.
First Tom Dark. Tks for your input on the newtonian gravity bit, I’ll have to get back to it later.
For the other correspondents in order from my last post.
Jon F: Yes, V postulated Venus and he was most probably wrong but he did have his reasons. One was that in some South American legends Venus was shown with a cometary tail and in one of the chambers of one of the pyramids, there is a star map chiseled in the stone which is upside down to today’s heavens and Venus (which should have been one of the most prominent stars, is missing). Then there is another stone star map chiseled in correctly that does have Venus in. Leaving Venus out if it was really there is not a mistake someone is going to make that has to chisel it in stone. the consensus must be that the stone mason chiseled exactly what he saw. V drew his own conclusions. So he was wrong about Venus. So what? Some cosmic body did tilt the earth so: Mammoths with temperate zone plants were quick-frozen (maybe by earth’s mantle of air being temporarily stripped away letting space cold in: causing a flood of imaginable proportions to leave hundreds of feet thick ‘muck’ in Alaska that is composed of innumerable fragments of splintered trees and animal fragments with flesh still permafrost: filled caverns in England with bones of many tropical animals; crocs, hippos, etc,. covered with stones and filler indicating floods of unimaginable ferocity: a biblical flood, a legend shared with primitive tribes all over the world including here in the Americas. And then there are maps (Piri Riris, if I spelled that right) existent from the 12th century that show Antarctica as land masses (without an ice cover) with a bridge to S. America, the truth of which were not proven until the IGY year of 1957. Maps that show the continents as seen from a great height (about 150 miles) above Cairo, Egypt which were taken up in orbit in the first space shots and proved to show what is seen from that height, etc, etc.
So whatever happened, my friend, happened during the time that LIFE DID EXIST ON EARTH despite your assertion that couldn’t have happened.
How about not only the extinction of 65 million years ago (the Yucatan), but the other Great Extinctions, one about 225 million years ago (recently discovered west of the Falklands), and another in Europe. How about the Lesser Extinctions every 22 million years and thought to be caused by a dark star called “Nemesis” that periodically perturbs the OORT cloud and sends comets and asteroids sleeting through the solar system? And all this while life is on earth!!!
So we do have “noticeable amounts of evidence of different and widely spaced evidence” of catastrophe if you take the effort to research it, not just in V’s work, but in scientific publications.
The fact that there are plenty of evidences of asteroidal impacts on earth bear out V’s contention of catastrophe. Or did those asteroids not follow Newton’s law also??
I’m not aware of any new law of gravity that V proposed, perhaps somebody can give me his formula.
V may have been wrong in the details, but right about catastrophe still happens which is the main point. It’s embodied in the age-old saying that you may be familiar with and which has held true throughout earth’s history: “Shit happens.”
Vera Rubin and Halton Arp. You never heard of them? For shame. Hey man take off the sexist blinders. Vera Rubin and a man named Ford, found that stars in the periphery of spiral galaxies orbited too fast, as not allowed by Kepler’s third law of periods Vs AU. That’s why science had to invent “Dark Matter.” (Not a Tom Dark type dark matter), but Dark Matter as in non-baryonic matter that doesn’t emit light, doesn’t block light, doesn’t reflect light, and is invisible, yet has gravitational interaction with bayronic matter. That’s really DARK! And you, a man, college educated in physics, never heard of her, the cause of it all??? Are you a WIMP or a MACHO?
Halton Arp I explained in a previous post. Do you not read what is written? And having read, do you then ignore?
I will repeat it for you. Arp and another man (don’t remember his name) found that some quasars, which are all supposed to have high red shifts, have what seem to be ‘bridges’ of gas and stars linking them with nearby galaxies what have small red shifts. This indicates that the quasars have not originated with the early universe (heresy, heresy) as is current dogma, therefore the powers-that-be stripped him of his viewing privileges at Mount Wilson and Palomar and he was forced to leave the country and work in Germany.
Don’t tell me you are a sexist pig who doesn’t know who Jocelyn Bell was or I’ll really excoriate you.
Your comments that you know physics yet didn’t know Vera Rubin puts your credentials at risk.
Your comments about peer review show lack of experience even if you have (let’s leave the wives out of this) experience. Under today’s rules, Einstein would not have been able to publish. The ones that came up with the extinction theories, the moon formations, et al, are all degreed scientists and paid up members of the scientific fraternity of ivory-towerites. No one from outside the in-group or old-boy net has a chance in hell. Not only is the peer review process a de-facto censorship for uncomfortable theories but by refusing to peer review, a new or revolutionary theory may be entirely blocked, even if the scientist doing the blocking is dumb as a brick. You can sin by omission as well as commission and science does this all the time. Only scientists already accepted in the field or otherwise already acceptable by the mainstream can get published in the tame university presses and then it becomes a mere bagatelle. Then any pseudo-scientific fairy tales they can think of are published without a qualm. Wormholes come to mind and inter-universe travel via black hole singularities. Any lunacy imaginable becomes publishable if you have the proper credentials.
Try it if you are not one of the favored few and if you can and let me know, I’ll hire you.
Your offer of help in publishing is tempting. I’ll have to think some more on the rewards of fame and fortune and especially those you mentioned of “scads of sexual favors from members of the sex of your choice.” That requires some deep thought and even more wishful thinkings.

JWK: Oui, Oui! For shame! Name calling yet! (“Idiot, Idiot, Idiot, Brother of Idiot, Anti-Einstein Crank”). I like that last one, glad to see you didn’t waste all that inventive invective (creative cussing in case you didn’t know what that meant), on T. Dark, and left some for me. How refreshingly infantile.
Just when the level of discourse (JonF’s post) was rising, you came to pollute the air. Nice to know you are consistent. You must be a politician slumming as an intellectual 'cause when they have nothing to say, they resort to mud. For shame, Kennedy, or does it come with the name? Any relation to Ted?
You said that you can’t have electric charges in orbit. Explain yourself, Sir! Tell me how the space station electronics work (or don’t work as you have stated), (no vacuum tubes in space folks), or how an electron can’t have a charge in an atom’s orbit, or out of it, and I’ll immediately inform NASA that now we know why the Mars shots went KaBlooie. I’m sure they would like to know this important fact and I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize if they don’t hire you first as a consultant.
You’ll also blow about 6,000 hours I have invested in an electronic education, not counting physics and computers.
You’ll also be interested to read, (I assume that you do read), that the first time NASA tried to launch a tethered satellite, the current induced in the cable by the magnetic fields of the earth developed non-existent charges (that were non-existent voltages) to induce a non-existent current that melted the wires and blew the cable to bits. The secondary purpose of the tether was to see if cab

92

A Larsen:

Are you referring to the Permian extinction? That was long known. It is the greatest extinction in the paleontological record. Evidence can be found in many areas, not just near the Falklands. The cause(s) is still a matter of debate, with various theories proposed, including asteroid impact.

That should be every 32 million years, and not everybody accepts that that cycle is valid. Among those who do accept it, not all accept the “Nemesis” thesis. However, all who do accept the supposed cycle agree that the earth is now in the middle of a cycle, and so even if the cycle is valid it would have nothing to do with an event in the last 4,000-6,000 years.

Uh-uh, the Piri Riris map dates from the 16th century, not the 12th. It shows the east coast of South America extending all the way to the southern edge of the chart and curling to the east. Later viewers, aware of the existence of Antarctica can hypothesize that it shows ice bridges and Antarctica, but one can also hypothesize that the mapmaker, working between the time of Columbus and of Magellan, just did not have good info about where South America ended. What info do you have to confirm the alleged maps in the first space flights? What specific details did they confirm? There are many features which a decent mapmaker should show which would be identifiable from 150 miles up.

Exactly! They followed Newton’s laws, and also left evidence. Where is the physical evidence for any of Velikovsky’s catastrophe’s? They supposedly occurred only within the last 4,000 to 6,000 years. Their evidence should be fresher and better preserved.

nebuli has already thanked Irishman, but I was also already well aware that the coral evidence proves the year was once longer than 365 days- it has never shown the year was shorter than 365 days, which is what you are trying to establish. The greater number of days in the year formerly exhibited in the corals is fully expected under Newton’s laws and the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. As the tidal forces of the Earth-Moon system slowly decrease the Earth’s rate of rotation, the Moon’s orbit gradually recedes from Earth, and the length of the day increases. Thus there are fewer days per year. This is very clear in the fossil reef record. What is missing from the record is any indication that the day had ever increased to such an extent that only 360 would fit in a year (and do you believe the year was exactly 360 days? it would have been quite a coincidence for Velikovsky’s catastrophe to have occurred at one of the extremely rare moments when the length of the year was exactly divisible by the length of the day)
Since the fossil records show the growth patterns for all the other day/year ratios, but not for the 360 day/year claim, any assertion that the catastrophe itself wiped out the record is ludicrous. Explain how it could be so selective- Dext’s Illuminati must have done.

The problem with Velikovsky’s hypotheses is that he is concluding that where there is smoke there must be phlogiston.

93

Contributors, time is paucid for me lately. A few remarks now, and hopes for some time this weekend to make a few responses beyond poking Kennedy in the ribs just to hear him squeak.

Kurt Vonnegut’s character Paul Proteus, trying to be heard at a trial that turned into a riot, declaimed “…the most beautiful peonies I’ve ever seen were grown in almost pure catshit!” (PLAYER PIANO)

This discussion is showing that character. I’m enjoying it. (I’m a little chagrined that it took one of the players as long as it did to realize “Dork” might be made of my name – and that “Tame” is hardly worthwhile to have added… but the little boil of emotions that fire such attempts at communicating one’s meaning can also serve to create more than just digestive gas. I wouldn’t censor any of it.)

Kimstu and Larson and JonF particularily have generously provided worthwhile and fertile thought to this exercise, but not without orbiting the “idiocies” of some of their adversaries. I’m applauding. This is getting good.

The question remains, where did the 360 degrees of a circle come from? All more or less agree it was taken as a reflection of the number of the days in a year. 2 of us insist that this number was literally the number of days it once took earth to orbit the sun. The others insist that the number 365.25± must always have been the same; but men must have found it inconvenient to pay tribute to the path of the sun by using that particular number to segmentize a circle, so they fudged it.

There is no question now but that physics and astrophysics, history and archaeology, and religion and psychology too, must be involved in the correct answer to the question. To get an answer more thorough than “they fudged around with it,” those disciplines need to be coordinated amongst themselves.

I’m Ben Wattenberg, and this has been brought to you by a grant from Archer Daniels Midland.

Juuuuuuuuust kidding. Please continue, and let me hold me 4 or 5 main thoughts about it 'til I have time this weekend.

94

You know, it does get tiresome answering fuzzy questions over and over again when you do not have the courtesy (or, perhaps, the ability) to answer my questions.

Do you really think before you post? Do you consult sources other than Velikovsky and his adherents? I try to look at both sides, but I see no evidence that you do. And I don’t intend those questions as personal attacks, I just don’t see how you can write what you do if you’ve perused scientific literature and thought about your statements.

Please, should you reply to this posting, address the question of “what mechanical model can be used to predict the supposed path of Velikovsky’s Venus, and what predictions does it make about the motions of macroscopic bodies that we can test today?”. I’ve got some other questions below that I’d love to discuss further …

So he was wrong about Venus. So what?

So that blows his entire theory. If it wasn’t Venus, what was it? And where did it go afterwards? And why did Velikovsky fill page after page with references to Venus and its hydrocarbons which turn to carbohydrates and its temperature and rotation? Remove everything Venus-specific from Velikovsky and you have nothing.

Some cosmic body did tilt the earth so: Mammoths with temperate zone plants were quick-frozen (maybe by earth’s mantle of air being temporarily stripped away letting space cold in: causing a flood of imaginable proportions to leave hundreds of feet thick ‘muck’ in Alaska that is composed of innumerable fragments of splintered trees and animal fragments with flesh still permafrost: filled caverns in England with bones of many tropical animals; crocs, hippos, etc,. covered with stones and filler indicating floods of unimaginable ferocity: a biblical flood, a legend shared with primitive tribes all over the world including here in the Americas.

The claim that “Some cosmic body did tilt the Earth” has been investigated and found wanting. Among the many problems are that nobody’s been able to find a way in which angular momentum could be conserved, or a way that it could have happened that’s consistent with Newtonian mechanics, or a way that it could have happened and ended with the Earth in its present state of spin and orientation.

The quick-frozen mammoths are a fairy tale. See Farrand in “Science”, March 17, 1961, pp 729-735. Excerpt:

“Such a thesis, however, disregards the actual observations of scientists and explorers. … There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death. …The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud-
flow”

Do you really believe “maybe by earth’s mantle of air being temporarily stripped away letting space cold in”? And humans and other aerobic life were supposed to survive that? And the mantle of air spontaneously returned somehow? Please tell me you’re kidding! If you’re not, what mechanism could remove the air and then return it? And how could aerobic life survicve the experience?

As to the flooding, why is there no evidence of a world-wide flood in the vast majority of the areas we’ve looked at? The iridium layer of the K-T extinction is everywhere that we expect to find it, but world-wide flood evidence is not.

Flood legends appear in many widely-scattered tribes, but far from all. Probably not even a majority.

And then there are maps (Piri Riris, if I spelled that right) existent from the 12th century that show Antarctica as land masses (without an ice cover) with a bridge to S. America, the truth of which were not proven until the IGY year of 1957

Piri Reis is the common spelling, although he was Turkish and from an age when spelling was somewhat haphazard, so there may be alternate English spellings of his name. And not 1957, rather 1960-61. Did you try looking up any information on him and his maps?

The major problem (but far from the only problem) with the claimed correlation between the Piri Reis map and the ice-free shape of Antarctica is that Antarctica is now covered with a lot of ice. If the ice were removed, the level of the Earth’s oceans would rise significantly and the rock of Antarctica would change shape significantly (elastic rebound because of the removal of the load). The net effect would be to greatly change the shape of Antarctica, and we don’t know what it would look like; except we’re sure that it wouldn’t look like the current shape that has been deduced from many measurements. The approximate (but far from good) correlation between the Piri Reis map and the shape of Antarctica that we “see” under the ice is not evidence that Piri Reis had any idea of what Antarctica would look like without ice. See Re: Piri Reis Map.

So we do have “noticeable amounts of evidence of different and widely spaced evidence” of catastrophe if you take the effort to research it, not just in V’s work, but in scientific publications

Yes. The fact that a scientific publication exists does not mean that it is correct. Claims made in one publication are tested in another, and the process converges towards truth.

However, I do agree that there are plenty of scientific publications presenting evidence for catastrophes. Many of these papers appear, to the best of our knowledge, to be true. But the subset of all the publications that deal with the specific Velikovskian catastrophe have not withstood the test of replication and fitting with new evidence.

The fact that there are plenty of evidences of asteroidal impacts on earth bear out V’s contention of catastrophe.

Absolutely not. The fact that catastrophes have occurred is not evidence for a particular catastrophe. The fact that catastrophes have occurred does mean that we cannot dismiss the possibility of catastrophe a priori. Therefore, we cannot reject Velikovsky’s theories because we think that catastrophes do not occur; we know that they do occur. We reject Velikovsky’s theory because it just doesn’t stand up the the simplest of further tests.

Your comparisons to other catastrophes are invalid, because all those catastrophes are significantly (orders of magnitude) less severe than the supposed Velikovskian catastrophe. Or do you contend that these other catastrophes stopped and restarted the Earth’s rotation, and removed and replaced the Earth’s atmosphere?

I’m not aware of any new law of gravity that V proposed, perhaps somebody can give me his formula.

That’s a big problem. Velikovsky came up with what purports to be a scientific theory, but he didn’t ask any of the obvious questions about that theory that a reasonable person might expect. The depth of ignorance of the scientific method and of scientific findings that I (personally) have found in Velikovsky’s works suggests that he was incapable of following up on his theory, or would have needed many years of study before following up on it.

Velikovsky didn’t give a formula, and as far as I can tell nobody has. But Newtonian gravitation theory tells us that a body in Solar orbit cannot approach the Earth multiple times in the time frame that Velikovsky proposed. And it tells us that a body cannot be captured by the Earth (or the Earth and any combination of other planets and the Sun) in such a way as to make it approach the Earth multiple times in a short time frame and then move to a stable Solar orbit with small eccentricity. And they tell us that the Earth’s rotation cannot be stopped and then restarted without major side effects, such as the extinction of all life on Earth and major upheavals in the geologic record all over the Earth (both d

95

You said that you can’t have electric charges in orbit.

If I may jump in … you have misinterpreted his statement, possibly because you are not familiar with orbital mechanics and electrodymanics. The fact that you interpreted his statement to mean something so obviously ludicrous is … interesting.

What he obviously meant is that material bodies do not form stable orbits (that is, similar to the orbits of planets in the Solar system) that are maintained by electromagnetic interactions. The continuous acceleration required to move a body around another causes energy to be radiated (if the attractive force is electromagnetic). The orbit decays and the bodies eventually collide. Therefore, the “motion” of electrons “around” nuclei is not analogous to planetary orbits with gravity replaced by electromagnetism.

jrf

96

From A. Larson:

I love unfounded assumptions and stereotypes. [tangent] What leads you to address me as Paddy? I know my username suggests Irish heritage, but that’s just a suggestion. It’s not the only possibility - afterall, a username is a nickname, and judging by some of the others floating around here, have no bearing whatsoever on the author other than that person’s whimsy. (PurpleCrackWhore comes to mind.) Even assuming I am Irish, why would that necessitate the nomenclature of “Paddy”? Is everyone from Ireland named Patrick? Do I grow in rice fields? Why not Sean? Or Seamus? Or Liam? Do you think the Irish enjoy being referred to by a generic name? Isn’t that the equivalent of calling a Native American “Tonto”? The truth is, you do NOT know my name, so use the one I gave you. I’m not referring to you as Albert, even though your initials are A.L. Don’t go making assumptions. Keeps you out of trouble. [/tangent]

Which country is that? I’m in the U.S. [blink, blink]

I believe you are referring to my comments about the bible. I am well aware many people will disagree with me on that issue. So what?

What if that smoke is really water vapor? Also, how much of each? If I see a cigarette’s worth of smoke, I’m not concluding there’s a forest fire.

And how exactly do you determine the length of the year without a recording of that information? A calendar is the typical tool for such. Besides, you keep saying that the older calendars all show a 360 day year, so you are using calendars, too. Don’t knock me for using one when you are too.

Check that date again, bub. 4236 B.C.E. That is 6 thousand years ago. Or did you forget to add the 2K on the other side of the decimal?

That much is obvious.

I believe we’ve shown otherwise, but if you refuse to see it, that’s your problem.
I guess your quote “Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year”
neatly takes care of claims to Prove 365 days in a year via coral dating doesn’t it?
Nebuli and Rob Roy take note and address your witty comebacks to Irishman.
I must say that the level of discussion has risen. The light at the end of the tunnel
is brightening. Now if Kennedy quits acting like his namesake, we can all engage in
productive intercourse. AL

97

Oops, screwed up that last bit and left on that paragraph. [note to self] Learn to edit, doofus.[/note to self]

That should be:

Hear that, AL wants an orgy! (I’ll pass - I prefer women.)

98

“RobRoy, you kinda defeated your own logic mentioning how the Mayans DID use 365.20-odd.”

The point is they did keep to a 365.20-odd calendar and had to do all those messy calculations. Societies that did not, avoided this, but had to intercalate from time to time.

99

From: Larson <twstgrav@frontiernet.net>
To: art larson <twstgrav@frontiernet.net>
Subject:
Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 9:37 PM

Couldn’t resist writing again. Haven’t had so much fun stirring the pot since I got this machine for Christmas.
Before I get started with the ongoing festivities and lose myself in ecstasy, I want to hit a serious note. perhaps someone out there can help.
I just got back from visiting a dear neighbor. She’s had MS for the last 50 years and been in a wheelchair for 47. She’s still independent and lives by herself. Unfortunately she’s going blind or rather has gone blind (macular degeneration). She can still see somewhat out of one eye, but is now legally blind. I’ve tried to alleviate her problem in the past by trying to find better magnifiers and suchlike. Today I took over a factory-type magnifying glass with a round fluorescent light, l’m sure you all know the type. She can just see enough with the new magnifier to write her checks, which was really bothering her before because she had to wait for someone to do it for her, whoever happened to be around. I’ve contacted the society for the blind and they don’t have anything comparable. The best they’ve got is about three-power, hand-held units which are not good enough.
What I want to know is if anyone (even those I may have insulted in the past in the spirit of the game) has any knowledge of a really high-magnification, industrial-strength, illuminated magnifier that an old woman without much mobility can use.?? Any telephone numbers for places that make something like this would be greatly appreciated.

Right, back to the Hun-beating dept.

Kimstu, looks like you were forced to 'fess up; you finally blew your cover. You’ve been hiding your light under a bushel, and a bright light it is too.
You said, “. . . the 360 day “schematic” or “ideal” year is well attested, and that it was the ultimate source of the 360 degree circle.” Then you said that “our point of difference was that A. Larson rejects the possibility that the early calendar used intercalary months in addition to a 360 day year.” I never said anything about intercalary months and could care less if they had one for every day. My only contention (with references) was that there was a 360 day year which was the basis for the 360 degree circle, which you have just verified. And you did it very eruditely, just like a knight in shining armor on a white horse, bless your pedagogical hide.
So can we take it then that the 360 degree circle was based on a 360 day year? Even if it was an “ideal” year. Or are there other surprises in your grab bag? I assume you are a historian, “I don’t know of any [other] historian who believes the Berosos really translated a significant Sumerian astronomical work from two Millennia before his own time, etc.” You’ll have to argue with Chambers, I’m afraid.
Just because there is no mention of the “Observations of Bel” in the works you cited, doesn’t say it doesn’t exist.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. A dictum you as a teacher should be aware of.
As for your students, I laugh easily, there’s a world of difference between rounding off 365.24 to 365 with a leap year now and then and rounding, Ha Ha, 365.24 to 360. Maybe they need more humor in class :-)).
You should take them to see Monty Python’s “Life of Brian,” for an alternative view of serious history.
Could it be that, rather than base 60 . . . “So far as we know, the base-60 number system is attested many centuries before we see any evidence of astronomy — which is the main reason that 360 might seem like the handiest approximation to the 365.xxx,” Ha, Ha, hee hee, oh stop it, stop it please, I can’t take any more, hee hee, “days of a year,” hee hee, being the reason for using 360; that the 360 was instead the reason for base 60 arithmetic, (and base twelve . . . or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 30). It would seem much more logical that the days of the year drove the numeric than having a numeric driving the days of the year. Clinton to the contrary, the tail does not wag the dog. Nor, our particle physics to the contrary, can the part be bigger than the whole.

Nebuli: With due respect on the 32million year cycle vs the 22 million year cycle, you may be correct, I’m relying on memory, however just because we are in the middle of a cycle that doesn’t mean bodies from the oort cloud or the other areas of the solar system can’t possibly happen to come through at other times. You are being very simplistic. So it can’t happen because we are in the middle of the cycle. Did you see Hale-Bopp? Guess it really didn’t happen?
No, the Piri Rires maps (there were more than one) do date from the 12th century when they were known to have been the property of a Turkish Admiral and were dated from before that. There was even speculation that Columbus in the 13 century (In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue), had the services of a copy of Piri Reis’ work which gave him the confidence to carry on in the face of almost certain mutiny.
You demanded that I show what specific detail did they confirm.
A “specific detail” they confirmed, which you tried to eliminate by your head-in-the-sand insistence on their 16th century origins (naughty naughty, go stand in the corner), was that they showed North and South America when North and South America were totally unknown. So for that matter was Antarctica. Rather big details I would say, wouldn’t you?
Regarding their use during a space flight, I have a book in my library that shows not only the maps but also some of the astronauts looking at them after one of their flights. You’ll have to take it on faith, as I’m not about to dig through the entire library to find it.
Do you really believe that about conservation of angular momentum of earth and the moon, that the earth slowing its rotation causes the moon to recede? Go back to class. The earth could stop rotating this very instant and the moon wouldn’t move an inch farther away. How can thinking people fall for such crazy science? And you guys keep moaning about Newtonian science. He’d turn over in his grave. I await the outcry!
Phlogiston! I like that one, very neat. :wink:

I agree with Tom. An answer more thorough simply than “They fudged around it,” is needed.

JonF: You are right. It does get tiresome answering fuzzy questions, but I’ll try again. I rarely write anyone off as a lost cause, even a Kennedy, so can I do less for you, sweet man?

First, let me set this clearly once again after many tries. I do not, and never have said, that V was correct in his thoughts about Venus. I also agree that for a body of matter to endanger the earth . . . and Mars, don’t forget Mars . . . and then go into an almost circular orbit around the sun is almost impossible. Not totally impossible given perfect conditions (look at our moon for example and dozens of moons around the other planets and then think of Uranus. It’s moons orbit it at ninety degrees to the elliptic and it’s north pole aims at the sun, and hot little Venus’ rotation is retrograde. Shades of Newtonian impossibilities), but almost impossible. So much so that I do not accept V’s thoughts on Venus. However it is not impossible for a different body entirely to have perturbed the earth and then either passed on back to outer space or perhaps . . . if you use your head for other than a hatrack, as me mom used to say . . . perhaps to wind up in the sun. It’s not beyond imagination. As I said many times, Venus was only the details. V’s main point was catastrophe happens which you all seem to agree with but can’t possibly imagine happening in historical times (not in my backyard, sunshine). Try believing several impossible things before breakfast and practice it. Maybe if XF11 moves over a bit, we’ll all have some practice in about 28 years from now.
Your disputation of the earth tilting just because science can’t figure out how with today’s beliefs (which don’t include cosmic catast

100

<h3>A note to JonF and Larson</h3>
The several points I posted at Larson’s request at 1-5-00 9:39, to which JF responded, were written by Immanuel (or Emmanuel) Velikovsky. I pasted them up.

To clarify: Those points written were not, repeat, not, Velikovsky’s personal opinions or conclusions. I expected that this would be understood from the text. They were his summary of commonly-discussed objections to Newton’s theories, as V. understood them in 1946.

Those 4 “commonly known” points Velikovsky summarized composed part of his thesis “Cosmos Without Gravity.” It was his first attempt at broaching the problem of celestial mechanics, having long by then come to his conclusions that ancient peoples testified to planetary movements that were certainly impossible under the auspices of Newtonian law. (I’ll answer JonF’s question to me about it when I get time this weekend.)

“Cosmos Without Gravitation” is at http://velikovsky.collision.org/
and does not take long to read. It’s in the “Collected Essays” section.

It’s interesting and as usual, grammatically lucid.

To what degree I wouldn’t know, Velikovsky changed his mind about his thesis as years continued. But the original, in totum, sits at that site, a short read.

I’d be cautious about alleging “what science knew” in 1946 without studying the periodicals of the day and especially the textbooks. There always have been and always will be as many theories about everything as there are blades of grass growing out of cracks in sidewalks.

But for a nice analogy: to pronounce what was “commonly known” in a given period must be measured no differently than would be the claim that hip-hop was invented by Cab Calloway. Yes he talked while the music played…

…and some other guy in 1940 postulated that Venus’ temperature might be hot. But he wasn’t “Science” of the times and Cab Calloway didn’t cut his rhymes like Snoop Doggy Dog.

…Lastly for the moment, I couldn’t take ad hominem attacks here at all seriously. The internet is an experimental forum. We are amusing ourselves in a way no one here would in a public in-person debate. I certainly see the humor and the worthy points in the better-constructed humor made here; allowing them wider latitude than one would in person is a matter of creative judgment. Bickering about who shouldn’t be saying what adds only sluggishness. Like Kennedy’s mind (poke, poke)

However, now that some of the correspondents are “getting down to business,” the discussion is growing more interesting. I even went and retrieved a “fact,” which I had so far been uninspired to do, as has been Larson. Even if it was just V.