Why do circles have 360 degrees

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
121

I will repeat my direct questions yet again, in the hopes that you will have the courtesy to address them as I have had the courtesy to address yours.

What mechanism or mathematical model do you propose to account for the supposed path of Venus or the astronomical body of your choice and observable and observed facts about the motion of bodies in the Solar system?

How do you propose that people, aerobic life, and delicate geological structures survived this catastrophic encounter?

Where are the globally-distributed records of this supposed enounter?

Why can’t you believe that it can and did happen while man has been on this earth? Are we so special it just couldn’t happen here

Obviously not, as is obvious from my previous postings. I can’t believe that it could happen as is proposed in the theory that you are defending because Man would not have survived.

If you actually read “Worlds in Collision” and haven’t just jumped on the Venus bit and thrown it back with embellishments

I have read WIC, as I’ve stated before several times in this thread. And what embellishments? You are doing a lot of accusing without foundation.

Newtonian mechanics, which you give lip service to, would not allow part of that rotating accretion disk of dust to rotate in some places in one direction and in other places in the opposite direction, in the same dust cloud.

Newtonian mechanics definitely does allow that. If you feel otherwise, present some calculations or references to such calculations. Portions of the dust cloud could change their revolutions to retrograde provided that change in local angular momentum is compensated for by a corresponding opposite change in local angular momentum somewhere else (and some physical effect causes the change).

The very fact that Venus is rotating retrograde and Uranus has its polar axis in the plane of the ecliptic (thanks for the correction, my spelling is getting worse in old age), should ring alarm bells in your mind. Both of these observations prove that some sort of cosmic catastrophe happened to those two planets

They do, and I personally feel that collisions or close approaches are the most likely explanation. But I believe that those catastrophes ocurred before the formation of life anywhere in the Solar system.

Have you never questioned? Have you lost that inner child that questions, why?

I question continually. I was hoping for a discussion here that would address some of my questions. None of the Velikovsky proponents has even acknowledged the existence of my questions, much less tried to answer them.

If our science doesn’t know what the moon would do if it stopped orbiting the earth

I maintain that science cannot predict what would happen if the moon stopped orbiting the Earth without supposing a mechanism by which that happens. If it stops orbiting becasue of magic, and angular momentum need not be conserved, there would be one effect. If it stopped orbiting becasue someone mounted a huge rocket on the moon and applied sufficient trhust opposite to the moon’s motion, there would be another effect. I would love to see a demonstration of a calculation without presuming any mechanism.

Ever hear of Gedunken experiments?

Yes. Gedanken, not gedunken.

So stipulating a thought problem with the moon stopped or the earth stopped rotating is a perfectly legal way of setting up a problem in theoretical physics and Einstein did it all the time. So can we.

Yes. However, I stand by my statement.
The appropriate meaning of “scenario” in this context is “a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events” (Merriam-Webster online dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/)..) Imagining that the Moon is stopped is not a sequence of events, therefore it is not a scenario; it is an initial condition. Imagining what happens after that is a scenario, and will require selecting a model of how things work (such as Newtonian gravitation).

and that is one reason that I don’t accept V’s use of Venus.

OK, I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again. What theory are we debating? If it’s not Velikovsky’s, then what is the theory? What predictions does it make?

Why such interaction “would of necessity destroy 100% of life on earth,” I don’t understand

Velikovsky stated that the supposed encounter with Venus raised tides at least miles high. Velikovsky stated that the Earth changed from one Solar orbit to another. Many people read Velikovsky to be claiming that the Earth stopped rotating almost instantaneously and restarted almost instantaneously (although some people question this interpretation, he definitely presented it as a possibility). Velikovsky stated that the forces involved in the supposed encounter created major mountain ranges. Velikovsky stated that Venus struck the Earth (although I’d be willing to believe that he mistakenly mis-stated his own theory in that passage).

You propose that people would survive that? Or are we discussing some other theory of which only you are aware?

so unlikely to have existed that it may as well be taken as proof of no existence." What errant rubbish!

I am attempting to communicate precisely. Logic cannot prove that something does not exist. The classic example is red crows; we’ve never seen a red crow, and we believe that a red crow is impossible, but we can’t logically prove that a red crow doesn’t exist, has never existed, and wil never exist. Logic can , on the other hand, prove that something exists. Observing one red crow or one duck-billed platypus is sufficient proof of the existence of such things.

The above is a standard part of formal courses in logic, so I must conclude that you have never taken one or read a book on the subject.

Read again, sunshine, I said that “absence of proof is not proof of absence,” which agrees with the above

You did make that statement, in a message posted two days before my statement, in a totally differente context. The statement to which I was responding was “Your disputation of the earth tilting just because science can’t figure out how with today’s beliefs (which don’t include cosmic catastrophe) isn’t reason enough”. My point was that indeed I would be wrong if I rejected the Earth’s tilting just because science can’t figure it out with today’s beliefs (which do include cosmic catastrophe, as has been pointed out and supported with evidence several times in this thread). I take that fact that we haven’t been able to figure out how it could have happened as indication of implausibility, and I continue on to examining the evidence before concluding that the evidence just doesn’t support the hypothesis.

If you believe that there is no evidence that the earth once was tilted, or cannot visualize any such scenario then I can convince you no further. There are none so blind as those that will not see

I will allow that there are a few pieces of evidence that might indicate that the Earth was tilted. That’s only because I am unable to evaluate all of the few pieces of evidence you have offered. That which I can evaluate has proved non-existent or incorrect.

But the vast preponderance of evidence is that the Earth was not tilted. Just to mention one class of this evidence consisting of thousands of observations, what about the ice cores that have been taken from ice caps all over the world and show no trace of this supposed catastrophe?

Electrons orbiting atom or nucleus?: Of course I meant electrons orbit the nucleus of an

122

A. Larsen:

Conclusions likely common to all participants here.

Of course it happens, and will almost certainly happen again at some time. We only dispute that it has occurred on the scale you claim during the .00015% of the earth’s history in which you insist it occurred. (And remember the odds of it happening at any particular time are now much lower because the number of plantesimal-sized objects floating around are much lower than during the early years of earth’s formation.) Many previous posts have outlined not only the lack of evidence for your catastrophe, but some of the positive evidence showing that it could not have taken place as you envision.

Are you sure Shoemaker was talking about Meteor Crater in Arizona, rather than meteor craters on the Moon? Shoemaker’s contention that the lunar craters were of impact origin rather than volcanic origin was not accepted by most specialists until lunar landings and flyby missions to other planet’s moons convinced them. But again, this demonstrates that science will accept new ideas if evidence is presented to support them.

In closing, as in opening, I will quote a thought of yours upon which we can both agree.

123

A. Larson commented on my remarks:

(restraining impulse to gibber uncontrollably) But this statement totally contradicts the original claim by T. Dark (and you as well, I thought) that there was a pre-catastrophic period within historical times in which the
earth’s orbit was such that the true length of the solar year was exactly 360 days. Intercalation means inserting a leap (day, month, whatever) to make up for a discrepancy between the length of the “schematic” year and the true orbital period. If you accept that the Babylonian 360-day ideal calendar was accompanied by intercalation (for which, as I keep saying, there’s ample evidence from cuneiform sources), then ** you are abandoning the claim that this calendar really indicated an accurate true fixed year-length of exactly 360 days,** and I no longer understand what point you’re trying to make.

But alas, we can’t do history solely on the basis of what seems most logical; we have to pay attention to what the historical sources tell us. And as I said, the earliest evidence we now have for the Mesopotamian base-60 number system is many centuries older than the earliest evidence we have for a Mesopotamian 360-day year, or any Mesopotamian astronomy at all for that matter. If new evidence to the contrary appears among previously undiscovered cuneiform tablets, I’ll cheerfully change my mind—but so far, it hasn’t happened.

Alas again, a late-eighteenth-century discussion of Babylonian astronomy is not more reliable than a late-nineteenth-century one. I have the highest respect for “ancient wisdom and facts,” but the trouble is that scholars from one or two centuries ago did not have access to much of them. The cuneiform script was not even deciphered until the mid-nineteenth century, and very few of the tablets containing original ancient primary sources on Mesopotamian astronomy (which I think we all agree are the most truly significant documents on this subject) were published and translated before well into the twentieth century. The material available before that time, mostly a melange of classical references to the “Chaldeans” that don’t include technical detail or discriminate carefully between legendary cosmogony and actual computational parameters, is now firmly considered inadequate for reconstructing what Babylonian astronomy was like. And I’m afraid that that inadequate foundation is what the sources you cite were based on.

Yes, it’s true that even scattered references to the wisdom of the “ancients,” as well as their traditional myths and legends, often have a basis in fact: the trouble is that they don’t state clearly where the fact stops and the fancy begins. If I’ve got a selection of myths and pre-twentieth-century scholarship supporting one interpretation, and large numbers of actual ancient tablets recording actual astronomical observations and practices supporting a different one, I’ll go with the second interpretation, because it’s based on what I believe to be a much more significant and reliable set of data.

Well, I already pointed out that by the middle of the second millennium, Babylonian days were divided into 12 “beru”, each of which contained 60 “ush”. Neugebauer (History, p. 367) says that “it is from the combination of the Babylonian sexagesimal [base-60] norm with the 12-division of night and daytime in Egypt that hellenistic astronomy developed the division of the day in 24 equinoctial hours which we are still using today.” So again, nobody disputes that all our base-60-related divisions are ultimately inspired by the base-60 number system used in Mesopotamian mathematics and astronomy. What nobody but you and T. Dark infers from this is that these divisions were originally a reflection of an actual non-intercalated solar year containing exactly 360 days.

I’m probably tiring out everybody else as well as myself by continuing to repeat these points, so I promise I won’t make them again. To finish up on a different theme, I’d add another example to JonF’s remarks about people who can get published without having institutional affiliations: the historian of astronomy John P. Britton has, as far as I know, never held an academic post (he’s in finance), but he had the training, he can read the original sources, and as a result he can get his articles published. Maybe if his theories were as drastically revisionist as Velikovsky’s he’d encounter more resistance, but he certainly refutes the notion that just being outside academia ruins your chances for publication. To some extent at least (and especially in fields like history of science, where the editors are more desperate for competent contributors than they are in physics), it really is not so much whom you know as what you know.

Kimstu

124

<H2>OORT CLOUD: FICTION, OR INSIDIOUS DUTCH FRAUD???</H2>

Look at this. I get distracted by reality for just a few days and the party peters out (ever so many abject apologies for the terrible slur to anyone ever named “Peter”).

But I haven’t forgotten the discussion. It’s been a rare one, flared tempers and all. I see some excellent writing. My personal thanks. I’ve searched the 'net far and wide for the 2 years I’ve been on and have rarely found anything this coherent in such forums. Not that this is utterly coherent. Except of course the writing of that Giant of a Man, Larson.

If you are that old, Larson, be my dad and send me a copy of your book. My own Dad was rated in the 98th percentile of Smart Guys Of America. He thought the same of V. as you, convinced particularly by Earth In Upheaval. I first learned of V. through huffings at the dinner table. I did indeed read. Einstein read WiC three times. Me four. EARTH IN UPHEAVAL also several, over years.

To JonF, the other most productive arguer: on my ma’s side, I too have an exceptionally brilliant relative, Charles “Proteus” Steinmetz. (So I can say “Kraut” any time I want… in addition to whatever “slurs” I care to make in affable humor about peoples of whom I happen to be some part. But every public soapbox discussion attracts a screaming compulsively who attempts to corral attention through pseudomoral authority.)I believe Steinmetz made interesting use of Fleming tubes. I am not sure why they opted to use Einstein’s Big Kaboom over Steinmetz’s Big Bzzzt. The destruction might have been a bit less indiscriminate. Maybe it required too many batteries.

Having smart-guy genes still does not dispose me to arguing facts here; some discussed here I’ve never heard of; a good deal I recall just vaguely, having no use for in my usual day, preoccupied with other hobbies and very different kinds of speculations on the nature of physical reality than even V. had.

Because of this, I can’t arbitrate between JonF and Larson which facts are which in a dispute. And they make the argument curve so much huger.

Furthermore, I made a remark, not directed to these two, but others, in a whimsy with underlying meaning: “you and your facts are so tiresome.”

The word “your” in the sentence had meaning that was ignored by my too easily-despatched adversaries. I like MY facts jes’ fine. But for instance, if there was a 400 day year as attested by deductions made about ancient coral growth, the deductions could be wrong and wrong-headed too. What if conditions were very different then? What if it was really only a 200 day year, with more light and a different composition of air, water, etc.?

Beyond this, I read recently of a fellow who carbon-dated some wood ensconced in an ancient lava flow in Washington believed to be… the usual number, billions and billions of years old… the wood, of which there is lots and lots, dated out to be around 15,000 years old, if I recall. Hardly billions and billions. So which is it? Billions, or a few thousands? Why should we believe either? We must pick without the blustering certainty shown here by amateurs.

One can take such facts with an “I’ll be darned. I dunno.” – a barrage of them gets wearying. But coral entrapped in 4000 ± lava flows might give pertinent time info, to answer your question. I used to find ancient corals in brickyard digs in Ohio when I was a boy fossil hunter. I reckoned those were “pre-cambrian,” what with the brachiopods and stuff. But I dunno. I forget. My mother threw them all out.

Velikovsky’s Big Books Of Facts get wearying, but for a different reason. They’re not a random list of arguable stuff picked out of “The Overweaning Skeptic’s Journal” and off Discovery Channel (SHAME on you gentlemen for that! Eek!).

They are, as different scholars of his day whose words deserve respect said, a “staggering” display of scholarly work. And those facts, of which he says only a relative handful comprised WiC and EiU, all point to the same thing: our ancestors were all nearly wiped out in several global catastrophes raining from the skies. And the year once had 360 days.

And Kimstu. Thank you ever so much for being here. I have not asked, because I sort of don’t want to and do at once – in the “countless” babylonian calendrical records, are you referring to the “tens of thousands” of clay tablets found at… the palace of Assurbanipal of Ur? I think? Those that give the “wrong number of days in a year, the wrong days in a month, and the wrong length of the shadows?” Those that were baked and permanentized, rather than etched on pottery shards – as would have been more sensible if these were all just “ad hoc” computations? I don’t doubt those tablets weren’t cheap in those days. That’s a lot of labor just to toss out in a few years.

I’m reluctant to ask how the conclusions were reached that this was all a mere few hundred years of trial-and-erroring about calendars because it would require a dissertation here, or that I go read and read and read and read. But I might do that sooner or later. I like your subject best. Still, when I do read these years, there is so much what seems to me presumptuousness to read, where the questions would be most honestly, or most creatively, left open.

I couldn’t much agree with what Abe Sachs said. The event you pointed out was a sort of reactionary circus, not a peaceable scholarly symposium. And V. whupped the 4 of them that night. Yes, he kept up on archaeological findings, up to his death in 1979.

Furthermore he continued to hammer on the 4 to 9 century discrepancy in concensual archaeological dating. His writings published here on the 'net are very scholarly, and much worth the thought.

JonF, at long last, no sir I did not “swallow” V.'s tentative formation of a “Cosmos without Gravity.” Nor, were I as well versed as you, would I yet object to what he wrote about Newton using as a basis the work of others which was subsequently added to Newton’s.

I would never call it “garbage.” I read it and my thought was as follows: well? Did anyone do the test V. suggested? And what happened? Anything? The records aren’t complete as published on the 'net.

Otherwise, I assumed that in his thesis, of which the publication on the net was a short summary, he chose to address Newton alone to start with, and not the entire body of thought which had by then attached to it. This seemed like a basic methodology with which to begin.

How would YOU start out if you decided you’d better make a scenario of reality without gravity? Attack on all fronts at once with your popgun loaded with Babylonian clay tablets? Or pick one thinker at a time and move along that way?

Your remarks seem to assume that this was an ignorant man cranking out homemade science in his basement workshop, as I’ve depicted before. He had his work checked by some of the most brilliant minds of the day, not to mention Einstein’s. Not to argue against you ad autoritatem, either. I expect there is some confusion here as to what was “officially” accepted in V.'s day as proper physics and what you are presuming in your critique – albeit, my remarks are based on a trust of Velikovsky’s awareness of his own times intellectually over yours. You’re not an eyewitness, and he was.

As to my remarks, which you seem almost pained for me to quit: I am a little surprised you don’t see this yourself.

I’ll take only the example I last referred to. To do more would embroil us in psychology. There may be a misunderstanding of terminology. I mean to write “laymanese,” not assign terms or words literal-mindedly as though they are sole property of any particular field of study.

With that in mind, it’s fair to say that Velikovsky created a scenario with no mechanism or mathematical model(and sic). This creation of his would be meaningless only to one who refused to accept its possibility without same.

To be clearer, the “scenario” Velikovsky created is as follows: ancient records found world-wide in writing and in oral tradition which tell

125

The theory that the Bible is “encoded numerology” has been repudiated quite well. But, since you’re not really an academic, I wouldn’t imagine you would know that.

126

First Monty, please accept my apology in regard to a phrase I used, leaned in the direction of your postings. I wrote “screaming compulsively.”

I meant “screaming compulsive.”

Next, take your academic repudiations to the generations who have been using the numerological encodings of Hebrew script. I am sure they will stop, and repudiate their ancestors too, thanks to academia.

Lastly, you haven’t a notion of what my backgrounds may be. This too shows a lack of honesty. I wonder if you are not on prescription medication. It might explain your disjointed “me too” postings.

Your postings are so far useless to the discussion beyond passing note of how internet message boards attract neurotics who become fixed on strangers. I’ve had such types follow me around at public meetings. The patience required to deal with problematical personalities is energy-consuming, and not rewarding beyond finding ways to be rid of joyless pests who can’t help themselves.

No charge for the assessment.

127

No. You are a proven liar and for some reason you have been posting in this thread under two user-names.

That would be referring to yourself, if you were to try being accurate for once. What I do wonder, though, is what decision-making process you use to decide which user ID to post your inanities.

Just for the heck of it, I’ll ask: you’re not seriously equating the raving lunacy “The Bible Code” with the Kabbalah, are you?

Well, since “The Bible Code” is, essentially, complete fiction, there wouldn’t be any ancerstors who actually used it.

Actually, I and others here do have a notion. It’s nonexistant. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t have been posting your inanities here under two user IDs.

Correct, insofar as you’re describing yourself. Or should that be “your two selves?”

Since you’ve proven so well that you’ve no knowledge of current basic physics, I’d seriously doubt your take on medical matters.

What postings would that be, liar?

Incorrect. But that’s not a new thing for you, is it?

Doubtful.

Defending yourself would be quite easy if you would quit posting fiction as fact.

Good thing, too, since practicing medicine without a license is a felony in most states. Especially for those not even remotely qualified!

128

Been gone for a few days, one of them spent in a driving snowstorm in a little Escort where big trucks feared to go.
Saw that a few hardy souls are still going. Especially enjoyed the last posting of that wonderful Tom Dark who summarized and refuted with his usual erudite aplomb. Bravo, Encore Encore!

Saw your note, Tom, that you wanted to see my book. I’ve no objection to being dad, but as I once said, I’m new to this, how do I get in contact with you?
This should drive Monty nuts (nuttier than he normally is anyway), I’m talking to myself . . . or am I? Only the shadow knows, ha ha ha.
Awaiting your comeback, me. I’ll monitor this space.
AL

129

Tom, Disregard previous message, just saw your profile, I’ll e-mail you in a day or two, or should I say, I’ll email myself???
AL

130

They are, as different scholars of his day whose words deserve respect said, a “staggering” display of scholarly work.

Staggering, certainly, but not scholarly work. Velikovksy wrote fantasies disguised (poorly disguised, at that) as scholarly work.

How would YOU start out if you decided you’d better make a scenario of reality without gravity?

Well, I’d start by reading other’s work and learning about the current theories. Velikovsky did not do that. He was not familiar with the form, much less the substance, of the fundamental equation of Newtonian gravitation. He was apparently not aware that General Relativity had supplanted Newtonian Gravitation as a fundamental explanation (but not as a useful calculation tool). He felt free to make things up and present them as accepted fact.

Next I would formulate some theory or theories. I would consider how those theories
related to known observations and calculations. If my theories yielded different results from the findings of others, I would try to find out why the differences occured and explain them, or I would discard or modify my theories appropriately.

Once I found a theory or theories that seemed to me to say something interesting about gravitation, even if there were still problems with the theory that I couldn’t resolve, I would publish my theories. I would explain my thinking, include calculations, and explicitly acknowledge any point where my theories differed from others and any problems with the theories that I could detect.

Velikovsky started with a few facts, made up some others, failed to find many others that were easily obtainable and obviously relevant, made up a fantasy, and published it. He did not explore any but the simplest of the implications of his fantasies, he did not do any calculations, he did not refer to the many areas where his musings contradicted well-established theories (we can deduce from his writings that he did not understand or know of the existence of many of these theories), and he did not address the problem of what to do about the contradictions.

With that in mind, it’s fair to say that Velikovsky created a scenario with no mechanism or mathematical model(and sic). This creation of his would be meaningless only to one who refused to accept its possibility without same.

I accept the possibility of Velikovsky’s disaster (although I do not accept the possibility of Venus following the path he described). Then I ask whether or not that disaster actually happened. When I examine the evidence, I can’t avoid concluding that it did not happen.

His “mechanism,” in your terms, I think, would be psychological, not initially a matter of astrophysics or physics.

I think I don’t understand. Are you proposing that Velikovsky intended to replace our entire body of physics with psychology? Should we try to psycho-analyze Venus?

These people built civilizations that lasted a HELL of a lot longer than anything A.D. Man has made, even if Venus WAS twirling around wrecking things as fast as they could build them.

And where’s the wreckage? There are a few things which might be interpreted as remnants of such a disaster, but there are nowhere near enough and there’s nothing compellingly convincing.

I contend there were once 360 days in a year largely because I read Velikovsky. It is not the least bit ridiculous to point to that author alone.

As far as your personal beliefs, you can believe what you want from whatever sources you want. If you want to convince others, you must consider all relevant sources. Otherwise you’re wasting your time and ours.

And it is all too plain to me that my opponents here simply haven’t read much of what he’s written.

I’ve read all of WIC, and I’ve read the articles to which you referred. Everything I read lowers my opionion of his abilities and his intellect.

It appears that you haven’t read much other than Velikovsky.

He cited the testimony of peoples from around the world.

As is well known to lawyers (and as has been studied by psychologists) people are terrible witnesses. Most of the testimony you referred to is secondhand, which is even worse that firsthand testimony. We should not ignore testimony, but we should always remember that the probability of that testimony being 100% correct is zero, and the probability that the testimony differs significantly from reality is high.

In 1946, Einstein wrote Velikovsky that his work did prove that there were global catastrophes of extraterrestrial origin. He was highly critical of V.'s seeming audacity, but he decided V. was correct. Later, Einstein backtracked…

OK, a reference. I suppose it’s only polite to go look. It’s certainly possible that those postings are not exactly what Einstein wrote, but I’ll accept them as correct quotes. They do not bear out your claims. I suppose there is nothing to do but post large quotes:

“July 8, 1946 … 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.”

So Einstein felt that Velikovsky’s book proved that catastrophes have taken place (and I accept that catastrophes have taken place, but I can’t for the life of me see why Einstein felt that Velikovsky proved that). He also felt that Venus could not have been involved in such a catastrophe, that Velikovsky’s scenario was impossible (for the very reasons, succinctly stated, that I have been arguing; Einstein went so far as to refer to the “total destruction of the entire Earth’s crust”; I guess I’m just a piker with my “destruction of all life”), and that Velikovsky’s arguments were so weak that they were not to be taken seriously.

“27th August, 1952
Dear Dr. Velikovsky:
The reason for the energetic rejection of the opinions presented by you lies not in the assumption that in the motion of the heavenly bodies only gravitation and inertia are the determining factors. The reason for the rejection lies rather in the fact that on the basis of this assumption it was possible to calculate the temporal changes of star locations in the planetary system with an unimaginably great precision.
Against such precise knowledge, speculations of the kind as were advanced by you do not come into consideration by an expert. Therefore your book must appear to an expert as an attempt to mislead the public. I must admit that I myself had at first this impression, too. Only afterwards it became clear to me that intentional misleading was entirely foreign to you.”

So Einstein said exactly what I have said (albeit he said it much better). Velikovsky’s theories require us to discard Newtonian mechanics (and General Relativity). Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity work and no scientist is going to consider replacing them without being offered a replacement that works better or without strong evidence that they must be rejected. Velikovsky

131

JRF: You know, I bet TD/AL actually believes that old saw about a computer at NASA finding the missing day and thus proving the Bible to be 100% correct!

132

From Tom Dark:

And every public soapbox discussion attracts a self-absorbed, pompous boor with rude manners and little sense. Still, we let you post.

Are you referring to me? Thanks for the psychoanalysis. I love getting analyzed by a loon.

Let’s see, we’re at 130 posts and 3 pages, and we’ve diverged from the OP onto a discussion on Velikovsky. Isn’t it time this thread was moved to Great Debates? Oh Moderator! Jill, we need you!

133

A few more thoughts, since it’s lunchtime and I have a few minutes.

Again I’ll state my questions, which no-one has had the courtesy to address:

What mechanism or mathematical model do you propose to account for the supposed path of Venus or the astronomical body of your choice and observable and observed facts about the motion of bodies in the Solar system?

How do you propose that people, aerobic life, and delicate geological structures survived this catastrophic encounter?

Where are the globally-distributed records of this supposed enounter?

Dr. Samuel Johnson … said that Christianity, by way of ratiocination, may seem strange to some; however, testimony bears great weight, and casts the balance. I don’t put it in quotes because I don’t remember it exactly

I almost agree, provided that the definition of “testimony” is expanded to include observations.

The preponderance of the testimony (in this sense) is that Velikovsky was indeed “an ignorant man cranking out homemade science in his basement workshop”.

he chose to address Newton alone to start with, and not the entire body of thought which had by then attached to it. This seemed like a basic methodology with which to begin.

Probably reasonable to begin with Newton. However, he didn’t begin with Newton, he began with his own “hearsay” conception of Newton, which was incorrect. And he ended where he started, having gone down none of the obvious paths.

However, he was a fine mathematician

As evidenced by what?

He had his work checked by some of the most brilliant minds of the day, not to mention Einstein’s

I have quoted Einstein’s opinions in my other post, as they were posted on a pro-Velikovsky site. Einstein found gigantic flaws in his work. And, as documented in many places, many if not all of the “brilliant minds of his day” felt that Velikovsky’s work was so horrible that it was dangerous, and boycotted the original publisher of WIC. Hardly sounds like a gesture of support!

I expect there is some confusion here as to what was “officially” accepted in V.'s day as proper physics and what you are presuming in your critique – albeit, my remarks are based on a trust of Velikovsky’s awareness of his own times intellectually over yours. You’re not an eyewitness, and he was.

Do you suggest that Newtonian mechanics and its basic equations were unknown at the time? Do you suggest that General Relativity was unknown at the time, especially in the light of the fact that Velikovsky discussed and corresponded with Einstein?

All the thousands of incorrect records are, again, only surmised to have been mistakes in the course of trial and error observations.

Are you claiming that the thousands of literal records which refute your claims are incorrect, and the interpretations of interpretations of oral legends and myths are correct?

In short, on a sheerly physical level: V. concluded that at some time in the past recorded by man, there was no moon

Absolutely not on a “sheer physical level”. You probably meant “with no physical evidence at all”. He reached that conclusion on the basis of his interpretation of legends, myths and the Bible (neatly sidestepping the question of whether the Bible fits in the first two categories). For a discussion that claims his interpretation was selective (for things that he wanted) and incomplete, see Worlds in Collison - A Critique. Example:

“Velikovsky quotes Herodotus II.147 as saying that four times in Egyptian history the sun has risen contrary to its wont, rising in the west and setting in the east. This of course does merit some explanation (note 3), but it can hardly be said to rank as ‘evidence’ for the reversals of Velikovsky’s scenario since what Velikovsky does not tell his readers is that Herodotus also says that “Egypt at these times underwent no change, neither in the produce of the river and the land, nor in the matter of sickness and death”. Velikovsky has simply edited this out.”

it is astonishing that even a single true fact could have been drawn this way … we are talking about dozens, if not hundreds, of correct conclusions Velikovsky made.

It is not astonishing that, in a scattershot compendium of hundreds of fantasies, a few were correct or close to correct. I am aware of a very few correct predictions from WIC (e.g. the temperature of Venus, although if Velikovsky had worked out the math involved in his scenario he would have predicted Venus to be much hotter than it is and much hotter than he did predict). Can you list a dozen or more correct predictions?

On the one hand, “science,” a body to be loosely defined, fears the implications of the work because religious references were made and seemingly given even the slightest credence in “their” eyes

Perhaps some people feel that way. I do not. I do not believe that my personal views on the Bible are relevant or important. I have approached the matter in a spirit of scientific inquiry, and found gaping holes and flaws in the basic science. My questions have nothing to do with the Bible.

It is now a fact that phenomena have been observed in the sky making abrupt right angles and other manuevers our laws of motion don’t let our satellites do. Whether they are little green men riding in fancy gizmoes or not, the motions have been observed. How explained, JonF.

No, it is not a fact. It is a fact that the observations of some far-distant astronomical bodies under extreme conditions can be interpreted to indicate anomalous motions. It remains to be proven that there are indeed motions and that they are indeed anomalous. If you can provide a reference to some observation that does not fit that claim, especially regarding motions within our solar system or withing a few light-years, I’d be glad to discuss it further.

I believe the broader points of current science – I mean, what one reads and views in media – resemble V.'s surmisals and conclusions and expectations in many respects far more than they did when WiC was first published

Example, please?

jrf

134

<h3>MODERATOR! MODERATOR! On behalf of Self Absorbed Individuals Everywhere, I move that the demeaning and witless slurs against us, placed here by a jug-eared Hibernian Hophead, be stricken from the argument for Democracy. Thank you.</h3>

My point is clear. Without a thorough excavation of Velikovsky, no worthy argument can be made for the reason 360 degrees compose a circle.

JonF, what a workhorse! I have hardly had time to read your posts, certainly no time to answer, but I hope to. Have already read all the V-E correspondences plus commentaries & contexts, of course, thus have a different view. Am still loathe to spread the place with “facts,” however.

For one thing, there are irish in here and that sort gets irritable and suspicious when they see too many things to read. Reading makes their lips move dreadfully clumsy and they resent it. Watch your back.

Some points you have made are simple misunderstandings. Will minimize those. Others most interesting. A good challenge. Top o’ th’ shillelagh to the crown of yer darby to ya.

135

Leaving aside TD’s latest racist slurs for the moment, perhaps this link from today’s San Francisco Chronicle will shed some light on the situation:

Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL

136

[[Let’s see, we’re at 130 posts and 3 pages, and we’ve diverged from the OP onto a discussion on Velikovsky. Isn’t it time this thread was moved to Great Debates? Oh Moderator! Jill, we need you!]]

Yeah, right. David would kill me. He’d have to read the whole damn thing, for starters. I keep waiting for this momentous thread with the interminable posts to end. All right… outside for calisthenics, everybody! Stop this, already!
Thank you.
Jill

137

Just a closing quote from Einstein to finish this discussion: “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds.”
Now off to bed up the narrow stairs, candle in one hand and hot toddy in the other, and to all a very good night.
nite nite jill

138

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Well, I disagree about always, but it’s happened often.

That fact has nothing to do with the incorrectness of Velikovsky’s or your theories. Mediocre and pedestrian spirits have always encountered strong opposition from great (and mediocre) minds, as well they should.

jrf

139

Stop this, already

OK … but I have this compulsion not to let the discussion end with a new pile of misinformation.

jrf

140

Alas, STILL haven’t time even to address JonF’s easiest “misinformation” – which is the comment about human unreliability in observation.

But I see tired eyes have been here.

If I don’t return, then we may conclude: there were once 360 days in a sidereal year. Immanuel Velikovsky said so and he was the smartest man ever. Plus, he read a lot of old stuff and saved us the trouble. (PS sure I can name at least a dozen correct conclusions V. made about Mars, Venus, Saturn Jupiter, Moon, and Co. Easy. That’s one of the things that makes me think JonF hasn’t read. And as to V. quoting Herodotus and ignoring the bragging about the sun reversing and Egypt remaining undisturbed, so what? H. was merely reporting what he was told. But e.g., historians also rely on Manetho who made other such brags about Egypt, still, supplied info considered accurate besides. Plus there are monuments in the ancient mideast to battles not actually won, put up by embarrassed ancient rulers. V.'s critics seem shallow. Check out the ice-core guy. He seems to have the best con-argument. Oh, and I still wouldn’t screw around with “repudiating” the numerological values put in biblical script. I learned my info from a rabbi years back. I’ll take that over “academia” any time.)

Following from this, we can surmise that these 360 day years were the source of the use of 360 degrees for measuring a circle – until someone uncovers an ancient tablet that says so directly, the same way the Egyptians, Greeks, Aztecs, Chinese Hindus, and others, said there were 360 days in a year.

My personal goal here has been only partly achieved. We wrote more stuff here than any other current postings about Cecil’s columns.

But we are far from overtaking “Up the Butt, Bob,” in Great Debates.

This suggests we don’t have quite enough mediocre minds, here. Monty, bring all your friends. 8 or 9 of them could add up to one.

'nite, AL. Good show.