| The basic contention of Velikovsky is that a planetary mass was expelled from
Jupiter, caromed around the Solar System, creating Biblical "miracles" as a
byproduct, then asettled down in the most nearly circular orbit in the Solar
System. This is at extreme variance with celestial mechanics as we understand
them (and we understand a lot about them).
That a collission with an asteroid _may_ have altered the direction
and development of life on Earth no more "validates" (nor disproves) Velikovsky
than the mention of primitive humans wearing animal skins for clothing either
validates or disproves the Biblical story of Adam and Eve being literally
(as opposed to symbolically) true. [citation -- Gen 3:21]
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| I once did a paper on Velikovsky for a science journalism course.
(It was a very valuable course. It showed me I did not want a career
in science journalism.) From my research, I learned (as well as
I can recall at this time):
Velikovsky was, by training, a psychoanalyst. To expand a little on
Steve's description in .1, he theorized that, around the time of the
Exodus, Jupiter ejected a planet-sized comet. This careened around the
Solar System, having several near brushes with Earth, and knocking Mars
out of its orbit, so that Mars, too, had near misses with Earth. These
near misses produced natural disasters recorded as most of the miracles
in Exodus and Joshua. Then Earth, Mars, and the comet settled down in
their present orbits, the comet becoming the planet Venus.
Velikovsky did not submit this theory to the usual procedure of peer
review in science journals. He got it published in Atlantic Monthly or
Harpers (I forget which; that course was a long time back), with some
very colorful illustrations. All this happened in the 1950s.
Now, the scientific community has always been angered by people who do
not put their theories and findings through standard channels. And
this was a rather hide-bound period in American academic culture. AND
Velikovsky's theories were, uh, greatly at variance with accepted
astronomy and archeology (read "poppycock").
The result was that the scientific community did something despicable.
They persecuted Velikovsky, or tried to. The article in Atlantic
Monthly (or whatever) was an excerpt from his book "Worlds in
Collision." When he tried to get the book published, physicists and
astronomers wrote to the publisher, threatening to boycott the
publisher's textbooks if they published "Worlds in Collision."
So the publisher sold the rights to another publisher who wasn't in the
textbook business. "Worlds in Collision" and its sequels have seen
many printings since then. The attempted persecution did for
Velikovsky what the conservative clerical uproar did for "Last
Temptation of Christ" -- gave it loads of free publicity and sympathy
for the underdog. Velikovsky claimed the scientific community and
humanity at large did not want to believe his theories because they had
suppressed the "racial traumas" caused by the cosmic disasters.
Years later, Carl Sagan was at an academic social function. The topic
of Velikovsky came up in conversation with an historian. The historian
wondered if Sagan would be interested, because it seemed to the
historian that Velikovsky's astronomical ideas were intriguing, though
of course his history was hogwash. Sagan *was* interested, since it
seemed to him that Velikovsky's historical ideas were intriguing,
though of course his astronomy was hogwash.
It occurred to Sagan that Velikovsky knew enough to sound plausible in
both fields, so long as you weren't an expert. Sagan also felt that
Velikovsky had, after all, been persecuted (however unsuccessfully),
and that the scientific community should make some amends. He agitated
for the American Association for the Advancement of Science to give
Velikovsky a day in court.
The reports of this day in court are interesting. Sagan and a couple
of other astronomers and geologists got up and explained at length why
they did not consider Velikovsky's theories believable. On
Velikovsky's side, there was Velikovsky himself and an engineer. The
engineer gave a short speech stating that he did not find Velikovsky's
ideas totally impossible. Velikovsky gave an impassioned oration on
how the rising generation of scientists would throw off the shackles of
convention put on them by their elders and come to his way of thinking.
(That was about 20 years ago. They haven't.)
Velikovsky died around 1979. He was survived by a small band of
followers that publish a magazine dedicated to Velikovskian planetary
science. The magazine changed names at least once. At one point it
was called "Kronos." It may have folded or changed names again since
Velikovsky's death.
Earl Wajenberg
|
| Re .2 (Earl):
>The result was that the scientific community did something despicable.
>They persecuted Velikovsky, or tried to. The article in Atlantic
>Monthly (or whatever) was an excerpt from his book "Worlds in
>Collision." When he tried to get the book published, physicists and
>astronomers wrote to the publisher, threatening to boycott the
>publisher's textbooks if they published "Worlds in Collision."
If I remember correctly (and gee, it was decades ago), the textbook publisher
actually had an initial run of the book, and at that point, the scientific
community assembled Came Down in Its Wrath.
"Despicable" is a gentle way to put it; so is "irresponsaible."
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| I thought Velikovsky had training in 3 areas -- PhDs in psychology,
geology and I forget the third.
Also, as I recall, his theory was that *either* a mass was ejected from
Jupiter *or* a large comet came this way from the general direction of
Jupiter (thus appearing to the naked eye to come from Jupiter).
Mary
|
| Its worth mentioning why the scientists reacted as they did about the
publication. Which is not to condone the way they reacted. They were
concerned that the reputation of the publishing house as a publisher
of quality scientific textbooks would be damaged. As far as I know,
no one threatened at any time to boycott the publishers textbooks --
no one refused to use the textbooks in teaching. What was threatened
was to boycott *writing* textbooks for the publisher (Random House?).
Textbooks are not written for money (few have a wide enough circulation
to make very much money for the author relative to the hugh work
involved in writing a good one), but for reputation. The claim was
that writing a textbook for the Velkovsky's publisher would not do
anyone's reputation any good.
There might have been some point to this argument if the book was to be
published as a textbook by the textbook division. But the book was
to be published as a popular non-fiction book, and would not have
reflected on the quality of the text book line in any direction.
Topher
|
| Re .4 (Mary):
>Also, as I recall, his theory was that *either* a mass was ejected from
>Jupiter *or* a large comet came this way from the general direction of
>Jupiter (thus appearing to the naked eye to come from Jupiter).
I admit it's been a _long_ time since I read any Velikovsky, but I believe
you'll find it was the Jupiter-ejects-a-comet model. Which would be more
than difficult from the standpoint of celestial mechanics, BTW. Forgetting
how the "comet" would escape Juipter as a whole entity (it would originate
inside both Roche Limits), the questions of how it would make close enough
approaches to produce the desired "miraculous" effects without creating catas-
trophic tidal stresses in both worlds is but one problem. Another is that of
the final orbits of the bodies in question (not the least of which being how
they fall neatly into the Bode-Titius relationship if <a> Venus was a latecomer,
and <b> Mars was in a significantly different orbit). Also, a normal cometary
mass is _very_ slight, speaking astronomically, and certainly not enough to
produce the effects suggested. Finally, Venus was mentioned as a planet by
both the Babylonians and the Egyptians prior to the times the Velikovskian
events were supposed to have transpired.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|