ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (11/10/85)
It has been brought to my attention that a number of the
amateur physicists who regularly post to net.physics have posted
articles on the late Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky. This discussion is
normally confined to net.origins, since it involves historical
and mythological interpretation, things physicists are not
normally interested in. I would like to invite any of the
net.physics viewers who have any interest in this topic to pick
it up on net.origins. I thought you might also like to read what
a couple of PROFESSIONAL physicists have had to say about
Velikovsky.
I
Robert Bass is a former Rhodes scholar who took his
doctorate under Aurel Wintner in 1955 and three years of post-
doctoral work in non-linear mechanics under national medal of
science winner Solomon Lefschetz at Princeton. He is credited
with the only dynamical explanation of Bode's law, and with a
paper in the Summer 1974 issue (# 8) of Pensee which basically
settled once and for all the whole question of whether
Velikovsky's scenarios were "physically possible". The abstract
for the paper reads as follows:
1) The subtle but fatal flaw in the received opinion
regarding the alleged immutability of the planetary
distances is the following inadequately recognized fact:
whether or not the solar system is stable in any of the
senses defined by Laplace, Lagrange, Poisson, or Littlewood,
or is quasi-periodic, it need not be orbitally stable.
2) As demonstrated in the text in considerable detail, it is
perfectly possible, according to Newton's laws of dynamics
and gravitation when three or more bodies are involved, for
planets to nearly collide and then relax into an apparently
stable Bode's law kind of configuration within a relatively
short time; therefore Velikovsky's historical evidence
cannot be ignored.
3) If one started Venus in an orbit lying entirely between
Jupiter and Saturn, with precisely the appropriate initial
position and velocity, it would within less than two decades
work its way inward into an orbit lying entirely between the
orbits of Mars and Jupiter. (This follows from observations
of the comet Oterma III and the fact that, in the restricted
problem of three bodies, the mass of the smallest body is
irrelevant.)
4) There is no plausible explanation for the anomalous
(retrograde) rotation of Venus, other than that it
originally had prograde spin and was later flipped upside-
down by a near collision with some other planet.
5) The fact that the spin rate of Venus is now mysteriously
locked in resonance with the rate of revolution of Venus
relative to the Earth (so that Venus presents the same face
to Earth at every inferior conjunction) may provide a
dynamical clue as to which planet Venus encountered.
6) Laplace's theorem allegedly proving stability of the
solar system (1773) was shown to be fallacious in 1899 by
Poincare; in 1953, dynamical astronomer W. M. Smart proved
that the maximum interval of reliability of the perturbation
equations of Laplace and Lagrange was not 10**11 years, as
stated in 1895 by S. Newcomb, but actually at most a small
multiple of 10**2 years.
7) The eminent dynamical astronomer E. W. Brown, in his
retiring speech as President of the American Astronomical
Society in 1931, quite explicitly stated that there is no
quantitative reason known to celestial mechanics why Mars,
Earth, and Venus could not have nearly collided in the past.
The paper itself amounts to about ten pages of very fine
print and I can't reproduce it here without getting thrown out of
usenet for cause. Copies are probably still available from
the BYU physics dept. If all else fails, I could photostat
copies of this article and send them anyone interested, offer
limited to those with advanced degrees in physics, astrophysics
etc. since nobody else would have a prayer of understanding it.
Contact me by UNIX mail if interested.
II
I don't have to tell any of you who Albert Einstein was.
But did any of you know that he and Velikovsky had been pals at
the Prussian Scientific Academy; that, along with Heinrich Loewe,
they had edited the Scripta Universitatus, the major cornerstone
of the present Hebrew University in Jerusalem? Some of his
thoughts on Velikovsky may be read in a letter TO Velikovsky
dated March 17, 1955:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Velikovsky,
At the occasion of this inauspicious birthday you have
presented me once more with the fruits of an almost eruptive
productivity. I look forward with pleasure to reading the
historical book that does not bring into danger the toes of
my own guild. How it stands with the toes of the other
faculty, I do not know yet. I think of the touching prayer,
"Holy St. Florian, spare my house, put fire to others!"
I have already read carefully the first volume of the
memoirs to "Worlds in Collision" and have supplied it with a
few marginal notes in pencil that can easily be erased. I
admire your dramatic talent and also the art and the
straightforwardness of Thackery who has compelled the
roaring astronomical lion [Shapley] to pull in a little his
royal tail, yet not showing enough respect for the truth.
Also, I would be gratified if you could savor the whole
episode for its humorous side.
Unimaginable letter debts and unread manuscripts that were
sent in, force me to be brief. Many thanks to both of you
and friendly wishes.
Your,
A. Einstein
I am just an ordinary businessman myself, and know very
little of physics. Therefore, when I read or hear about anyone
ridiculing or "debunking" Velikovsky's theories because they
supposedly violate the "laws of physics", I can only assume it is
because they think they know more about physics than Robert Bass
and Albert Einstein. ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/11/85)
[]
Please confine this nonsense to net.origins. It appears to be the
official net repository for pseudoscience.
--
"Superior firepower is an Ethan Vishniac
important asset when {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
entering into ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
negotiations" Department of Astronomy
University of Texasdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (11/12/85)
> . . . I thought you might also like to read what > a couple of PROFESSIONAL physicists have had to say about > Velikovsky. Actually, I've read the comments of more than a couple of physicists on the subject. > Robert Bass is a former Rhodes scholar who ... > . . . is credited > with the only dynamical explanation of Bode's law, and with a > paper in the Summer 1974 issue (# 8) of Pensee which basically > settled once and for all the whole question of whether > Velikovsky's scenarios were "physically possible". As anyone familiar with science or common sense is well aware, no single paper ever settles any question "once and for all." I haven't read the paper in question, but I'm suspicious of anything with an abstract that says "the only explanation for x is y." Again, common sense is sufficient to show that this really means "the only explanation I can think of for x is y." In addition, there have been a number of computer simulations bearing upon the subject of Bode's law so Bass is certainly not the only person to offer a dynamical explanation. Not confining my reading to Pensee, I have seen other, more recent analyses of the possibility of Velikovsky's planetary billiards. The consensus seems to be that only given some extremely unlikely initial conditions is it possible (barely) to make it work. Velikovsky himself, of course, didn't bother with working out the physics of the process. He just said it was so, and that was that. > I don't have to tell any of you who Albert Einstein was. > But did any of you know that he and Velikovsky had been pals at > the Prussian Scientific Academy . . . > . . . Some of his > thoughts on Velikovsky may be read in a letter TO Velikovsky > dated March 17, 1955: So the kindly Dr Einstein in a brief personal letter said some nice things to his old friend about his book? That hardly counts as scientific support by Einstein for Velikovsky's ideas. Now if you could produce a scientific paper by Einstein in support of Velikovsky, that would be something! > I am just an ordinary businessman myself, and know very > little of physics. Therefore, when I read or hear about anyone > ridiculing or "debunking" Velikovsky's theories because they > supposedly violate the "laws of physics", I can only assume it is > because they think they know more about physics than Robert Bass > and Albert Einstein. Or do you perhaps assume that you know more about the subject than the great majority of all the physicists, astronomers, historians, archaeologists, geologists, folklorists, etc. who have rejected Velikovsky's ideas as demonstrably wrong? Not anti-dogma, not too- original, not out-of-fashion, but simply wrong because the man didn't understand what he was writing about? -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
ph@wucec2.UUCP (Paul Hahn) (11/12/85)
In article <457@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > I am just an ordinary businessman myself, and know very > little of physics. So THAT'S why you believe Velikovsky's theories. I knew there had to be some reason. > Therefore, when I read or hear about anyone > ridiculing or "debunking" Velikovsky's theories because they > supposedly violate the "laws of physics", I can only assume it is > because they think they know more about physics than Robert Bass > and Albert Einstein. Why do you find that so difficult to believe, Ted? Do you think no progress has been made in the physical sciences since Einstein's day? I notice in net.origins that you seem to have no problem believing that you know more about evolution than Darwin. I believe I know more about physics than Isaac Newton, whose genius was arguably comparable to Einstein's, but I believe that only because I am familiar with his work and the work of his successors. In any case, who believes in a theory is not nearly as relevant as whether it stands up logically on its own, which Velikovsky's theories definitely do not. Ask the people in net.philosophy about the validity of arguments from authority, if any of them will talk to you. Please restrict yourself in the future to net.origins, where people are patient (:-) and interested (:-) (:-) enough to listen to your babblings. --pH /* * "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is named Iluvatar, * and he made the Ainur, the Holy Ones, who were the offspring * of His thought, and were with him ere aught else was made. * And he propounded to them great themes . . ." */
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/12/85)
> [Ted Holden] > It has been brought to my attention that a number of the > amateur physicists who regularly post to net.physics have posted ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > articles on the late Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky. This discussion is > normally confined to net.origins, since it involves historical > and mythological interpretation, things physicists are not > normally interested in. I would like to invite any of the > net.physics viewers who have any interest in this topic to pick > it up on net.origins. I thought you might also like to read what > a couple of PROFESSIONAL physicists have had to say about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Velikovsky. -------- Dear Mr. Holden: I apologize to the rest of the readers of net.physics (but not to you) for an ad-hominem attack on you, but I could not restrain myself after reading your totally uncalled for attack on the rest of the posters to net.physics. What makes you think that the debunkers of Velikovsky in net.physics are all AMATEUR physicists? Many have posted from universities and companies that employ professional physicists. I, for one, received my Ph.D in physics from Yale University (experimental high-energy physics), was a research associate (post-doc) for 3 years at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and an Assistant Professor of Physics at Harvard University for four years. I have known literally HUNDREDS of professional physicists, and not one of them takes Velikovsky seriously. I sure as hell don't. -------- > [About a hundred lines omitted- quoted from someone named Robert Bass] > The paper itself amounts to about ten pages of very fine > print and I can't reproduce it here without getting thrown out of > usenet for cause. Copies are probably still available from > the BYU physics dept. If all else fails, I could photostat > copies of this article and send them anyone interested, offer > limited to those with advanced degrees in physics, astrophysics > etc. since nobody else would have a prayer of understanding it. > Contact me by UNIX mail if interested. -------- Sorry, I've got better things to do with my time. I must attend a meeting of the SCSSESV (Secret Conspiratorial Society of the Scientific Establishment for the Suppression of Velikovskyism.) -------- > I don't have to tell any of you who Albert Einstein was. > But did any of you know that he and Velikovsky had been pals at > the Prussian Scientific Academy; that, along with Heinrich Loewe, > they had edited the Scripta Universitatus, the major cornerstone > of the present Hebrew University in Jerusalem? Some of his > thoughts on Velikovsky may be read in a letter TO Velikovsky > dated March 17, 1955: > Dear Mr. and Mrs. Velikovsky, > At the occasion of this inauspicious birthday you have > presented me once more with the fruits of an almost eruptive > productivity. I look forward with pleasure to reading the > historical book that does not bring into danger the toes of > my own guild. How it stands with the toes of the other > faculty, I do not know yet. I think of the touching prayer, > "Holy St. Florian, spare my house, put fire to others!" > I have already read carefully the first volume of the > memoirs to "Worlds in Collision" and have supplied it with a > few marginal notes in pencil that can easily be erased. I > admire your dramatic talent and also the art and the > straightforwardness of Thackery who has compelled the > roaring astronomical lion [Shapley] to pull in a little his > royal tail, yet not showing enough respect for the truth. > Also, I would be gratified if you could savor the whole > episode for its humorous side. > Unimaginable letter debts and unread manuscripts that were > sent in, force me to be brief. Many thanks to both of you > and friendly wishes. > Your, > A. Einstein > > > > I am just an ordinary businessman myself, and know very > little of physics. Therefore, when I read or hear about anyone > ridiculing or "debunking" Velikovsky's theories because they > supposedly violate the "laws of physics", I can only assume it is > because they think they know more about physics than Robert Bass > and Albert Einstein. ------- If you read into Einstein's letter an endorsement of Velikovsky's theories then you are even more stupid then I thought. As for Robert Bass, I never heard of him. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/15/85)
> So the kindly Dr Einstein in a brief personal letter said some nice > things to his old friend about his book? That hardly counts as > scientific support by Einstein for Velikovsky's ideas. Now if you > could produce a scientific paper by Einstein in support of Velikovsky, > that would be something! Or even a foreword to one of his books. Einstein did this for at least one technical book of which I am aware. His letter as quoted did not even seem to me to be particularly supportive of the contents of the book, just a "thats nice, you sure have an active imagination, best wishes" response.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/16/85)
Ted said: > > Robert Bass is a former Rhodes scholar who ... > > settled once and for all the whole question of whether > > Velikovsky's scenarios were "physically possible". > > "Goody" Grady to the attack: > The consensus seems to be that only given some extremely > unlikely initial conditions is it possible (barely) to make it work. > Velikovsky himself, of course, didn't bother with working out the > physics of the process. He just said it was so, and that was that. Yep! it seems so. .. .. dang blast it all! Ah, the frustration of being mere physicist, when it seems "prophet" is what I need be. Surely profit is what our country needs! I. Velisolly +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/16/85)
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan rings his bell: > What makes you think that the debunkers of Velikovsky in net.physics > are all AMATEUR physicists? Their article's content? He meant to say your work is not worthy of pays; it was a kind of mild put down. > Many have posted from universities and companies that employ > professional physicists. Oh! My Gosh, for real! Does that mean you get more than minimum wage? > > [About a hundred lines omitted- quoted from someone named Robert Bass] > > The paper itself amounts to about ten pages of very fine > > print and I can't reproduce it here without getting thrown out of > > usenet for cause. Copies are probably still available from > > the BYU physics dept. > Sorry, I've got better things to do with my time. > > "debunking" Velikovsky's theories because they > > supposedly violate the "laws of physics", I can only assume it is > > because they think they know more about physics than Robert Bass > > and Albert Einstein. > As for Robert Bass, I never heard of him. W H A T ?? Haven't heard of Bob Bass?? Come on, in addition to having a PhD in physics he has a law degree and is a patent attorney, and seems to do just about anything else he sets his mind to. He even invented a fusion reactor and received a patent and quite a sizeable settlement from BYU or the Board of the Mormon Church. He built a full scale model of a Nick Tesla's coil with a man from MA by the name of Robert Golka. Bass worked recently for Hughes Helicopter, but now is employed by Litton Ind. I mean like, get with it William. I was a boy before but I'm out of it now. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (11/17/85)
I thought Carl Sagan did a credible job of debunking some of Velikovsky's more fantastic theories in his books. Try _The Cosmic Connection_ or _Broca's Brain_ (unlike _Cosmos_ these earlier books were written for college-educated readers). --Barry Kort
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (11/18/85)
Velikovsky presents the scientific community with a challenging paradox. On the one hand, he proposed bold theories which shook the foundations of conventional theory. For this alone, he cannot be condemned. After all, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein did the same. Velikovsky correctly predicted that his theories would be ridiculed. For this he had ample precedent (e.g. Galileo). I think Velikovsky's main error was not in his scientific theorizing--after all, much of the labor of science is to conceive of experiments to confirm or refute hypotheses about the nature of things. I think Velikovsky's main error was his arrogant manner of presenting his theories as revelations to a naive and gullible public. In this regard, I feel Velikovsky did a grave disservice to Science by undermining the process of testing proposed theories against evidence and logic. But the other side of the coin is that he forced the scientific community to clarify the process by which successful theories are filtered out from the many ideas that are put forth to explain how the universe came to be in the state that we find it in our present epoch. Here I commend that much- maligned populist-scientist Carl Sagan who took the time and effort to explain in layman's terms how science is done, and how science deals with pseudo-science theories such as those of Velikovsky and the Creationists. (See e.g. Chapter 7 of Sagan's _Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science_.) --Barry Kort