carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/13/85)
In 1946 Immanuel Velikovsky published a monograph, *Cosmos without Gravitation*, which would embarrass the Velikovskians if they were capable of being embarrassed by anything he wrote, since it shows that his understanding of physical science would not have been sufficient to pass a high school course in the subject. In this treatise Velikovsky debunks the Newtonian theory of gravitation and "proves" that gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Physicists may wish to amuse themselves by refuting the following arguments advanced by Velikovsky against the accepted theory of gravitation (they are refuted in detail in *Beyond Velikovsky* by Henry Bauer). "The ingredients of the air -- oxygen, nitrogen, argon ... are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.... Why ... do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?" Hint: the kinetic theory of gases. "Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the `mixing effect of the wind.' ... Nowhere is it asked why...." Hint: ozone is unstable. "Water ... 800 times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation." Hint: colloidal particles. "... the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.... As the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature ... do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them...." Hint: the molecules of a gas have a large energy of motion in comparison to the gravitational attraction between them. "The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation." This illustrates a favorite technique of Velikovsky's: he mentions something that is not yet completely explained and asserts, without justification, that the phenomenon in question can *never* be explained in accordance with accepted theories, just as one might assert that "the etiology of AIDS is unexplainable in terms of currently accepted theories of biological science." "The earth is a huge magnet.... As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism, these obvious and permanent influences of the electromagnetic state ... are not allowed to have more than zero effect on the astronomical position of the earth...." This is another typical Velikovskian form of argument. Bauer: "He does not distinguish between a situation in which some influence is calculably or observationally so small that it can be neglected, and a situation in which a principle, law, or force is not considered at all." Velikovsky never rejected or recanted his views in *Cosmos without Gravitation*. In his later book *Worlds in Collision* he wrote: The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only IF the sun, the source of light, warmth, and other radiation produced by fusion and fission of atoms, IS AS A WHOLE AN ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL BODY, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies. Fundamental principles in celestial mechanics including the law of gravitation, must come into question if the sun possesses a charge sufficient to influence the planets in their orbits or the comets in theirs. In the Newtonian celestial mechanics, based on the theory of gravitation, electricity and magnetism play no role. [pp. 387-89, hardcover edition] Numerous examples of Velikovsky's ignorance of physical science can be found in his writings. In *Worlds in Collision* (1950) he wrote that "absorption lines of argon and neon have not yet been investigated...." J.B.S. Haldane commented sarcastically that this may have been intended to warn scientists that the book was a hoax. Velikovsky replied by quoting a letter to himself from an astronomer: "... line-spectra of these gases are well known but, so far as I know, their band spectra [lines of absorption -- I.V.] have never been studied." Velikovsky's bracketed insertion shows that he did not know the difference between band spectra and lines of absorption; he must have written the astronomer to ask about the "band spectra" of argon and neon. Years later, in the first issue of *Pensee*, Velikovsky wrote this amazing passage: "When we measure the age of the universe, why do we assume that at creation the heavy elements like uranium predominated and not the simplest ones, hydrogen and helium? ... It is philosophically simpler to assume that all started -- if there ever was a start -- with the most elementary elements. A catastrophic event or many such events were necessary to build uranium from hydrogen..." Bear in mind that Velikovsky wrote this after decades of research and writing in the fields of astronomy and cosmology. Such imperviousness to the current state of knowledge in one's field of investigation is impressive, and probably requires an explanation in the field of psychopathology. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) (09/17/85)
Thank you, Richard, for showing us the shallowness of thinking that went
into Velokovsky's writing. It's nice to hear his own words, since they
do ring so hollow.
It will be entertaining to see how Velikovsky's disciple, Ted Holden, will
defend his hero. I assume it will be in his typical style of rabid
devotion to the cause and contempt for established science.
--
Terry Morse (408)743-1487
{ seismo!nsc!cae780 } | { sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morse