It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Velikovsky right

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Remember Velikovsky, friend of Einstein uppseter of the established order, sent into exile for twenty odd years rehabilitated and other wise abused?hozturner.blogspot.co.nz... He was right in many things, but what if Mars did loose its atmosphere when it changed orbit. Loosing all its water in a cometary tail, and then taking a new position on the edge of the Goldilocks zone. How sacrosanct is orbital stability? His model predicted what NAASA would find with regards to the Moon and Jupiter, could the reasons why he was ostracised have merit as well?
edit on 10-7-2016 by anonentity because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


How is sacrosanct is orbital stability?
In the absence of outside influences, very stable. But if anything approaching what he described (Venus zooming around the Solar System) had occurred when he said it did, the planets would not have the nice orbits which they do and we would probably not be here at all.

Oh yeah. Venus is not a comet and comets do not come from Jupiter.
edit on 7/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


He was right in many things

Could you mention one or two of them here, please?

The hotness of Venus and the radio output of Jupiter don’t count, because his reasoning to those conclusions was utterly wrong. As Phage says, Venus is not a comet.

Anything else he got right?



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


How long would it take if this type of event happened, for the planets to regain a stable orbit?. He must have realised your comment would be a major objection to his theory, long before he published..



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


Earths composition is exactly like a chondrite meteor, so probably is Venus. Its just a matter of scale.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

How long would it take if this type of event happened, for the planets to regain a stable orbit?.
As a rough guess, on the order of millions of years. This is of course, disregarding the fact that Venus could not have done that in the first place.



He must have realised your comment would be a major objection to his theory, long before he published..
Oh yes, he realized it. That's why he published a story, not a science paper. Had he tried to publish it as a paper it would have gone where it belonged, the trash.

edit on 7/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The orbit likely would not have been altered due to the reaction of the atmosphere adjusting to protect before leaving revealing no longer the need for nor was there a need for the atmosphere other than the ultimate purpose explained while also waiting for the next move.
edit on 10-7-2016 by THEMYKIL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity




Earths composition is exactly like a chondrite meteor,
Not really. Most obviously, chondrites show no indication of differentiation.
But none of the three have the composition of a comet.

edit on 7/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Phage

How long would it take if this type of event happened, for the planets to regain a stable orbit?. He must have realised your comment would be a major objection to his theory, long before he published..



Orbits don't 'stabilize'.

The reason that the orbits are mostly stable is that they formed in place from cosmic dust. Once set and in balance, they stay that way unless something very major happens.

If you play around with one of those gravity and orbital simulators you soon realise that any minor perturbation is for keeps.

If it were possible to 'stabilise' the mass of a planet, it would require a reaction mass of thousands of exotonnes (the Earth is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes) - just isn't going to happen in the normal scheme of things.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That's a bit cruel when even Einstein agrees that the Earth could have changed its axis at one time, disregarding Earth and Mars, not only share almost the same almost, 24 hour rotation, and almost the same axial tilt, Mars 25 degrees to Earths 23.5. What are the odds? The science is saying Mars lost its atmosphere to the solar wind, because it hasn't got the strong magnetic shielding that the Earth has. Well it wouldn't if it had it wiped by being closer to the sun at some stage. Then why isn't the Earths magnetic pole, the same as the Geographic one, 11 degrees difference unless something caused the outer skin to shift on the fluid mantel.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


Earths composition is exactly like a chondrite meteor, so probably is Venus. Its just a matter of scale.

Is this supposed to be an answer? Well, it’s wrong. Chondrites don’t all have the same composition and their composition is not (obviously) the same as Earth’s.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

That's a bit cruel when even Einstein agrees that the Earth could have changed its axis at one time, disregarding Earth and Mars, not only share almost the same almost, 24 hour rotation, and almost the same axial tilt, Mars 25 degrees to Earths 23.5.
You seem to be confusing axial tilt with a Solar orbit. On the other hand, because Mars lacks a large Moon, it's axial tilt varies substantially over time.
web.mit.edu...


What are the odds?
Odds don't really mean much when things are as they are. But understanding that Mars' tilt varies quite largely, quite good.


Then why isn't the Earths magnetic pole, the same as the Geographic one, 11 degrees difference unless something caused the outer skin to shift on the fluid mantel.
One could as well ask, why does the Earth's magnetic field reverse itself on occassion. It's an intriguing question. Or does Jupiter just keep spitting out comets that turn into planets?
edit on 7/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Something must have happened outside of the normal scheme of things, to make the geographic pole and the magnetic pole 11 degrees out of kilter , something later in the Earths formation.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I'm kinda curious as to what he was right about, too...

I think he's probably right around zero. I did enjoy his fiction, though, when I was a kid. Worlds in Collision, and Ages in Chaos were the first two I read.

My introduction to the world of pseudo-science.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


No the orbital wobble that causes seasons on Earth. Is 23.5 degrees on Earth and 25 degrees on mars. They seem a bit similar due to chance?
www.universetoday.com...
edit on 10-7-2016 by anonentity because: add



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

No the orbital wobble that causes seasons on Earth.
Oh dear. No. It is the tilt of Earth's axis which causes seasons, not its orbit. But its wobble is something else entirely and doesn't really affect the seasons.


Is 23.5 degrees on Earth and 25 degrees on mars. They seem a bit similar due to chance?
Yes. And, as I said. The obliquity (tilt) of Mars' axis changes a great deal, where that of Earth does not.
edit on 7/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Maybe the created earthquake in the works for a while about to happen adjusts the orbit a little. I could write a lot.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Thoughts on the topic are a little different.
edit on 11-7-2016 by THEMYKIL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: anonentity


He was right in many things

Could you mention one or two of them here, please?

The hotness of Venus and the radio output of Jupiter don’t count, because his reasoning to those conclusions was utterly wrong. As Phage says, Venus is not a comet.

Anything else he got right?


Here are some from the link in OP


Velikovsky expected other discoveries through space exploration. He claimed that the planet Venus would be found to be extremely hot, since in his reconstruction, the planet was "candescent" in historical times. His thesis also implied the likelihood of a massive Venusian atmosphere, residue of its former "cometary" tail. And he claimed that the Earth would be found to have a magnetosphere reaching at least to the moon, because he was convinced that in historical times the Earth exchanged electrical charge with other planetary bodies.


According to the same link, he apparently predicted what we know as the Van Allen Belts.



Arrival of the space age was a critical juncture for Velikovsky, as data returned from the Moon, from Mars, and from Venus begin to recast our views of these celestial bodies. In 1959, Dr. Van Allen discovered that the Earth has a magnetosphere. In the early sixties, scientists realized, much to their surprise, that the planet Venus has a surface temperature as high as 900 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt lead. "The temperature is much higher than anyone would have predicted," wrote Cornell Mayer.


First time I have heard of this guy, the article seems a little whinny about him not getting the respect he deserved. A interesting read if you like to challenge main stream science.

edit on 11-7-2016 by Observationalist because: Extra words



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
The wobble is space.
The meaning opens an entirely new view of what an orbit is. Try to understand this in the sense of space moving like a vehicle while bodies remain still. For space to move in such a manner carrying light as opposed to light moving through space that means an illusion is created as in the veiw from a body that the bodies are moving. With space moving erratically yet organized in sections it creates a consistent illusion.
Makes a lot more sense than the bodies orbiting which has not been definitively explained. There is no way such a mass could simply orbit as thought to be while the moving space explanation also explains gravity.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join