Was Velikovsky right

The question is probably how does space move.
While sitting at a table with a bowl of cereal and looking at the bowl to reach for the bowl and bring it close to your mouth to eat the cereal it was not your hands which moved to the bowl or the bowl but the space moved that is if the same applies in an atmosphere which is unlikely when thought about. That is called a circle thought.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Phage

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.

Nope, you are now way out in pseudo science territory. Charles Hapgoods Earth crust displacement was his idea to explain the discrepancy, he came up with it about a decade before continental drift was discovered, as has been said many times before, the Earths crust is not at all similar to the skin of an orange. And even if that did happen, you are talking about a magnetic field which is generated by the earths core, if the skin had slipped, that wouldn't change it.

As proof, I would submit snails, which generate their shells in line with the earths magnetic field. Neptunia contraria is different from most other molluscs because it comes from a time where the earths magnetic field was reversed, hence the contraria name (contrary), given because it has a left-handed twist. Most molluscs are right handed. All molluscs have the same degree of tilt in their shells as the earth does in its axial tilt, proving scientifically, that the earth has been that way around at least as long as they have, which in the case of Neptunia, is between 2.5 million years and 12,000 years ago.

originally posted by: anonentity
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.

Thermal effects, the Coriolis effect and a solid core floating in a liquid sphere make planets precess just like a spinning gyroscope.

You don't need any external influence. In fact, a close pass of another planet size mass may not have as much of an effect on spin (it should affect orbit a bit more) as is often suggested.

a reply to: Observationalist

I already mentioned that the hotness of Venus didn’t count because his reasoning on that was wrong. Comets, as we know, aren’t hot, and cometary tails consist mostly of water, cyanogen and carbon monoxide, whereas the atmosphere of Venus is mostly carbon dioxide.

a reply to: Astyanax

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I probably should have just posted the below prediction of the Van Allen Belts.

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.

Velikovsky's Ghost Returns

Did he correctly predict it but got the wrong premise?

Honest question not trying to challenge or prove a point.

a reply to: anonentity

Velikovsky and celestial mechanics : Did he not come along at the wrong time for nasa , nasa and their moon landing bull#e , complete bull#e . But ,
If they were wrong or liars it doesnt make his speculations right .

Velikovsky and ice age theory : ice age theory appears to be wrong . Having read a book or 2 of his , somehting like tsunami theory would explain loads better some of the geographic features which surround us . He said there is not enough water on the globe to have covered such an extent towards the equator with ice as geographers like to tell us .
Tsunami theory , makes more common sense , without getting involved in clever scientific debate , common sense is much more sensible , respecting the obvious , the evidence , and not what Mr PHD reckons just because he is mr phd .

Nobody tell me they landed on the moon , I will laugh in yr face!

a reply to: anonentity
I very much enjoyed reading about Velikovsky. Not necessarily the astronomy, which I found unbelievable, but rather the anthropology. The idea of how astronomy or celestial events can, and very much do, shape our culture. I realized that I didn’t have a clear understanding of what culture was until after I started to examine his claims. I remain skeptical, for and against, and very intrigued.

How odd is it that creation myths found around the world have similar stories about the planets and, especially, Venus. Is it possible that the planet Venus somehow was a player in global catastrophic events observed and recorded by humans on Earth? According to Velikovsky many ancient myths do make this claim. I believe that if this did happen then there will be some evidence we could dig up.

I also think this would make for an awesome sci-fi movie.

originally posted by: Phage
But none of the three have the composition of a comet.

What is the composition of a comet?
The dirty snowball theory doesn’t seem to do well in light of data and samples that have been collected over the last few decades.

I feel there is a lot we have yet to learn about the nature of comets. This story here, the nature of comets, is fascinating on its own in my opinion.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Observationalist

I already mentioned that the hotness of Venus didn’t count because his reasoning on that was wrong.

How was he wrong? Seriously I would like to read your take on this.

Comets, as we know, aren’t hot,

The comets that we have gotten close enough to measure are actually hot. Not hot compared to Venus but certainly they are not cold. Besides, as the theory goes, Venus was in turmoil with several planets in our solar system and suffered huge plasma discharges along the way.

We do know that Venus has a relatively new surface and, for some reason, is extremely hot. The current explanation for the heat is a runaway greenhouse effect. I find this a bit difficult to believe.
Venus also has a very think atmosphere yet no magnetic field. Certainly odd for a planet that is supposed to have been there for 4.5 billion years, don't you think?

originally posted by: Phage
Venus is not a comet...

By definition this is correct, Venus is a planet. A comet is defined as an object that has a highly elliptical orbit crossing several planetary orbital radii, short period and long period comets. There is also a coma and usually a tail. Venus has a near perfect circular orbit. It in fact has the lowest eccentricity of all the planets.

However Venus does have “comet like” features.

The planet Venus sometimes looks less like a planet and more like a comet, scientists say.
Scientists with the European Space Agency have discovered that a part of the upper atmosphere of Venus — its ionosphere — acts surprisingly different depending on daily changes in the sun's weather. The side of Venus' ionosphere that faces away from the sun can billow outward like the tail of a comet,

www.space.com...
I also remember reading back in 2004 and 2012 during the Venus solar transits that its ion tail was measured by Earth orbiting satellites.

a reply to: Observationalist

The Van Allen Belts don’t reach to the Moon. Neither does Earth’s magnetosphere, really, although its magnetotail, which extends away from the nightside, is about four million miles long, well beyond the orbit of the Moon. The Moon is only about a quarter of a million miles away.

Did he correctly predict it but got the wrong premise?

Wrong premise, false prediction. I’m still waiting for the OP to answer my question.

a reply to: ZIPMATT

Nobody tell me they landed on the moon , I will laugh in yr face!

We landed on the Moon. You can laugh till you choke and it will still be true.

a reply to: Devino

The dirty snowball theory doesn’t seem to do well in light of data and samples that have been collected over the last few decades.

Really? Could you post links to the papers on cometary material analysis that disprove the theory?

What are comets made of?

a reply to: Devino

How was he wrong? Seriously I would like to read your take on this.

Already pointed out by Phage and by me. Velikovsky said Venus was hot because Venus was a comet. Venus is not a comet, and anyway, comets aren’t hot.

The comets that we have gotten close enough to measure are actually hot.

Where have you been? We landed on a comet!

Rosetta Plays Doctor: Takes Comet's Temperature

What Is the Temperature of a Comet?

Comets have no internal heat. They are as cold as the depths of space until the Sun warms them up.

a reply to: Devino

I also remember reading back in 2004 and 2012 during the Venus solar transits that its ion tail was measured by Earth orbiting satellites.

Earth has a similar tail.

a reply to: ZIPMATT

Nobody tell me they landed on the moon , I will laugh in yr face!

Laugh all you like, won't change the fact "they" did. 1969. I remember it well.

a reply to: Astyanax

Just found this from NASA about a comet not behaving as expected as it approached the sun.
NASA Some Like it Hot

Sungrazing comets aren't a new thing. In fact, the orbiting Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) watches one fall toward the sun and evaporate every few days. These frequent kamikaze comets, known as “Kreutz sungrazers,” are thought to be splinters of a giant comet that broke apart hundreds of years ago. Typically they measure about 10 meters across, small, fragile, and easily vaporized by solar heat. Based on its orbit, Comet Lovejoy was surely a member of the same family—except it was 200 meters wide instead of the usual 10. Astronomers were eager to see such a whopper disintegrate. Even with its extra girth, there was little doubt that it would be destroyed. When Dec. 16th came, however, "Comet Lovejoy shocked us all," says Battams. "It survived, and even flourished.”

It was determined to be an extremly large comet yet they still had questions.

"We've collected a mountain of data," says Knight. "But there are some things we're still having trouble explaining." For instance, what made Lovejoy's tail wiggle so wildly when it entered the solar corona? Perhaps it was in the grip of the sun's powerful magnetic field. What caused Lovejoy to lose its tail inside the sun's atmosphere—and then regain it later? “This is one of the biggest mysteries to me,” says Battams. And then there is the ultimate existential puzzle: How did Comet Lovejoy survive at all?

Would Velikofsky be superized, Or would his Electric Comet model help explain this anomaly?

literally this is the first time I researched this subject, so excuse me if I seem pesky. I do appreciate your replie to my last post.

a reply to: Observationalist

Sorry. I’m done. I’ve given you the real science, enough of it to point you in the correct direction. If you want to cling to Velikovskian error, do so by all means. It is a matter of no importance to me.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: anonentity

How odd is it that creation myths found around the world have similar stories about the planets and, especially, Venus. Is it possible that the planet Venus somehow was a player in global catastrophic events observed and recorded by humans on Earth?

Venus is famous because its easily seen (interior planet) and follows a 9 month sequence heralding the Sun (hence the name morning star), it then follows another 9 month sequence following the sun, which just reinforces the so common Mother aspect with sex and fertility which come with it. These appearances caused the Greeks to think it was two separate planets, Hesperus and Phosphorus until the Babylonians put them right.

The Sun is usually a male God, so Venus becomes female by default

a reply to: Marduk

The possibility occurs that their would be a high probability that Venus has suffered, large high impacts just like Earth. This would cause all manner of debris, and ejecta to form and head into the orbit of Earth, meteorites from Mars, could be nothing compared to what Venus has delivered. A large impact would form a tail on the planet, and rearrange its surface features. Perhaps this is what ancient histories are recording.