Immanuel Velikovsky - The Bonds of the Past

I post this here because this has to do what could happen again according to Immanuel. He had good theories back in the day and he was laughed at. yet, some of his theories are coming forth as proven. He even speaks of possible event that caused major obstruction to the Earth. He says Venus was the comet that changed earth many times. But I say it is Nibiru or the Planet X instead.

another interesting read.



Interesting theories though:













yeah I know he still has a lot of detractors in the science community. I know they are probably laughing at me for posting his stuff. But I lol at them for science is always changing.

Velikovsky's ideas were a failure in the past and they are a failure now. He made hundreds of predictions and none of them came true for the reasons he proposed. That would make his theory an utter failure. Very few of his predictions came true. One was that Jupiter would give off radio waves. It does. The problem is that the reason for his prediction was a mechanism that is not responsible for the radio waves. His claims turned out to be completely false and were demonstrated to be false many, many times.

Originally posted by stereologist
Velikovsky's ideas were a failure in the past and they are a failure now. He made hundreds of predictions and none of them came true for the reasons he proposed. That would make his theory an utter failure. Very few of his predictions came true. One was that Jupiter would give off radio waves. It does. The problem is that the reason for his prediction was a mechanism that is not responsible for the radio waves. His claims turned out to be completely false and were demonstrated to be false many, many times.

All of Velikovsky's ideas were NOT a failure. How can you say that?

He correctly predicted the tempurature of Venus to be hotter.
He correctly predicted radio waves from Jupiter.

It was he who gave "altogether novel importance to electrical and magnetic forces in the solar system" and who "said that the earth must have a magnetosphere much stronger, and extending much further into space, than anyone else believed possible." He also "predict[ed] that Jupiter would be found to be a radio source, long before the astonished radio-astronomers found it so."

According to Velikovsky, there were all over the world, as folklore alleges, rains of burning pitch. This, among other things, led him to assert in 1950 that the clouds of Venus must be very rich in petroleum gas. All contemporary knowledge of the chemistry of the planet's clouds was flatly against it. Yet it has turned out to be so.

Source Link

Perhaps some of his theories were off base. But at least he was thinking out of the box against mainstream scientists. And you know how difficult it is to go against the mainstream.

Galileo is a good example.

Just totally dismissing his work is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And how does your post contribute anything to the thread? It's just disinfo and incorrect info. It's really getting tiring here on ATS when someone just comes in and pops off something on their keyboard with nothing constructive to contribute, as you seem to do quite often.

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by stereologist
Velikovsky's ideas were a failure in the past and they are a failure now. He made hundreds of predictions and none of them came true for the reasons he proposed. That would make his theory an utter failure. Very few of his predictions came true. One was that Jupiter would give off radio waves. It does. The problem is that the reason for his prediction was a mechanism that is not responsible for the radio waves. His claims turned out to be completely false and were demonstrated to be false many, many times.

All of Velikovsky's ideas were NOT a failure. How can you say that?

He correctly predicted the tempurature of Venus to be hotter.
He correctly predicted radio waves from Jupiter.

It was he who gave "altogether novel importance to electrical and magnetic forces in the solar system" and who "said that the earth must have a magnetosphere much stronger, and extending much further into space, than anyone else believed possible." He also "predict[ed] that Jupiter would be found to be a radio source, long before the astonished radio-astronomers found it so."

According to Velikovsky, there were all over the world, as folklore alleges, rains of burning pitch. This, among other things, led him to assert in 1950 that the clouds of Venus must be very rich in petroleum gas. All contemporary knowledge of the chemistry of the planet's clouds was flatly against it. Yet it has turned out to be so.

Source Link

Perhaps some of his theories were off base. But at least he was thinking out of the box against mainstream scientists. And you know how difficult it is to go against the mainstream.

Galileo is a good example.

Just totally dismissing his work is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And how does your post contribute anything to the thread? It's just disinfo and incorrect info. It's really getting tiring here on ATS when someone just comes in and pops off something on their keyboard with nothing constructive to contribute, as you seem to do quite often.

Velikovsky cannot be compared to Galileo.
Stereologist never said that ALL of his ideas were failures, but the vast majority were, and when you predict hundreds of things, you're bound to get a couple right, but that doesn't validate all the failures.

reply to post by Julie Washington

He correctly predicted the tempurature of Venus to be hotter.
He correctly predicted radio waves from Jupiter.

In both of these cases he had the wrong reasoning for these issues. Take the Venus issue. He claimed it would be hot because of it being somehow thrown out of Jupiter and then it traveled close to the sun. It turns out that Venus is hot because of its dense atmosphere. His prediction is based on a flawed notion of the origin of Venus.

If I claimed that the sky was blue because of the color of the oceans I would be wrong. I would be correct in stating that the sky is blue, but the claim that it is due to the color of the oceans is wrong. No points for the sky claim, and no points for the V. claims of a hot Venus and radio waves from Jupiter.

Velikovsky wrote "Worlds in Collision" in 1950. At the time he wrote his book, scientists still had a lot of wrong notions about or Solar system, how it was formed, and whole lot else besides. It was thought, for example, that the surface temperature of Venus was likely to be 17 degrees Celsius, or just slightly warmer than the earth.

Velikovsky predicted that Venus was incandescent, and that it's surface temperature was actually many hundreds of degrees Celsius. He was right. He also predicted (and quite extraordinarily at that!) that Venus would have a hydrocarbon atmosphere. He was right about that too. He was right about radio signals from Jupiter.

His major hypothesis was incomplete and ultimately incorrect, but there were enough grains of truth in it to result in several very accurate predictions.

One need only look at the number of writers who subsequently came up with similar notions of a "close-approach" type scenario with the earth and another celestial body (Sitchin being the most obvious example) to realize that there is an element of truth in there somewhere. Obviously, there is not enough evidence for a theory, or even for a decent hypothesis w/regards the matter, but still, there is enough to make one wonder.

That's what Velikovsky did. And after wondering about it long enough, he decided to take a crack at figuring it all out. Good for him, I say, even if he was wrong.

Why denigrate him? Why call him a failure? He made people think about something they'd never thought about before, and in the process he corrected several incomplete and incorrect notions about the solar system which were widely held at the time. That is all I ever ask for from a scientist.


I want to hear your thoughts on the calendar reforms. What is your take on Velikovsky's interpretation of historical calender reforms, and a possible change in the Earth's orbit?

If find questions of that, slightly more specific and "historical" nature far more pressing than the overarching cosmological theory (ultimately incorrect) that held it all together.


Don't be so quick to judge. It took a lot of guts to write what he did when he did. And he even got a few things right. Give credit where credit is due.

-RedBird

reply to post by stereologist


Half points would be more fair.

Scientists often get the mechanism wrong the first time they predict an observation. That makes their theory incorrect, obviously, but they still deserve kudos for predicting the observation.

It happens all the time.

reply to post by RedBird


I don't see any half points here at all. If V. had suggested that Venus was hot due to a local factor such as volcanic eruptions heating the atmosphere, or that Venus was hot because of geysers erupting due to its proximity to the sun I might even rethink 0 points.

But to assign half points because a few of hundreds of predictions were correct by chance is not reasonable.

Maybe you could give us a more concrete example of science awarding these "half points."

reply to post by RedBird


You claim the following:

He also predicted (and quite extraordinarily at that!) that Venus would have a hydrocarbon atmosphere. He was right about that too.

In fact, that is compeltely untrue.
Atmosphere of Venus

The main atmospheric gases on Venus are carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Other chemical compounds are present only in trace amounts.

There are few hydrocarbons in the Venusian atmosphere.

The problem with V. and with Sitchin is that they assume myth is history. The other problem is that they never checked any of their claims against celestial mechanics. I don't believe they care. It was not a matter of being correct or testing the correctness of their ideas that matters. Neither V. or Sitchin act like scientists.

Velikovsky may have been wrong about a number of his predictions but his legacy is much greater than his predictions..

He was the one of the first people in modern times to take ancient mythology literally, and he essentially founded the field of comparative mythology. His analysis of the ancient skies may now be widely thought to be mostly wrong, even by the open-minded scientists who were prepared to consider his proposals without dismissing them out of hand. However, many of the observations he made about the anomalies of geology, astronomy, paleontology and mythology have been important staging posts on the way to (not yet widely accepted) understanding that the history of the earth IS cataclysmic. This single fact is perhaps his biggest achievement. His work led others to question the scientific conclusions of the day, and inspired many to try to understand the cataclysmic threats we face. His books inspired people to think outside the box in so many ways across many different fields.

For me he was a true pioneer of his day, ready willing and able to stand tall despite the disdain and disapproval of institutionalised dogmatic science. His was a lesson in the importance of free thinking. We must all learn to think for ourselves without regard for what others may think, or without fear of being wrong. Societies which castigate others for daring to think differently are destined to repeat the lessons of the past. Our society is no different. The sooner we understand that the history of the earth is cataclysmic, the better.

I would certainly disagree the V. was instrumental in considering catastrophes as important events that shape the Earth. Originally, catastrophes were the means of shaping the Earth. The biblical flood was considered to have been the main event shaping the world until the 1500s when scientists began to openly reject that event. By the 1800s catastrophism had been replaced by uniformitarianism.

In 1903 Barringer claimed that Meteor Crater near Winslow, Arizona was an impact crater. This was confirmed by Shoemaker in 1960.

In the time period of V. came one of the most profound changes to geology, plate tectonics. V. was not in slightest bit involved in plate tectonics theory.

His work was based on the assumption that mythology was history. What he did was demonstrate that this was not true. That is his achievement. His ideas on geology, astronomy, and other sciences did not pan out and were shown to be false.

The claims that science was dogmatic in the quick disapproval of V.'s ideas demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method and also a disregard that V. did not check his ideas. His claims were relatively easy to show as false. Had he been a real scientist he would have checked to see if his claims made sense. He did not.

The history of the Earth is not a cataclysmic history. It involves catastrophes, but that is not the norm. There have been important catastrophic events, but if those types of events happened often there might not be any life on Earth today.

reply to post by stereologist


Velikovsky > Stereologist

Not enough > to fill the page. I am telling you people Stereo thinks he is a genius. Probably also thinks he is way smarter than Einstein as well.

reply to post by vital_revolutionary


It is too bad he didn't live long enough to see the Sumerian tablets unearthed. that would seriously make his day.

reply to post by stereologist


you agenda is seriously smelling real bad now. So it seems you are a mainstream guys and hate it when people think outside the box? Some of the best scientists think outside the box.

Mainstream just likes to steal peoples work and then call it form themselves.


Just like how the father of the a-bomb stole Einsteins E=Mc2. After that Einstein hid all his notes in his head and memorized everything.

reply to post by dragnet53


Dragnet53 how can I give you stars when the best you have doing lately is direct attacks at me. Why not stick to the top at hand instead of attacking me? You have made some interesting posts in the past and I am certain you can do the same again if you try instead of stooping to be a mudslinger.

reply to post by stereologist


because lately you are being quite annoying and derailing threads. I like criticism myself, but all you seem to do is bash any idea that is not mainstream. I like anything outside mainstream minus Michio Kaku and Albert Einstein. Kaku is at least thinks outside the box. That is what makes him a great scientist.

oh can't forget trying to discredit people for their efforts on putting together something and calling them a fraud without viewing their stuff. That ain't being a scientist.

reply to post by dragnet53


That still would not provided any more support to his celestial notions. Take his claim that the Earth stopped rotating. You do realize that people at the equator are moving around the Earth at around 1600kph, that's 1000mph. So if the Earth stops it means that the people at the equator would have the problem of slowing down from 1600kph to 0kph. The Earth stops and the people, trees, rocks, sand, water, etc. don't stop.

I don't think V. realized that problem or he did and chose not to mention it. Take your pick. Either way it doesn't look good.

reply to post by dragnet53


Try to collect your thoughts and make a proper post. There is no need to be so frazzled and acting in a panic. This is your thread and you are all over the place.

Are you saying that V. stole ideas from others? Are you saying that people stole V.'s ideas? Just what are you saying?

reply to post by dragnet53


You think that stating facts and stating opinions with supporting evidence is derailing a thread? Or do you think that we should all be close minded and pat you on the back no matter what anyone says. I notice here that you make no effort to refute my statements. Instead, you directly attack me.

calling them a fraud without viewing their stuff. That ain't being a scientist.

Please tell us all what you mean here. If it is what I think it is that would make you a bald faced liar.

reply to post by stereologist


How can you say that the history of Earth is not cataclysmic. Do you know that for a fact? Where you there? Or are you just parroting "within the box" thinking of the Establishment?
Why not condemn Newton? He spend more time trying to derive the date for Genesis then he spent on Physics and Mathematics.
Why not condemn Max Muller? He got most of his dates about antiquity in India wrong because of firm conviction that the Earth was only about 6000 years old.
What is wrong with myths? We call old stories myths because we think that they are not real and can not be real. What about Dogon myths that show knowledge of the Sirius star system?
V.s work should make us think. Herschel was not an Astronomer and yet all Astronomy books call him a great Astronomer.
I for one think that V. was a great inter-disciplinarian. He may or may not be honored in the coming days and years but his contributions remain significant and note worthy.