VELIKOVSKY- an approach to heresy
Boucher David
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#repost this date by wal...@netcom.com, complete version follows:
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#30 Jul 1993 12:55
#Greg O'Rear: Another Velikovsky perspective (long)
#I am posting this for a friend, John Godowski (godo...@ise.ufl.edu). Please
#direct follow-ups to him.
[incredibly long anecdote/sermon deleted]
If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
The objection to Velikovsky has nothing to do with "HERESY" or
resistance to unconventional ideas -- it is rather that
Velikovskianism is an absurd fantasy, on a par with a belief
that the earth is flat.
- db
--
****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ******
****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ******
****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ******
*************************************************************************
Walter Alter
30 Jul 1993 12:55
Greg O'Rear: Another Velikovsky perspective (long)
I am posting this for a friend, John Godowski (godo...@ise.ufl.edu). Please
direct follow-ups to him. This is a long post, so you might want to download
it for later perusal. This is offered for serious consideration, not merely
flame-bait, so of you take exception to what he writes, please answer with
specifics. John's message follows:
This is my first contribution to Talk.Origins, so a few words about
myself and my perspective are in order. (the rest may not be)
In 1981 I was working at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Division,
Titusville FL, near the Kennedy Space Center.
I was in the design engineering section and my drafting team was
working on a detonator assembly for a modified Israeli shoulder mounted
rocket launcher.
On my own time, I was developing the foundation of my
work in legged robotic locomotion in the dynamic range.
I had interest in astronomy, geology, ancient history, languages, flight,
military science, music and especially robotics.
I really enjoyed Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. He brought the subjects to
life and invited all to dream, speculate and begin to consider the vastness
of time and space. His friendly hypnotic "Billions and Billions..." had an
strong evocative appeal, and I found him to say many things I would have
said myself If I had a show like that - - I even entertained thoughts of
visiting Cornell to hear him lecture!
* * *
While at a weekend flea market, I saw a book that caught my eye. Its title,
WORLDS IN COLLISION, evoked thoughts of Saganistic speculations on planetary
formation processes billions and billions of years ago - something I could
really enjoy reading!
Skipping the introductory formalities, I wanted to catch a glimpse of the
heart of the book to see how interesting it might be, intending to go back
to the beginning and see how the thesis developed in detail if I found it
interesting. (This might mean I would have to buy the book, of course... a
big $0.50 decision to be made here ... )
I opened the book to somewhere in the middle, read about half a paragraph,
and I was stunned, astonished, and violently angered! No book had ever
before or since provoked such a violent response from me - I was furious!
Something about the planet Venus popping out of Jupiter in Recent Time! -
Like some warped version of a Greek myth gone literally mad -- written in a
scholarly tone no less! With Footnotes! That was even worse! How could
anyone with even the intelligence to put a decent sentence together actually
stoop so low as to write such a thing? Was he a Crackpot? Out of his mind?
Didn't he know about the billions and billions of years and the nebular
theory of solar system formation?
He couldn't have had an eighth grade education and not known! Therefore he
must have known this was Totally False and Impossible before he ever put
pen to paper.
He could not be excused for ignorance.
Therefore he was Malicious!
Think of the damage to Science he is doing!
By writing such horribly absurd things - in a seemingly scholarly text - as
though he meant to be taken seriously - what will happen when people who
are not scientists (or engineering majors like me) read works like this -
the work of a silver tongued scientific sounding Charlatan!
He will take us back to the Dark Ages - He's trying to undermine Science!
No regard at all for Truth!
What kind of character could someone have to do a thing like that?
How did he ever get published? This book shouldn't even exist!
Who wrote this anyway? I noted the Author's name and burned it into first
place in my mental file of intellectual infamy.
I actually threw the book back down in anger and disgust.
I walked away incensed at the thought that something like that in the
intellectual world could ever have been done at all. I told myself
I would never read anything else written by that man.
* * *
Work went well, and my abilities were attracting the attention from
people beyond my immediate supervisors.
* * *
At home on the Robotics Front, things were not so well. I knew enough
fluid mechanics to model the performance of the inner ear vestibular
system, and was astonished to find established medical authorities
flagrantly contradicting the laws of physics in their published accounts
of the workings of the inner ear. Didn't these doctors know Fluid Mechanics?
These are the authorities in their discipline - how could they be wrong?
I checked my own calculations again, even making some crude fluid models.
My understanding was correct, after all, and apparently these doctors
actually did not know what a Reynolds number was.
Rather than be happy that I had the correct concept after all, I was
disturbed, uneasy. I had trusted these authorities - I KNEW they would
be correct when I consulted their work - and they were not.
Don't Doctors ever talk with Engineers?
The is no Interdisciplinary Review Board that synthesizes all theories
in each discipline into a consistent non-contradictory body of authoritative
knowledge.
When it comes to investigating a matter of concern to you, you may find,
after sifting through the published material, that you have a background
or perspective that the authors of the material did not have, and that
you may actually have the "outsider" expertise from another discipline
that enables you to recognize an inconsistency and actually correct it,
making you the latest authority!
I guess there's a tendency to assume the authorities are correct in their
respective fields ALL the time, and that we are the only ones to whom the
established rationale does not make sense, therefore the problem must be
with us. There is even a tendency to supress the mental beginnings of
inconsistency recognition in established theories taught in school as
authoritative. Even the authorities themselves suffer from this tendency
when relying on the work of those in other disciplines.
In the years since I was to find this to be the case many times in
Robotics. My work has enabled me to envision legged robotic locomotion
in the dynamic range as a technical and computational feasability, and I am
currently pursuing that at the University of Florida.
The consensus of authority in this area is that it is virtually impossible,
and therefore not worth actively pursuing.
Nonetheless, I am GETTING IT DONE. More on this later.
* * *
Back at the weapons design facility... I was doing well, enjoying my work
and the recognition I was getting for my sincerity, enthusiasm and most
satisfying to me, superior and unprecedented zero rejection rate in a
tolerance study I had performed. I had recognized that this particular
assembly did not have to have inevitable rejections of adverse tolerance
parts as is commonly considered acceptable. In some cases RMS analysis
can do no better and still yield a functional result, but this was not such
a case, as my method of analysis showed, and the run confirmed.
Late one afternoon, the head of Engineering Design for the company came to
my desk. Everyone had gone home. He said there was a favor he would ask
of me. He was very serious, and I could tell it was important.
Here was a senior design Engineer in the Astronautics division, the kind of
person I envisioned myself becoming in the future , and I could really
learn something from the experience this project would give.
It involved a lot of reading and some extra work and research.
Would I be willing?
Career minded and genuinely interested in engineering, I was willing,
imagining a thick technical manual and hours of specs referencing - not
a problem! Whatever it was, I would do it. He then proceded to
place said reading material on my desk.
It was not a technical manual or a Military Standard. It was not a
government document or project history. It was simply a book.
The title of the book was, to my shock - WORLDS IN COLLISION!
* * *
That was thirteen years ago. I did read the book, many, many times since
then, and have done many hours of research on my own and in long time
collaboration with an engineer in Jacksonville.
I have read all of Velikovsky's published works and own multiple copies
of nearly everything I am aware of written by or about his work and related
subjects.
I have conversed and corresponded with several of these authors, as well
as faculty at the University who regularly provide me with late breaking
scholarly news that impinges on what now must be called the debate.
I am preparing several articles for publication in CATASTROPHISM AND
ANCIENT HISTORY and THE VELIKOVSKIAN. I intend to give T.O readers
an advance preview of my works for informal criticism and who knows -
possibly even some support and encouragement and the possibility of
collaboration in the future.
I have been monitoring the interaction on T.O for a short while, and I
enjoy watching the fur fly now and then! I have found even the most
scathing criticisms entertaining and very well done - very creative!
I even enjoy reading Carl Sagan - for different reasons than before -
now I am still overcome by wonder and awe when I read his works -
(Broca's Brain, Cosmos, etc.) especially as they talk about Velikovskian
issues. This time though, the wonder and awe are not for the vast expanses
of billions of stars and billions of years, but for the wild flights of
fantasy and unfounded assertion piled on contradiction compounded with the
self assured inerrancy that can be fostered when your clique is in authority
and the press reviews are orchestrated ahead of time. [even if after twenty
years you still haven't learned how to spell 'pharaoh'] Sagan professes
very wonderful ethics and values for truth and I believe there is some
sincerity there. I really do. Some. But when it comes to Velikovsky
these professions of values only seem to set the stage for the kind of
poetic straw bashing that only Sagan is capable of.
[Not to say that some don't come close - some of those on T.O. are really
very good -- I am filled with wonder and awe! Really!]
Nonetheless, Sagan, like everyone else, is a human being. I understand him.
I do like him still - I remember my moment with WORLDS IN COLLISION at
the flea market, and if not for my Boss at Astronautics Div. I probably
would have followed in Sagan's shoes, at least as far as Velikovsky's
ideas are concerned.
Now, my time at the flea market was followed not long after by my
conversation with my boss, and I was able to read WORLDS IN COLLISION with
different eyes. Each of us has a boss, if ultimately only our own
conscience. Perhaps Sagan will yet have that conversation... I know how
difficult that can be, to actually consider restructuring the basis for
so much of what you like to think you actually KNOW already... yet the
effort is worth it, and I invite everyone on T.O. to begin...
I do enjoy a good wrestling match for its entertainment value - the hype -
the posturing, the preorchestrated bouts - the big falls, the screams of
the crowd, the press coverage, etc.
But it's not REAL, it's done to entertain and amuse.
Enjoy it, but recognize it for what it is - a pursuit of mock sparring
for fun.. I see a lot of that here on T.O. and I do enjoy it.
Straw men don't feel pain..... ?
But...
I have seen much that actually inspires me on T.O. Acker is willing to
check Talbott Burns has some good questions Holden is holding out
alone for Dr.Velikovsky (M.D. if you didn't know) and Merritt and Thompson
and others have been kind enough in their own style to explicitly delineate
every single conceivable objection or obstacle to Dr. V's theory - a
valuable service to Pro V's - to whom such thoughts might not always occur,
not that honest Pro V's don't look for possible problems and address them,
but that some Pro S(agan)'s really have a talent for pointing out problems
of all kinds (real and perhaps imaginary) especially with Dr. V's theory.
This talent for agressive skepticism is something I take note of, and it
has its value.
What happens when every last concern so enumerated is addressed in favor
of Velikovsky? After winning such a fight, it would be an astounding triumph
especially considering the talent of the opposition.
Sometimes the peasants are right though...
- (remember the meteor fall at L'Aigle {SP?} France ...
I would invite the Aggressively Skeptic to consider mentally
reversing roles, just for fun, and applying that same skepticism to Sagan
and the Non Velikovskian scenarios that are so prevalent. That would be
exciting reading! And, of course, to be good sports, the Pro V's might
consider writing their own scathing criticism of Dr. V's theory, just to
see how the other shoe fits for a minute. Having worn both shoes, I can
promise everyone it would be worthwhile! And an interesting proof of
objectivity! Even a test of creativity! In school debates, we would switch
sides and argue convincingly from the oponent's point of view - and win
both ways!
As a final introductory note, by taking part in the T.O. debate, each party
is willing to be exposed to ideas that may change her mind {where are the
women?} and has the thrill of seeing how well her ideas thrive on
their own in the arena before the pressures of publication and career
consequences enter in as factors on what is said. Treasure the opportunity.
On T.O. count me as someone willing to consider Velikovsky's scenario and
all its implications. Consider, and keep checking... always!
If you had to ask me now, I would have to say I do believe Velikovsky to
be correct, original, and profoundly significant. Having said that I ask -
Where are those who can at least mentally stand on the mountain of material
Dr. V has presented, as though true, and see what is on the farther horizon
brought thus into view?
Count me, if you will, among these.
JOHN GODOWSKI ------------------------------------------------------------
Some items on the farther horizon I hope to address...
JUPITER: STELLAR IGNITION REACTION
A critical mass (accretionary or impact triggered) begins the thermonuclear
reaction in the dense Jovian core. The reaction proceeds without limit in
this dense medium until its energy exceeds Jovian gravitational containment
and a conic section of overlying Jovian atmosphere with attending
petrochemicals (perhaps even Sagans blimp sized 'floaters' who knows?) is
ejected along with a molten portion of Jupiter's possible rocky and metallic
core. Plasma states reached, radioactive decay, parent daughter ratios
affected by differential volatility in space, these molten plasma to vapor
to droplets to 'tesimals to protoplanet coalesce en route to the inner solar
system as the protoplanet Venus (veni, vidi, vici Latin : I arrived, I
viewed; I became the victor --I came I saw I conquered;- Venus=newcomer)
The protoplanet is truly a comet of massive proportions. Note that a comet
is defined from the Greek (hair). Even this comma, the punctuation mark
that looks like a period but has a tail hanging down, is named for hair and
can be seen as a pictograph of a comet, if you are willing and imaginitive.
How can I say a planet the size of Venus was a comet?
Any substellar celestial object with a stream of particles and gases or
plasma in its train is a comet, irrespective of the size of the nucleus, or
the composition of the particles, gases and plasma. Of course, a
protoplanet like this, trailing an immense shroud of Jovian gases expelled
with it but not captured by it creates quite a show. It would not be
correct to say that because the particles were not made of ice, like the
tiny ice comets we are familiar with, that it was not a comet, or that
because its nucleus is planetary in size and mass, that it was not seen as
a comet by earthbound observers. The term comet is a descriptive term
anyway (it looks like it has hair, basically) and would certainly apply
to a protoplanetary spectacle such as this.
These attendant gases and particles might orbitally follow the
protoplanet for a few centuries until the pressure of the solar wind can
dissipate them. If the tail is charged, its plasma may luminesce, and
magnetic forces would effect its behavior and configuration.
Back on Jupiter, a hot gaping hole in the core, a thermal ejection scar
continues by convective upwelling to generate the seed of a vertical vortex
known as the Red Spot. It has been implied that any banded atmosphere
such as that of Jupiter might tend under the laws of Fluid Mechanics and
turbulence to have such a sustained vortex. This is possible, yet possibility
is not proof, and further work would be needed to explain why the other
gas planets do not also have their spots, if subject to the same fluid
conditions (scientifically, an atmosphere can be treated as a fluid for
mathematical analysis) If the turbulent dynamic model of red spot sustenance
is a valid factor, it may not be the sole factor in keeping the Spot alive.
It would be interesting to see such work (fluid flow models) done for
the Jovian atmosphere that could take into account such a rising thermal
ejection scar plume as an element in sustaining such a vortex and perhaps
explaining its coloration as due to materials present lower in the Jovian
atmospheric column. Also, why is there not a Red Spot in both the northern
and the southern Jovian hemispheres if by symmetry the flow parameters are
identical? This too appears to argue for composite cause for the Spot.
Worthy of note, Mars is covered with red dust (limonite) which Dr. V.
suggests may not be indigenous. The Red Nile of the Exodus implies
nonindigenous pigmentation at least as a transient phenomena. The Venusian
comet tail could have been a source, in this scenario.
Red Spot, Red Mars, Red Nile - same material, all from same place.
Not because they are all red - certainly there are at least a few things
in this solar system that are red, yet not from Jupiter. I am saying that
the red material could have been deposited as Mars and Earth, respectively,
passed through Venus's tail (no longer extant) which may have contained
red matter from Jupiter. Earth passing through this tail of varied
composition experienced on a global scale the ensuing ecological features
remembered in the Exodus account. The nucleus of the comet/protoplanet/--
Venus was the last to approach Earth , so we can infer that Venus in this
scenario must have approachaed Earth from the sunward side. The sun tends to
drive comet tails away from itself. Earth would then be 'downwind' in the
solar wind sense, and the tail gases of the comet would contact earth.
Arriving from the sun side, the protoplanet, tail and all, would be
invisible to everyone on earth, exactly as the new moon, very close (yet not
touching or overlapping the sun's disc) is in the sky all day, yet not
seen, except at sunset. The electrical effects, the meteors, dust, red
pigment and increased tidal flow would come from a source useen in the
glare of the daytime sun. In a scenario I am developing, Venus approached
from below the earth's equator to the south. As the Nucleus approached
the earth entered the Umbra(shadow) and Penumbra(strong shadow) of Venus
for the days of darkness reported in Exodus and Egyptian sources (Ismailia
stele, or Naos of El Arish). Venus makes its closest passover or flyby
(hence the name of the Easter feast - Passover means literally to pass
over, and can be understood as an astronomical term, like the modern word
'flyby'. Passover and Easter are associated. Note EASTER = E'aster (Chald.
for the great or terrible STAR {or planet})
The Venus and Tail spectacle would not be visible in the Northern
hemisphere of earth until after its close flyby or passover. Approaching
from south sunward, after flyby it must by the law of velocity be north
antisunward. This would let the light of the sun reflect from the
Venus & Tail comet planet and be visible around the clock, both day and
night. It would, hanging over our northern hemisphere,(not stationarily
hanging - impossible - but following its Keplerian orbital trajectory
over the hemisphere as just one part of its elliptical path around the sun
allowing for disturbances in the vicinity of Earth) be visible as are the
North Star and the circumpolar constellations all night long, and being
lit by the sun, visible all day as is the moon at certain times.
This is the Pillar of Fire - Hand of God - Chinese Dragon or whatever you
make of it - protocometplanetVenus. Its Tail pointing always away from
the sun, except as it (in red and green writhing curtains) interacts with
the Van Allen radiation belts and creates Auroral displays.
This lasts only a week, then the planet must cross back inside Earth's
orbit to continue its elliptical path. It must therefore have another close
encounter or flyby, this time, on the night side , crossing from north to
south, and from west to east. (single trajectory passing from above N.
hemisphere to below, hence N - S, and overtaking earth from the west quickly
even passing by faster than we rotate in the same direction, hence W - E)
The pillar of Fire was not visible immediately after this second flyby.
The second flyby occasioned the crossing of the Sea by Moses. ( The physical
dynamics and location of the Sea Crossing are my next topic.)
On my envisioning of Velikovsky's Jovian Expulsion Scenario---
Critical Questions to be addressed:
- heavy core for Jupiter?
- radioactive ? critical mass possible?
- behavior of nuclear reaction in dense core ? Will it dissipate
as do our underground tests - or propagate due to density, radioactivity?
- critical mass possible by accretion?
- subcritical mass to critical by impact?
-Convective Red Spot Thermal Expulsion Scar plausible? Fluid Simulation?
Note on Antarctic meteors from Mars[?] they may not be from Mars proper,
but from Venus directly, same source for Mars'red rocks, or Maruts, see
WinC.
- artificial detonation?
We could contemplate this ourselves, to 'induce labor' so to speak,
and generate new earth sized protoplanets at will under controlled
conditions. --the Godowski Project-- I should write a novel?
- earth produced by same process? Note White Spot also on Jupiter
Red Spot = New Venus birth scar, White Spot=Old Earth birth Scar
hence, Red Spot transient, will turn white- just watch!
time interval red to white as clock on earth age since birth in
this scenario. Many other factors - localized core property as red
source, atmosphere band distribution of Red, etc. But Red to White
with age (also smaller) appears consistent with diminishing thermal
scar convective activity. Wait and see, you heard it here first!?
(at least I believe I am first to say this, let me keep checking -
as always)
- Diminishing mass of successive ejecta -
mass to be ejected a function of gravitational containance, hence
of remaining host planet mass. Host planet mass diminished by
successive expulsions, hence successive ejecta smaller.
(Venus smaller than Earth) calculation check on this:
is (massEarth-massVenus)/(massEarth)=MassJupiter/(MassJupiter+massVenus)
or explainably close based on reaction dynamics?
Do you follow any of this? Do I explain too much? not enough?
I hope the way I described this scenario will help answer some of the
questions posted on T.O. that I have read recently. Such as how can venus
be a comet - its not small and not made of ice? If you still have a question \
on that let me know how I can make it more clear...
I've found a reading of WORLDS IN COLLISION is a new experience each time...
... first you get through the violent rejection ridicule anger stage I.(me at
the flea market) then, should you choose to progress, you get to the gee I
see people who really should know taking this stuff seriously - lemme read it
stage II.(me after talking with my boss at McD Astro) then you get an initial
familiarity, stage III.(ok lemme see he says Jupiter popped out of .. no wait
Venus was an asteroi... no wait What?? Huh? the Bible says what? no way!
lemme read that again) then you move on and read it again and get it
straight, but it doesn't sink in (yeah got it Jupiter>Venus bumps into Earth
and Mars gets into the act wild stuff Moses Joshua Hezekiah Tirhakah Tiamat
Rahab Hobab Aminadab Anat it's almost poetry you get it down) then it hits
you it almost sneaks up on you yes, its W in C stage V(five) or is it V
for the Dr? You start seeing the celestial spectacle, feeling the earth
rumble, feeling the terror, your hair stands on end, you see the darkeness
the low shrouded sky, you hear the wail of the dying and shrieks of the
bereaved drowned beneath the deafening din of barad at reentry thundering
sonic booms and a chorus of Terrestrial Theremin tumbling mountains
smoking ruins feeble futility of sacrifice in vain displaced destitutes
trudge beneath low gray clouds through lifeless grain and huddle helpless
against the hurricane the ground breaks open and sends flame to the skies
and flaming stones are heaven's replies -you tremble and you begin to realize -
I recognize this - I recognize this! --in some crazy inexplicable way this
resonates with something deep in the core of your being - it is Familiar!
Note: when you hit stage V you're ready for MANKIND IN AMNESIA - interesting,
for me stage V hit before I knew of MANKIND IN AMNESIA I began working out the
salient points myself when I found the book - I could nearly have written it!
Which brings me to stage VI you read it AGAIN, this time integrating everything
at your disposal to envision the physical mechanisms involved, you go out of
your way mentally to see it, to inhabit that universe, look around, see it
happening, and come back and check for consistency, for evidence of what you
saw, in addition to what was written, you go back and forth between the WORLDS
IN COLLISION scenario in your mind, which by now is like a familiar dreamworld
the redding sky the wandering hordes, and the printed and video record of
everything scientific you have ever learned and you find, time after time
the most learned in each profession even against their very will and persistent
training admitting between the lines that the evidence is too much to escape
from by scientific means so denial, culling, the bell, book and candle, the
academic inquisition must be called in to play, with economic boycotts of
the company that published the book (doesn't this sound a bit like the
fundamentalists boycotting P & G a few years back?) calling for and securing
the dismissal of any who dared use their profession to advance the new view
e.g. Atwater at the Planetarium.. Orchestrated false reviews and scathing
criticisms of a book admittedly unread (doesn't this sound a bit like the
fundamentalists berating the unseen Last Temptation of Christ a few years
back?{saw it - beautiful - not sacreligious at all a must see - Jesus
makes execution stakes for the Romans in his fathers shop and has nightmares
about being forced to die on one of his own products - Mary Magdalene turns
to prostitution after He rejects her - He blames Himself - a human novel!
On the cross in delerium he imagines.. no he 's THERE .. back with Mary before
she went bad... Like Jimmy Stewart in Wonderful life he sees how things would
have been IF.......}) and continual omissions and denials of evidence that
could be construed as confirming the Dr. V scenario, while the Rev. Sagan
still is on the preaching circuit warning women and children to beware the
evils of Velikovsky will this ever end? When does truth prevail?
It has ever been thus.. Noah no one listened.. the prophets killed rather
than heeded, imprisoned, lied about, Jesus - not met with official sanction
by the religious officials, Copernicus, Galileo imprisoned "but it moves"
still! Torquemada in '92 all Jews out! Pogroms, Nazi Science, Holocaust
Hibakusha(survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki) Martin Luther King, the Kennedys
Ukranian Winter of Stalin Korea VietNam Bosnia China still...
still .. there is hope.. the Soviet Union is no more, somehow in history
America came to exist, we've walked the moon & seen the farthest stars and
landed craft on Venus & Mars (" are allright.. TONIGHT,.. sleep tight child,
sleep tight" Lyrics Beatles Venus & Mars Album)
Einstein couldn't see how helicopters would be controlled --Lord Kelvin
called Konrad Roentgen a Charlatan .. and so it goes
So is all of this anything unusual? Not really.
What do we do?
Get all the data you can, see what EVERYONE says (authorities AND peasants)
recognize that notions contrary to established Dogma will not be printed
or supported directly and evidence will be supressed and even well meaning
people help to conceal and are deceived themselves and this is nothing new
and our time is not special and we are no better than our forbears and if you
want to see what is really going on you are just going to have to honestly
look into it yourself and not take someone else's word for it and not fool
yourself into thinking you've done that already and so convince yourself that
you can stop checking... you can never stop checking
if the price of freedom is eternal vigilance the price of knowledge is
continual questioning
If you are among the YOUNG AND IMAGINATIVE WHO DARE (chronological age
irrelevant here) then you too may notice something new, or question where
others pass by sure of their way, and from the wisdom thereby gained , yet
change the world and advance human knowledge.
Don't expect to be recognized or compensated though, even by your friends
here at T.O. necessarily at first...
as Charles Fair said of Velikovsky , his ideas may all prove correct,
but SCIENCE WILL NEVER LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT --"IT WILL SEE HIM DEAD FIRST"
so Charles was not Fair after all
BUT as Velikovsky was fond of saying ....DARE!
I've got to go..future discussion
MOSES AND THE RED SEA YES, THE WATER REALLY SPLIT, TWO WALLS OF WATER
PILLAR OF FIRE, EAST WIND AND EVERYTHING! (I'm an engineer, not just
a mystic) I explained it to a Rabbi in Jacksonville FL who is familiar
with all the related midrash (extrabiblical legendary material) he did not
mention any conflicts withthe midrashim and said that "it's BETTER THAN
CECIL B. DE MILLE - ITS BELIEVABLE"
why the other explanations don't work
LOCATION OF THE CROSSING SITE - Until I can write, I recommend you read
The Mountain of Moses - Larry Williams
Noah's Ark: read The Ark of Noah - David Fasold
The VELIKOVSKY CHRONOLOGY Just wait till I get Adam Stuart on the Network;
we've been proofing Velikovsky's chronology for the past three and a half
years - so in the meantime, if you have any chronology questions ask
we-re into it heavily (don't dwell only on astronomy, as though every last
detail must be proven there before moving on to chronology, if ever.
Actually, the INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is best - findings in chronology
may have great bearing on the astronomy (Martian meteors in Antarctica -
remember? ) Pursue Velikovsky on all fronts at once!
How did Velikovsky ever come to do this stuff anyway? He was checking up on
Freud - and disagreed with everything he said - but developed this scenario
as a result of what he learned in the process - so whether you agree or
disagree check it out - who knows what you'll come up with?
---------JOHN GODOWSKI---------
--
Greg O'Rear (or...@ise.ufl.edu)
Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida
Richard A. Schumacher
>I am posting this for a friend, John Godowski (godo...@ise.ufl.edu). Please
>direct follow-ups to him. This is a long post, so you might want to download
[autobiographical notes and story about medical doctors messing
up in fluid mechanics deleted]
Indeed. You cite yet another example of the foolish errors that intelligent,
imaginative people can make when they work outside of their field
of expertise. It's a pity that Immanuel Velikovsky, M.D., did not bother
to study any mathematics or physics before spinning his fantasies. He
would have saved himself considerable embarassment and not have led
so many... impressionable... minds into folly. Considerst thou the
mote in thy brother's eye (MDs screwing up fluid dynamics) and not
the beam in thine own eye (susbstituting handwaving and mythology
for calculations in nuclear physics and celestial mechanics)?
> The consensus of authority in this area is that [legged robots are]
> virtually impossible,
> and therefore not worth actively pursuing.
> Nonetheless, I am GETTING IT DONE. More on this later.
Your friend is not familiar with the literature, and possibly has a Messiah
complex. Any number of groups have been working on legged robots for years.
Hasn't he even seen videotapes of one-, two-, four-, six- and eight-legged
robots on CNN and PBS?
Edward Flaherty
Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
And then there's the fact that the Sumerians observed Venus in it
current orbit long before the v-man said it existed.
--
"Freedom, the feeling of man's dignity, will have to be awakened again in
these men. Only this feeling...can again transform society into a
community of men to achieve their highest purposes, a democratic state."
-- Karl Marx in a letter to Arnold Ruge.
DaveHatunen
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
>=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
>=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
>=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
>=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
>=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
>
>Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
>the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
>spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
>Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
>wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
>THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
Um. NASA does it by consuming over 95% of the initial mass into a high
temperature exhaust, which it then leaves behind. Sounds like it's
roughly the same as the planetary example, except the planet doesn't
have a tiny capsule sitting on top.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
Carl J Lydick
=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Scott H Mullins
>In <walterCo...@netcom.com> wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter) writes:
>> The consensus of authority in this area is that [legged robots are]
>> virtually impossible,
>> and therefore not worth actively pursuing.
>> Nonetheless, I am GETTING IT DONE. More on this later.
>
>Your friend is not familiar with the literature, and possibly has a Messiah
>complex. Any number of groups have been working on legged robots for years.
>Hasn't he even seen videotapes of one-, two-, four-, six- and eight-legged
>robots on CNN and PBS?
Absolutely not! Don't you know about the THOUGHT control
waves put out by CABLE television? And don't even talk to
me about PBS! They're controlled by the TRI-LATERALIST commission!
Why else would they have CARL SAGAN, the anti-Velikovsky prophesied
by HTE, on there?
Not even the TIN-FOIL under your hat can keep out those
rays!
Besides, who needs prior work in the literature when you've
got megalomania?
:-)
--
Scott
smul...@ecn.purdue.edu
Carl J Lydick
= And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
=Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
=have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
=velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
=ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
=escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
=whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
Or it requires that another massive body have been involved, said massive body
having been ejected from the solar system via its interactions with Venus etc.
Carl J Lydick
=In article <2pibgf$9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
=>In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
=>=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
=>=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
=>=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
=>=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
=>=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
=>
=>Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
=>the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
=>spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
=>Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
=>wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
=>THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
=
=Um. NASA does it by consuming over 95% of the initial mass into a high
=temperature exhaust, which it then leaves behind. Sounds like it's
=roughly the same as the planetary example, except the planet doesn't
=have a tiny capsule sitting on top.
But there's still the possibility of another massive body being involved, said
body having been ejected from the solar system in the same interactions which
would have circularized Venus' orbit. Please note that I'm not supporting
Velikovsky, just pointing out a flaw in an argument that's been made.
Mel Wilson
longest shaggy dog joke, wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter) included ...
[ ... billions and billions of things deleted ... ]
WA> Worthy of note, Mars is covered with red dust (limonite) which Dr. V.
WA> suggests may not be indigenous. The Red Nile of the Exodus implies
WA> nonindigenous pigmentation at least as a transient phenomena. The Venusian
WA> comet tail could have been a source, in this scenario.
WA> Red Spot, Red Mars, Red Nile - same material, all from same place.
Red Tigris, Red Euphrates, Red Indus, Red Ganges, Red Huang Ho, Red
Red River, Red Black River ...
"Moses, look, everything is red!"
"I'm writing the Nile is red! You want to write about everything? So
write about everything."
The only mythological reference I know on this scale is "The East is
Red" and that can be dated quite surely in this century.
Mel.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * "Wine-dark sea" might do it ...
Ev Cochrane
current orbit long before the v-man said it existed."
I hope your physics is better than your understanding of archaeoastronomy.
In fact, of course, there is no evidence for your statement. As I have
discussed several times on this newsgroup, the earliest astronomical
records date from the time of the Babylonian king Ammizaduga, ca.
sixteenth century BCE (See Peter Huber, "Early Cuneiform Evidence for
the Existence of the Planet Venus," in Scientists Confront Velikovsky,
p. 118.) The Sumerians preserved no such records nor is there any
evidence that they practiced observational astronomy. As I have shown
elsewhere ("Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," Aeon, 1993), the
Sumerians did indeed worship the planet Venus and early pictographs of
the planet-goddess Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of
a comet (M. Green & H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus
Uruk, 1987, p. 248). In short, the extent records of the Babylonians and
the Maya strongly support the contention that Venus only recently moved
upon a drastically different orbit than its current one.
Carl J Lydick
=Sumerians did indeed worship the planet Venus and early pictographs of
=the planet-goddess Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of
=a comet (M. Green & H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus
=Uruk, 1987, p. 248). In short, the extent records of the Babylonians and
=the Maya strongly support the contention that Venus only recently moved
=upon a drastically different orbit than its current one.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain just how you get from "early pictographs
of the planet-goddes Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of a
comet" to "Venus only recently moved upon a drastically different orbit than
its current one." The two statements don't appear to have anything to do with
each other.
Chris Heiny
>In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
>=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
>=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
>=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
>=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
>=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
>
>Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
>the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
>spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
>Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
>wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
>THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
I'm not sure you can apply reaction-motor boosted launches of objects weighing
on the order of 10**3 kilgrams to earth-orbit velocity to the acceleration
of 10**27 kilograms to Jovian escape velocity. In fact, Carl, why don't you
suggest a means of imparting such velocity to the proto-Venus without
destroying it in the process. An interesting exercise, indeed, upon
completion of which you might have a basis for using the words "incredibly
stupid" in reference to others' postings on this topic.
Chris
L. Drew Davis
> And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
>Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
>have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
>velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
>ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
>escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
>whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
Oh, no, not another probability argument...
> And then there's the fact that the Sumerians observed Venus in it
>current orbit long before the v-man said it existed.
<ahem> References, please?
--------------
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5645c
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Jim Rogers
(quotes jby...@astro.umd.edu (Jeff Bytof)):
=Let's assume Venus is ejected from Jupiter and somehow ends up
=in a circular orbit around the sun. How was Venus supposed to
=circularize its orbit? You would need some kind of rocket firing
=in a highly organized manner to accomplish this. There is no natural
=mechanism or conceivable celestial mechanic process that could do
=we have mapped Venus with radar and see no rocket engines.
<Why don't you take a course in orbital mechanics? One that involves
<more than just the two-body problem? Fighting ignorance with more
<ignorance is a no-win strategy.
There are indeed conceivable mechanisms that might accomplish
1) the ejection of something the mass of Venus from Jupiter, sending it
into a lower-energy solar orbit,
3) the re-circularization of Venus's orbit, and
3) the re-circularization of Jupiter's orbit,
but it would require a coincidence of unbelievable odds, say of a few
very large bodies crossing through our solar system in a coordinated
dance to interact with those two *in the orbital plane* yet not disturb
the other planets' orbits significantly. The odds of that are so remote
it's hardly worth even considering. Plus we'd expect to see splattered
extra mass in all kinds of strange orbits near Jupiter's orbital energy,
and a halo of debris orbiting Jupiter.
Also Jupiter is a gas giant and Venus is a terrestrial (rocky) planet...
explaining how a terrestrial planet can coalesce from fluid ejecta and
take on ancient-looking geological features in a few thousand years would
be quite a trick, too. I suppose one could get around that if Venus were
supposed to have been a Jovian *moon* and not material from the surface.
Even pedantry has reasonable limits, Carl.
Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing
they like. -- Abraham Lincoln
Boucher David
#In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
#=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
#=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
#=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
#=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
#=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
#
#Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
#the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
#spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
#Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
#wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
#THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
One difference between the putative venus ejection and the launching of
spacecraft is the rate at which energy is applied to the projectile.
The ejection of venus by means of an explosion would be analogous to
putting the spacecraft on top of a giant fuel tank and detonating all
of the fuel at once. In effect, energy would be imparted to the
side of the projectile closest to the explosion much faster than that
energy can be transmitted through the projectile to the other side,
resulting in a destructive shock wave. A substantial portion of the
explosive energy would go into raising the temperature of the projectile,
as well as into propelling it through space.
I recognize that this is a hand-waving explanation, but my reference
books are at home. I'll post the results of more precise calculations
later.
Monrovia Communications
Being neither an astronomer nor a physicist, I can't provide mathematical
proof of Dave's scenario, but I think it goes like this in lay terms (I
will surely be corrected if wrong):
A normal retrobraking maneuver requires that energy be applied to the body
in question so that it no longer has the required veocity for its current
orbit; the body then drops into whatever new orbit is stable for that
velocity. It enough energy is applied, the body will fall into the
"deepest" local gravity well.
In Velikovsky's scenario, Venus is flung from Jupiter directly toward the
Sun and makes a (several?) flyby of the Earth. What Dave is saying is
that without that retrobraking energy to counteract Venus' orbital energy,
it just could not fall into the orbit it now maintains. In the absence of
external retrobraking, Venus' orbital and potential energy must be
converted by the fall into the Sun's gravity well into either velocity or
heat. A change of that energy into velocity would have resulted in either
a hyperbolic orbit out of the solar system or a highly eccentric orbit
along cometary lines. I think the heat scenario is impossible myself, as
In Velikovsky's scenario, Venus is flung from Jupiter directly toward the
Sun and makes a (several?) flyby of the Earth. What Dave is saying is
that without that retrobraking energy to counteract Venus' orbital energy,
it just could not fall into the orbit it now maintains. In the absence of
external retrobraking, Venus' orbital and potential energy must be
converted by the fall into the Sun's gravity well into either velocity or
heat. A change of that energy into velocity would have resulted in either
a hyperbolic orbit out of the solar system or a highly eccentric orbit
along cometary lines. I think the heat scenario is impossible myself, as
the energy of Venus' fall would certainly have been transformed into
either velocity or immense perturbations of every other solar body
present, as does every other free-falling body in a gravity well (in a
vacuum, of course). the energy of Venus' fall would certainly have been
transformed into either velocity or immense perturbations of every other
solar body present, as does every other free-falling body in a gravity
well (in a vacuum, of course).
But the numbers for the heat probably do add up.
I think that the main objection is that the planets inside Jupiter's
orbit have nearly circular orbits, which is not at all what one would
expect after a Venus-size body had gone tearing about, trying to give up
all of that Jovian orbital energy.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf Internet: mon...@clark.net
Monrovia Communications Phone/FAX 1-301-607-6604
11460 Archer Circle | Opinions ARE those of the company! |
Monrovia, MD USA 21770 | Mainly because I _AM_ the company. |
Carl J Lydick
=I have, and I do not see my error. Regardless of _how_ you eject
=Venus from Jupiter, if you give Venus a velocity less than the escape
=velocity of Jupiter, it will not escape to rampage through the solar
=system. If you give Venus a velocity greater than the escape velocity
=of the sun it will leave the solar system.
Assuming that it interacts with no other body.
=Perhaps you are thinking
=that Venus could be ejected from Jupiter at a velocity outside of this
=narrow range, and then an ecounter with your third body would bring
=Venus within this narrow velocity range. This is possible, but it is
=_still_ highly improbable that a random encounter would give a delta v
=that would bring the velocity of Venus within this narrow range.
Improbable, yes. Impossible, no. If you mean improbable, then SAY improbable.
In particular, don't say "impossible" when you really mean "improbable."
=Your flame was completely unprovoked. I disagreed with you, but a
=made no personal attack on you. If you would care to explain where I
=am wrong rather than simply flame me for disagreeing, I would like to
=see it.
I flamed you for being either unwilling or too stupid to distinguish between
"improbable" and "impossible."
Bruce Burden
<snip>
>the Existence of the Planet Venus," in Scientists Confront Velikovsky,
>p. 118.) The Sumerians preserved no such records nor is there any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evidence that they practiced observational astronomy. As I have shown
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>elsewhere ("Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," Aeon, 1993), the
>Sumerians did indeed worship the planet Venus and early pictographs of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>the planet-goddess Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of
>a comet (M. Green & H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus
>Uruk, 1987, p. 248). In short, the extent records of the Babylonians and
>the Maya strongly support the contention that Venus only recently moved
>upon a drastically different orbit than its current one.
>
Ummm, Ev, would you mind "deconflicting" your statements? After
all, if there is no records or evidence that one group of people
practiced astronomy, then how could they have worshipped it? It seems
that to worship a planet you must practice some form of astronomy...
Bruce
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Burden bru...@mpd.tandem.com Tandem Computers Inc.
Jim Walters
> In article <1994Apr26...@stsci.edu>, jwal...@stsci.edu (Jim Walters) writes:
> =In article <2pjs5l$5...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> => In article <2pj5um$i...@mailer.fsu.edu>, efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) writes:
> => = And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
> => =Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
> => =have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
> => =velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
> => =ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
> => =escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
> => =whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
> =>
> => Or it requires that another massive body have been involved, said massive body
> => having been ejected from the solar system via its interactions with Venus etc.
> =
> =That wouldn't make any difference, you still have to eject Venus fast
> =enough to escape Jupiter, but slow enough to stay in the solar system.
>
> Get your head out of your ass and take a course in orbital mechanics. Your
> ignorance is astounding!
I have, and I do not see my error. Regardless of _how_ you eject
Venus from Jupiter, if you give Venus a velocity less than the escape
velocity of Jupiter, it will not escape to rampage through the solar
system. If you give Venus a velocity greater than the escape velocity
of the sun it will leave the solar system. Perhaps you are thinking
that Venus could be ejected from Jupiter at a velocity outside of this
narrow range, and then an ecounter with your third body would bring
Venus within this narrow velocity range. This is possible, but it is
_still_ highly improbable that a random encounter would give a delta v
that would bring the velocity of Venus within this narrow range.
Your flame was completely unprovoked. I disagreed with you, but a
made no personal attack on you. If you would care to explain where I
am wrong rather than simply flame me for disagreeing, I would like to
see it.
On a related note, I have been an ocassional reader of sci.skeptic for
more than a year, and I cannot recall a single discussion in which you
have not resorted to name calling against anyone who disagrees with
you. Ad hominen attacks are bad logic, and bad manners.
--
Jim Walters
Ev Cochrane
"Ummm, Ev, would you mind "deconflicting" your statements? After
all, if there is no records or evidence that one group of people
practiced astronomy, then how could they have worshipped it? It seems
that to worship a planet you must practice some form of astronomy..."
The Australian aborigines worship the planet Venus. Would you say that
they have an astronomy? I would say that they are avid skywatchers and
worship planets, not unlike the ancient Sumerians, but I would not call
them astronomers. Here is a simple rule that seems to hold true:
Throughout history most cultures have been avid skywatchers and
worshippers of planets, but very few have developed any form of observational
astronomy.
--
Ev Cochrane/Editor-Publisher of Aeon, A Journal of Myth and Science
2326 Knapp, Ames IA, 50014 e...@eai.com
The views presented here are those of Ev Cochrane alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of EAI and Iowa State University.
(However, it wouldn't surprise me if both attempt to claim
responsibility in the years ahead).
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
-:The Sumerians preserved no such records nor is there any
-:evidence that they practiced observational astronomy.
-:As I have shown
-:elsewhere ("Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," Aeon, 1993), the
-:Sumerians did indeed worship the planet Venus and early pictographs of
-:the planet-goddess Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of
-:a comet (M. Green & H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus
-:Uruk, 1987, p. 248).
Looking for logic: firstly, you write there is no evidence of observational
astronomy, after you use their pictographs about an astronomical body...
maurizio
Jim Walters
> = And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
> =Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
> =have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
> =velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
> =ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
> =escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
> =whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
>
> Or it requires that another massive body have been involved, said massive body
> having been ejected from the solar system via its interactions with Venus etc.
That wouldn't make any difference, you still have to eject Venus fast
enough to escape Jupiter, but slow enough to stay in the solar system.
Also, what kind of interaction are you talking about? I haven't done
any calculations, but I doubt you can rip a Venus-sized mass from
Jupiter tidally and have that mass remain coherent. Tidal disruption
of Venus would also be a problem if you suppose a collision. Using
either mechanism, how can you selectively eject a mostly solid body
from a mostly gaseous object? Either ejection mechanism would have to
radically altered the orbit of Jupiter by conservation of momentum.
There is no good mechanism for re-cicularizing the orbits of every
planet in the solar system after Velikovsky's celestial bumper-car
ride. Then there is the improbability factor of yet _another_ huge
body of unknown origin rampaging through the solar system. Is that
enough, or do you want some more objections?
--
Jim Walters
Carl J Lydick
=In article 9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=>In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
=>=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
=>=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
=>=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
=>=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
=>=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
=>
=>Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
=>the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
=>spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
=>Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
=>wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
=>THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
=
=I'm not sure you can apply reaction-motor boosted launches of objects weighing
=on the order of 10**3 kilgrams to earth-orbit velocity to the acceleration
=of 10**27 kilograms to Jovian escape velocity.
Dave put forth an argument. I put forth a counterexample which met the
conditions specified in his argument. Ergo, his argument is invalid. Perhaps
with a little work, he can clean it up to the point where he's got a valid
argument.
=In fact, Carl, why don't you
=suggest a means of imparting such velocity to the proto-Venus without
=destroying it in the process. An interesting exercise, indeed, upon
=completion of which you might have a basis for using the words "incredibly
=stupid" in reference to others' postings on this topic.
Why don't you learn a bit of elementary logic? You do the cause (if there be
one_ of skepticism no good whatever by spouting bullshit.
Carl J Lydick
=In article <1994Apr26....@news.wrc.xerox.com> ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com writes:
=>
=>I'm not sure you can apply reaction-motor boosted launches of objects weighing
=>on the order of 10**3 kilgrams to earth-orbit velocity to the acceleration
=>of 10**27 kilograms to Jovian escape velocity. In fact, Carl, why don't you
=>suggest a means of imparting such velocity to the proto-Venus without
=>destroying it in the process. An interesting exercise, indeed, upon
=>completion of which you might have a basis for using the words "incredibly
=>stupid" in reference to others' postings on this topic.
=>
=
=Let's assume Venus is ejected from Jupiter and somehow ends up
=in a circular orbit around the sun. How was Venus supposed to
=circularize its orbit? You would need some kind of rocket firing
=in a highly organized manner to accomplish this. There is no natural
=mechanism or conceivable celestial mechanic process that could do
=we have mapped Venus with radar and see no rocket engines.
Why don't you take a course in orbital mechanics? One that involves more than
just the two-body problem? Fighting ignorance with more ignorance is a no-win
strategy.
R. Day
: efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) writes:
: > And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
: >Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
: >have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
: >velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
: >ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
: >escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
: >whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
: Oh, no, not another probability argument...
Hold on, I recall that this was a valid objection to V's absurd hypotheses.
Isn't it true that there is a fairly small difference between the escape
velocity from Jupiter and the escape velocity from the solar system?
This would suggest that, for Venus to have been ejected from Jupiter but
remain within the solar system, its escape velocity must have been within
this "narrow window" that Mr. Flaherty is referring to.
I don't have the numbers at hand, does anyone else? Surely this can't
be hard to settle.
R. Day
Vice-chair, Alberta Skeptics
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
-:In article <schumach....@convex.com> schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
-:>
-:>Your friend is not familiar with the literature, and possibly has a Messiah
-:>complex. Any number of groups have been working on legged robots for years.
-:>Hasn't he even seen videotapes of one-, two-, four-, six- and eight-legged
-:>robots on CNN and PBS?
-:
-:Absolutely not! Don't you know about the THOUGHT control
-:waves put out by CABLE television? And don't even talk to
-:me about PBS! They're controlled by the TRI-LATERALIST commission!
-:Why else would they have CARL SAGAN, the anti-Velikovsky prophesied
-:by HTE, on there?
If you added the Communist-Sionist Alliance, the panorama was complete...
David L Burkhead
First, you make two statments above there: the Sumerians
worshipped the planet Venus, and early pictographs depict Inanna in a
form closely resembling a comet. You have not, however, shown a
connection between those two things.
Second, the time of Hammurabi, main figure in the Old Babylonian
period of Mesopotamia was dated by using Babylonian observations of
Venus in comparison with eclipses (Source: the lectures of Dr. Oller,
Professor of Ancient History at the University of Akron). This date
agrees with other sources (including radiocarbon dating that has been
calibrated with dendochronology, and comparable dates found for the
near contemporary Old Assyrian and First Intermediate Period Egypt).
And the observations of Venus show it there a thousand years before
Velikovsky claimed it should be there.
David L. Burkhead
r3d...@dax.cc.uakron.edu
L. Drew Davis
>With regards to your second point, there are no observations of Venus
>For the record, I think one of the most glaring weaknesses of Velikovsky's
>theory is his dating of the Venus-cataclysms. Here there can be little
>doubt but that his chronological placement of those events in the mid-
>second millennium BCE is mistaken as I have documented elsewhere.
Perhaps you'd care to post a timeline showing when various
events took place, so we have a handy reference?
DaveHatunen
>In article <2pl4ok$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <2pkbns$j...@umd5.umd.edu>, jby...@astro.umd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>=In article <1994Apr26....@news.wrc.xerox.com> ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com writes:
>>=>
>>=in a circular orbit around the sun. How was Venus supposed to
>>=circularize its orbit? You would need some kind of rocket firing
>>=in a highly organized manner to accomplish this. There is no natural
>>=mechanism or conceivable celestial mechanic process that could do
>>=we have mapped Venus with radar and see no rocket engines.
>>
>>Why don't you take a course in orbital mechanics? One that involves more than
>>just the two-body problem? Fighting ignorance with more ignorance is a no-win
>>strategy.
>
>I would suggest that YOU are the ignorant one, kind sir.
I believe that Mr Lyddick's point is simply that such planetary capture
is quite possible, due mostly to the gravitational perturbations of
other bodies in the solar system. And, that in fact, this happens from
time to time with smaller bodies of asteroid and cometary size. And he
was merely trying to gently suggest that, if in fact you understand
these matters, you may have neglected to take them into account.
However, while I generally disapprove of Mr Lyddick's invective, in this
case, where you have apparently failed to reconsider your previous
posting prior to responding to him, I fear he may be correct.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
Boucher David
#Carl J Lydick (ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) wrote:
#: In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
#: =If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
#: =the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
#: =the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
#: =perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
#: =impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
#
#: Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
#: the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
#: spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
#: Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
#: wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
#: THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
#
#Being neither an astronomer nor a physicist, I can't provide mathematical
#proof of Dave's scenario, but I think it goes like this in lay terms (I
#will surely be corrected if wrong):
#
#A normal retrobraking maneuver requires that energy be applied to the body
#in question so that it no longer has the required veocity for its current
#orbit; the body then drops into whatever new orbit is stable for that
#velocity. It enough energy is applied, the body will fall into the
#"deepest" local gravity well.
#
#In Velikovsky's scenario, Venus is flung from Jupiter directly toward the
#Sun and makes a (several?) flyby of the Earth. What Dave is saying is
#that without that retrobraking energy to counteract Venus' orbital energy,
#it just could not fall into the orbit it now maintains. In the absence of
#external retrobraking, Venus' orbital and potential energy must be
#converted by the fall into the Sun's gravity well into either velocity or
#heat.
Actually that was somebody else's scenario -- what i should have said is
that an explosion big enough to accelerate venus to escape velocity
from jupiter would be more than enough to smash venus to smithereens.
You'd get a spray of shrapnel, not a "cannon ball".
David L Burkhead
>In a recent post David Burkhead objected to statements of mine with
>regard to Venus-worship in the ancient Near East. There he wrote:
>
[Comments of mine deleted]
>
>Surely Mr. Burkhead, you are not denying that Inanna and Venus were
>identified by the ancient Sumerians? I have documented this claim
>several times in previous posts and it is well-known. Also, it is
>well-known that the earliest script of the Sumerians was pictographic
>in nature so it stands to reason that the various signs associated with
>Inanna (the eight-pointed star and the aforementioned "comet"-sign)
>signify the planet associated with that goddess. No doubt there are
>scholars who would debate this point, but I think it can be shown that
>the evidence clearly supports my position.
>
No, it does _not_ "stand to reason." The ancient Sumerian
language was not entirely pictographic in the sense that each picture
was meant to be representative. Pictograms could take on several
different meanings: they could represent the object pictured, they
could represent something the object symbolizes (feet for walking), or
they could represent a word that _sounds_ similar to the object
pictured. This last one is the source of much confusion as the image
in the pictogram need have no relation whatever to the words/objects
they represent. Ancient Sumerian was already working its way toward
the syllabic cuneiform writing of later years.
You may think what you want, but wishing won't make it so.
>With regards to your second point, there are no observations of Venus
>which "show it there" 1000 years before Velikovsky claimed it should
>be there. Certainly the texts of Ammizaduga, dating according to
>conventional records at some time between 1581 and 1701 BCE (and this
>point is certainly debatable, see P. Huber, "Early Cuneiform Evidence
>for the Existence of the Planet Venus," in Scientists Confront Velikovsky,
>pp. 128-129), are not 1000 years before the events described by
>Velikovsky, who would date Venus' cataclysmic wanderings to 3000-1500
>BCE.
First, observations of Venus do not have to be "1000 years before
the events described by Velikovsky" to refute his theories. They only
have to be a week, a day, an _hour_ before those events. IOW, if the
observations precede the observed events _at all_ then V has been
refuted. That is exactly what we have with the Sumerian observations.
They take place several centuries, at least, before some of V's prime
pieces of "evidence," for instance the Exodus account.
The earliest that the Exodus could have happened was late second,
early first millenium BC. The earliest records of the existance of
the Hebrews as a distinct group are from the first millenium BC.
There is no mention of them _anywhere_ in any earlier writings, as one
would expect if a large, organized group appeared and begin doing the
things attributed to the early Hebrews. And if they did not do those
things, then the biblical record is immediately made suspect, which
destroys the validity of using it as a source of "evidence."
>
>For the record, I think one of the most glaring weaknesses of Velikovsky's
>theory is his dating of the Venus-cataclysms. Here there can be little
>doubt but that his chronological placement of those events in the mid-
>second millennium BCE is mistaken as I have documented elsewhere.
Again, if you try to back-date Velikovsky's theories (in sharp
contrast to hiw _own_ dating of events--see Ages in Chaos and Life
in the Time of Ramses(?)) then much of the so-called evidence goes
away, rendering an already untenable theory still weaker. The house
of cards comes tumbling down.
>
>--
>Ev Cochrane/Editor-Publisher of Aeon, A Journal of Myth and Science
>2326 Knapp, Ames IA, 50014 e...@eai.com
>
David L. Burkhead
Ev Cochrane
to one of my posts:
Sumerians did indeed worship the planet Venus and early pictographs of
=the planet-goddess Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of
=a comet (M. Green & H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus
=Uruk, 1987, p. 248). In short, the extent records of the Babylonians and
=the Maya strongly support the contention that Venus only recently moved
=upon a drastically different orbit than its current one.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain just how you get from "early pictographs
of the planet-goddes Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of a
comet" to "Venus only recently moved upon a drastically different orbit than
its current one." The two statements don't appear to have anything to do with
each other.
Here I must confess that I was assuming the readers of this post were
familiar with my previous posts on this subject, wherein I documented that
Babylonian and Mayan records of Venus-appearances do not accord with
current values of Venus-appearances. This was the basis for my statement
above. Actually, the evidence bearing on this question is abundant and
unequivocal for those approaching it with an open-mind, free from the
preconceptions of "physical possibility" as defined by modern astronomers.
Here I would point only to the widespread motive whereby Venus is set
within the horns of a "crescent Moon", in striking contradiction to
its current appearance. This motive can be found in early Mesopotamia
(see F. Steinmetzer, Die babylonischen Kudurru als Urkundenform, 1922,
p. 181; and A. Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur,
1913, p. 241), as well as in the New World.
Is there anyone out there willing to challenge me on this point?
--
Ev Cochrane/Editor-Publisher of Aeon, A Journal of Myth and Science
2326 Knapp, Ames IA, 50014 e...@eai.com
The views presented here are those of Ev Cochrane alone and do not
Ev Cochrane
regard to Venus-worship in the ancient Near East. There he wrote:
"First, you make two statments above there: the Sumerians
worshipped the planet Venus, and early pictographs depict Inanna in a
form closely resembling a comet. You have not, however, shown a
connection between those two things.
Second, the time of Hammurabi, main figure in the Old Babylonian
period of Mesopotamia was dated by using Babylonian observations of
Venus in comparison with eclipses (Source: the lectures of Dr. Oller,
Professor of Ancient History at the University of Akron). This date
agrees with other sources (including radiocarbon dating that has been
calibrated with dendochronology, and comparable dates found for the
near contemporary Old Assyrian and First Intermediate Period Egypt).
And the observations of Venus show it there a thousand years before
Velikovsky claimed it should be there."
Surely Mr. Burkhead, you are not denying that Inanna and Venus were
identified by the ancient Sumerians? I have documented this claim
several times in previous posts and it is well-known. Also, it is
well-known that the earliest script of the Sumerians was pictographic
in nature so it stands to reason that the various signs associated with
Inanna (the eight-pointed star and the aforementioned "comet"-sign)
signify the planet associated with that goddess. No doubt there are
scholars who would debate this point, but I think it can be shown that
the evidence clearly supports my position.
With regards to your second point, there are no observations of Venus
which "show it there" 1000 years before Velikovsky claimed it should
be there. Certainly the texts of Ammizaduga, dating according to
conventional records at some time between 1581 and 1701 BCE (and this
point is certainly debatable, see P. Huber, "Early Cuneiform Evidence
for the Existence of the Planet Venus," in Scientists Confront Velikovsky,
pp. 128-129), are not 1000 years before the events described by
Velikovsky, who would date Venus' cataclysmic wanderings to 3000-1500
BCE.
For the record, I think one of the most glaring weaknesses of Velikovsky's
theory is his dating of the Venus-cataclysms. Here there can be little
doubt but that his chronological placement of those events in the mid-
second millennium BCE is mistaken as I have documented elsewhere.
--
Scott H Mullins
Oops. Purely an oversite. I hope I didn't offend the
Communist-Zionist alliance by that omission. You guys are
doing a great job in the conspiracy! Really.
--
Scott
smul...@ecn.purdue.edu
Mike McDermott
>Here is a simple rule that seems to hold true:
>Throughout history most cultures have been avid skywatchers and
>worshippers of planets, but very few have developed any form of observational
>astronomy.
Following this rule to its conclusion, I think you just removed much of
the support V.'s theories claim to get from treating ancient
observations as absolute truth.
Mike McDermott
Internet - mi...@vnet.ibm.com
IBM IPnet - mik...@gila.boulder.ibm.com Neither IBM nor Pennant Systems
IBM VNET - MIKEMCD at BOULDER know I have these opinions!
Jim Walters
> In article <1994Apr27...@stsci.edu>, jwal...@stsci.edu (Jim Walters) writes:
> =Perhaps you are thinking
> =that Venus could be ejected from Jupiter at a velocity outside of this
> =narrow range, and then an ecounter with your third body would bring
> =Venus within this narrow velocity range. This is possible, but it is
> =_still_ highly improbable that a random encounter would give a delta v
> =that would bring the velocity of Venus within this narrow range.
>
> Improbable, yes. Impossible, no. If you mean improbable, then SAY improbable.
> In particular, don't say "impossible" when you really mean "improbable."
>
I never used the word impossible, and I certainly didn't mean
impossible. Also, I don't remember the original post to which we were
both responding using the word impossible. It appears one of us
mis-read it. If it was me, I appologise. Somehow I doubt you will
appologise if it was you.
>
> =Your flame was completely unprovoked. I disagreed with you, but a
> =made no personal attack on you. If you would care to explain where I
> =am wrong rather than simply flame me for disagreeing, I would like to
> =see it.
>
> I flamed you for being either unwilling or too stupid to distinguish between
> "improbable" and "impossible."
As I said above, I never used the word impossible. Perhaps you are
either unwilling, too stupid, or just too big an asshole to read what
I said. Can you do anything but flame someone who commits the
unpardonable sin of disagreeing with you? Learn some manners! If you
wish to continue this debate, let's take to email. The signal to noise
here is bad enough already.
--
Jim Walters
Carl J Lydick
=ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) says:
=(quotes jby...@astro.umd.edu (Jeff Bytof)):
==Let's assume Venus is ejected from Jupiter and somehow ends up
==in a circular orbit around the sun. How was Venus supposed to
==circularize its orbit? You would need some kind of rocket firing
==in a highly organized manner to accomplish this. There is no natural
==mechanism or conceivable celestial mechanic process that could do
==we have mapped Venus with radar and see no rocket engines.
=
=<Why don't you take a course in orbital mechanics? One that involves
=<more than just the two-body problem? Fighting ignorance with more
=<ignorance is a no-win strategy.
=
=There are indeed conceivable mechanisms that might accomplish
=1) the ejection of something the mass of Venus from Jupiter, sending it
= into a lower-energy solar orbit,
=3) the re-circularization of Venus's orbit, and
=3) the re-circularization of Jupiter's orbit,
=
=but it would require a coincidence of unbelievable odds, say of a few
=very large bodies crossing through our solar system in a coordinated
=dance to interact with those two *in the orbital plane* yet not disturb
=the other planets' orbits significantly. The odds of that are so remote
=it's hardly worth even considering.
Agreed. However, it's far better to point that out explicitly instead of
simply saying "it's absolutely impossible."
=Even pedantry has reasonable limits, Carl.
Yes, and those limits are determined, to some extent, by the tactics used by
the Velikovskyans/Creationists/what-have-you with whom one is debating. Given
the tendency of fundamentalists of all stripes to take a statement out of
context, demonstrate that that statement, without the context to modify it, is
false, and then claim that that demonstration invalidates all arguments in
favor of the claim in the statement, it's better to admit that something is
(remotely) possible, and point out WHY it's unlikely in the extreme, rather
than claiming that it's impossible.
Carl J Lydick
=In article <2pjs5l$5...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=> In article <2pj5um$i...@mailer.fsu.edu>, efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) writes:
=> = And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
=> =Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
=> =have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
=> =velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
=> =ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
=> =escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
=> =whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
=>
=> Or it requires that another massive body have been involved, said massive body
=> having been ejected from the solar system via its interactions with Venus etc.
=
=That wouldn't make any difference, you still have to eject Venus fast
=enough to escape Jupiter, but slow enough to stay in the solar system.
Get your head out of your ass and take a course in orbital mechanics. Your
ignorance is astounding!
Thomas S. Zemanian
(Benjamin T. Dehner) wrote:
> In <Cox3H...@cuug.ab.ca> rpj...@cuug.ab.ca (R. Day) writes:
>
> >Hold on, I recall that this was a valid objection to V's absurd hypotheses.
> >Isn't it true that there is a fairly small difference between the escape
> >velocity from Jupiter and the escape velocity from the solar system?
> >This would suggest that, for Venus to have been ejected from Jupiter but
> >remain within the solar system, its escape velocity must have been within
> >this "narrow window" that Mr. Flaherty is referring to.
>
> >I don't have the numbers at hand, does anyone else? Surely this can't
> >be hard to settle.
>
> Well, the escape velocity is given by
> Vesc = (2GM/r)**.5
>
> Taking Jupiter, its current mass, and the radius at the top,
> this gives us
>
> Vesc(Jup) = 5.96e6 cm/sec.
>
>
> Now for the sun -- at the current location of Earths orbit (why use
> earth? good a guess as any ...) we get
>
> Vesc(Sun) = 4.212e6 cm/sec
>
> a value definitely LESS than the jovian escape velocity.
>
> Note that 1)we should take R smaller for jupiter -- and thus get a higher
> value -- since Venus came from the interior of jupiter. 2) if Jupiter
> had a higher mass previously, we will also get a larger value. 3) if
> the earth was around some theoretical combination of jupiter/saturn, we
> would be farther away from the sun, and so should take a larger R value
> for this, and thus get a smaller value for the solar escape velocity.
>
> In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
> should have been blown clear of the solar system.
>
Hmm. I hope I'm misreading what you've written. That Vesc(Sun)<Vesc(Jup)
does not immediately imply that an object escaping the Jovian gravity well
must necessarily have the oomph to escape the solar system. For an object
"on" Jupiter to escape Jupiter requires an escape velocity of Vesc(Jup),
but to escape the solar system, starting from the same initial position,
requires Vesc(Sun) + Vesc(Jup), no? So, the "narrow window" is what you've
calculated as Vesc(Sun), which is on the order of Vesc(Jup).
I am _not_ a V. supporter, but this simple calculation in physics makes
the premise of Venus emerging from Jupiter highly unlikely, but not
impossible. Why all the confusion , then?
P.S.- Although this is much like what our own dear CL has written of late,
I shall refrain from impugning anyone's intellect, engaging in unnecessary
vulgarity,or suggesting anatomically unlikely positions. I hope I haven't
disappointed anyone.
--Tom
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy
hands off 'em!
David Darryl Bibb
Richard A. Schumacher <schu...@convex.com> wrote:
>In <walterCo...@netcom.com> wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter) writes:
>
>
>
>> The consensus of authority in this area is that [legged robots are]
>> virtually impossible,
>> and therefore not worth actively pursuing.
>> Nonetheless, I am GETTING IT DONE. More on this later.
>Your friend is not familiar with the literature, and possibly has a Messiah
>
>
The robot Dante has been designed to walk on its legs into the mouth of a
volcano and take air & ground samples. Its first mission had a hitch but
it is going to be sent back into the pit with an upgraded ability to
hancle problems...make that handle... MIT has a number of the little
buggers wondering around on their own little legs.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DaveHatunen
Jim Walters <jwal...@stsci.edu> wrote:
[...]
>I have, and I do not see my error. Regardless of _how_ you eject
>Venus from Jupiter, if you give Venus a velocity less than the escape
>velocity of Jupiter, it will not escape to rampage through the solar
>system. If you give Venus a velocity greater than the escape velocity
>of the sun it will leave the solar system. Perhaps you are thinking
>that Venus could be ejected from Jupiter at a velocity outside of this
>narrow range, and then an ecounter with your third body would bring
>Venus within this narrow velocity range. This is possible, but it is
>_still_ highly improbable that a random encounter would give a delta v
>that would bring the velocity of Venus within this narrow range.
I don't have the figures immediately available, but I don't believe it
is all that narrow a range between the Jovian and solar escape
velocities.
Not that I'm trying to support Velikovsky, of course.
DaveHatunen
[...]
>On a related note, I have been an ocassional reader of sci.skeptic for
>more than a year, and I cannot recall a single discussion in which you
>have not resorted to name calling against anyone who disagrees with
>you. Ad hominen attacks are bad logic, and bad manners.
Um. Carl doesn't argue with ad hominem logic. He makes a real point and
then insults you for not realizing it. That's different.
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
-:WA> Red Spot, Red Mars, Red Nile - same material, all from same place.
-:
-: Red Tigris, Red Euphrates, Red Indus, Red Ganges, Red Huang Ho, Red
-:Red River, Red Black River ...
-:
-:"Moses, look, everything is red!"
-:"I'm writing the Nile is red! You want to write about everything? So
-:write about everything."
-:
-: The only mythological reference I know on this scale is "The East is
-:Red" and that can be dated quite surely in this century.
-:
and what about Deep Purple? Are they from Jupiter? And my red pen? And the
redskins?
and the communists...
Ken Arromdee
Benjamin T. Dehner <b...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> Now for the sun -- at the current location of Earths orbit (why use
>earth? good a guess as any ...) we get
>Vesc(Sun) = 4.212e6 cm/sec
>a value definitely LESS than the jovian escape velocity.
> In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
>should have been blown clear of the solar system.
This does not follow. If Venus was blown free of Jupiter at Jovian escape
velocity, it would start to slow down as it got farther and farther away
from Jupiter. Once it gets far enough from Jupiter that the ability of Ju-
piter to slow it down is negligible, the remaining portion of its original
velocity would also be negligible. So just because Jovian escape velocity is
greater than the sun's does not mean that escaping Jupiter implies escaping
the sun, because all that Jovian escape velocity is "used up" in escaping Ju-
piter.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"You, a Decider?" --Romana "I decided not to." --The Doctor
Bruce Burden
>>
>>the Existence of the Planet Venus," in Scientists Confront Velikovsky,
>>evidence that they practiced observational astronomy. As I have shown
>>elsewhere ("Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art," Aeon, 1993), the
>>the planet-goddess Inanna show it in a form closely resembling that of
>>a comet (M. Green & H. Nissen, Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus
>>
Okay, let me rephrase this another way. If the Sumerians didn't
leave any records or evidence that they practiced observational
astronomy, then how do you know that they were, in fact, referring
to Venus?
In short, how do you determine what they were talking about? If
they left pictographs showing 4 planets (Venus, Mars, Saturn and
Jupiter) orbiting the sun, then I would say yes, they had a rudementary
grasp of astronomy.
>
>The Australian aborigines worship the planet Venus. Would you say that
>they have an astronomy? I would say that they are avid skywatchers and
>worship planets, not unlike the ancient Sumerians, but I would not call
>them astronomers. Here is a simple rule that seems to hold true:
>Throughout history most cultures have been avid skywatchers and
>worshippers of planets, but very few have developed any form of observational
>astronomy.
>
This is largly an unfounded statement, IMO. Is there some way
of knowing the aborigines worship Venus without asking, or direct
observation? *Some* cultures left star charts, so it is possible to
infer that they watched the heavens. However, to say that *most*
cultures were avid skywatchers etc. seems unfounded. The records
simply don't exist.
Bruce
DaveHatunen
[...]
> Well, the escape velocity is given by
>Vesc = (2GM/r)**.5
>
> Taking Jupiter, its current mass, and the radius at the top,
>this gives us
>
>Vesc(Jup) = 5.96e6 cm/sec.
>
>
> Now for the sun -- at the current location of Earths orbit (why use
>earth? good a guess as any ...) we get
>
>Vesc(Sun) = 4.212e6 cm/sec
>
>a value definitely LESS than the jovian escape velocity.
>
>Note that 1)we should take R smaller for jupiter -- and thus get a higher
>value -- since Venus came from the interior of jupiter. 2) if Jupiter
>had a higher mass previously, we will also get a larger value. 3) if
>the earth was around some theoretical combination of jupiter/saturn, we
>would be farther away from the sun, and so should take a larger R value
>for this, and thus get a smaller value for the solar escape velocity.
>
> In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
>should have been blown clear of the solar system.
Um. Now correct me if I'm wrong about this. Isn't the escape velocity
that ballistic velocity which gives a trajectory a maximum height of
infinity off the planet or whatever where it starts from? So if a
missile is not going that far, it doesn't need to reach escape
velocity?
And threfore escape velocity isn't really relevant here?
L. Drew Davis
>Here I must confess that I was assuming the readers of this post were
>familiar with my previous posts on this subject, wherein I documented that
>Babylonian and Mayan records of Venus-appearances do not accord with
>current values of Venus-appearances.
Never, at any point? How do you know they're talking about Venus?
>Actually, the evidence bearing on this question is abundant and
>unequivocal for those approaching it with an open-mind, free from the
>preconceptions of "physical possibility" as defined by modern astronomers.
>Here I would point only to the widespread motive whereby Venus is set
>within the horns of a "crescent Moon", in striking contradiction to
>its current appearance.
>Is there anyone out there willing to challenge me on this point?
Perhaps you could clarify the point for me.
Between the horns of a crescent Moon, there's an awful lot of rock that
just doesn't happen to be lit up at the moment, which is why the sphere
looks like a crescent. So, if Venus was farther away than the Moon, we
couldn't see it in such a position; it would be blocked by the Moon
itself. Thus, Venus must have been between the Earth and the Moon to have
been seen. But Venus is larger than the Moon. If it were between the
Earth and the Moon, you couldn't see the moon. (At best, you'd have a
little bulge on the side of Venus.)
How is Venus resting within the horns of a crescent Moon supposed to
represent an actual physical observation? Was Venus a lot smaller than it
is now, when it passed closed to the Earth? Or was the Moon not a sphere?
Was the light from Venus undergoing an circumambulatory trip around the
Moon so the Venus merely appeared there? What's the explanation?
Or do you merely mean "off somewhere in the direction the horns point"
rather than literally "within"?
Clive D.W. Feather
>ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) says:
>There are indeed conceivable mechanisms that might accomplish
I tremble to ask when you two clearly know so much more, and my orbital
mechanics comes only from reading as a layman (mostly "Fundamentals of
Astro-dynamics") but the following occured to me.
The planets aren't exactly in the same orbital plane. If Venus was
ejected into a slightly inclined (relative to its present orbital plane)
orbit, the recoil could perhaps shift Jupiter's inclination a small
amount without affecting its eccentricity (after all, the mass ratio is in
its favour). The orbit of Venus would still pass close enough to the Earth
for Velikovsky's requirements. When the time comes to re-circularise it,
the body doing so would be in just an inclined enough plane to avoid
problems with the other planets, and the manoever would change the
inclination of Venus to its present value.
I realize this lot is still highly implausible, but it eliminates one
re-circularisation and the need to co-ordinate the body passing through
to the same extent.
I am *not* suggesting I believe in this; I'm just wondering if the
orbital mechanics work out.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation | If you lie to the compiler,
cl...@sco.com | Croxley Centre | it will get its revenge.
Phone: +44 923 816 344 | Hatters Lane, Watford | - Henry Spencer
Fax: +44 923 210 352 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom |
Carl J Lydick
=>I don't have the numbers at hand, does anyone else? Surely this can't
=>be hard to settle.
=
= Well, the escape velocity is given by
=Vesc = (2GM/r)**.5
=
= Taking Jupiter, its current mass, and the radius at the top,
=this gives us
=
=Vesc(Jup) = 5.96e6 cm/sec.
=
=
= Now for the sun -- at the current location of Earths orbit (why use
=earth? good a guess as any ...) we get
=
=Vesc(Sun) = 4.212e6 cm/sec
=
=a value definitely LESS than the jovian escape velocity.
Moreover, the "Jovian escape velocity vs. solar escape velocity argument makes
the implicit assumption that Sol and Jupiter are stationary relative to each
other. The whole crock of bullshit is clearly indicative of abject ignorance
on the part of those putting it forth.
=Note that 1)we should take R smaller for jupiter -- and thus get a higher
=value -- since Venus came from the interior of jupiter. 2) if Jupiter
=had a higher mass previously, we will also get a larger value. 3) if
=the earth was around some theoretical combination of jupiter/saturn, we
=would be farther away from the sun, and so should take a larger R value
=for this, and thus get a smaller value for the solar escape velocity.
=
= In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
=should have been blown clear of the solar system.
Why? Suppose Venus were ejected in a direction opposite to Jupiter's motion?
That gives you a rather large range of velocities for ejection which exceed
Jovian escape velocity but not solar. Or are you simply too stupid to consider
that case?
Philip R. Burns
dr...@terminus.gatech.edu (L. Drew Davis) writes:
>
> Perhaps you could clarify the point for me.
>
> Between the horns of a crescent Moon, there's an awful lot of rock that
> just doesn't happen to be lit up at the moment, which is why the sphere
> looks like a crescent. So, if Venus was farther away than the Moon, we
> couldn't see it in such a position; it would be blocked by the Moon
> itself. Thus, Venus must have been between the Earth and the Moon to have
> been seen. But Venus is larger than the Moon. If it were between the
> Earth and the Moon, you couldn't see the moon. (At best, you'd have a
> little bulge on the side of Venus.)
>
> How is Venus resting within the horns of a crescent Moon supposed to
> represent an actual physical observation? Was Venus a lot smaller than it
> is now, when it passed closed to the Earth? Or was the Moon not a sphere?
> Was the light from Venus undergoing an circumambulatory trip around the
> Moon so the Venus merely appeared there? What's the explanation?
> Or do you merely mean "off somewhere in the direction the horns point"
> rather than literally "within"?
>
I think you and Mr. Cochrane are talking past each other. I believe some
Saturnians take the image of Venus superimposed on a crescent as an image
of Venus on SATURN, where Saturn is lit from the side by the Sun and
therefore shows a crescent only. One might then wonder why Venus would
not also show a similar crescent, but I'll leave that one for the
Saturnians to answer :-}.
-- Phil "Pib" Burns
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL. USA
p...@nwu.edu
Benjamin T. Dehner
>L. Drew Davis (dr...@terminus.gatech.edu) wrote:
>: efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) writes:
>: > And another thing: If Venus was to have been ejected from
>: >Jupiter, it would have to achieve Jupiter escape velocity. But it cannot
>: >have too much energy because it would then achieve the sun's escape
>: >velocity and then leave the solar system. The probability that the
>: >ejection event's energy fit through the narrow window allowing it to
>: >escape Jupiter's gravity but not the Sun's is so small as to make the
>: >whole velikovsky idea a joke to start with.
>: Oh, no, not another probability argument...
>Hold on, I recall that this was a valid objection to V's absurd hypotheses.
>Isn't it true that there is a fairly small difference between the escape
>velocity from Jupiter and the escape velocity from the solar system?
>This would suggest that, for Venus to have been ejected from Jupiter but
>remain within the solar system, its escape velocity must have been within
>this "narrow window" that Mr. Flaherty is referring to.
>I don't have the numbers at hand, does anyone else? Surely this can't
>be hard to settle.
Well, the escape velocity is given by
Vesc = (2GM/r)**.5
Taking Jupiter, its current mass, and the radius at the top,
this gives us
Vesc(Jup) = 5.96e6 cm/sec.
Now for the sun -- at the current location of Earths orbit (why use
earth? good a guess as any ...) we get
Vesc(Sun) = 4.212e6 cm/sec
a value definitely LESS than the jovian escape velocity.
Note that 1)we should take R smaller for jupiter -- and thus get a higher
value -- since Venus came from the interior of jupiter. 2) if Jupiter
had a higher mass previously, we will also get a larger value. 3) if
the earth was around some theoretical combination of jupiter/saturn, we
would be farther away from the sun, and so should take a larger R value
for this, and thus get a smaller value for the solar escape velocity.
In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
should have been blown clear of the solar system.
Futher comments:
Keep in mind that there is nothing difficult about the calculations
I have done here. Anyone with a year of high-school physics should be able
to understand them. (Not necessarily reproduce them off the top of their
head, but understand them.) However, this sort of order-of-magnitude
calculation is never even attempted by Velikovsky or any of his adherents.
(At least here on the net.) Yet this innumeric ignorance is suppose to
somehow overthrow etablished physical principles?
A typical response to something like this is "well, um, you didn't
metion electromagnetic effects". As though the "mysterious" pheonemana of
"electromagnetism" is going to somehow save the day. And, incidentally,
get rid of the extra 7.1e39 ergs of energy Venus must shed to put it below
the solar escape velocity. Yet these electromagnetic phenomena are never
detailed; a possible mechanism for there generation is never given; a
calculation of how they interact to produce the desired effect is never
shown. Yet Velikovskian's invariably state that yes, they WOULD do what
is required.
Ben
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key
b...@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request
Ames, IA 50011
Scott H Mullins
>In article <2pr2rp$p...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, cus...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>=>Why? Suppose Venus were ejected in a direction opposite to Jupiter's motion?
>=>That gives you a rather large range of velocities for ejection which exceed
>=>Jovian escape velocity but not solar. Or are you simply too stupid to consider
>=>that case?
>=
>=Do you get an emotional kick out of being nasty? No, I am not saying you
>=shouldn't point out mistakes; that sort of thing is done all the time
>=here in t.o. But I see absolutely no reason to be so goddamn aggressive.
>
>I don't suffer fools gladly. If you choose to put up with bullshit, that's
>your prerogative. I don't so choose.
This is the excuse that every rude jerk on the Internet uses.
It is possible to "not suffer fools" and still not be rude,
boorish, and insulting. Are you tired of driving people off of
VMS newsgroups? Decided to spread your good cheer across the
Internet?
Admit it: you get a kick out of insulting people electronically.
Otherwise, why do it?
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
--
Scott
smul...@ecn.purdue.edu
Monrovia Communications
: In article <2pr2rp$p...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, cus...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
: =>Why? Suppose Venus were ejected in a direction opposite to Jupiter's motion?
: =>That gives you a rather large range of velocities for ejection which exceed
: =>Jovian escape velocity but not solar. Or are you simply too stupid to consider
: =>that case?
[intolerant nastiness deleted]
Excuse me everyone, for injecting my worthlessness into this discussion
most hallowed, but if Venus was ejected in a velocity more or less
opposite (in my foolishness I am unable to clarify further the required
vectors) to Jupiter's orbital direction, wouldn't said ejection act as a
retrofiring booster and leave it relatively motionless to the Sun?
In which case would it not more or less drop straight into the Sun?
Once again, pardon my putridicity.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf Internet: mon...@clark.net
Monrovia Communications Phone/FAX 1-301-607-6604
11460 Archer Circle | Opinions ARE those of the company! |
Monrovia, MD USA 21770 | Mainly because I _AM_ the company. |
Benjamin T. Dehner
...
> Well, the escape velocity is given by
>Vesc = (2GM/r)**.5
> Taking Jupiter, its current mass, and the radius at the top,
>this gives us
>Vesc(Jup) = 5.96e6 cm/sec.
> Now for the sun -- at the current location of Earths orbit (why use
>earth? good a guess as any ...) we get
>Vesc(Sun) = 4.212e6 cm/sec
>a value definitely LESS than the jovian escape velocity.
...
> In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
>should have been blown clear of the solar system.
...
Okay, a number of people (Phil Burns, Tom Zemanian, Dave Hatunen)
have pointed out some problems with the above post:
1) although Venus can escape from Jupiter, it cannot escape from the
Jupiter/Sun system
2) I neglected to include Jupiters orbital motion
3) (not metioned) I did not consider Jupiters recoil velocity. As the mass
of Jupiter is 400 times that of Venus, I will continue to do this.
First of all, I will use the following numbers and assumptions:
Mj == Mass of Jupiter = 1.895e30 gm
Mv == Mass of Venus = 4.901e27 gm
Ms == Mass of Sun = 1.989e33 gm
G == gravitational constant = 6.672e-8 dyne*cm*cm/gm/gm
and the following derived values
Vej == Escape velocity from Jupiter = 5.96e6 cm/s
Voj == orbital velocity of juptier = 1.6e6 cm/sa
Now, let's look at 2 limiting cases:
i) Venus ejected parallel to Jupiters orbit
Venus will have an additional velocity (with respect to the sun)
of Voj. Now, at that location of Jupiter, the solar escpape velocity
will be (2GMs/Roj)**.5 = 1.85e6 cm/s, so Venus will be very weakly bound
to the solar system, but bounded
ii) venus ejected anti-parallel to Jupiter's orbit -- obviously, Venus will
remain bound.
[okay, so my original analysis was somewhat flawed.]
However, there is an additional factor that I have neglected --
conservation of angular momentum. The current angular momentum of Venus
is +2.97e46 gm*cm*cm/sec. In the parallel-ejection case, Venus has an
angular momentum about the sun of +2.88e48gm*cm*cm/sec -- somewhere, venus
must lose 2.86e46 gm*cm*cm/sec of angular momentum. The anti-parallel case
is even worse, Venus must change its angular momentum by twice this, since
it has to change the direction of it's orbit.
Excersices for the readers:
1) we can reduce the ejection velocity of Venus by stating that it doesn't
need to be lifted to infinity, only far enough so that another body (sun or
saturn, for example) can pull it away.
2) Venus can loose angular momentum by interactions with other bodies such
that the sum of angular momenta remains constant. This would involve more
complexities than I care to get into now.
Carl J Lydick
=>That gives you a rather large range of velocities for ejection which exceed
=>Jovian escape velocity but not solar. Or are you simply too stupid to consider
=>that case?
=
=Do you get an emotional kick out of being nasty? No, I am not saying you
=shouldn't point out mistakes; that sort of thing is done all the time
=here in t.o. But I see absolutely no reason to be so goddamn aggressive.
I don't suffer fools gladly. If you choose to put up with bullshit, that's
your prerogative. I don't so choose.
Philip R. Burns
cus...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
> Note the followup.
>
> In article <19940429034...@nwu.edu>,
> Philip R. Burns <p...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>>In message Thu, 28 Apr 1994 13:32:30 GMT,
>> dr...@terminus.gatech.edu (L. Drew Davis) writes:
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could clarify the point for me.
>>>
>>> [How can Venus be in the horns of a crescent moon]
>
>> I think you and Mr. Cochrane are talking past each other. I believe some
>> Saturnians take the image of Venus superimposed on a crescent as an
>> image of Venus on SATURN, where Saturn is lit from the side by the Sun
>> and therefore shows a crescent only. One might then wonder why Venus
>> would not also show a similar crescent, but I'll leave that one for the
>> Saturnians to answer :-}.
>
> Nope; here are actual words of Ev Cochrane:
>
>> Actually, the evidence bearing on this question is abundant and
>> unequivocal for those approaching it with an open-mind, free from the
>> preconceptions of "physical possibility" as defined by modern
>> astronomers. Here I would point only to the widespread motive whereby
>> Venus is set within the horns of a "crescent Moon", in striking
>> contradiction to its current appearance.
>
> Drew understood his view correctly, it seems.
>
I don't believe so. Note that "crescent moon" is in quotes. That's the
key here.
I'm sure Mr. Cochrane or even Mssrs. Holden or Alter can clarify this. I'm
not familiar with the latest planetary configurations proposed by the
Saturnians.
Louis Nick
>In article <1994Apr26....@news.wrc.xerox.com> ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure you can apply reaction-motor boosted launches of objects weighing
>>on the order of 10**3 kilgrams to earth-orbit velocity to the acceleration
>>of 10**27 kilograms to Jovian escape velocity. In fact, Carl, why don't you
>>suggest a means of imparting such velocity to the proto-Venus without
>>destroying it in the process. An interesting exercise, indeed, upon
>>completion of which you might have a basis for using the words "incredibly
>>stupid" in reference to others' postings on this topic.
>>
>
>Let's assume Venus is ejected from Jupiter and somehow ends up
>
>
The Law of Conservation on Energy strikes again! >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Adolph Nick III: | The other white meat.
email: sn...@u.washington.edu |
snail: Chaotic. Deal with it. | "I will not be pushed, filed,
phone: Busy. | stamped, indexed, briefed,
quote: The Prisoner | de-briefed, or numbered!"
Christopher Neufeld
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr27...@stsci.edu>,
>Jim Walters <jwal...@stsci.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I have, and I do not see my error. Regardless of _how_ you eject
>>Venus from Jupiter, if you give Venus a velocity less than the escape
>>velocity of Jupiter, it will not escape to rampage through the solar
>>system. If you give Venus a velocity greater than the escape velocity
>>of the sun it will leave the solar system. Perhaps you are thinking
>>that Venus could be ejected from Jupiter at a velocity outside of this
>>narrow range, and then an ecounter with your third body would bring
>>Venus within this narrow velocity range.
>
>is all that narrow a range between the Jovian and solar escape
>velocities.
>
initial impulse at the top of Jupiter's atmosphere is delivered to the
body, giving it some high velocity. What range of velocities will allow
it to become gravitationally unbound from Jupiter while staying bound to
the Sun?
I pulled some numbers from another posting, Jovian escape velocity is
going to be roughly 60 km/s, and solar escape velocity from the orbit of
Jupiter is in the range of 15-20 km/s, let's say 17 km/s. These numbers
don't have to be very accurate, we just want order of magnitude
estimates. Oh, let me define "solar escape velocity from the orbit of
Jupiter". That's the speed an object at rest relative to the Sun must be
given in order to leave solar orbit. An object moving in Jupiter's orbit
already has about 70% of that speed.
Let's consider the extreme cases. Case 1: the object is ejected along
Jupiter's velocity vector. In this case, the hyperbolic excess velocity
after Jupiter escape has to no more about 5 km/s (30% of 17 km/s) or else
it will leave solar orbit. These speeds aren't going to add linearly, but
rather as squared quantities, since it's kinetic energy which we're
conserving.
so, case 1: v_init > 60 km/s
v_init < sqrt(60^2 + 5^2) km/s = 60.2 km/s
note that case 1 is a very narrow window.
Case 2: the object is ejected backwards along Jupiter's orbital track. In
this case the hyperbolic excess velocity after Jupiter escape has to be
no more than about 30 km/s (cancel the current 12 km/s forward, and go
another 17 km/s the other way).
case 2: v_init > 60 km/s
v_init < sqrt(60^2 + 30^2) = 67 km/s.
These are the extreme limits. A body receiving a single impulse at the
top of Jupiter's atmosphere and given a speed less than 60 km/s won't
escape Jupiter. One given more than 67 km/s will always escape the solar
system. Between those values it depends on the details of the ejection.
--
Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student neu...@physics.utoronto.ca
"Don't edit reality for | "The nerd projection operator recovers most of his
the sake of simplicity" | amplitude." Insult, probably self-referential.
| -rw-rw-rw- : the file permission of the beast
Carl J Lydick
=>Let's assume Venus is ejected from Jupiter and somehow ends up
=>in a circular orbit around the sun. How was Venus supposed to
=>circularize its orbit? You would need some kind of rocket firing
=>in a highly organized manner to accomplish this. There is no natural
=>mechanism or conceivable celestial mechanic process that could do
=>we have mapped Venus with radar and see no rocket engines.
=>
=>-Jeff Bytof
=>
=The Law of Conservation on Energy strikes again! >
No, whatever law it is that states that clueless idiots post bullshit strikes
again. Usin Jeff's argument, the trajectories of the Voyager probes were
impossible. Conservation of energy enters into it only if you're too stupid to
analyze anything other than the two-body problem.
Jim Rogers
<The planets aren't exactly in the same orbital plane. If Venus was
<ejected into a slightly inclined (relative to its present orbital plane)
<orbit, the recoil could perhaps shift Jupiter's inclination a small
<amount without affecting its eccentricity (after all, the mass ratio is
<in its favour). The orbit of Venus would still pass close enough to the
<Earth for Velikovsky's requirements. When the time comes to
<re-circularise it, the body doing so would be in just an inclined enough
<plane to avoid problems with the other planets, and the manoever would
<change the inclination of Venus to its present value.
<
<I realize this lot is still highly implausible, but it eliminates one
<re-circularisation and the need to co-ordinate the body passing through
<to the same extent.
To address that with any thoroughness would require some heavy-duty
numerical modelling, like was done a few years ago for the earth-moon
system (conclusion: the moon probably wasn't captured intact, but could
have formed from a massive collision squirting off a moon-sized chunk).
But it seems plausible, anyway.
But you're right; we don't know whether the earlier Jupiter had a
somewhat different orbital inclination. I only mentioned "in the orbital
plane" as more likely to be able to keep Jupiter and Venus more or less
in line with the rest of the planets, as they are now (plus its rotation
isn't very far off it's orbital plane, as it might be from a severe
oblique impact). Knock the blob off at an oblique angle to the ecliptic,
and the re-circularizing interaction(s) would have to adjust Venus's
orbital plane, as well. No matter how you play the planetary pinball, it
adds up to an *unbelievable* string of coincidences.
Jim
NOVICE, CHURCH OF APPLIANTOLOGY
>In article <Cp14r...@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, neu...@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>= All right, let's try the math, then. For simplicity, assume that an
>=initial impulse at the top of Jupiter's atmosphere is delivered to the
>=body, giving it some high velocity. What range of velocities will allow
>=it to become gravitationally unbound from Jupiter while staying bound to
>=the Sun?
>= I pulled some numbers from another posting, Jovian escape velocity is
>=going to be roughly 60 km/s, and solar escape velocity from the orbit of
>=Jupiter is in the range of 15-20 km/s, let's say 17 km/s. These numbers
>=don't have to be very accurate, we just want order of magnitude
>=estimates. Oh, let me define "solar escape velocity from the orbit of
>=Jupiter". That's the speed an object at rest relative to the Sun must be
>=given in order to leave solar orbit. An object moving in Jupiter's orbit
>=already has about 70% of that speed.
>
>Y'know, it would really help if, instead of just looking up formulae and
>blindly plugging in numbers, you actually tried to understand what the formulae
>meant. Now, shit-for-brains: You've got an object leaving Jupiter at Jovian
>escape velocity. You and your fellow morons have been implicitly assuming that
>the object continues to travel at the same velocity relative to Jupiter
>forever. Your current post finally demonstrates that you're capable of
>correcting that rather sizeable mistake. That's to your credit.
>
Carl, I wish you Velikovskians would realize that insults and general
nastiness don't help your cause any. Now calm down and explain why
you believe Velikovsy's scenario. Just because the probability is
non-zero doesn't mean it happened.
Thank you, Joe
Carl J Lydick
=In article <2psan5$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>
=>No, whatever law it is that states that clueless idiots post bullshit strikes
=>again. Usin Jeff's argument, the trajectories of the Voyager probes were
=>impossible. Conservation of energy enters into it only if you're too stupid to
=>analyze anything other than the two-body problem.
=
=>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
=
=Since I worked on the Voyager Project, I know how to answer this one. %^)
=The trajectories of Voyager were possible because human beings identified
=the necessary conditions to send spacecraft from Earth to Jupiter, Saturn
=Uranus and Neptune. These conditions are only favorable periodically.
=At each planet there is an aimpoint, and to achieve that aimpoint, active
=navigation and midcourse maneuvers were necessary. Even if a Voyager
=had been aimed at Jupiter properly, it would have missed its aimpoints
=at the other planets if course corrections hadn't been done.
=
=With the other V-project, there's an out of control mass careening all
=over the solar system, literally (to use your words) 'a clueless idiot',
=which couldn't hit the broadside of a planet even if the instructions were
=written on the heel. My bet is that it falls right back into Jupiter,
=sort of like micturating into the wind.
=
=You seem to be a very unhappy person,
NO, Jeff, I'm a person who's sick and tired of morons like yourself who can't
distinguish between "improbable" and "impossible." I do NOT agree with any of
Velikovsky's bullshit. However, you do a grave disservice by posting arguments
easily as fallacious as those of Velikovsky in your arguments against him.
If you really believe Velikovsky was wrong, THEN WHY THE HELL DO YOU POST
BULLSHIT THAT JUST GIVES THE VELIKOVSKY SUPPORTERS AMMUNITION?
Benjamin T. Dehner
add:
[oh, sci.archaeology and sci.astro people won't see this one. I edited
the newsgroups line.]
3) since Venus is now in a (nearly) circular orbit, it's total energy
(kinetic + potential) is about -GMsunMven/2Rov, or
Unow = - 3.01e40 ergs
At ejection, the only energy to consider is the suns potential field
(neglecting Jupiters orbital velocity, the Jovian potenial energy and
esacpe velocity kinetic energy cancel out) so we have the energy then
as -GMsunMven/Roj, or
Uthen = -7.61e39 ergs.
Where did the approx 2.2e40 ergs venus lost go?
(Note: if we assume a rediculous heat-capacity value of 1.e8 ergs/gm/K
(if I got my units right, most rocks have a heat capacity about 1.e7
ergs/gm/K) this gives us a temperature for venus of approximately 45,000K,
assuming we started at 0K.)
Chris Clayton
>In article 9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>In article <CouLC...@uwindsor.ca>, bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
>>=If John really is an engineer then he ought to be able to calculate
>>=the energy requirements necessary to eject a venus-sized body from
>>=the surface of jupiter to the vicinity of the current orbit of venus --
>>=perhaps he can explain how venus managed to remain intact under the
>>=impact of enough energy to vaporize it 3 times over.
>>
>>Dave, you've brought this up several times, and nobody's called you on it, to
>>the best of my knowledge. It's time somebody did. NASA routinely launches
>>spacecraft into orbit, applying enough energy to blast the payload to flinders.
>>Somehow, the payloads (usually) manage to survive. Your objection is flat-out
>>wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid. Please, before repeating it again,
>>THINK about it, at least enough to formulate it in such a way that makes sense.
It seems to me that you're both missing the time element. NASA probes have their
energy transfered to the payload at a controlled rate over an extended time. The
payload is designed to stand up under the stress imposed by launch and course change.
A planetary impact, however, transfers ALL of the energy at the time of impact,
which means that the instantaneous acceleration is godawful big (to use the
technical jargon). This short, sharp, shock is what would destroy a body such as
Venus. So far, there is no mechanism suggested for spreading the energy transfer
out over enough time to allow this hypothetical Venus to remain intact.
The other objection is that a body entering Venus' orbit through cataclysmic
means would almost certainly have a highly eccentric orbit. Venus, OTOH, has
one of the least eccentric (most circular) orbits of any planet in the Solar
System. The few thousand orbits available in historical times absolutely do
not allow an eccentric orbit to become circular by any known mechanism. Can
you suggest a way that this bit of orbital legerdemain could have occured?
Inquiring minds want to know. :-).
Tero Sand
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2pr2rp$p...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, cus...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>=>Why? Suppose Venus were ejected in a direction opposite to Jupiter's motion?
>=>That gives you a rather large range of velocities for ejection which exceed
>=>Jovian escape velocity but not solar. Or are you simply too stupid to consider
>=>that case?
>=
>=Do you get an emotional kick out of being nasty? No, I am not saying you
>=shouldn't point out mistakes; that sort of thing is done all the time
>=here in t.o. But I see absolutely no reason to be so goddamn aggressive.
>
>I don't suffer fools gladly. If you choose to put up with bullshit, that's
>your prerogative. I don't so choose.
So everyone who makes an error is a fool? It must be nice to be so
perfect.
You really should behave more in the spirit of your .sig. The "cause of
skepticism" you seemed so concerned about isn't served by flaming
everybory to crisp either.
For examples on how not to be insulting outright, see the other articles
in this thread.
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Ted Holden
>This does not follow. If Venus was blown free of Jupiter at Jovian escape
>velocity,.......
Aren't all of you people arguing this one assuming a Jupiter in something
like its present situation, i.e. not in close proximity to any other body
its own size which might affect what happened to some piece of matter
being expelled from it? What changes when you have Jupiter and Saturn
revolving around eachother as a small binary system, and then some body
such as Venus is torn from Jupiter either due to some interaction between
the two large planets or small stars, or with some third body, possibly
the occasion of the present sun capturing the entire older system?
Carl J Lydick
= All right, let's try the math, then. For simplicity, assume that an
=initial impulse at the top of Jupiter's atmosphere is delivered to the
=body, giving it some high velocity. What range of velocities will allow
=it to become gravitationally unbound from Jupiter while staying bound to
=the Sun?
= I pulled some numbers from another posting, Jovian escape velocity is
=going to be roughly 60 km/s, and solar escape velocity from the orbit of
=Jupiter is in the range of 15-20 km/s, let's say 17 km/s. These numbers
=don't have to be very accurate, we just want order of magnitude
=estimates. Oh, let me define "solar escape velocity from the orbit of
=Jupiter". That's the speed an object at rest relative to the Sun must be
=given in order to leave solar orbit. An object moving in Jupiter's orbit
=already has about 70% of that speed.
Y'know, it would really help if, instead of just looking up formulae and
blindly plugging in numbers, you actually tried to understand what the formulae
meant. Now, shit-for-brains: You've got an object leaving Jupiter at Jovian
escape velocity. You and your fellow morons have been implicitly assuming that
the object continues to travel at the same velocity relative to Jupiter
forever. Your current post finally demonstrates that you're capable of
correcting that rather sizeable mistake. That's to your credit.
=Case 2: the object is ejected backwards along Jupiter's orbital track. In
=this case the hyperbolic excess velocity after Jupiter escape has to be
=no more than about 30 km/s (cancel the current 12 km/s forward, and go
=another 17 km/s the other way).
=
=case 2: v_init > 60 km/s
= v_init < sqrt(60^2 + 30^2) = 67 km/s.
=
=These are the extreme limits.
Let's see now. 7/60 ~= 12%. Looks like a fairly sizeable range to me. If
you're going to try to debunk Velikovsky on probabilistic grounds, you're going
to have to do better than that. But, why are you concentrating on Venus?
According to Velikovsky, Saturn's orbit changed by more than did Venus', at
about the same time. Saturn is far more massive, which means it would have
required a far more massive body to change its orbit. So why waste your time
dealing with Venus? Are they teaching people these days that the best way to
present one's case is to argue the weakest of your claims? Sheesh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
Carl J Lydick
=At ejection, the only energy to consider is the suns potential field
=(neglecting Jupiters orbital velocity, the Jovian potenial energy and
=esacpe velocity kinetic energy cancel out) so we have the energy then
=as -GMsunMven/Roj, or
=
=Uthen = -7.61e39 ergs.
=
=Where did the approx 2.2e40 ergs venus lost go?
=(Note: if we assume a rediculous heat-capacity value of 1.e8 ergs/gm/K
=(if I got my units right, most rocks have a heat capacity about 1.e7
=ergs/gm/K) this gives us a temperature for venus of approximately 45,000K,
=assuming we started at 0K.)
Will SOMEBODY using this completely bogus argument tell us where he was
educated, so that we can recommend that anybody who wants to learn more about
physics than the two-body problem avoid that place?
Warren vonRoeschlaub
>In article <btd.76...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>=At ejection, the only energy to consider is the suns potential field
>=(neglecting Jupiters orbital velocity, the Jovian potenial energy and
>=esacpe velocity kinetic energy cancel out) so we have the energy then
>=as -GMsunMven/Roj, or
>=
>=Uthen = -7.61e39 ergs.
>=
>=Where did the approx 2.2e40 ergs venus lost go?
>=(Note: if we assume a rediculous heat-capacity value of 1.e8 ergs/gm/K
>=(if I got my units right, most rocks have a heat capacity about 1.e7
>=ergs/gm/K) this gives us a temperature for venus of approximately 45,000K,
>=assuming we started at 0K.)
>
>Will SOMEBODY using this completely bogus argument tell us where he was
>educated, so that we can recommend that anybody who wants to learn more about
>physics than the two-body problem avoid that place?
Of course, that's it!
It explains all the observations! there was a planet in the same orbit that
venus has now, and when venus reached that orbit the two planets swapped
places. The missing energy went into flinging the old planet out of the solar
system!
Now, in order for all the observations to be taken into account, the
original planet would have had to have been about the same size and albedo as
venus. And of course, in the same orbit. Gee, what's the difference between
this set up and just assuming the V. scenario never happened?
--
Warren Kurt | By virtue of being correct, the opinions expressed
vonRoeschlaub | above could not conceivably be those of ISU.
If Kurt says something weird, you might want to check
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kv07/
David Empey
>In article <btd.76...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>=At ejection, the only energy to consider is the suns potential field
>=(neglecting Jupiters orbital velocity, the Jovian potenial energy and
>=esacpe velocity kinetic energy cancel out) so we have the energy then
>=as -GMsunMven/Roj, or
>=
>=Uthen = -7.61e39 ergs.
>=
>=Where did the approx 2.2e40 ergs venus lost go?
>=(Note: if we assume a rediculous heat-capacity value of 1.e8 ergs/gm/K
>=(if I got my units right, most rocks have a heat capacity about 1.e7
>=ergs/gm/K) this gives us a temperature for venus of approximately 45,000K,
>=assuming we started at 0K.)
>Will SOMEBODY using this completely bogus argument tell us where he was
>educated, so that we can recommend that anybody who wants to learn more about
>physics than the two-body problem avoid that place?
How 's it bogus? (Not arguing, just asking.)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
--
-Dave Empey (speaking only for myself)
Having thus refreshed ourselves in the oasis of a proof, we now turn
again into the desert of definitions.
Tero Sand
In article <2pqd8b$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <btd.76...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>= In short, if Venus was ejected from the Jupiters interior, it
>=should have been blown clear of the solar system.
>
>Why? Suppose Venus were ejected in a direction opposite to Jupiter's motion?
>That gives you a rather large range of velocities for ejection which exceed
>Jovian escape velocity but not solar. Or are you simply too stupid to consider
>that case?
Do you get an emotional kick out of being nasty? No, I am not saying you
shouldn't point out mistakes; that sort of thing is done all the time
here in t.o. But I see absolutely no reason to be so goddamn aggressive.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Tero Sand
In article <19940429034...@nwu.edu>,
Philip R. Burns <p...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In message Thu, 28 Apr 1994 13:32:30 GMT,
> dr...@terminus.gatech.edu (L. Drew Davis) writes:
>
>>
>> Perhaps you could clarify the point for me.
>>
>> [How can Venus be in the horns of a crescent moon]
>I think you and Mr. Cochrane are talking past each other. I believe some
>Saturnians take the image of Venus superimposed on a crescent as an image
>of Venus on SATURN, where Saturn is lit from the side by the Sun and
>therefore shows a crescent only. One might then wonder why Venus would
>not also show a similar crescent, but I'll leave that one for the
>Saturnians to answer :-}.
Nope; here are actual words of Ev Cochrane:
>Actually, the evidence bearing on this question is abundant and
>unequivocal for those approaching it with an open-mind, free from the
>preconceptions of "physical possibility" as defined by modern astronomers.
>Here I would point only to the widespread motive whereby Venus is set
>within the horns of a "crescent Moon", in striking contradiction to
>its current appearance.
Drew understood his view correctly, it seems.
>-- Phil "Pib" Burns
Monrovia Communications
[lots of prelude deleted]
: This short, sharp, shock is what would destroy a body such as Venus.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now of course I'm completely ignorant of almost everything, as I have
been so kindly informed by Ev. (Hmmm, could EV stand for Elusive
Velikovskian?)
On the other hand, I can spot a Pink Floyd reference a parsec of Jovian
ejecta away.
Welcome to the Dark Side of the Loon.
Tero Sand
Warren vonRoeschlaub <kv...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>In article <2psbkd$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <btd.76...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>>Will SOMEBODY using this completely bogus argument tell us where he was
>>educated, so that we can recommend that anybody who wants to learn more about
>>physics than the two-body problem avoid that place?
You really are an asshole, Carl. A knowledgeable one, perhaps, but an
asshole all the same. The excess energy question is perfectly valid; if
it is taken care of by using 'multiple bodies', one of which is
hopefully yours, it is the duty of the Velikovskian to say what those
bodies were and how they interacted.
steven_dodge
>Babylonian and Mayan records of Venus-appearances do not accord with
>current values of Venus-appearances. The evidence bearing on this question is
abundant and
>unequivocal for those approaching it with an open-mind, free from the
>preconceptions of "physical possibility" as defined by modern astronomers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is there anyone out there willing to challenge me on this point?
>--
>Ev Cochrane/Editor-Publisher of Aeon, A Journal of Myth and Science
>2326 Knapp, Ames IA, 50014 e...@eai.com
Yes. If I understand you correctly, I am to believe that Venus had a comet-like
appearance to both Mayans and Babylonians. In addition, I should believe that it
*was* comet-like and much nearer the Earth then, abandoning this silly preconception
of mine about physical impossibility. This explains the lack of scientific insight:
in your view, mere physical impossibility is an inconsequential nit, brought up by
people like Hatunen, Lydick and others who lack your clarity of thought.
You have identified your specialty as Mythology. In your postings, you have cited
ancient mythology in support of the views of Velikovsky. It has occurred to most of
us on the net that you are simply citing ancient mythology in support of 20th century
mythology. Perhaps your journal should be "Aeon, a Journal of Myth. . ."
Steven Dodge
Dod...@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov
This Side Up
>In article <29APR199...@orib01.phy.ornl.gov>, del...@orib01.phy.ornl.gov (NOVICE, CHURCH OF APPLIANTOLOGY) writes:
>=>Y'know, it would really help if, instead of just looking up formulae and
>=>blindly plugging in numbers, you actually tried to understand what the formulae
>=>meant. Now, shit-for-brains: You've got an object leaving Jupiter at Jovian
>=>escape velocity. You and your fellow morons have been implicitly assuming that
>=>the object continues to travel at the same velocity relative to Jupiter
>=>forever. Your current post finally demonstrates that you're capable of
>=>correcting that rather sizeable mistake. That's to your credit.
>=>
>=
>=Carl, I wish you Velikovskians would realize that insults and general
>=nastiness don't help your cause any. Now calm down and explain why
>=you believe Velikovsy's scenario. Just because the probability is
>=non-zero doesn't mean it happened.
>
>I'm not a Velikovskian. I'm simply someone who doesn't believe that the way to
>combat pseudo-science is to promulgate even worse pseudo-science. This
>subthread started when I pointed out that one of the arguments against
>Velikovsky posted numerous times was based on the assumption that the whole
>mess could be dealt with as a two-body problem. Given that Velikovsky's got
>quite a few massive bodies careening all over the place, use of a two-body
>analysis to "refute" him is idiocy of the worst sort. Some morons, yourself
>apparently included, are just too damned stupid to understand that.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Come now. Aren't you the same Carl Lydick that believed it was Halley's
comet which was going to hit Jupiter? You're calling me a moron?
Sheesh.
Joe
Carl J Lydick
=In article <2pubu2$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
=
=[...]
=
=>It's bogus in that the analysis is relevant only for the two-body problem. If
=>there's a third body involved, then energy from Venus can be transferred to the
=>third body. It's exactly the same principle that allows gravity-assist
=>maneuvers for our space probes to do them some good. Now, Velikovsky had quite
=>a few massive bodies careening all through the solar system. To use a two-body
=>analysis to "refute" his claims is sheer idiocy. In fact, it's even worse
=>idiocy than Velikovsky's original claims. If you want to refute Velkovsky, do
=>it right, and use valid arguments. Take his claims about the motions of the
=>various planets, run them through an orbital mechanics simulation. Demonstrate
=>that the events he described would have required another massive body, one that
=>it NOT reported in his description or in historical records. Then you've
=>actually refuted his claims, rather than substituting your own brand of
=>pseudo-science for Velikovsky's.
=
=Also. For events to have happened in the very short time scale required
=by V's hypothesis, the perturbating body would have had to be VERY
=noticable, even to the ancients. We're talking some major momentum and
=angular momentum transfer here.
Y'know, the worst thing of all about this thread is the fact that I can no
longer describe arguments about "scientists" who treat science as a religion as
being straw-man arguments. Idiots like Jeff from SCI.ASTRO have now given us
an existence proof by example. Let's review the various types of idiocy:
1) Velikovsky posits lots of bodies moving around. Idiots like Jeff
insist that a "refutaion" based entirely on the two-body problem
are valid.
2) I point out that such "refutations" are invalid, and I'm accused of
suppoting Velikovsky. Such an accusation is valid only in the case
where refuting an invalid disproof of a claim is accepted as being
support for the claim.
My apologies to readers of both sci.skeptic and sci.astro for my (demonstrably
mistaken) assumption that morons like Jeff were simply mistaken in their
comprehension of orbital mechanic. They're demonstrably clueless about
elementary logic as well.
Alan Morgan
>Chris Clayton (ccla...@voltage.eve.ford.com) wrote:
>[lots of prelude deleted]
>: This short, sharp, shock is what would destroy a body such as Venus.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Now of course I'm completely ignorant of almost everything, as I have
>been so kindly informed by Ev. (Hmmm, could EV stand for Elusive
>Velikovskian?)
>
>On the other hand, I can spot a Pink Floyd reference a parsec of Jovian
>ejecta away.
Pink Floyd??? Sheesh, you have the historical awareness of a newt. It
is a Gilbert and Sullivan reference.
Sitting in solemn silence
In a dull, dark dock
In a pestilential prision
With a life-long lock
Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock
From a cheap and chippy chopper
On a big, black block.
And *don't* let me catch you making this mistake again.
Alan
----
EFI agrees with me 100% on matters of fact. The above aren't even close.
-----> Mail abuse to: al...@efi.com <-----
Keeper of the alt.tasteless theme song and part time evil genius.
Carl J Lydick
=to suggest what the third-body interaction might be with. In case you
=haven't thought about it (which I doubt you have), the interaction energy
=is so great that any 3 earth-sized bodies would be incinerated by simply
=absorbing the energy.
Gee. They couldn't end up with it as kinetic energy, now could they,
shit-for-brains? Enough energy, perhaps to eject them from the solar system?
Of course not, though you make mention of a three-body problem, you're still
clueless enough to try to analyze it merely as a set of two-body problems.
=3) you are an asshole. I know I said this before, but it bears repeating.
=Personally, I don't care about your response. You have also obtained
=the singular honor of a kill file.
Great. Does that mean you'll no longer be posting any of your usual bullshit
in response to my posts?
Carl J Lydick
=You really are an asshole, Carl. A knowledgeable one, perhaps, but an
=asshole all the same. The excess energy question is perfectly valid; if
=it is taken care of by using 'multiple bodies', one of which is
=hopefully yours, it is the duty of the Velikovskian to say what those
=bodies were and how they interacted.
Well, in that case, one should take Velikovsky's claims, run them through an
orbital mechanics simulation program, and demonstrate that there's no way,
without another body massive enough that it would have been visible from the
Earth, for the events to have occurred. Replacing Velikovsky's pseudoscience
with your own wherein you treat multiple-bodies simply as sets of two-body
problems indicates a comprehension of orbital mechanics about equal to that of
a poorly-educated high school student.
Karl Kluge
> If you want to refute Velkovsky, do it right, and use valid arguments. Take
> his claims about the motions of the various planets, run them through an
> orbital mechanics simulation. Demonstrate that the events he described would
> have required another massive body, one that it NOT reported in his
> description or in historical records. Then you've actually refuted his
> claims, rather than substituting your own brand of pseudo-science for
> Velikovsky's.
While the intent of the authors was not to refute Velikovsky's work, this has
been done. See Lynn Rose and Raymond Vaughan, "Velikovsky and the Sequence of
Planetary Orbits", in _Velikovsky Reconsidered_ (1977), where after working
out a set of orbits they conclude, "This implies that 5.77 geobasic units
(i.e., approximately 10^40 ergs) have somehow been disposed of within the past
thirty-five centuries."
Karl
DaveHatunen
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
[...]
>It's bogus in that the analysis is relevant only for the two-body problem. If
>there's a third body involved, then energy from Venus can be transferred to the
>third body. It's exactly the same principle that allows gravity-assist
>maneuvers for our space probes to do them some good. Now, Velikovsky had quite
>a few massive bodies careening all through the solar system. To use a two-body
>analysis to "refute" his claims is sheer idiocy. In fact, it's even worse
>idiocy than Velikovsky's original claims. If you want to refute Velkovsky, do
>it right, and use valid arguments. Take his claims about the motions of the
>various planets, run them through an orbital mechanics simulation. Demonstrate
>that the events he described would have required another massive body, one that
>it NOT reported in his description or in historical records. Then you've
>actually refuted his claims, rather than substituting your own brand of
>pseudo-science for Velikovsky's.
Also. For events to have happened in the very short time scale required
by V's hypothesis, the perturbating body would have had to be VERY
noticable, even to the ancients. We're talking some major momentum and
angular momentum transfer here.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
Carl J Lydick
=>Y'know, it would really help if, instead of just looking up formulae and
=>blindly plugging in numbers, you actually tried to understand what the formulae
=>meant. Now, shit-for-brains: You've got an object leaving Jupiter at Jovian
=>escape velocity. You and your fellow morons have been implicitly assuming that
=>the object continues to travel at the same velocity relative to Jupiter
=>forever. Your current post finally demonstrates that you're capable of
=>correcting that rather sizeable mistake. That's to your credit.
=>
=
=Carl, I wish you Velikovskians would realize that insults and general
=nastiness don't help your cause any. Now calm down and explain why
=you believe Velikovsy's scenario. Just because the probability is
=non-zero doesn't mean it happened.
I'm not a Velikovskian. I'm simply someone who doesn't believe that the way to
combat pseudo-science is to promulgate even worse pseudo-science. This
subthread started when I pointed out that one of the arguments against
Velikovsky posted numerous times was based on the assumption that the whole
mess could be dealt with as a two-body problem. Given that Velikovsky's got
quite a few massive bodies careening all over the place, use of a two-body
analysis to "refute" him is idiocy of the worst sort. Some morons, yourself
apparently included, are just too damned stupid to understand that.
Benjamin T. Dehner
>In article <btd.76...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
>=At ejection, the only energy to consider is the suns potential field
>=(neglecting Jupiters orbital velocity, the Jovian potenial energy and
>=esacpe velocity kinetic energy cancel out) so we have the energy then
>=as -GMsunMven/Roj, or
>=
>=Uthen = -7.61e39 ergs.
>=
>=Where did the approx 2.2e40 ergs venus lost go?
>=(Note: if we assume a rediculous heat-capacity value of 1.e8 ergs/gm/K
>=(if I got my units right, most rocks have a heat capacity about 1.e7
>=ergs/gm/K) this gives us a temperature for venus of approximately 45,000K,
>=assuming we started at 0K.)
>Will SOMEBODY using this completely bogus argument tell us where he was
>educated, so that we can recommend that anybody who wants to learn more about
>physics than the two-body problem avoid that place?
Hey asshole.
1) in the part of my post which you conveniently deleted, where I mentioned
the angular momentum problem, I specifically mentioned interactions with
a third body.
2) What is Venus going to interact with? Earth? Mars? So nice of you
to suggest what the third-body interaction might be with. In case you
haven't thought about it (which I doubt you have), the interaction energy
is so great that any 3 earth-sized bodies would be incinerated by simply
absorbing the energy. The only orbital mechanism that can absorb this
energy is by reducing the gravitational binding energy, i.e., by moving
farther away from, say, the sun. Since you know so much, I'll leave you to
calculate how far they must move. (Hint: approximately one earth mass fell
from Jupiter to venus. How far OUT would such a mass have to move?) Or
did you have a specific Velikovskian scenario you would like to present?
3) you are an asshole. I know I said this before, but it bears repeating.
Personally, I don't care about your response. You have also obtained
the singular honor of a kill file. Please note that Ted Holden, Riley G.,
Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cordona, Bobby Mozumder, Kalki Dosa, Walter Alter,
Walter Morris, NONE of these people have ever seemed to have requested such
an act as strongly has you have. Your harping polemics combined with your
Creationist-like innumeracy (you bitch and moan, but never even attempt
any sort of countering calculation) demonstrate a religious devotion to
ignorance which surpasses any I have seen. If you have such a low tolerance
of fools, please do us all the favor of shooting yourself in the head.
Ben
P.S. If you want to know where my education was, try reading the goddamn
sig.
Carl J Lydick
=
=In <2psbkd$f...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=
=>In article <btd.76...@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, b...@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner) writes:
=>=At ejection, the only energy to consider is the suns potential field
=>=(neglecting Jupiters orbital velocity, the Jovian potenial energy and
=>=esacpe velocity kinetic energy cancel out) so we have the energy then
=>=as -GMsunMven/Roj, or
=>=
=>=Uthen = -7.61e39 ergs.
=>=
=>=Where did the approx 2.2e40 ergs venus lost go?
=>=(if I got my units right, most rocks have a heat capacity about 1.e7
=>=ergs/gm/K) this gives us a temperature for venus of approximately 45,000K,
=>=assuming we started at 0K.)
=
=>Will SOMEBODY using this completely bogus argument tell us where he was
=>educated, so that we can recommend that anybody who wants to learn more about
=>physics than the two-body problem avoid that place?
=
=How 's it bogus? (Not arguing, just asking.)
It's bogus in that the analysis is relevant only for the two-body problem. If
there's a third body involved, then energy from Venus can be transferred to the
third body. It's exactly the same principle that allows gravity-assist
maneuvers for our space probes to do them some good. Now, Velikovsky had quite
a few massive bodies careening all through the solar system. To use a two-body
analysis to "refute" his claims is sheer idiocy. In fact, it's even worse
idiocy than Velikovsky's original claims. If you want to refute Velkovsky, do
it right, and use valid arguments. Take his claims about the motions of the
various planets, run them through an orbital mechanics simulation. Demonstrate
that the events he described would have required another massive body, one that
it NOT reported in his description or in historical records. Then you've
actually refuted his claims, rather than substituting your own brand of
pseudo-science for Velikovsky's.
Benjamin T. Dehner
>arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
This only increases your problem. Not only do you have to get
blow loose of Jupiter to start with, but then you also have to supply
the energy (from somewhere) so that a) Venus can then break free of
the Jupiter-Saturn gravitational binding, but you also have to get the
energy to b) break the Jupiter-Saturn binary itself apart. Now, if you
want the Sun to "capture" the solar system, that DOES help the situation
a bit, since then you can gain energy from the gravitational binding of
these planets. And, while I'm not going through the calculations right
now, this puts some interesting constraints on the problems, since
1) the proto-solar system must encounter the Sun at low enough velocity
so that the Sun CAN capture them
2) you must consider the angular momentum of this system, of both the
approaching proto-solar system and the current solar system.
Finally, you must construct this in such a way that no body is
gravitationally disrupted (torn into itty bitty bits).
while I realize this is in no respect a refutation of your point,
I'm trying to bring in the factors which must be considered.
Ben
Carl J Lydick
=>=Do you get an emotional kick out of being nasty? No, I am not saying you
=>=shouldn't point out mistakes; that sort of thing is done all the time
=>=here in t.o. But I see absolutely no reason to be so goddamn aggressive.
=>
=>I don't suffer fools gladly. If you choose to put up with bullshit, that's
=>your prerogative. I don't so choose.
=
=So everyone who makes an error is a fool?
No. However, when it's pointed out that an analysis works only for a two-body
problem, and someone continues to claim (without any attempt at a
justification) that the analysis applies to a problem in which many bodies are
involved, then that person is a fool.
=It must be nice to be so perfect.
=You really should behave more in the spirit of your .sig. The "cause of
=skepticism" you seemed so concerned about isn't served by flaming
=everybory to crisp either.
Nor it it served by morons substituting their own brand of pseudoscience for
the pseudosicience they're trying to refute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
Tero Sand
>=You really are an asshole, Carl. A knowledgeable one, perhaps, but an
>=asshole all the same. The excess energy question is perfectly valid; if
>=it is taken care of by using 'multiple bodies', one of which is
>=hopefully yours, it is the duty of the Velikovskian to say what those
>=bodies were and how they interacted.
>
>Well, in that case, one should take Velikovsky's claims, run them through an
>orbital mechanics simulation program, and demonstrate that there's no way,
>without another body massive enough that it would have been visible from the
>Earth, for the events to have occurred.
No. I repeat, it is the Velikovskian who has to do these calculations
and show what could have happened, and present evidence for it. The
non-pinball modell explains the evidence we have, and there is also
evidence against V's scenarios. The burden of proof lieas heavily on the
Velikovskian side.
Finally, let me apologize for not separating the asshole-argument from
the rest. That was not in reference to your attacking Ben's article per
se, but your consistent insulting tone while doing it.
Replacing Velikovsky's pseudoscience
>with your own wherein you treat multiple-bodies simply as sets of two-body
>problems indicates a comprehension of orbital mechanics about equal to that of
>a poorly-educated high school student.
I admit that. I highly doubt whether students of astrophysics (or
whatever Ben is) or some of the other people posting here are at that
level.
And I will continue insisting that pointing out mistakes can and
*should* be done without flaming. I claim that one of the most striking
difference between proponents of pseudo-science and others is the
willingness (and of course ability) to recognize and admit their
mistakes. Your hyperaggressiveness most certainly doesn't help the
willingness part of the equation.
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL