Velikovsky & Earth's Magnetosphere - III
Dwardu Cardona
magnetosphere seems to have been reduced to this: in Tim Thompson's
words, "Velikovsky's strong reliance on electromagnetic forces implies to
me that he expected the Earth's magnetosphere to reach as far as the moon
in all directions. If this is what he predicted in his memorandum, then
he was quite wrong... However, if he had predicted the specific shape of
the field, then he would have been right, though likely not the first to
think of it." (Talk Origins follow-up to a former post of mine.)
Well, let's clarify one thing first. Velikovsky didn't really PREDICT
anything. He hated that term when used to describe his various
suggestions. He much preferred the term "correct prognosis." Even so, was
his "prognosis" concerning the Earth's magnetosphere correct or not?
No Velikovsky did not offer an OUTRIGHT prognosis concerning the shape of
the magnetosphere. But, as I had pointed out in my original post on the
subject, he did SUSPECT that the magnetosphere did not possess the
symmetry it was first portrayed as having. This was evidenced by his
proposed test I.B in his four-page memorandum to the space program,
written at the suggestion of Professor Harry Hess, and dated September
11, 1963. This particular test suggested "measuring the reach of the
magnetosphere on the day and night sides" - that is on the solar and
anti-solar sides of the Earth. Velikovsky would not have included this
test had he not had reasons to suppose that the "reach" of the
magetnosphere varied from the solar to the anti-solar side of the Earth.
And, seriously now, does a correct prediction have to commence with the
words "I predict"?
As for Thompson's suggestion that Velikovsky was "likely not the first to
think of it," with all due respect I will have to say that that is not
good enough. Perhaps somebody did think of it before, but unless we know
who and when, the supposition must surely remain unfounded.
One question that has not been answered throughout this debate is whether
the Moon is ever actually immersed in the Earth's magnetotail. But
correct me if I'm wrong - and I may very well be - is not the Moon, when
full, on the anti-solar side of the Earth together with the magnetotail?
Or what am I missing here?
In any case, it seems that it has now been discovered that the
magnetotail does not have the tear-drop shape it was formerly thought to
have but that "it fluctuates wildly in shape from hour to hour." (NEW
SCIENTIST 24:7:93, p. 16.) So that if it has taken us this long to
discover this, even with all our probes and instruments, is it really
reasonable to expect that Velikovsky should have predicted its "specific
shape"? Have astronomical predictions ALWAYS been that specific?
Again - I do not wish to be considered a die-hard but I wonder if we have
not been a little too harsh on the old Doctor in this particular instance.
One other question that has not yet been answered is whether Motz and
Bargman were guilty of confusing the Earth's electromagnetic field with
its magnetosphere. I have a very special reason for asking this.
Dwardu Cardona.
94/5/2.
Boucher David
#The debate whether Velikovsky correctly "predicted" the Earth's
#magnetosphere seems to have been reduced to this: in Tim Thompson's
#words, "Velikovsky's strong reliance on electromagnetic forces implies to
#me that he expected the Earth's magnetosphere to reach as far as the moon
#in all directions. If this is what he predicted in his memorandum, then
#he was quite wrong... However, if he had predicted the specific shape of
#the field, then he would have been right, though likely not the first to
#think of it." (Talk Origins follow-up to a former post of mine.)
#
#Well, let's clarify one thing first. Velikovsky didn't really PREDICT
#anything. He hated that term when used to describe his various
#suggestions. He much preferred the term "correct prognosis." Even so, was
#his "prognosis" concerning the Earth's magnetosphere correct or not?
Well, I would like to offer a "prognosis" of my own: the Buffalo Bills
will win the Super Bowl. Notice that I didn't say when they will win
it, or what the score will be, but if they ever do win, then I will
have made a "correct prognosis". Now, aren't you impressed? ;)
Velikovsky's "prognosis" or whatever you want to call it was made in
the context of a theory that electromagnetic interactions play a
role in determining the motions of planets, comparable to the influence
of gravity. In that respect his "prognosis" was completely wrong and
worthless.
- 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 ******
*************************************************************************
Tim Thompson
[ ... ]
>
>No Velikovsky did not offer an OUTRIGHT prognosis concerning the shape of
>the magnetosphere. But, as I had pointed out in my original post on the
>subject, he did SUSPECT that the magnetosphere did not possess the
>symmetry it was first portrayed as having. This was evidenced by his
>proposed test I.B in his four-page memorandum to the space program,
>written at the suggestion of Professor Harry Hess, and dated September
>11, 1963. This particular test suggested "measuring the reach of the
>magnetosphere on the day and night sides" - that is on the solar and
>anti-solar sides of the Earth. Velikovsky would not have included this
>test had he not had reasons to suppose that the "reach" of the
>magetnosphere varied from the solar to the anti-solar side of the Earth.
>And, seriously now, does a correct prediction have to commence with the
>words "I predict"?
>
>As for Thompson's suggestion that Velikovsky was "likely not the first to
>think of it," with all due respect I will have to say that that is not
>good enough. Perhaps somebody did think of it before, but unless we know
>who and when, the supposition must surely remain unfounded.
>
anything. The reason for my intuitive remark was simply that this was an
area of considerable active research at the time. One would have to search
the numerous papers to see who prognosticated what when, and I simply don't
care to perform the task.
>One question that has not been answered throughout this debate is whether
>the Moon is ever actually immersed in the Earth's magnetotail. But
>correct me if I'm wrong - and I may very well be - is not the Moon, when
>full, on the anti-solar side of the Earth together with the magnetotail?
>Or what am I missing here?
>
The moon may very well pass through the magnetotail of the Earth, I don't
know, though I should not be surprised if it did. However, the shape and
direction of the magnetotail are determined by the solar wind direction.
This is not necessarily in a radial direction from the Sun, but rather it
travels in a spiral pattern well known to solar wind scientists. This spiral
may intercept the Earth at a sharp angle to the Eart-Sun line, such that
the moon would not, under thoses circumstances, fall into the tail. Once
again, it might, but when and if it does I don't know (yet).
>In any case, it seems that it has now been discovered that the
>magnetotail does not have the tear-drop shape it was formerly thought to
>have but that "it fluctuates wildly in shape from hour to hour." (NEW
>SCIENTIST 24:7:93, p. 16.) So that if it has taken us this long to
>discover this, even with all our probes and instruments, is it really
>reasonable to expect that Velikovsky should have predicted its "specific
>shape"? Have astronomical predictions ALWAYS been that specific?
>
The dynamic nature of the Earth's magnetotail is a fact that has been
known for some decades by now.
>Again - I do not wish to be considered a die-hard but I wonder if we have
>not been a little too harsh on the old Doctor in this particular instance.
>
>One other question that has not yet been answered is whether Motz and
>Bargman were guilty of confusing the Earth's electromagnetic field with
>its magnetosphere. I have a very special reason for asking this.
>
I have no way of knowing, but I hope not.
>Dwardu Cardona.
>94/5/2.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Earth & Space Sciences Division ...
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflectance Radiometer
Board of Directors, Los Angeles Astronomical Society ...
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association ...
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
Richard A. Schumacher
apologetics for it by Velikovsky it's obvious that he,
while possibly very sincere, managed to delude himself
hopelessly and ultimately just wanted credit for making a
mess of wild-ass guesses. This is not science. Thank you
for playing.
Since I would bet the rent that the above revelation will do
precisely nothing to end this long-pointless and interminable
thread, I'll feed it a bit: Yo! Walt! Ev! Ted! Don't make the
V-man look like a piker. Why don't you discuss
his "prognosis" that the energy source for his processes
was the fusion of oxygen into sulfur? Why don't y'all
ever mention that little gem?
Walter Alter
this thread has as much chance of ending as does any thread about
telescope construction or orbital mechanics. archaeo-astronomy is a sub
discipline of astronomy, like it or not. the topics will be engaged on
their own terms and amplified or criticised as the function of a legitimate
specialization. archaeo-astronomy can be seen it Velikovskian terms or
non-Velikovskian terms, but seen it will be.
walter
L. Drew Davis
>>Since I would bet the rent that the above revelation will do
>>precisely nothing to end this long-pointless and interminable
>>thread, I'll feed it a bit: Yo! Walt! Ev! Ted! Don't make the
>>V-man look like a piker. Why don't you discuss
>>his "prognosis" that the energy source for his processes
>>was the fusion of oxygen into sulfur? Why don't y'all
>>ever mention that little gem?
>this thread has as much chance of ending as does any thread about
>telescope construction or orbital mechanics. archaeo-astronomy is a sub
>discipline of astronomy, like it or not.
The Newsgroups: line only contains "talk.origins", like it or not.
>the topics will be engaged on
>their own terms and amplified or criticised as the function of a legitimate
>specialization. archaeo-astronomy can be seen it Velikovskian terms or
>non-Velikovskian terms, but seen it will be.
Not by the friendly folks in sci.astro, apparently.
Say, Walt! Why don't you discuss V's "prognosis" that the energy
source for his processes was the fusion of oxygen into sulfur? Why
didn't you even mention that little gem, since it was the point
of the whole post to which you replied?
--------------
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.
Benjamin T. Dehner
Okay, please provide solutions to the following excersices:
1) give a numerical simulation of the pre-history solar system, including
orbital parameters. (Not just "the earth orbited Jupiter" but
distances, eccentricities, precessions, etc.) Please provide parameters
for all bodies of relevance. (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Venus, Mars ...)
2) (in respect to to Rich Schumacher's point) please list the nuclear
reactions which lead to oxygen fusing to sulfer. Also give the
energy generation and cross sections for these reactions.
3) please generate a model of a core oxygen burning star. A static model
of the dependance of luminosity, effective temperature and radius on
mass would suffice. Bonus points for a time-dendant evolutionary
calculation. (Hint: to burn carbon and/or oxygen requires a star
of about 8-10 solar masses, and don't occur until long after it
has evolved off of the main sequence. Or do you wish to toss out
nuclear physics as well?)
These are the types of models developed in astronomy, and are
perfectly valid astronomy questions. If you wish to consider your
"archaeo-astronomy" as a sub-field of astronomy, address these issues.
If you feel, however, that "the topics will be engaged on there own
terms", then what you are doing is not astronomy.
Ben
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key
b...@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request
Ames, IA 50011
Andrew MacRae
> In <walterCp...@netcom.com> wal...@netcom.com (Walter Alter)
writes:
>
> >schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
> >>Oh, nuts. After reading _Worlds in Collision_ and numerous
> >>apologetics for it by Velikovsky it's obvious that he,
> >>while possibly very sincere, managed to delude himself
> >>hopelessly and ultimately just wanted credit for making a
> >>mess of wild-ass guesses. This is not science. Thank you
> >>for playing.
>
> >this thread has as much chance of ending as does any thread about
> >telescope construction or orbital mechanics. archaeo-astronomy is a
> >sub discipline of astronomy, like it or not.
>
> Okay, please provide solutions to the following excersices:
>
> 1) give a numerical simulation of the pre-history solar system,
> including orbital parameters. (Not just "the earth orbited Jupiter"
> but distances, eccentricities, precessions, etc.) Please provide
> parameters for all bodies of relevance. (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn,
> Earth, Venus, Mars ...)
>
>
> These are the types of models developed in astronomy, and are
> perfectly valid astronomy questions. If you wish to consider your
> "archaeo-astronomy" as a sub-field of astronomy, address these issues.
> If you feel, however, that "the topics will be engaged on there own
> terms", then what you are doing is not astronomy.
>
Seriously. I mean, I am a paleontologist, and although most of my
work deals with fossils, there is _no_way_ I can ignore the rest of the
fields of geology or biology when I propose interpretations. I must know
stratigraphy, sedimentology, tectonics, comparative anatomy, taphonomy,
and even radiometric dating (i.e. igneous geochemisty). If I attempted to
publish a paper which did not address these issues where they were
pertinent to the theory I was proposing, it would probably be rejected,
and what I was doing would be regarded as poor science. Science thrives
on work that synthesizes information from multiple fields, not on work
that narrows to a fine specialization that gives no consideration to
pertinent ideas from other fields. Specialization is ok, but you can
_not_ avoid consideration of pertinent issues.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Everett Cochrane
Schumacher recently raised the following question: "Why don't you
discuss his 'prognosis' that the energy source for his processes was
the fusion of oxygen into sulfur? Why don't y'all ever mention that
little gem?"
not touch upon my researches into archaeoastronomy nor is it central to
Velikovsky's claims. But since you asked, I will try to answer although
I'm not sure what you mean by "energy source for his processes". Here
is the background of Velikovsky's claim.
In January of 1945, Velikovsky registered a lecture copyright entitled
"Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulfur". This was some six months before
the fission bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and years before a fusion
(thermonuclear) process was worked out. As Velikovsky described his
deductions: "In my understanding, the phenomenon of brimstone (sulfur)
falling from the sky (or filling the air) in the course of great
discharges, as narrated in ancient sources (Old Testament and Homer
among them), resulted from smashing two oxygen atoms into one atom of
sulfur. I assumed that, on Jupiter and on Venus, sulfur must be present."
Subsequently, Velikovsky wrote to Walter S. Adams, onetime head of Mount
Palomar and Mount Wilson observatories, asking him whether there was any
reason to assume Jupiter or Venus might have sulfur in an ionized state.
On July 25th, 1955, Adams wrote back, stating "Ionized iron and sulphur
could not possibly be present in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Venus,
because their spectra are atomic and would require very high temperatures
for their production."
Velikovsky's deduction with regards to the possible presence of Sulphur
on Venus is yet another example of where he got it right and leading
astronomers of the time got it wrong, as it is now well-known that
sulfur forms a prominent component of the Venusian atmosphere and chemistry.
As for Velikovsky's suggestion that sulfur could be formed as a result
of interplanetary thunderbolts, the question remains open since this
is not a question easily susceptible to experiment (i.e., we rarely
have Jupiterian thunderbolts to work with). This said, the fact remains
that there are ancient reports of a sulpherous odor accompanying the
discharge of lightning, and I would suspect that an atom smasher
could conceivably create an atom of sulphur by compressing two atoms
of oxygen (for all I know, the experiment has already been performed).
The idea itself certainly does not seem to mark Velikovsky as some sort
of crank, as implied by Mr. Schumacher. But then, Mr. Schumacher
always seem to underestimate the intellectual capacities of Dr.
Velikovsky. Nevertheless, I thank him for raising the question.
(My discussion of Velikovsky and sulfur summarized the argument of
Lewis M. Greenberg in "Velikovsky and Venus," in KRONOS 1979, pp. 7-10).
Justin M. Sanders
>In January of 1945, Velikovsky registered a lecture copyright entitled
>"Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulfur". This was some six months before
>the fission bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and years before a fusion
>(thermonuclear) process was worked out. As Velikovsky described his
>deductions: "In my understanding, the phenomenon of brimstone (sulfur)
>falling from the sky (or filling the air) in the course of great
>discharges, as narrated in ancient sources (Old Testament and Homer
>among them), resulted from smashing two oxygen atoms into one atom of
>sulfur. I assumed that, on Jupiter and on Venus, sulfur must be present."
>
>Subsequently, Velikovsky wrote to Walter S. Adams, onetime head of Mount
>Palomar and Mount Wilson observatories, asking him whether there was any
>reason to assume Jupiter or Venus might have sulfur in an ionized state.
>On July 25th, 1955, Adams wrote back, stating "Ionized iron and sulphur
>could not possibly be present in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Venus,
>because their spectra are atomic and would require very high temperatures
>for their production."
>
>Velikovsky's deduction with regards to the possible presence of Sulphur
>on Venus is yet another example of where he got it right and leading
>astronomers of the time got it wrong, as it is now well-known that
>sulfur forms a prominent component of the Venusian atmosphere and chemistry.
An important word, in both Velikovsky's question (as you have paraphrased
it) and in Adams' response is "ionized". Sulfur compounds and sulfur
molecular ions are certainly present in the Venusian atmosphere, but that
is not the same thing as ionized atomic sulfur. Adams clearly refers
to ionized atomic sulfur in his reponse, not to sulfur compounds.
>As for Velikovsky's suggestion that sulfur could be formed as a result
>of interplanetary thunderbolts, the question remains open since this
>is not a question easily susceptible to experiment (i.e., we rarely
>have Jupiterian thunderbolts to work with).
The two oxygen atoms will require 26 MeV of energy (minimum) in order
for any significant nuclear reactions to take place between them. It is
highly unlikely that there would be any significant acceleration of an
oxygen ion to that energy by electric fields one sees in lightning and in
the presence of an atomosphere of the density where lightning takes place.
--
Justin M. Sanders "Nothing is more unfamiliar or
Research Associate uncongenial to the human mind than
Physics Division, ORNL thinking correctly about probabilities."
jsan...@orph01.phy.ornl.gov --S.J. Gould, "Eight Little Piggies"
L. Drew Davis
>In January of 1945, Velikovsky registered a lecture copyright entitled
>"Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulfur". This was some six months before
>the fission bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and years before a fusion
>(thermonuclear) process was worked out.
Hmmm. Time to go check the references, starting with "Hans Bethe".
In any event, bombs aren't science, they're technology.
>As Velikovsky described his
>deductions: "In my understanding, the phenomenon of brimstone (sulfur)
>falling from the sky (or filling the air) in the course of great
>discharges, as narrated in ancient sources (Old Testament and Homer
>among them), resulted from smashing two oxygen atoms into one atom of
>sulfur. I assumed that, on Jupiter and on Venus, sulfur must be present."
>
>Subsequently, Velikovsky wrote to Walter S. Adams, onetime head of Mount
>Palomar and Mount Wilson observatories, asking him whether there was any
>reason to assume Jupiter or Venus might have sulfur in an ionized state.
>On July 25th, 1955, Adams wrote back, stating "Ionized iron and sulphur
>could not possibly be present in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Venus,
>because their spectra are atomic and would require very high temperatures
>for their production."
>
>Velikovsky's deduction with regards to the possible presence of Sulphur
>on Venus is yet another example of where he got it right and leading
>astronomers of the time got it wrong, as it is now well-known that
>sulfur forms a prominent component of the Venusian atmosphere and chemistry.
Ev, it's not "ionized sulfur". There's a big difference. For that
matter, it's not "sulfur", the sulfur is bound into sulfur dioxide, not
floating free having just been smashed into existence from oxygen, were
such a thing possible. And this is despite the fact that there *is* a
quantity of ionized oxygen about, left over from the photodissociation of
water when the hydrogen escapes -- all in accordance with the standard
greenhouse theory. Plus, that oxygen is way up in the ionosphere, whereas
any free sulfur is far down near the surface, where you'd expect it
if it came from the planet rather than fused from oxygen.
>I would suspect that an atom smasher
>could conceivably create an atom of sulphur by compressing two atoms
>of oxygen (for all I know, the experiment has already been performed).
You admit that you don't know, which is a good thing. However, using
this ignorance as a reason to argue something must be possible is a
fallacy commonly seen on t.o.
So, who's the t.o designated hitter for nuclear processes?
Alon Drory
(Justin M. Sanders) writes:
(In response to some comments of Ev Cochrane)
>The two oxygen atoms will require 26 MeV of energy (minimum) in order
>for any significant nuclear reactions to take place between them. It is
>highly unlikely that there would be any significant acceleration of an
>oxygen ion to that energy by electric fields one sees in lightning and in
>the presence of an atomosphere of the density where lightning takes place.
>--
On the other hand, Ev mentioned "sulphuric" smells reported by the
"ancients" to accompany lightnings. I wonder about the "sulphuric"
quality of the smells. Could it have been just a "stench"? Such reports
are still common today. Lightnings often produce ozone, which has a
rather disagreable odor, as far as I remember. How about it Ev? Got any
references for the specifically "sulphuric" character of the lightnings in
ancient times?
--
- Alon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding
-- H. H. Williams
Andrew MacRae
> Schumacher recently raised the following question: "Why don't you
> discuss his 'prognosis' that the energy source for his processes was
> the fusion of oxygen into sulfur? Why don't y'all ever mention that
> little gem?"
>
> Well, to be perfectly frank, I haven't mentioned it because it does
> not touch upon my researches into archaeoastronomy nor is it central to
> Velikovsky's claims. But since you asked, I will try to answer although
> I'm not sure what you mean by "energy source for his processes". Here
> is the background of Velikovsky's claim.
>
> In January of 1945, Velikovsky registered a lecture copyright entitled
> "Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulfur". This was some six months before
> Subsequently, Velikovsky wrote to Walter S. Adams, onetime head of Mount
> Palomar and Mount Wilson observatories, asking him whether there was any
> reason to assume Jupiter or Venus might have sulfur in an ionized state.
> On July 25th, 1955, Adams wrote back, stating "Ionized iron and sulphur
> could not possibly be present in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Venus,
> because their spectra are atomic and would require very high
> temperatures for their production."
>
> Velikovsky's deduction with regards to the possible presence of Sulphur
^^^^^^^
> on Venus is yet another example of where he got it right and leading
> astronomers of the time got it wrong, as it is now well-known that
> sulfur forms a prominent component of the Venusian atmosphere and
> chemistry.
Excuse me. Can you say that again? Please explain to me how
Walter Adams clear denial that there could be "ionized iron and sulphur"
in the atmosphere of Jupiter and Venus suddenly turned into the denial of
the presence of simple "Sulphur" in the Vesuvian atmosphere? Adams
statement is _clearly_ referring to the _ionized_ state versus the atomic
state - a very specific and different statement from the one that you are
claiming astronomers "got wrong".
I really can not believe this, Ev. Do you not understand the
difference between Adams statement and what you are suggesting? Please
elaborate on what you think was meant. You really have only one chance to
demonstrate that your interpretation of the events/historical context is
correct:
Demonstrate that the Vesuvian atmosphere does contain _IONIZED_
sulphur.
Otherwise, Adams' statement is perfectly reasonable. There is
absolutely no hint from Adams' quote, or from astronomers of the day, that
they did not think there was sulphur on Venus (or Jupiter), it just was
not in ionized form.
>
> (My discussion of Velikovsky and sulfur summarized the argument of
> Lewis M. Greenberg in "Velikovsky and Venus," in KRONOS 1979, pp. 7-10).
>
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Robert Parson
> On the other hand, Ev mentioned "sulphuric" smells reported by the
>"ancients" to accompany lightnings. I wonder about the "sulphuric"
>quality of the smells. Could it have been just a "stench"? Such reports
>are still common today. Lightnings often produce ozone, which has a
>rather disagreable odor, as far as I remember.
I wouldn't describe the odor of ozone as "sulfuorous". However,
lightning does produce oxides of nitrogen, NO2 and NO. (This is one pathway
for getting atmospheric nitrogen into biologically useful nitrates.)
NO2 certainly has a "stench", though I don't know if a lightning bolt
produces enough to smell.
Let me also second Justin Sanders' point concerning the distinction between
atmospheric sulfur (lots of it in our own atmosphere, as SO2, OCS, and
dimethyl sulfide) and *ionized atomic sulfur*.
------
Robert
Everett Cochrane
character frequently ascribed to the discharge of lightning. Such
references are actually quite plentiful, as noted by Velikovsky and other
scholars. In the 12th book of the Odyssey, for example, it is stated:
"Zeus thundered and hurled his bolt upon the ship, and she quivered
from stem to stern, smitten by the bolt of Zeus, and was filled with
sulfurous smoke." Similar statements are to be found in the Iliad.
In his Natural History (35:50), Pliny wrote as follows: "Lightning and
thunder are attended with a strong smell of sulfur, and the light produced
by them is of a sulfurous complexion."
As is well-known, such reports continued well into modern times. Thus
Ben Franklin in the report announcing his findings to the Royal Society
in 1749 listed a "sulphureous smell" as a property of "electrical fluid"
associated with lightning.
As for the explanation of these reports, I doubt that Velikovsky's
explanation will withstand scrutiny. As Cardona has noted, a more
probable explanation is that offered by W. Humphreys in 1942:
"[Following lightning] many people say they can smell the scorched, or
burnt, air and that always the odor is like that of burnt sulfur. The
fact is that the lightning disrupts many of the oxygen, nitrogen and
water vapor molecules along its course and that in their resultant
combination with whatever is present several substances are formed that
were not there before, especially combinations of nitrogen with
hydrogen and with oxygen. In the presence of water vapor. always in
the air, the first of these goes over into ammonia, and the second into
nitrous and nitric acids. All these things, ammonia, the oxides of
nitrogen and the nitrogen acids, are pungent, and therefore are mistaken
by most people who are not familiar with them for the highly pungent
fumes of burning sulfur with which they, like the rest of us, are
familiar."
Everett Cochrane
more information re Velikovsky's suggestion that two atoms of oxygen
could be fused together, thereby creating an atom of sulfur, I suggested
that the subsequent finding of sulfur on Venus vindicated Velikovsky's
expectation that both Venus and Jupiter would be found to have sulfur
in an ionized state. As Justin Sanders noted, since seconded by Drew
Davis, and Andrew MacRae, there is a great deal of difference between
atomic sulfur and ionized atomic sulfur. I stand corrected.
As to the status of Velikovsky's claims re the possibility of sulfur on
either Venus or Jupiter in an ionized state, I really don't have much to
add and would leave this question to the astronomers. I have read that
ionized sulfur has been found in a plasma cloud around Jupiter, but have
not seen such confirmed for Venus.
L. Drew Davis
>On May 13th Alan Drory requested ancient references for the sulfuric
>character frequently ascribed to the discharge of lightning.
>As is well-known, such reports continued well into modern times. Thus
>Ben Franklin in the report announcing his findings to the Royal Society
>in 1749 listed a "sulphureous smell" as a property of "electrical fluid"
>associated with lightning.
And since modern lightning produces the same results as ancient lightning,
but without collisions between planets, there's no reason to assume that
the mythological references are any different, right?
>As for the explanation of these reports, I doubt that Velikovsky's
>explanation will withstand scrutiny.
I agree. The sulfur business doesn't constitute evidence for
Velikovsky, then. (Have you changed your mind since you brought
it up originally?)
Justin M. Sanders
>
>The two oxygen atoms will require 26 MeV of energy (minimum) in order
>for any significant nuclear reactions to take place between them. It is
>highly unlikely that there would be any significant acceleration of an
>oxygen ion to that energy by electric fields one sees in lightning and in
>the presence of an atomosphere of the density where lightning takes place.
I recognize the Mr. Cochrane has yielded the main points here, but I
received a request to elaborate on the above, so here is my elaboration:
1. If an oxygen atom collides with another at rest, what energy is required
to bring them to a distance where the nuclei "touch"?
Conservation of Momentum:
Initially only one oxygen atom is in motion; after the collision the two
atoms are "stuck together"; so it's a perfectly inelastic collision.
M = mass of oxygen atom; v is initial velocity; u is final velocity
(1) M * v = 2*M*u
or
(2) v = 2*u
Conservation of Energy:
We ignore the electrons on the two atoms (a good approximation). The initially
the kinetic energy T is all in the one moving atom, and (when the atoms are
very far apart) the potential energy is zero. The final energy is the sum
of the kinetic energy of the combined atoms and the electric potential
energy U they have at the "touching distance".
(3) T= 1/2 * M * v^2 = 1/2 * (2*M) * u^2 + U
using (2), we get
(4) T = 1/2 * M * v^2 = 2* U
where
(5) U = k * Z^2 * e^2 / d
Using
k= 9 E 9 Nm^2/C^2
e = 1.6 E-19 C
Z = 8 (for oxygen)
d = 2 * (nuclear radius) = 2* r0 * A^(1/3)
r0 = 1.4 E-15 m
A (atomic mass of oxygen) = 16
Finally 1 MeV = 1.6 E-13 J.
Combining (4) and (5) and plugging in the numbers,
(6) T = 24.6 MeV
So with this energy, the oxygen atoms will get to within the distance
where nuclear forces become significant and fusion becomes possible.
There are other nuclear processes that could occur rather than fusion,
but I'm not qualified to comment on them.
2. How can you get an oxygen atom going that fast?
This energy (24.6 MeV) corresponds to a velocity for the oxygen atom
of 6% the speed of light. It would be obtained by allowing an oxygen
nucleus (charge 8+) to pass through a potential difference of 3.1 E6 volts.
Bare oxygen nuclei are extremely rare. Much more common would be an
oxygen ion of charge 1+ or 2+ which would require potential differences
of 24.6 E6 volts and 12.3 E6 volts respectively, but let's be generous
and take the lowest possible potential difference.
Now lightning is caused by the potential gradient of the earth's
electric field. Near the surface, this gradient is about 100 V/m
(vertically), and it decreases with height. But let's be generous
again and say that it is ten times greater, and that it doesn't
decrease with height. The distance the oxygen nucleus would have to
travel through such a gradient in order to pass through a potential
difference of 3.1 E6 V is
(7) L = P / G = (3.1 E6 V)/ (1 E3 V/m) = 3.1 E3 m
In order for the oxygen atom to actually get the required energy in
passing through such a potential difference, it must most suffer
collisions with other atoms along the way. In other words, its mean
free path must be about 3.1 E3 m. Such long mean free paths are only
obtained at altitudes much greater than 300 km (my CRC Handbook gives
the mean free path at 300 km as only about 4m). Lightning occurs at
much lower altitudes-- below 80 km or so-- where the mean free path is
much shorter, only about 1 E-2 m or less. Thus the potential gradient
of the earth's electric field is insufficient to accelerate an oxygen
nucleus to the required speed in the presence of a dense atomosphere
(where the lightning takes place).
If anyone knows the potential gradients under actual lightning
conditions, I'd be interested in knowing the real numbers.
Benjamin T. Dehner
>In article <2r01p1$s...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu> I wrote:
>>
>>The two oxygen atoms will require 26 MeV of energy (minimum) in order
>>for any significant nuclear reactions to take place between them. It is
>>highly unlikely that there would be any significant acceleration of an
>>oxygen ion to that energy by electric fields one sees in lightning and in
>>the presence of an atomosphere of the density where lightning takes place.
>I recognize the Mr. Cochrane has yielded the main points here, but I
>received a request to elaborate on the above, so here is my elaboration:
>1. If an oxygen atom collides with another at rest, what energy is required
>to bring them to a distance where the nuclei "touch"?
>Conservation of Momentum:
>Initially only one oxygen atom is in motion; after the collision the two
>atoms are "stuck together"; so it's a perfectly inelastic collision.
>M = mass of oxygen atom; v is initial velocity; u is final velocity
>(1) M * v = 2*M*u
>or
>(2) v = 2*u
>Conservation of Energy:
>We ignore the electrons on the two atoms (a good approximation). The initially
>the kinetic energy T is all in the one moving atom, and (when the atoms are
>very far apart) the potential energy is zero. The final energy is the sum
>of the kinetic energy of the combined atoms and the electric potential
>energy U they have at the "touching distance".
One little pedant point I'd like to mention here: nuclei
undergoing fusion very rarely are approaching fast enough to "touch"
as you assume here, for fusion. Instead, they get close and undergo
quantum mechanical tunneling through the coulomb barrier. I don't know
the numbers offhand, but you should maybe add a fudge factor somehwere to
your calculations to account for that.
Justin M. Sanders
>undergoing fusion very rarely are approaching fast enough to "touch"
>as you assume here, for fusion. Instead, they get close and undergo
>quantum mechanical tunneling through the coulomb barrier. I don't know
>the numbers offhand, but you should maybe add a fudge factor somehwere to
>your calculations to account for that.
Pedant point well taken. In addition to the uncertainty you mention, the
formula which I used for the nuclear radius is only a rule of thumb;
therefore, the actual average reaction distance may easily be larger than
what I used. This means that the required energy will be proportionally
less. I'll cheerfully give a factor of 2 or 3 at this stage, since later
in my discussion I was giving away orders of magnitude which still didn't
bring the proposed "fusion by lightning" into the realm of plausibility.
Justin M. Sanders
previous version that contained a fatal typograpical error.
In article <2r01p1$s...@newserv.ksu.ksu.edu> I wrote:
>
>The two oxygen atoms will require 26 MeV of energy (minimum) in order
>for any significant nuclear reactions to take place between them. It is
>highly unlikely that there would be any significant acceleration of an
>oxygen ion to that energy by electric fields one sees in lightning and in
>the presence of an atomosphere of the density where lightning takes place.
I recognize the Mr. Cochrane has yielded the main points here, but I
received a request to elaborate on the above, so here is my elaboration:
1. If an oxygen atom collides with another at rest, what energy is required
to bring them to a distance where the nuclei "touch"?
Conservation of Momentum:
Initially only one oxygen atom is in motion; after the collision the two
atoms are "stuck together"; so it's a perfectly inelastic collision.
M = mass of oxygen atom; v is initial velocity; u is final velocity
(1) M * v = 2*M*u
or
(2) v = 2*u
Conservation of Energy:
We ignore the electrons on the two atoms (a good approximation). The initially
the kinetic energy T is all in the one moving atom, and (when the atoms are
very far apart) the potential energy is zero. The final energy is the sum
of the kinetic energy of the combined atoms and the electric potential
energy U they have at the "touching distance".
passing through such a potential difference, it must not suffer
collisions with other atoms along the way. In other words, its mean
free path must be about 3.1 E3 m. Such long mean free paths are only
obtained at altitudes much greater than 300 km (my CRC Handbook gives
the mean free path at 300 km as only about 4m). Lightning occurs at
much lower altitudes-- below 80 km or so-- where the mean free path is
much shorter, only about 1 E-2 m or less. Thus the potential gradient
of the earth's electric field is insufficient to accelerate an oxygen
nucleus to the required speed in the presence of a dense atomosphere
(where the lightning takes place).
If anyone knows the potential gradients under actual lightning
conditions, I'd be interested in knowing the real numbers.
[Again, my apologies if you see this article twice]
Terrance J. Gaetz
: In his seemingly endless quest to discredit Velikovsky, Richard
: Schumacher recently raised the following question: "Why don't you
: discuss his 'prognosis' that the energy source for his processes was
: the fusion of oxygen into sulfur? Why don't y'all ever mention that
: little gem?"
: In January of 1945, Velikovsky registered a lecture copyright entitled
: "Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulfur". This was some six months before
: the fission bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and years before a fusion
: (thermonuclear) process was worked out.
We're supposed to be impressed by this? The idea of nuclear fusion
was old hat by 1945. Eddington, in his classic 1926 book
on stellar structure, suggested fusion of hydrogen into helium as a
possible mechanism for the energy source of the sun. By 1938 Hans Bethe
had worked out *and published* the details of the Carbon cycle for
fusing hydrogen into helium; Bethe later won a Nobel Prize for this
work. (It turns out that the sun actually uses a different reaction
network to fuse hydrogen into helium; the Carbon cycle becomes important
in stars somewhat more massive than the sun.)
Just because it proved difficult to construct a hydrogen bomb
after the war doesn't mean that nuclear fusion was itself a
mystery in 1945.
By the way - where did Velikovsky (or his followers) publish calculations
on the details of the proposed process? You know, things like: reaction
networks and calculations of energetics and rates showing that the process
actually works as claimed and produces the necessary amount of sulfur;
also evaluations of the range of physical conditions required
and an argument that the necessary conditions actually apply (or applied)
to Jupiter and/or Venus. It seems to me that this is a bare minimum
if you want to get beyond vague and furious handwaving.
[rest deleted...]
--
Terry Gaetz -- ga...@cfa.harvard.edu
Andrew MacRae
> On May 13th, in an attempt to respond to Richard Schumacher's request
> for more information re Velikovsky's suggestion that two atoms of oxygen
> could be fused together, thereby creating an atom of sulfur, I suggested
> As to the status of Velikovsky's claims re the possibility of sulfur on
> either Venus or Jupiter in an ionized state, I really don't have much to
> add and would leave this question to the astronomers. I have read that
> ionized sulfur has been found in a plasma cloud around Jupiter, but have
> not seen such confirmed for Venus.
It is important to note that such an observation is certainly
likely in the case of Jupiter, because of the effect of Io's sulphur-rich
volcanism and low gravity, which introduces sulphur into the environment
near the moon. I suspect the sulphur could then be ionized by solar
radiation. However, this is a fairly unusual occurrence, and the
occurrence of such ionized sulphur is quite different from the idea it
might be present in the _atmosphere_ of the planets.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Benjamin T. Dehner
>Everett Cochrane (ecoc...@delphi.com) wrote:
[R. Schumacher (sp?) question about V and oxygen fusion]
>: In January of 1945, Velikovsky registered a lecture copyright entitled
>: "Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulfur". This was some six months before
>: the fission bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and years before a fusion
>: (thermonuclear) process was worked out.
[Bethe, Eddington, and fusion in astrophysics]
>By the way - where did Velikovsky (or his followers) publish calculations
>on the details of the proposed process? You know, things like: reaction
>networks and calculations of energetics and rates showing that the process
>actually works as claimed and produces the necessary amount of sulfur;
>also evaluations of the range of physical conditions required
>and an argument that the necessary conditions actually apply (or applied)
>to Jupiter and/or Venus. It seems to me that this is a bare minimum
>if you want to get beyond vague and furious handwaving.
Well, the problem is that no Velikovskian work I have ever seen
has *EVER* gone beyond this. It's all full of vague and furious handwaving,
flowing with scientific-sounding buzzwards, but with very little, usually
nothing, in the way of specific calculations or analysis. Grandios schemes
of "interstellar lighting bolts", "elctromagnetic interactions", and
"earth-shattering upheavels", but with NO discussion of specifics. No
model is ever presented, no in-depth analysis, no even order-of-magnitude
energetics, no numerical calculations. Full of the sound and the fury ...
What I have seen in the way of pro-Velikovsky "scientific" work
has been, at best, amatuerish and incomplete. In there own work, I have
seen very few references to anyone outside of the Velikovskian circle,
or to any refereed journal outside of the Velikovskian studies.
In the current example, why did Velikovsky not references some nuclear
physics work (like Bethe) where there was a discussion about cross sections?
Surely this work has little relevance to the "uniformitarianism" of
astrophysics. Or, on a related note, why did Grubaugh himself not perform
any numerical calculations on his model? For that matter, Leroy Ellenberger
(who isn't a programmer) found a free-ware computer program for the PC
called Gravitation to do this sort of modeling. Why can't the pro-V
supporters do this sort of work?
As yet another example, I have obtained (courtesy of Leroy
Ellenberger) a copy of Ragnar Forshufvud's paper "On the Cirularization
of the Orbit of Venus", (Kronos 7:2 1982) in which he wishes to have Venus
loose energy by moving it through a 94 earth mass cloud. Out of 48
references, 19 of them come from Pensee or Kronos, several more from
something called SIS Review, which appears to be a strongly Velikovsky
(or creationist) journal. When talking about "streamlining", or shock
waves of Venus moving through this, he references McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia
of Science and Technology. Finally, he attempts to calculate the energy
loss, using a Fortran code given in the appendix. A few problems, however:
1) he forgot that, *at minimum*, we have a 2-body problem (or is
Venus not going around the sun?),
2) doesn't discuss where the initial conditions of the model are
obtained from,
3) doesn't discuss where he obtained the parameters for aerodynamic
drag from.
4) for the cross-section of Venus, he used the size of the *roche*
lobe, which gives it a radius of 3e8 cm, 100 times its radius and
about 1/5 the solar radius.
5) uses the mass of the *atmosphere* (NOT the planet) to calculate
density.
6) assumes constant density throughout the area.
Further, the code itself was completely uncommented, although there was
a description of some of the variables in the text. In short, while
this may be good Velikovskian science, in the real world, this is
garbage.
The sole recourse of the Velikovskian school is to claim that
they are actually doing "archaeoastronomy". That they can do their
historical (hysterical?) recontructions of ancient myths and legends and
blissfully ignore the physical concequences. Or, to put it more bluntly,
they go off in a corner and intellectually masturbate, where they don't
have to be bothered by reality.
Henling, Lawrence M.
>In his Natural History (35:50), Pliny wrote as follows: "Lightning and
>thunder are attended with a strong smell of sulfur, and the light produced
>by them is of a sulfurous complexion."
So the sulfur also emits light?
>fumes of burning sulfur with which they, like the rest of us, are
>familiar."
How many people today are familiar with the fumes of burning sulfur?
larry henling
l...@shakes.caltech.edu