Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby Total Science » Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:55 pm

"... those terrifiers of the world stood like two planets both deviating from their orbits." -- Sanjaya, Mahabharata, Book 8 (Karna Parva), Chapter 17, 8th century B.C.

"For if the Olympian who handles the lightning [Jupiter] should be minded
to hurl us [planets] out of our places, he is far too strong for any."
-- Homer, poet, Iliad, I:580-581

"Then, it was then that Zeus [Jupiter] changed the radiant paths of the stars, and the light of the sun, and the bright face of dawn; and the sun drove across the western back of the sky with hot flame from heaven's fires, while the rain-clouds went northward and Ammon's lands [Egypt] grew parched and faint, not knowing moisture, robbed of heaven's fairest showers of rain." --Euripides, playwright, Electra, 408 B.C.

"But, when the planets,
In evil mixture, to disorder wander,
What plagues, and what portents? what mutiny?
What raging of the sea? Shaking of the earth?
Commotion in the winds? frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixture?"
-- William Shakespeare, playwright, Troilus and Cressida, 1602

"If an atom is built as a microcosmical model of a solar system, elements arriving from interatomic space, also travelling from one atom to another must be in existence. Contacts between elements, increase in numbers of electrons, polarities, change of orbits, all must take place. Change of orbits and emitting of energy at these moments were supposed by Bohr." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, November 1942

"... the solar system may have changed so much since it was created that a study of the present state would tell us very little about it's origin." -- Hannes O.G. Alfvén, physicist, 1954

"...it was accepted that the solar system has no history at all. So it was created if not 6000 years ago, then 6 billion years ago. But then for 6 billion years there was no change. Whether it was created or came into being by tidal action of a passing star which would be catastrophic as the tidal theory wishes or it is growing out of a nebula, the nebular theory which goes back to Kant and Laplace, but since creation there was no change. But if what I am telling you is truth, then there were changes, and very many, and very recently too." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1966

"... it is not the 'beliefs' and 'religions' which circle around and fight eachother restlessly; what changes is the celestial situation." -- Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend, polymaths, 1969

"... I started to think that quite possibly, though not certain, that at the age of Kronos, the planet Earth could have been a satellite of Saturn. None of them was on their present orbit." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, January 29th 1975

"... Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a series of books decades ago saying that the events in the Bible were literally true, and caused by various astronomical things like planets careening around the solar system like billiard balls, interacting in impossible ways, and doing many impossible things." -- Phil Plait, pseudoscientist, January 8th 2010

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ranus.html

URANUS may have been batted back and forth between Jupiter and Saturn before being flung out to its present location, new simulations suggest.

Previous modelling has shown that Jupiter and Saturn moved out of their initial orbits in the early solar system, scattering nearby objects.

In some simulations, this led to Uranus crossing the path of Saturn, which could then have flung it towards Jupiter, which lobbed it back to Saturn. The process might have happened three times before Uranus was finally ejected beyond Saturn, to where it now resides. Hurling Uranus would have caused Jupiter and Saturn to recoil, further shifting their orbits.

New simulations led by Alessandro Morbidelli of the Côte d'Azur Observatory in France suggest this pinball game, which would have lasted just 100,000 years, fits with observations. In an alternate scenario, Jupiter and Saturn moved to their orbits over 5 million years by simply flinging away space rocks, but this would have visibly scarred the asteroid belt (Astronomical Journal, in press). "The evolution of the giant planets has been more violent than we thought," Morbidelli says.
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:28 am

Nice piece there, T.S.- Bravo! :)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby seb » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:17 pm

Hello, Devil's Advocate here. ;)

There have been numerous reports of late by theoretical astronomers claiming that various gas giants changed orbits shortly after the creation of the solar system. It is good to see challenges to the dogma of unchanged clockwork orbits since the birth of the solar system, even if all of the reports conflict in their details. However, I do not think that the reports that are given do much to support Velikovsky's work because they involve different planets under different conditions and for different reasons. Plus there is still the claim that their movements occurred very early in the life of the solar system and took millions of years to complete; after which everything became clockwork (which I think is a little illogical - what caused their orbits to become so stable so quickly that they remained steady for billions of years after great chaos?). So it's only a partial acknowledgement of the ability of planets to change orbits.

In addition, the claims appear to be largely based on creating computer models in which the initial conditions and various parameters are adjusted within sufficiently flexible equations until the final outcome matches current observations and does so in a way that is intuitively acceptable through modern astronomy's eyes. This is the same method that PC/EU theorists reject when put forward as evidence for how galaxies, stars, and solar systems are created. If such simulations are inadmissable as evidence for mainstream theories then surely they are equally inadmissable as evidence for Velikovsky.

The problem as I see it is that the models used are internally self-consistent, even if all of the various models collectively conflict with each other. Akin to a belief in superstition and magic, there is a powerful psychological effect that makes one prone to believe that a consistent set of equations must reflect reality when their answers match observation when given suitable inputs, even when those inputs are arbitrary and unjustifiable.

Many mainstream scientists are fond of debunking alternative theories, and in many cases rightly so. But how many of them could get close to winning James Randi's $1,000,000 prize if they had to prove that dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, etc., weren't supernatural fabrications? :lol:
seb
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby StevenO » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Simulations do not prove anything. It's just a model producing your desired result. ;) Show me some first principles that would prove it.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:52 am

I wouldn't call ya 'Devil's Advocate' so much as 'Voice of Reason', bud! Your point is well-taken... this article proves nothing.

What it indicates is a possible 'shift-in-the-wind' of the scientific dogma of the day- is that a small whiff of 'catastrophism' I smell in the breeze? :?

It may be nothing- a 'flash-in-the-pan' maverick paper that made it through their paradigm-protecting safety net of peer-review guardians maintaining the theoretical-math-based status quo... but it might also be a crack in the wall... who knows? We can always hope! :D

What Total Science put together up top there is still a nice piece of reading regardless- had some great quotes of legend and I enjoyed reading it! :)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby JohnMT » Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:05 am

Generally thinking such catastrophic theories (assumptions?) are more or less accepted by the mainstream (like the 'Mars Crunch' etc.), providing of course these events are placed many millions or even billions of years ago, as in the case of Uranus.

The objections arise when thinkers like Velikovsky et al place such events in terms of mere few thousands of years ago.

Such suggested "recentness" against our all-knowledgeable and enlightened mentors just cannot be tolerated!...hence the ensuing academic turmoil and insults from the likes of the late Carl Sagan (Worlds in Collusion!), Phil Plait (Worlds in Delusion!) and Patrick Moore, who once said Velikovsky was 'The King of Fools'.

Whats up with these guys?
Someone stole their dummies?

Overall, I call it 'DENIAL', born out of sheer ignorance.

Just my twopenny-worth,

Cheers
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again

Unread postby seb » Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:57 pm

Hello,

I'm sure that there must be some psychological reason why people can accept the possibility of catastrophic events as long as they cannot happen today. I doubt there's a logical reason. Catastrophism is alive and well in some scientific domains, such as those involved with the environment. Velikovsky himself made the remark that he had probably set back science by decades because the ideas he described had become no-go areas for serious research.

Most scientists accept the notion that the laws of physics in deep space are the same as the laws of physics here. In other words, what happens there can happen here, and what happens here can happen there. That is nice and symmetrical and quite rational in the absence of evidence to the contrary. They can also accept the notion that what happens today could have happened in the past, but if they're asked to consider the possibility of past events being able to happen today then they get a tad upset. That is illogical unless they can find a very good reason, and the idea that it can't happen because it's currently not happening is not a good reason.

On the whole, the objections that people (not just scientists) put up against alternative theories and theorists, including Velikovsky, are primarily political and dismissive. Shots across the bow in the hope of scaring them off, if you like. Rarely do you see a proper scientific response, yet it is exactly those responses that scientists should be striving to give because it lends itself to reasoned debate, friendly discussions, and open-minded research in which nobody need lose face or worry about their reputation.

Perhaps the requirement for accepting catastrophic events (and Biblical miracles too) is not so much that they cannot happen today, but rather that they can happen just so long as they don't do it in the way Velikovsky described. :lol:
seb
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:08 pm

This is a comment from the "Talk" page of the Wikipedia article for Velikovsky:-

"in his 1996 "Tree Rings". When Velikovsky wrote Worlds in Collision the oldest known tree rings were those of the Sequoias whose growth began several centuries after the first Venus encounter with Earth. On this basis, and possibly other intuitions, Velikovsky claimed that no trees survived Earth's encounter with Venus. However, the first tree ring datings for the bristlecone pines in California were published in 1954 and showed they were more than 4000 years old, older than the date for the first Venus-Earth encounter. Although this new information was not included in Earth in Upheaval, published in 1955, Velikovsky was able to include information concerning Runcorn's discoveries on geomagnetism published in Scientific American that year. Astronomer Dennis Rawlins cited the survival of the bristlecone pines as a sufficient disproof of the entire Worlds in Collision in his 1972 (rev. 1974) critique "Freudian Astronomy or Do Planetary Orbits, Bristlecone Pines, & Velikovsky's Believers Suffer from Collective Amnesia?" which has circulated among Velikovsky scholars over the years after being rejected by Marcello Truzzi, then at Zetetic, for its strident tone. I close by pointing out that every subject important to Velikovsky's scenario that I chose to examine for myself turned out to be far less significant, and sometimes totally irrelevant, than how Velikovsky had represented it to be. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)"


What are your thoughts on this?
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby slug » Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:09 pm

Not necessarily it could just be then that is Velikovsky or is wrong about the trees or the tree ring dating is wrong.

Anyway I dont believe that the total destruction of all trees on earth is in any way necessary to validate the Venus encounter, and quite frankly i have trouble accepting that seeing as so many other things survived.
slug
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:34 pm

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:01 pm

PP wrote:Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?
No. Many individuals of many species of flora and fauna survived the catatstrophes, obviously most of them lived out their lives, and died from other causes. But not before reproducing, and so we have the biosphere of today. The fact that a specific individual of a species (in this case the bristlecone pine) has directly experienced the catastrophes and is still alive today, does not disprove the thesis. It only shows that bristlecone pine is probably the toughest tree able to withstand the harshest conditions. They can grow in climates where little else can grow and survive just about anything nature will throw at them. They have carved out an ecological niche in areas where other trees cannot survive. Interestingly, the truly old specimens are found in adverse environments; specimens located in friendlier locations do not live as long:

Great Basin Bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) are remarkable for their great age and their ability to survive adverse growing conditions. In fact, it seems one secret to their longevity is the harsh environment in which most bristlecone pines grow.

Bristlecone pines in Great Basin National Park grow in isolated groves just below treeline. Conditions are harsh, with cold temperatures, a short growing season, and high winds. Bristlecone pines in these high-elevation environments grow very slowly, and in some years don't even add a ring of growth. This slow growth makes their wood very dense and resistant to insects, fungi, rot, and erosion. Vegetation is very sparse, limiting the role of fire. Bristlecone pine seeds are occassionally cached by birds at lower elevations. Bristlecone pines grow more rapidly in more "favorable" environments at lower elevations. They do not achieve their legendary age or fascinating twisted shapes.

http://www.nps.gov/grba/planyourvisit/i ... -pines.htm



PP wrote:Velikovsky claimed that no trees survived Earth's encounter with Venus.
This is not exactly true. At the time of the writing of Earth In Upheaval (1955) it was believed that Sequoias were the oldest living individuals on Earth. Velikovsky wrote that since the oldest Sequoias were younger than the Venus catastrophe then "it appears that no tree has survived..."
Note the word "appears," that can hardly be called a claim. From the perspective of the 1950's, that is indeed the appearance. Apparently individual sequoias did not survive the Venus catastrophe but some bristlecone pine did. Velikovsky proposed several tests for his theory, survivablilty of trees was not one of them, nor should it be.

The source for the Wiki quote is Leroy Ellenberger (Phaedrus7). Charles Ginenthal has addressed Ellenberger (and others) in the volumes of the The Velikovskian, including the subjects of dendrochronology, ice core evidence, radiometric dating, as well Ellenberger's ad hominem attacks.
As an antidote, I would recommend The Extinction of the Mammoths by Ginenthal, (1997) as a valuable reference tool.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:45 pm

Velikovsky is not our Main Theorist
* The main EU Theorists, Cardona, Talbott, Cochrane et al, do not accept Velikovsky's claims that Venus had a near encounter with Earth 3500 years ago during the Exodus etc, nor that Mars had a near encounter 2700 years ago. Cardona has stated that the Saturn System broke up about 5,000 years ago and Talbott seems to suggest that the Venus and Mars encounters with Earth occurred about that time as well, according to the Alien Sky video series on Youtube. They do not state that the Saturn System breakup broke off all of the tall trees on Earth either, as far as I know.
* They disagree with a lot of Velikovsky's conclusions about the proper identities of gods as planets in ancient myths. They agree that the ancients regarded Venus as a Mother Godess who had the form of a great comet and that Mars was regarded as a ruddy Warrior Hero. They also agree that Earth was a moon of Saturn in ancient times, though Velikovsky didn't publish much of that part of the story.
Research
* By checking Velikovsky's sources, you're following the same path that these EU Theorists have already taken, except that you're probably not doing nearly as thorough a job of it, and you'll probably get a lot of wrong impressions, based on hasty and premature conclusions. If you study http://maverickscience.com and Talbott's Alien Sky videos and others, or especially if you read their books and magazine articles, you'll get a lot deeper understanding. These guys have been researching and publishing since the 70s.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:31 pm

Thanks for that clarification Nick.

As far as Exodus is concerned - and Velikovsky's confusion of dates; I wouldn't be too concerned. The descriptions of the events taking place in Exodus are highly synonymous with that of other cultures describing close encounters with unruly planets in the sky. Obviously, this will raise controversies about the method of dating in the Bible.

I suggest you give this a read (albeit it's just one theory):-


The following article was published in the journal Catastrophism and Ancient History, Los Angeles, July 1990, pages 147-157. [Note: This article is not based on the theories of Velikovsky.]

The 1552 Exodus
By Kenneth F. Doig

The search for an historical Exodus has been stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The evidence dug from the rocks has led archaeologists to date the event from the thirteenth century B.C.E. to no Exodus at all. The evidence from Egypt provides almost no support for such dating, and in Canaan it raises as many questions as it answers (Bimson 1978).

The Bible can also be a hard place to find help. The scriptural search for the Exodus gets stuck in a plethora of numbers, usually leading back to the fifteenth century. That time period fails for lack of archaeological support and still does not resolve the biblical accounts. There is a solution, however, that supports the inerrancy of Scripture and satisfies accepted archaeology and established history. The search for the Exodus ends in 1552 B.C.E.


Article continues here:-
http://doig.net/OT_Chronology.htm


What is the current thinking on the Exodus story, then?

CARDONA REPLIES:

I'll answer this one cautiously. Most historians today will tell you thatthe
Exodus never happened, and this includes many an Israeli historian. For
reasons which I cannot quite go into here, I tend to disagree. However, that
said, I must also report that in all the years since WORLDS IN COLLISION was
written, AND DESPITE WHAT WAS SAID IN IT, I have not been able to discover
one single bit of evidence that would tie the planet Venus to the event. All
that can be said with SOME certainty, is: (1) that a comet does seem to have
made its appearance in the sky during the Exodus; (2) that this comet was
NOT the comet Venus; and (3) that an earthquake also occurred just before
the Israelites left Egypt. At this point, I dare not say more.

Dwardu.

Kevin Weinhold wrote:

Velikovsky wrote that he at one time was not sure if it was Venus or Jupiter
that was the cause of the catastrophe. I suspect he connected
Typhon-slain-by-Zeus via the confused connection in mythology: some reported
that it was Zeus that fought and killed the monster with his lightning
bolts; others reported that "Zeus" sent Venus (lightning bolts or whatnot)
to kill the monster...is such a connection still not acceptable, considering
that the ancients described the same event in two ways?

CARDONA REPLIES:

Well, here, the bottom line appears to be simply this: While the comet
called Typhon (that is, Comet Set) and the GREEK Typhon were NOT one and the
same object, it will turn out that the GREEK Typhon was also a comet. More
than that, the GREEK Typhon will turn out to have been cometary Venus in
disguise. The comet called Set, on the other hand, which the Greeks also
alluded to as Typhon, was NOT Venus. This is why I said the matter is a
little bit complicated. The complication, however, arose simply because the
Greeks, for reasons of their own, referred to the Egyptian Set as Typhon.

Dwardu

DEDavis wrote:

If I read _Worlds in Collision_ right (and it's easy to be dazzled by
Velikovsky, and thus get confused as to what is evidence and what is
reconstruction...)

The chain of reasoning for linking the Exodus events with Venus is:

1.Venus = Athene = Pallas Athene = Typhon
2. Rockenbach said Typhon occurred at the time of the Exodus.
Yes?

CARDONA AGAIN:

This is PRECISELY where Velikovsky went wrong. The comet CALLED Typhon and
the Typhon of Greek mythology are NOT the same.

The comet Typhon of Rockenbach ultimately traces to Pliny, although
Hephaestion, Junctinus, Lydus, Servius, Campester, Petosiris, and Joannes
Laurentius also wrote about it.

What Pliny actually wrote concerning this comet was this: "A terrible comet
was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, to which Typhon, the king of
that period, gave his name."

As we all know (I hope) there was never a king of Egypt named Typhon, after
whom this comet was named. What must be borne in mind here is that Typhon
was what the Greeks called the Egyptian Set. Thus the Egyptian king called
Typhon would have really been named Seti (of which Egypt knew more than
one.) From this it follows that the comet called Typhon, named after King
Typhon, would really have been named Set. It is therefore more accurate to
refer to this comet as the Comet Set (although this, again, must not be
confused with the original god Set.)

Yes, I know, it's complicated. However, it should be seen from all this that
the comet called Set/Typhon had nothing to do with the Greek demon called
Typhon, with whom Athena was NOT at all associated. The Original Greek demon
called Typhon was actually slain by Zeus.

One other thing to keep in mind: It has never been ascertained on what
evidence, if any, Rockenbach associated this comet with the Exodus. All
those who also mentioned this connection, like Johann Hevel, got it from
Rockenbach. Velikovsky himself was of the opinion that Rockenbach might have
had access to ancient documents that might have contained quotations from
the writings of Campester and Petosiris. This is doubtful in the case of
Campester and purely conjectural in that of Petosiris. Lydus, who quoted
Campester on Comet Typhon, would hardly have omitted this most interesting
of items had the latter had anything to say about the subject. Fragments
from the works of Petosiris have also been published but the information
concerning the Exodus is not there contained.

All we are left with, therefore, is a comet called Set which Rockenbach, for
no reason we can discover, associated with the time of the Exodus. As I said
before, there is absolutely no connection between this comet and the planet
Venus.

Dwardu Cardona

http://othergroup.net/thoth/thotii07.txt

So...Cardona admits that there was a comet in the sky during that period, at least. We don't know much more though. Albeit, it was most likely a planet - given the descriptions of its effects.

Actually, Velikovsky does suggest that the Comet Set/Typhon was the one that affected the Exodus, not Venus:-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FJst ... on&f=false

I think he is open minded on whether it was Venus or Set/Typhon.

More articles citing "Exodus" here:-
http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/sear ... oom_sort=0
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby nick c » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:37 am

Lloyd,
The original post was "Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?" and my answer is no. The existence of bristlecone pine in no way disproves Velikovsky - although other things may force alteration of the historical reconstruction.
Velikovsky is not our Main Theorist
* The main EU Theorists, Cardona, Talbott, Cochrane et al, do not accept Velikovsky's claims that Venus had a near encounter with Earth 3500 years ago during the Exodus etc, nor that Mars had a near encounter 2700 years ago. Cardona has stated that the Saturn System broke up about 5,000 years ago and Talbott seems to suggest that the Venus and Mars encounters with Earth occurred about that time as well, according to the Alien Sky video series on Youtube.
While this is true, EU theorists would have nothing to write about if it were not for Velikovsky.
And for those that think that Velikovsky is nothing more than an unneccessary detour for the EU, keep in mind that Ralph Juergens wrote:
Velikovsky was quite aware of the discord between his findings and current ideas as to what constitutes propriety in celestial mechanics. He insisted, however, that the fault must lie in dynamical theory, not in the evidence of history. He suggested that the sun and the planets must be electrically charged, and that electromagnetic and electrostatic forces -- which could quite easily be capable of cushioning collisions, altering rotational motions, tilting axes, and perhaps even damping orbital eccentricities over relatively short spans of time -- must play unrecognized roles in celestial affairs.

http://www.mikamar.biz/pdf/Reconciling% ... hanics.pdf
That pretty much summarizes the origin of the Electric Universe concept. Velikovsky came to these conclusions (in the early 1940's, long before Sputnik or space exploration; at a time when it was thought that the space between heavenly bodies was a non plasmatic vacuum) from his analysis of ancient testimony and myth.
I do think that planetary catastrophes occurred into what we would consider historical times. There is plenty of physical evidence (the work of Claude Schaeffer, ancient sundials that are wrong, water clocks, Greek and Etruscan vases that have a reversed magnetic polarity, Venus tablets of Amizzaduga, etc, etc...) that Earth altering catastrophes took place after mankind had developed the art of writing, that is, within historical times.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:57 am

* Nick, can you or someone tell us what happened to PP's thread on Talbott's Polar Configuration Model? I think that thread had valuable discussion in it, including mine.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?

Unread postby tholden » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:46 am

Do tree-rings prove Velikovsky was wrong about Venus?


Simple answer: No.

http://bearfabrique.org/History/venus2007.pdf
tholden
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Next

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests