Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Saturn Myth (green sun over Amarna)
Message-ID: <417@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 18:26:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.417
Posted: Mon Jul 22 18:26:37 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 05:54:21 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 44


   This is just a short note cautioning people concerning the celestial
dynamics of Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision".  It is the failure of
"Worlds" to obey basic Newtonian physics that gathers the well deserved
criticism.

   As I understand, I. Velikovsky was essentially a Talmudic scholar
that sought to establish a different chronology for the first few books
of the Bible.  He tried to show that the Pentateuch was much older than
what was accepted by most scholars and that the persons mentioned in
the books corresponded to much older personalities of ancient Egypt and
what is now the middle East.  During his studies, Velikovsky came upon
similar references in several sources to a grand catastrophe that had
a profound influence all over the Earth.  These sources all referred to
this catastrophe as coming from the sky.  The time was approximately
1500 BC.

   Sometime between 1200 BC and 1800 BC (1500 BC is as good as any), an 
island (Santorini?) in the Mediterranean became a major volcano.  The
location and timing are appropriate for this to have been the basis of
the Atlantis legends (if the original distances and times are divided by 10),
and the cause of some of the Plagues of Egypt brought by Moses if Velikovsky's
new chronology is accepted.  Unfortunately, Velikovsky chose not to rest
on his laurels but gathered some followers and pursued the "Worlds" hypothesis.

   The major problem with Velikovsky's proposal in "Worlds" is that the
motions of the planetary bodies fail to conserve momentum.  He presents
some planets moving from their orbits by objects that leave no other traces,
and the planets assuming new orbits without any mechanism to absorb the
excess momentum above what would be required for the new orbit.  Some of
the predictions for the conditions on some planets are close to what are
observed and others are in conflict.  These comparisons are made after
probes have passed near these planets and returned their pictures and
measurements.

   Velikovsky may have an interesting rendition of classical mythologies
but his celestial mechanics and planetary astronomy are bad.  The "Worlds"
hypothesis is incomplete at best and incorrect at worst.  However, I wonder
what Velikovsky has to do with the issue of the origins of life on Earth
and the validity of creationism as a science.

                            Patrick Wyant
                            AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                            *!iham1!gjphw