Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Venus and Velikovsky Message-ID: <617@utastro.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 15:25:59 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.617 Posted: Tue Aug 27 15:25:59 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:32:07 EDT References: <382@imsvax.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 69 As I pointed out earlier, one of the prime characteristics of Crank Scientists is that they systematically ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. They point to and exaggerate their successes, and ignore their failures. Here is another good example: > 4. Velikovsky's correct prediction in 1950 of the surface heat > of Venus and of it's hydrocarbon atmosphere as natural > fallouts of his theory of the origin of Venus. The > "super-greenhouse" theory which is currently in use to > explain Venus' heat is the single worst example of an > after-the-fact ad-hoc theory which I am aware of. The > theory's creation was an example of what I would call > dishonorable behavior on the part of astronomists. The > theory exists for no other reason than to prevent Immanuel > Velikovsky from claiming credit which is rightly his. My > own distrust of the natural sciences and their journals, > particularly astronomy, stems from such reasons. Rupert Wildt [1] first predicted an elevated surface temperature for Venus on the basis of the Greenhouse Effect in 1940, fully ten years before Velikovsky's book. His estimate erred greatly on the low side, being based on a hand calculation (no computers existed at the time). Nevertheless, it is plain wrong to claim that the idea of a hot Venus originated with Velikovsky, and it is wrong to claim that the Greenhouse Effect was only invoked after the fact of Venus' high temperature was known. Velikovsky claims to have read all the relevant astronomical literature, but gives no credit to Wildt for any of this. Modern calculations fully explain the high surface temperature of Venus based on the Greenhouse Effect. Ted's slander of astronomers does not alter this fact. Nor does it alter the fact that Velikovsky's "prediction" of a high surface temperature for Venus is much more ambiguous than his supporters claim. It is based on a vague statment in his 1950 edition (p. 77) that the comet that was supposed to become Venus was in a state of "candescence". Venus was supposed to have cooled rapidly after that. In his 1965 edition Velikovsky took credit for having predicted "an incandescent state of Venus". Nowhere did he predict an actual temperature. Furthermore, his prediction that Venus would be found to be cooling off is contradicted by the observations. As for the alleged hydrocarbon atmosphere, that is flat out wrong. No trace of hydrocarbons has been found even at the level of 1 ppm (Connes, *et. al.* [2]). Wildt also searched for evidence of hydrocarbons in Venus atmosphere long before Velikovsky, but abandoned the possibility in 1942 [3]. Again, Velikovsky gives no credit to Wildt for this idea. [1] Wildt, R. 1940, *Astrophysical Journal* 91:266. [2] Connes, P., Connes, J., Benedict, W. S., and Kaplan, L. D. 1967, *Astrophysical Journal* 147:1230. [3] Wildt, R. 1942, *Astrophysical Journal* 96:312. One has to be amused by Ted's *Chutzpah*. Like a lawyer who hasn't got the facts or the law on his side, he is trying to win his case by bringing up irrelevancies, by shouting longer and louder than anyone else, by bombast, by intimidation, and by insult. And I suspect that he will have about as much success as lawyers do in such situations. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)