Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: more Velikovsky Message-ID: <5250@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Date: 17 Mar 88 22:03:50 GMT References: <5236@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <1138@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> Sender: daemon@uwmcsd1.UUCP Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lines: 108 Summary: Extinctions. In article <1138@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >In article <5236@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu > (Mark William Hopkins) writes about Velikovsky: >>No. It was because his book related to possible celestial events in the >>past giving Mythological evidence to support it (and geological and >>paleontological in the following work Earth In Upheaval). His interpretation >>of the evidence he collected boiled down to the assertion that Electromagnetic >>forces play a large role in shaping the orbits of our planets and that the >>solar system is electromagnetically active (something that was not accepted >>back in the late '40's.) > >It isn't accepted now, either. The solar wind is intricate, but puny. >The Jovian system does some fun stuff, but only the Jovian moons care. > >>This is true in part. Obviously, Astronomers know astronomy. However, they >>usually know next to nothing about geology, ancient history or mythology nor >>do many appreciate how one goes about gathering evidence in these fields. > >Odd you should mention geology. When geology and astronomy are put together, >it gets titles like "planetary science". Are you aware that there has been >considerable work on subjects like the crustal effects of tides ? >Velikovsky's near-collisions would have caused earthquakes sufficient to >flatten the world's limestone caverns. (They are quite fragile - look up >"Karst topography".) Since the world contains limestone caverns which were >here in Moses' day, Dating methods? >I would say that planetary science has fairly thoroughly disproved Velikovsky. Qualify that. I would like to better understand what you are referring to. > >>>> Never mind that the very same kind of hypothesis has been >>>> invoked to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. >>>The dinosaur-extinction hypothesis, as I understand it, is that dust >>>raised by a large meteorite striking the earth caused climactic changes >>>that the dinosaurs couldn't survive. >>Velikovsky's hypothesis was that the climatic change brought about by the >>near collision caused the mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age ... the >>very same kind of hypothesis. > >A planet floating by, and an asteroid ramming us, are not "the same kind of >hypothesis". Very descriptive of you. Unfortunately, such words can exxagerate superficial differences. In both cases we are talking about collisions or near collisions. >The observational evidence is that there are a lot of asteroids >with eccentric orbits, but no planets acting like recent arrivals. >(Recent meaning 4000 years, on a scale of billions.) Which evidence are you referring to? Current observations of actual bodies out there right now? The time window of our observation is only a couple hundred years, not enough to provide negative evidence. Or extrapolations of the planetary orbits into the past? This is a common argument used, but a little consideration of the conditions under which these calculations are carried out will show that they need not be valid. This is the puzzle I pose to you. I've already solved it. What is it that will make the perturbation analysis invalid that extrapolates the planets' orbits into the past? There is one answer consistent with Newton's law of gravity, but I will let you exercise your imagination in trying to figure it out. Or could you be referring to the fact that none of the planetary orbits cross one another at present (ignore Pluto and Neptune, they do not lie in the same plane anyhow.) This is the other major argument that has been used against Velikovsky. This is another puzzle I pose to you, that I have already solved. Find a mechanism that will circularize planetary orbits in a small time span. No cheating, you can't use electromagnetic forces, only gravity. Further, it has to be consistent with today's observations. Actually, if you answer the first question, you will have answered the second, but I'll leave that to you. It is not too well known, but there are actually an uncountably infinite number of past models of the solar system consistent with today's orbital parameters. Here, I am even assuming that the parameters are precisely specified and precisely known. >There was no mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age. To the best of my knowledge, all the horses and camels (!) on this continent died out. The mammoths became extinct, the saber tooth tiger, to name a few. I would call this a mass extinction. In any case, this is what I am referring to. Particularily the mammoths in Siberia. Siberia itself went from a warmer climate (the mammoths can not live in the present climate of northern Siberia) to its present state in such a small time that many of the mammoths that were killed did not even have time to putrify. In one case food was even found in the stomach of one of these animals -- food consisting of plants that can only grow in southern Siberia today. In fact, neither Western Alaska nor Siberia were covered by glaciers in this period. This is some of the evidence that Velikovsky brought up. There are probably 500 to 1000 other similar items that were brought up by his book Earth In Upheaval. If this is all true, then I am willing to question things further. > Furthermore, there is no evidence of an unreasonably major climatic change. >Personally, I wouldn't try to explain something that didn't happen.