Scientific Consensus

[Mr. M]

It has recently been stated in a discussion found in the controversial issues forum regarding Carbon influences on climate change  by @Slibhin that an 80% consensus in science constitutes overwhelming support. A claim I would like to address separately here. With a background in Physics, one of my influences is of course the great Jewish mind Albert Einstein, currently starring in Verizon commercials.  Many of you probably are aware, but some may not, but Einstein was early on rejected (by consensus), as being a layperson for his failure to complete University studies and a dreamer. While working in a patent office, he wrote position papers developing the notion of a "thought experiment" to suggest a scientific model from his God given imagination. From these early papers, we obtained E=mc2, and the rest is history.

The other even greater influence on my own thought experiments was the monolithic work of the great Jewish mind, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky. As a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton, he was often sought out for "intellectually stimulating discourse" by Dr Einstein. Dr. V was the most cruelly and mercilessly attacked writer of the 20th century. He was labeled a "pseudo-scientist" by the scientific community because his professional background was in psychoanalysis! Imagine how that would play out in the 21st century. While other contemporary analysts of his generation garnered the credit for advances in his field (Freud, Jung), they almost to a man referred their most difficult cases to Dr. I M, as he was the greatest mind at the time. So how was Dr. V's attention diverted from his profession to the field of the now flourishing science of catastrophism? What analysts of the time had discovered was that neurosis is rooted in the suppressed memories of profound trauma. What Dr V realized, is that man is an amnesiac when it comes to dealing with trauma, and that being the case, if there has ever been a global catastrophe, such as a world wide flood, the trauma would have created a state of amnesia for all mankind. If you have ever wondered why man seems to be hell bent to destroy himself with weapons of mass destruction, Dr. V postulates this thoroughly in his late work, returning to psychoanalysis "Mankind in Amnesia".

My own position on mankind's determination for a mutually assured destruction (the so-called MAD theory), it is the ultimate rebellion against God's Judgment. Mankind would rather destroy himself than face God's Judgment. I would suggest that any and every attempt made will fail. We are on a path of self destruction, but the Lord will deliver us! Halleluyah!

Mark 13:20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake,

whom He chose, He shortened the days.

[Guest]

Heresies of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Velikovsky conceded that the behavior of the planets in his theories is not consistent with Newton 's laws of motion and universal gravitation. He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movements of the planets, although such forces between astronomical bodies are known to be essentially zero.

Surrounded by controversy even before its publication in 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision introduced the provocative theory that Venus began as a brilliant comet ejected by Jupiter around 1600 BCE, wreaking chaos on Mars and Earth as it roamed through our solar system prior to settling into its current orbit.

"Velikovsky has suggested that, many thousands of years ago but still within human memory, Earth might have been a satellite of Saturn. We are now supposing that the Central Fire was Saturn, that Earth was in orbit around Saturn and always kept the same face toward Saturn, and that Saturn (with Earth) revolved around the Sun in one "year".

Velikovsky claimed that the earth's movements have been erratic, that it once ceased to revolve and that, previously, it took only 360 days to complete its orbit. He believed that some 3,500 years ago the earth was affected by the appearance in the sky of a giant comet which eventually became the planet Venus.

These are just a few of the crackpot theories Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has proposed, but it maybe the source of some of the theories posted on this forum.

[Michael37]

On 2/6/2023 at 6:30 AM, Mr. M said:

It has recently been stated in a discussion found in the controversial issues forum regarding Carbon influences on climate change  by @Slibhin that an 80% consensus in science constitutes overwhelming support. A claim I would like to address separately here. With a background in Physics, one of my influences is of course the great Jewish mind Albert Einstein, currently starring in Verizon commercials.  Many of you probably are aware, but some may not, but Einstein was early on rejected (by consensus), as being a layperson for his failure to complete University studies and a dreamer. While working in a patent office, he wrote position papers developing the notion of a "thought experiment" to suggest a scientific model from his God given imagination. From these early papers, we obtained E=mc2, and the rest is history.

The other even greater influence on my own thought experiments was the monolithic work of the great Jewish mind, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky. As a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton, he was often sought out for "intellectually stimulating discourse" by Dr Einstein. Dr. V was the most cruelly and mercilessly attacked writer of the 20th century. He was labeled a "pseudo-scientist" by the scientific community because his professional background was in psychoanalysis! Imagine how that would play out in the 21st century. While other contemporary analysts of his generation garnered the credit for advances in his field (Freud, Jung), they almost to a man referred their most difficult cases to Dr. I M, as he was the greatest mind at the time. So how was Dr. V's attention diverted from his profession to the field of the now flourishing science of catastrophism? What analysts of the time had discovered was that neurosis is rooted in the suppressed memories of profound trauma. What Dr V realized, is that man is an amnesiac when it comes to dealing with trauma, and that being the case, if there has ever been a global catastrophe, such as a world wide flood, the trauma would have created a state of amnesia for all mankind. If you have ever wondered why man seems to be hell bent to destroy himself with weapons of mass destruction, Dr. V postulates this thoroughly in his late work, returning to psychoanalysis "Mankind in Amnesia".

My own position on mankind's determination for a mutually assured destruction (the so-called MAD theory), it is the ultimate rebellion against God's Judgment. Mankind would rather destroy himself than face God's Judgment. I would suggest that any and every attempt made will fail. We are on a path of self destruction, but the Lord will deliver us! Halleluyah!

Mark 13:20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake,

whom He chose, He shortened the days.

I really enjoyed this book which I picked up from a second-hand book shop. It goes into detail of how some things that appear to be of a scientific nature are often wishful thinking, including SETI. 

[Mr. M]

8 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

These are just a few of the crackpot theories Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has proposed, but it maybe the source of some of the theories posted on this forum.

The controversies are well documented. It has been shown that his most ardent detractors never read the books. One famous attack came from pop scientist Carl Sagan, who disputed over a dozen points of Velikovsky in his book Broca's Brain. Actual astro-physicists roundly condemned Sagan for his lack of comprehension with regards to the actual science behind what is viewed by "stargazers" like Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky Paperback – January 1, 1995

by Charles Ginenthal (Author)

 

Top reviews from the United States

 

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-avatars-global/default._CR0,0,1024,1024_SX48_.png

John Scott

5.0 out of 5 stars Masterful Expose of Sagan

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on December 2, 2010

Verified Purchase

This book is a blow-by-blow account of how Carl Sagan systematically misrepresented Velikovsky, and used the full weight of his reputation and position within the establishment to complete the work of suppression begun over two decades earlier by Harlow Shapley and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. The sheer hypocrisy, dishonesty and self-regard of Sagan is brutally exposed for all the world to see. Unfortunately, for Sagan fans and true believers, the book will be so unpalatible that they might not get beyond the first few pages. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that almost none of the critics of this book, who have here given it a one-star rating on Amazon, have actually read it. The very act of reading it would dispel all notions one might have had of Sagan's nobility and intellectual honesty. He was a fraud and, in some respects at least, a bully. He was also a very poor scientist, as Ginenthal demonstrates in literally dozens of ways.
The detail into which Ginenthal has gone over each and every point raised by Sagan is phenomenal, as is his understanding of the problems and his mastery of the technical terms and concepts involved. Quite simply, as a previous reviewer remarked, Ginenthal has done the research that Sagan couldn't be bothered to do.
Particularly impressive is his deconstruction of Sagan's "explanation" of the unexpectedly high temperature of Venus (unexpected by everyone that is except Velikovsky). Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings. In short, there is absolutely nothing on Venus, or any other planet, to prevent surface heat rising to the upper atmosphere and dissipating into space. Furthermore, the clouds of Venus are so brilliantly white that they deflect virtually all of the sun's heat back into space; and even if they didn't - even if they were dark and absorbed the sun's energy - they still couldn't carry that energy down to the surface of the planet. That, as Ginenthal remarked, breaks the second law of thermodynamics.
Sagan, of course, in order to "disprove" Velikovsky, was quite prepared to break every law in the book - and the establishment was quite happy to let him get away with it.
All in all, a masterful take on the continuing "Velikovsky Affair" and well worth the read.

 

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-avatars-global/default._CR0,0,1024,1024_SX48_.png

Paul Saunders

5.0 out of 5 stars Velikovsky was Predominantly Right

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 9, 2019

Verified Purchase

Charles Ginenthal does an excellent, objective analysis of what both Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky got Right and got wrong, giving credit where it was due. Predominantly Dr. Velikovsky was correct in his statements because of his superior knowledge of archaeological records. Predominantly Dr. Sagan’s criticism’s of Dr. Velikovsky were in error for a variety of reasons, including fabricating straw men to knock down, failing to thoroughly read Velikovsky’s writings, or accepting others bogus criticism’s of Velikovsky. However, Dr. Sagan did catch one or two errors in Velikovsky’s statements which were gratefully acknowledged.

 

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-avatars-global/default._CR0,0,1024,1024_SX48_.png

David Morrison

1.0 out of 5 stars Confronting Pseudoscience

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on January 2, 2007

Verified Purchase

This book is rather sad. The non-scientist author, like his hero Velikovsky, just doesn't understand many of the technical issues he writes about. Velikosky was so obviously wrong that very few scientists tried to refute him. Carl Sagan was one of the few who took on this task, primarily as lead speaker at the AAAS Symposium held in 1974 to discuss Velikovsky's ideas. Sagan pointed out a dozen or so of the major contraditions in Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision; he wrote up his remarks for publication in the book that came out of the Symposium, Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Don Goldsmith, editor), and reprinted it as a chapter in one of his own books. That was it. Sagan's paper was hardly a definitive analysis of Velikovsky, and he never corrected it to make the arguments tighter. This book seems to claim that Sagan spent a great deal of time dealing with Velikovsky, and even that he used the AAAS symposium as a springboard to fame. That is simply wrong. Velikovsky may have obsessed about Sagan, but Sagan had far more important things on his mind than Velikovsky. Nor did this excursion into the realm of pseudoscience do anything to advance Sagan's career. In that sense, this book is devoted to a non-issue.

 

Richard N. Harding

5.0 out of 5 stars blather by an arrogant hack like Sagan. Velikovsky put evolution into a blender

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on October 15, 2015

Verified Purchase

I haven't read all of this book yet. It is very well written and refutes Carl Sagan's poorly written descents to Velikovsky's World's in Collision. It is encouraging to read true scholarship vs. blather by an arrogant hack like Sagan. Velikovsky put evolution into a blender. I've always believed evolution to be the 1850's version of global warming and this book really proves that. I will keep reading it.

 

[Mr. M]

8 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

These are just a few of the crackpot theories Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has proposed, but it maybe the source of some of the theories posted on this forum.

.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Mr. M
cancelled due to link failing

[Mr. M]

8 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

These are just a few of the crackpot theories Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has proposed, but it maybe the source of some of the theories posted on this forum.

On the Discoveries Concerning Jupiter and Venus

In the light of recent discoveries of radio waves from Jupiter and of the high surface temperature of Venus, we think it proper and just to make the following statement.

On 14 October 1953, Immanuel Velikovsky, addressing the Forum of the Graduate College of Princeton University in a lecture entitled “Worlds in Collision in the Light of Recent Finds in Archaeology, Geology and Astronomy: Refuted or Verified?,” concluded the lecture as follows: “The planet Jupiter is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and the stars. I suggest that this be investigated.”

Soon after that date, the text of the lecture was deposited with each of us [it is printed as supplement to Velikovsky’s Earth in Upheaval (Doubleday, 1955)]. Eight months later, in June 1954, Velikovsky, in a letter, requested Albert Einstein to use his influence to have Jupiter surveyed for radio emission. The letter, with Einstein’s marginal notes commenting on this proposal, is before us. Ten more months passed, and on 5 April 1955 B. F. Burke and K. L. Franklin of the Carnegie Institution announced the chance detection of strong radio signals emanating from Jupiter. They recorded the signals for several weeks before they correctly identified the source.

This discovery came as something of a surprise because radio astronomers had never expected a body as cold as Jupiter to emit radio waves (1).

In 1960 V. Radhakrishnah of India and J. A. Roberts of Australia, working at California Institute of Technology, established the existence of a radiation belt encompassing Jupiter “giving 10¹⁴ times as much radio energy as the Van Allen belts around the earth.”

On 5 December 1956, through the kind services of H. H. Hess, chairman of the department of geology of Princeton University, Velikovsky submitted a memorandum to the U. S. National Committee for the (planned) IGY in which he suggested the existence of a terrestrial magnetosphere reaching the moon. Receipt of the memorandum was acknowledged by E. O. Hulburt for the Committee. The magnetosphere was discovered in 1958 by Van Allen.

In the last chapter of his Worlds in Collision (1950), Velikovsky stated that the surface of Venus must be very hot, even though in 1950 the temperature of the cloud surface of Venus was known to be -25°C on the day and night sides alike.

In 1954 N. A. Kozyrev (2) observed an emission spectrum from the night side of Venus but ascribed it to discharges in the upper layers of its atmosphere. He calculated that the temperature of the surface of Venus must be +30 C; somewhat higher values were found earlier by Adel and Herzberg. As late as 1959, V. A. Firsoff arrived at a figure of +17.5°C for the mean surface temperature of Venus, only a little above the mean annual temperature of the earth (+14.2°C) (3).

However, by 1961 it became known that the surface temperature of Venus is “almost 600 degrees K” (4). F. D. Drake described this discovery as “a surprise … in a field in which the fewest surprises were expected.” “We would have expected a temperature only greater than that of the earth … Sources of internal heating radioactivity will not produce an enhanced surface temperature. Cornell H. Mayer writes (5), “All the observations are consistent with a temperature of almost 600 degrees,” and admits that “the temperature is much higher than anyone would have predicted.”

Although we disagree with Velikovsky’s theories, we feel impelled to make this statement to establish Velikovsky’s priority of prediction of these two points and to urge, in view of these prognostications, that his other conclusions be objectively re-examined.

V. BARGMANN

 

Department of Physics,

Princeton University,

Princeton, New Jersey

LLOYD MOTZ

 

Department of Astronomy,

Columbia University, New York

[Mr. M]

Science: 'The Velikovsky Affair'

• Give this article
•  

By Walter Sullivan

• Oct. 2, 1966

https://s1.nyt.com/timesmachine/pages/1/1966/10/02/82907815_360W.png?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

Credit...The New York Times Archives

See the article in its original context from
October 2, 1966, Section Help Wanted, Page 209Buy Reprints

New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared.

SUBSCRIBE

*Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers.

Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine.

"Velikovsky is right!" his supporters are saying with renewed conviction. They argue that recent discoveries in space have demonstrated, at the least, that his cataclysmic concept of the world's history must be taken seriously. Among these discoveries, foreshadowed, they say, by the writings of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, are the Van Allen radiation belts around the earth, the "solar wind," the radio emissions of Jupiter and the high temperature of Venus.

[Mr. M]

9 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

These are just a few of the crackpot theories Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has proposed, but it maybe the source of some of the theories posted on this forum.

Labeling ideas as "crackpot" is a necessary first step to the suppression of ideas. Here is another example of a crackpot.

Galileo arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy

 

•  
•  
•  
•  

On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642.

Galileo’s research led him to become an advocate of the work of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). However, the Copernican theory of a sun-centered solar system conflicted with the teachings of the powerful Roman Catholic Church, which essentially ruled Italy at the time. Church teachings contended that Earth, not the sun, was at the center of the universe. In 1633, Galileo was brought before the Roman Inquisition, a judicial system established by the papacy in 1542 to regulate church doctrine. This included the banning of books that conflicted with church teachings. The Roman Inquisition had its roots in the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, the purpose of which was to seek out and prosecute heretics, considered enemies of the state.

[Mr. M]

9 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

These are just a few of the crackpot theories Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky has proposed, but it maybe the source of some of the theories posted on this forum.

The point of the OP was not to defend or oppose anyone's ideas, but about suppression of ideas by a mainstream who are not protecting scientific knowledge, but their own economic interests. Another example was documented in the movie "The Aeronauts"

In 1862 London, pilot Amelia Wren and scientist James Glaisher^{[N 1]} arrive for the launch of the largest balloon ever constructed. Despite being haunted by a vision of her late husband Pierre, Amelia keeps up the brave front and the balloon successfully launches to a cheering crowd. In a flashback, James appears before the Royal Society and explains his theory that the weather can be predicted, but his fellow scientists mock him and refuse to finance his studies. Returning home, he talks to his parents, who try to persuade him to pursue another avenue of science.

[Guest]

On 2/9/2023 at 1:34 AM, Mr. M said:

The point of the OP was not to defend or oppose anyone's ideas, but about suppression of ideas by a mainstream who are not protecting scientific knowledge, but their own economic interests. Another example was documented in the movie "The Aeronauts"

In 1862 London, pilot Amelia Wren and scientist James Glaisher^{[N 1]} arrive for the launch of the largest balloon ever constructed. Despite being haunted by a vision of her late husband Pierre, Amelia keeps up the brave front and the balloon successfully launches to a cheering crowd. In a flashback, James appears before the Royal Society and explains his theory that the weather can be predicted, but his fellow scientists mock him and refuse to finance his studies. Returning home, he talks to his parents, who try to persuade him to pursue another avenue of science.

"The Aeronauts" is a fictional story and movie. Here are some snippets from Wikipedia:

The Aeronauts is a 2019 biographical adventure film directed by Tom Harper and written by Jack Thorne, from a story co-written by Thorne and Harper. The film is based on the 2013 book Falling Upwards: How We Took to the Air by Richard Holmes.^[7] Produced by Todd Lieberman, David Hoberman, and Harper, the film stars Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Himesh Patel and Tom Courtenay.^[8]

The film had its world premiere at the Telluride Film Festival on 30 August 2019, followed by a showing at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival.^[9][10] It was released in the United Kingdom on 4 November 2019, and in the United States on 6 December 2019. The film received mixed reviews from critics and was a box office bomb.

When she awakens, Amelia manages to swing back to the balloon and rouse James. As they continue to descend, snow begins to hover around them, indicating that the balloon is collapsing from the loss of too much gas. They manage to close the gas release and throw everything they can over the side, including all of James' equipment. When this doesn't work, they climb into the framework and release the basket. Realising that Amelia is ready to sacrifice herself to save him, James is able to convert the rest of the balloon into a parachute, which slows their descent. They crash through trees and hit the ground hard, with Amelia being dragged along behind the balloon. She wakes and calls for James, who staggers towards her. Both are injured, but euphoric that they managed to survive, setting a new human flight altitude record of 37,000 feet (11.3 km). James' findings prove the existence of layers in the atmosphere, paving the way for the first weather forecasts, and he and Amelia build a new balloon so they can continue to conduct research together.

Amelia Wren Is Actually Based On Real-Life Aeronaut Henry Coxwell

While aeronaut, meteorologist, and astronomer James Glaisher did exist, and did break the world balloon flight record, he didn’t do so with partner-in-crime Amelia Wren.

Amelia is actually based on aeronaut Henry Coxwell, Glaisher’s true co-balloon pilot. Coxwell became a professional aeronaut in 1848, and made many trips all over the world. In 1862, Glaisher sought him out so that the British Association for the Advancement of Science could study the weather and atmosphere, as well as the possibility of forecasting the weather (yup, there was a time you couldn’t look at your phone’s weather app). Although the trailer shows us a glimpse of it happening, Glaisher really did pass out and his final barometer reading before doing so was an altitude of 29,000 ft. Coxwell apparently couldn’t feel his hands by the end of their journey, but was able to save them both by pulling the valve-cord with his teeth like a total badass (this allowed the balloon to descend and get them safely to land). It was later calculated that they reached somewhere between 35,000 and 37,000 feet in the sky.

Guest Poster was @SavedOnebyGrace