D
dramamine
lost in a sea....thanks for the great posts anyway.
Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe
- Thread starter Hash Zeppelin
- Start date
D
DeftoneSmoker
Theres a show on science channel called "through the wormhole". It has a very good 2 hour documentary on Black holes containing universe's with lots of info.
^^ lots of supposition more like,, thats not science, thats tv magic..
even the so called "scientists" on programs like that speak in "what ifs" and "maybe this" "maybe that",, basically they want your faith in something totally fictional,, why that is im not entirely sure,,, apart from it is the script for this current era..
of course it is real in a computer world, based on hypothetical mathamatics, but really what's that worth?
basing your understanding on stuff like that is like the man that built his house on sand,, its ok for temporary structures, but can easily be pulled out from under you any second and replaced by something equally unstable and unfounded... science should stay away from belief, that has caused more pain and destruction for the last 3000 years than anything..
even the so called "scientists" on programs like that speak in "what ifs" and "maybe this" "maybe that",, basically they want your faith in something totally fictional,, why that is im not entirely sure,,, apart from it is the script for this current era..
of course it is real in a computer world, based on hypothetical mathamatics, but really what's that worth?
basing your understanding on stuff like that is like the man that built his house on sand,, its ok for temporary structures, but can easily be pulled out from under you any second and replaced by something equally unstable and unfounded... science should stay away from belief, that has caused more pain and destruction for the last 3000 years than anything..
Does any of this really matter though? I mean let's just say for example we know for a fact that every black hole contains a universe. Does that change anything really? Is there something we couldn't do before that we are now able to do because of that knowledge?
There are far more pressing concerns we should be putting our minds and intelligence to. Like climate change, we can't even decide if it's a natural cycle or a man made event. Shouldn't we be more focused on solving that little dilemma before we worry about the nature of things we've never even seen?
There are far more pressing concerns we should be putting our minds and intelligence to. Like climate change, we can't even decide if it's a natural cycle or a man made event. Shouldn't we be more focused on solving that little dilemma before we worry about the nature of things we've never even seen?
Iraganji
Member
Does perspective really matter? Does an understanding differing from a previous one alter ones perspective? Do new perspectives and understandings allow one to draw new conclusions? Do better understandings allow for better progression?
I would answer yes to all of those questions. I feel that Ideas and theories which survive past their usefulness exist only as a deterrent to progression. It is the perspective of fear of change that allows organisms to cling to the obsolete. It is the perspective that clinging to the old will leave you behind. Two perspectives, two very different results.
I once worked a job for many years I didn't like, but was afraid to leave my comfort zone and go out into the wild unknown. I felt trapped. This feeling of being trapped gnawed at me and eventually I knew that remaining wasn't to be my future. I actually became afraid to stay literally overnight. It became my mission to escape. My perspective had shifted to exactly where it needed to be to successfully allow my leaving, which I did. Once I was more afraid to stay than to leave, what was previously so difficult had become very easy.
I feel that a better understanding of our cosmos will have innumerable benefits to our understanding of a lot of things underneath the umbrella of our atmosphere.
Even NASA has found data supporting the fact that climate change is happening on ALL planets in our solar system, and the changes are DRAMATICAL. So we can already forget about carbon dioxide and man made climate change.
A faulty understanding of the nature of reality is a fundamental pillar for the lies in our world.
Does perspective really matter? Does an understanding differing from a previous one alter ones perspective? Do new perspectives and understandings allow one to draw new conclusions? Do better understandings allow for better progression?
I would answer yes to all of those questions. I feel that Ideas and theories which survive past their usefulness exist only as a deterrent to progression. It is the perspective of fear of change that allows organisms to cling to the obsolete. It is the perspective that clinging to the old will leave you behind. Two perspectives, two very different results.
I once worked a job for many years I didn't like, but was afraid to leave my comfort zone and go out into the wild unknown. I felt trapped. This feeling of being trapped gnawed at me and eventually I knew that remaining wasn't to be my future. I actually became afraid to stay literally overnight. It became my mission to escape. My perspective had shifted to exactly where it needed to be to successfully allow my leaving, which I did. Once I was more afraid to stay than to leave, what was previously so difficult had become very easy.
I feel that a better understanding of our cosmos will have innumerable benefits to our understanding of a lot of things underneath the umbrella of our atmosphere.
I'm not talking information or ideas in general as you are. I'm talking specifically about black holes. We believe they are out there but we've only ever witnessed them in a theoretical context we have never actually seen one or taken a picture of one. It is bielieved by some that every galaxy contains one even our own. So assuming for the moment that is true at our current state of technology we would never be able to reach the one in our own galaxy as it is approximately 30000 light years away if it even exists. So again what is the point in debating over the nature of something we'll never be able to reach, experience or take advantage of in any way shape or form beyond theoretical/philosophical debates?
Can we? Just because other planets appear to be experiencing climate change does that rule out man's influence in our own planet's climate change? I would agree that some of our climate change is part of a natural cycle so lengthy that mankind has yet to experience one full phase of that cycle but is it not possible that we still may be impacting it, speeding up the effects of a natural climate change? I mean climate changes on other planets only prove climate change can happen without man but it does not prove that man can not impact climate change one way or another.
That's irrelevent though I only put climate change up as an one example of many far more important and pressing matters mankind needs to deal with and could apply it's scientific capabilities towards rather then all the time, money and energy we spend on something we'll likely never be able to experience or take advantage of. If we ever create an ability to travel faster then the speed of light then yeah, okay, maybe then there might be some point to it but for now it's no more useful then proving whether or not there really is a God. Which ironically it could turn out that black holes are God because based on the theory that each galaxy has a black hole at it's center and given our theories of how they work those black holes are what created and will eventually destroy each of those galaxies making them the Alpha and Omega of the galaxy they are in.
^lets get back to space before my thread gets binned.
I find this electric universe theory very interesting. please tell us more.
We are talking about space and black holes just because the word God gets thrown in there does not mean we're talking about religion.
ok well most comets explode out in the middle of space,, which is contrary to the gravity based model or at least unexplainable by the consensus physics regarding space that "believes" that gravity or the sun must always cause it but that is obviously not what is happening in places with no heat radiation,, and that is because they suddenly hit plasmaspheres which extend far out into space and their electrical state tears it apart,,
imo one of the best examples of the electric universe is canis majoris,, which is a binary star system,, the ancients have always been obsessed with the dog star for various reasons,, one of the stars lights up in the visual spectrum whilst the other appears dark, but when you switch to x-ray the dark one is as bright as can be whilst the other is dark,, this is because they are balancing each other out in their own electrical circuit,,
wish i could find the imaging done with these spectrums because it makes it really nice and obvious,,
the electric universe system also means that einsteins theory of relativity is incorrect,, it states that c in e=mc2 denotes that the speed of light is the limit for the universe,, however if you moved a planet it would not take the speed of light (in time between the two objects) for another body to react, it would be instantaneous,,
all the details of the planets are because of the electrical interactions between them and the earth,, for example mars is recorded as the murderer of all the great beasts through out the world because many world ages ago it changed the gravitational state of the earth after it interaction with us,, which meant that the dinosaurs and all oversized insects, fish and mammals died out as they couldnt get the blood around their bodies anymore,, or simply the oxygen into their cells which is the major reason for a circulatory system..
jupiter is regarded as the planet that threw thunderbolts in all cultures because when it came too near to the earth their was an almighty thunderclap heard throughout the planet,, venus is the dragon slayer that errupted from jupiter,, like athena jumping out of zeus's head
or st george and the dragon
red dragons from china all the way to the uk represented jupiter and lightening,,
everything about their(the mainstream fools) predictions that are causing them massive headaches to prove are just common sense in the Electric universe,, like stars being the wrong colour for their assumed age and size which is giving nasa problems and they cant find a fake computer model to predict why but since stars are electric they dont age how they say or form by accretion or any of that bullshit,,
imo one of the best examples of the electric universe is canis majoris,, which is a binary star system,, the ancients have always been obsessed with the dog star for various reasons,, one of the stars lights up in the visual spectrum whilst the other appears dark, but when you switch to x-ray the dark one is as bright as can be whilst the other is dark,, this is because they are balancing each other out in their own electrical circuit,,
wish i could find the imaging done with these spectrums because it makes it really nice and obvious,,
the electric universe system also means that einsteins theory of relativity is incorrect,, it states that c in e=mc2 denotes that the speed of light is the limit for the universe,, however if you moved a planet it would not take the speed of light (in time between the two objects) for another body to react, it would be instantaneous,,
all the details of the planets are because of the electrical interactions between them and the earth,, for example mars is recorded as the murderer of all the great beasts through out the world because many world ages ago it changed the gravitational state of the earth after it interaction with us,, which meant that the dinosaurs and all oversized insects, fish and mammals died out as they couldnt get the blood around their bodies anymore,, or simply the oxygen into their cells which is the major reason for a circulatory system..
jupiter is regarded as the planet that threw thunderbolts in all cultures because when it came too near to the earth their was an almighty thunderclap heard throughout the planet,, venus is the dragon slayer that errupted from jupiter,, like athena jumping out of zeus's head
or st george and the dragon
red dragons from china all the way to the uk represented jupiter and lightening,,
everything about their(the mainstream fools) predictions that are causing them massive headaches to prove are just common sense in the Electric universe,, like stars being the wrong colour for their assumed age and size which is giving nasa problems and they cant find a fake computer model to predict why but since stars are electric they dont age how they say or form by accretion or any of that bullshit,,
Last edited:
this is allowed to be reproduced and copied,, all ownership and credit is to immanuel velikovsky one of the greatest men of the last 1000 years.. and tbh im pretty sure that so long as reproducing educational material is for educational reasons and not for profit or commercial then its seen as fair anyway and you cant be infringing the copyright within reason,,
this like so much knowledge can be found on an maintained archive of his work here :
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
however this archive doesnt contain most of the work in his books which are seriously fantastic and open so many of the pages of truth. this was written in 1946 remember,, but truth is timeless,, though since then some points have been refined it is unbelievable how many things he got right..
Phenomena Not in Accord with the Theory of Gravitation
Attraction Between Two Atoms. - Inertia. - Attraction of Bodies Toward the Earth. - The Time of Descent and of Ascent of a Pendulum. - The Effect of Charge on the Weight of a Body
Attraction, Repulsion, and Electromagnetic Circumduction in the Solar System
The Anomaly of Mercury and Other Phenomena Explained
I
THE FUNDAMENTAL theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites. Electric attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction(1) govern their movements. The moon does not “fall,” attracted to the earth from an assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomenon of objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable with the “falling effect” in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation.
Aside from several important facts discovered in the study of cosmic upheavals, which are not illuminated here and only enumerated at the end of this paper, and which are discussed at length in a work of research entitled Worlds In Collision now being prepared for publication, the following facts are incompatible with the theory of gravitation:
The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:
“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.” (3)
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.
Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth. There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions.(5) But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal’s discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’” (6)
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.
Laplace, pondering the shape of the atmospheric envelope of the earth, came to the conclusion that the atmosphere, which rotates with the same angular velocity as the earth and which behaves like a fluid, must be lenticular in form; its polar and equatorial axes must be about 35,000 and 52,000 miles respectively; at the equator the atmosphere must extend more than 21,000 miles above the ground. At these distances from the ground the gravitational force of the earth is just equal to the centrifugal force due to rotation.
From the measurement of the pressure of the earth’s atmosphere, measurement based also on the principles of gravitation, it has been deduced that the atmosphere is but 17 (not 21,000) miles high.
Observations of the flight of meteorites and of the polar auroras lead to the conjecture that the atmosphere reaches to a height of 130 miles (meteorites) or over 400 miles (polar auroras). Radio measurements yield about 200 miles for the upper layer recognizable through this method of investigation.
Two computations, both based on the principle of gravitation, differ in the proportion of 17 and 21,000. Direct observations do not justify either of the computed figures.
Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.
Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.
Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.
The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.(7) “The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much.” (G. B. Airy.(8)) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains “a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.” (9)
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon.(10) The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.” (11)
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.(12)
this like so much knowledge can be found on an maintained archive of his work here :
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
however this archive doesnt contain most of the work in his books which are seriously fantastic and open so many of the pages of truth. this was written in 1946 remember,, but truth is timeless,, though since then some points have been refined it is unbelievable how many things he got right..
COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION
ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CIRCUMDUCTION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Synopsis
BY
IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY
1946
CONTENTS
ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CIRCUMDUCTION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Synopsis
BY
IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY
1946
CONTENTS
Phenomena Not in Accord with the Theory of Gravitation
Attraction Between Two Atoms. - Inertia. - Attraction of Bodies Toward the Earth. - The Time of Descent and of Ascent of a Pendulum. - The Effect of Charge on the Weight of a Body
Attraction, Repulsion, and Electromagnetic Circumduction in the Solar System
The Anomaly of Mercury and Other Phenomena Explained
I
THE FUNDAMENTAL theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites. Electric attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction(1) govern their movements. The moon does not “fall,” attracted to the earth from an assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomenon of objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable with the “falling effect” in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation.
Aside from several important facts discovered in the study of cosmic upheavals, which are not illuminated here and only enumerated at the end of this paper, and which are discussed at length in a work of research entitled Worlds In Collision now being prepared for publication, the following facts are incompatible with the theory of gravitation:
The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:
“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.” (3)
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.
Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth. There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions.(5) But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal’s discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’” (6)
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.
Laplace, pondering the shape of the atmospheric envelope of the earth, came to the conclusion that the atmosphere, which rotates with the same angular velocity as the earth and which behaves like a fluid, must be lenticular in form; its polar and equatorial axes must be about 35,000 and 52,000 miles respectively; at the equator the atmosphere must extend more than 21,000 miles above the ground. At these distances from the ground the gravitational force of the earth is just equal to the centrifugal force due to rotation.
From the measurement of the pressure of the earth’s atmosphere, measurement based also on the principles of gravitation, it has been deduced that the atmosphere is but 17 (not 21,000) miles high.
Observations of the flight of meteorites and of the polar auroras lead to the conjecture that the atmosphere reaches to a height of 130 miles (meteorites) or over 400 miles (polar auroras). Radio measurements yield about 200 miles for the upper layer recognizable through this method of investigation.
Two computations, both based on the principle of gravitation, differ in the proportion of 17 and 21,000. Direct observations do not justify either of the computed figures.
Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.
Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.
Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.
The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.(7) “The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much.” (G. B. Airy.(8)) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains “a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.” (9)
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon.(10) The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.” (11)
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.(12)
- [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?[/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.[/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary). [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The Harmonic Law of Kepler views the movements of the planets as depending only on their distance from the sun. According to Newton, the masses of the sun and the planets must also enter the formulas. The Newtonian orbits differ from the Keplerian, found empirically. The Newtonian formula has a sum of masses (instead of a product of masses), and in view of the largeness of the sun, the Newtonian orbits are supposed to not deviate substantially from the Keplerian.(17) [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces. [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference.(18) As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant. [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries. [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.(19) [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of gravitation. Einstein showed how his theory can account for the anomaly of Mercury; however, the smaller irregularities in the movements of Venus and Mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein’s formulas. [/FONT] -
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: “I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown.” (20) They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.[/FONT]
Last edited:
continued
It was found that “the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth’s atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception.” (21)
The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.
The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” (J. Herschel).(22)
“What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton, is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)
The change in the angular velocity of comets (especially of the comet Encke) is not in accord with the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.(23)
Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground, are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere.(24) The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” (25) On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.
Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.” (26)
The earth is a huge magnet; it has electric currents in the ground and is enveloped by a number of layers of electrified ionosphere. The sun possesses an electric charge and magnetic poles; also the sunspots are found to be powerful magnets. The ionosphere is permanently charged by particles arriving from the sun; sunspots actively influence terrestrial magnetism, ground currents, the ionosphere’s charge, and auroras. As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism, these obvious and permanent influences of the electromagnetic state of the sun on the magnetic field of the earth, the ionosphere, the auroras, and the earth currents are not allowed to have more than zero effect on the astronomical position of the earth, and this for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the gravitational principle.
Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them(27) disobey the “law of laws” which is supposed to know no exception.
* * *
To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:
Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.
Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.
Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” (De Sitter(28)). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.
Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.
A few additional remarks about the motion of bodies in the universe which bear upon the theory of gravitation are added here:
The notion of the tangential escape or inertia of the primary motion of the planets and satellites, being adopted by all cosmogonical theories of post-Newtonian days, led all of them into insurmountable difficulties. The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties.
The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an “expanding universe”
“An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity.” (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)
* * *
Newton explained the principle underlying the motion of the planets and the satellites by the example of a stone thrown horizontally from a mountain with such force that gravitation bends its flight so that it revolves around the earth, coming back to exactly the same place, once again to repeat the course of its flight. But he admits “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions,” and invokes an act of Providence in providing each satellite with a tangential push of a strength which, together with the pull of the primary, creates an orbit. (General Scholium to Book III of the Principia) The inertia of the tangential (instantaneous) push has not exhausted itself in all the eons despite the tidal friction between a satellite and its primary, or the sun pulling the satellite away from the primary, or the resistance of matter (meteorites) in space, though all these forces act permanently and therefore with acceleration.
It was found that “the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth’s atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception.” (21)
The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.
The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” (J. Herschel).(22)
“What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton, is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)
The change in the angular velocity of comets (especially of the comet Encke) is not in accord with the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.(23)
Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground, are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere.(24) The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” (25) On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.
Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.” (26)
The earth is a huge magnet; it has electric currents in the ground and is enveloped by a number of layers of electrified ionosphere. The sun possesses an electric charge and magnetic poles; also the sunspots are found to be powerful magnets. The ionosphere is permanently charged by particles arriving from the sun; sunspots actively influence terrestrial magnetism, ground currents, the ionosphere’s charge, and auroras. As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism, these obvious and permanent influences of the electromagnetic state of the sun on the magnetic field of the earth, the ionosphere, the auroras, and the earth currents are not allowed to have more than zero effect on the astronomical position of the earth, and this for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the gravitational principle.
Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them(27) disobey the “law of laws” which is supposed to know no exception.
* * *
To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:
Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.
Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.
Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” (De Sitter(28)). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.
Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.
A few additional remarks about the motion of bodies in the universe which bear upon the theory of gravitation are added here:
The notion of the tangential escape or inertia of the primary motion of the planets and satellites, being adopted by all cosmogonical theories of post-Newtonian days, led all of them into insurmountable difficulties. The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties.
The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an “expanding universe”
“An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity.” (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)
* * *
Newton explained the principle underlying the motion of the planets and the satellites by the example of a stone thrown horizontally from a mountain with such force that gravitation bends its flight so that it revolves around the earth, coming back to exactly the same place, once again to repeat the course of its flight. But he admits “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions,” and invokes an act of Providence in providing each satellite with a tangential push of a strength which, together with the pull of the primary, creates an orbit. (General Scholium to Book III of the Principia) The inertia of the tangential (instantaneous) push has not exhausted itself in all the eons despite the tidal friction between a satellite and its primary, or the sun pulling the satellite away from the primary, or the resistance of matter (meteorites) in space, though all these forces act permanently and therefore with acceleration.
continued
Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass.(30)
The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus.(31) Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance.(32)
Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”
II
Thorough theoretical and experimental investigations will be necessary to build a new theory in place of the now accepted theory of gravitation. For the present we shall offer only general suggestions.
Attraction between two neutral atoms. Each atom is made up of positive and negative electricity and, though neutral as a whole, may form an electric dipole when subjected to an electric force. Thus, in the theory presented here, this attraction is not due to “inherent gravitational” properties of mass, but instead to the well known electrical properties of attraction. Two dipoles arrange themselves so that the attraction is stronger than their mutual repulsion.
Inertia, or the passive property of matter. “The equality of active and passive, or gravitational and inertial mass was in Newton’s system a most remarkable accidental coincidence, something like a miracle. Newton himself decidedly felt it as such” (W. DeSitter).(33)
In Einstein’s explanation, inertia and gravitation are not two different properties, but one and the same property viewed from different points in space. According to his illustration, a man in an elevator that is being continuously pulled up by a rope invisible to the man will feel his feet pressed against the bottom of the elevator and will think that he gravitates toward the floor. But someone else observing the situation from the outside in space will judge that there is a fact of inertia; the pulled elevator has to overcome the inertia of the man standing on its floor. If the man in the elevator lets an object fall from his hand, it will approach the floor at an accelerated speed because the elevator is being continuously pulled upward; to the observer on the outside it rises with acceleration.
By this illustration Einstein tried to explain the equivalence of inertia and gravitation. But it is impossible to adopt this explanation for the gravitational effect of the globe: the observer from outside cannot perceive the globe as moving simultaneously in all directions. Einstein sees the difficulty and says: “It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.” (34)
In our explanation the active property is due to one kind of charge in the atom - the attracting (attracted) charge; the passive property, to the opposite charge, which repels (is repelled). Both exist in equal quantities in a neutral atom; this explains the equality of the gravitating and inertial properties of matter.
However, the charges must arrange themselves in such a manner that attraction proceeds: the attracting force overcomes the repelling force because the attracting poles of the dipoles are closer to one another than the repelling poles; when the repelling poles are closer, the atoms (or their combinations in molecules) repel each other, as is the case with gases.
A charged body attracts more strongly than a neutral body because of the presence of free electrons; in dipoles the charges rearrange themselves only a little, but free electrons can rearrange themselves much more.
Attraction of bodies toward the earth. The ionosphere is strongly charged with respect to the “neutral” earth; a potential difference of 100 volts per meter altitude exists near the ground, or a difference in potentials which forces the current through the electric lamps. Does any relation exist between the difference in voltage in the lower atmosphere and the difference in weight (“at the ceiling of a room 3 meters high a kilogram weighs about one milligram less than at the floor” )?
With the altitude a voltage difference per meter is not the same as near the ground, but it accumulates to a high figure: “Between a point ten miles high and the surface of the earth there is an electrical pressure difference of about a hundred and fifty thousand volts.” (35)
Neutral bodies consist of both positive and negative charges. Neutral atoms form dipoles along the lines of force of the electric field with poles turned toward the earth and the ionosphere. Is the fall of objects due to their “dipole attraction” and to their movement in an electrical field as dipoles? The proximity to the ground gives its action preference over that of the ionosphere as far as the attracting force is concerned, since the distance between the opposite electric poles of the atomic dipole is much smaller in comparison to its total distance from the ionosphere than from the ground. This means, however, that when objects reach a certain altitude, they would be attracted upward. Meteorites, repelled into space, are apparently charged identically with the upper layer of the ionosphere.
This part of the theory (concerning falling bodies) requires experimentation and exact calculation. It is probable that besides carrying a charge, the ground turns all of its atoms as dipoles toward the ionosphere.(36)
“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.” (Einstein)(37)
This law is supposed to hold with great accuracy. The velocity of the fall is generally explored with the help of a pendulum; it appears to us that a charged object must fall with a different velocity than a neutral object. This is generally denied. But the denial is based on the observation that there is no difference in the number of swings of a pendulum in a unit of time, in the case where a charged or neutral bob is used. This method may produce inaccurate results. In an accurate method, the falling time and the time of ascent of the pendulum must be measured separately. In the case of a charged body, the increase in the velocity of descent of the pendulum may be accompanied by a decrease in the velocity of ascent, and thus the number of swings in a unit of time would remain the same for charged and non-charged bobs.
In a charged body the attracting and the inertial properties are not equal.
It appears also that the weight of a body increases after it is charged. An experiment made with a piece of hard rubber (ten grams), neutral and again charged by rubbing, on a scale with a sensitivity of one-tenth of a milligram, showed a change in weight of over ten milligrams. This appears to be the result of an induced charge in the bottom (ebony) of the balance (placed on a thick plate of glass). A grounded wire held over the scale with the charged rubber raises the scale. If “gravitation” is an electrical phenomenon, attraction by induced electricity is not an entirely different phenomenon. Nevertheless, this experiment cannot be regarded as conclusive for the present problem.
In the oil-drop experiment the action of the charges may be made equal to the “gravitational” pull: One and the same action is ascribed to two fundamentally different principles.
A photograph may provide the answer to the question of how much a charged drop revolving around a pole of a magnet is influenced by the terrestrial pull.
Would a metal container filled with gas fall (in a vacuum) with the same velocity as a solid piece of metal?
III
Attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction act in the solar system. Sun, planets, satellites, comets are charged bodies. As charged bodies they are interdependent.
The solar surface is charged negatively in relation to the charge of the earth, as the spectral lines (with the dominant red line in the spectrum of hydrogen) reveal. The sun carries a charge and rotates: it is an electromagnet.
The spots of the sun are magnetic, and the filaments of hydrogen on the sun’s surface arrange themselves as iron particles in a magnetic field.(38) Besides the spots, the sun as a whole is a magnet. “The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it is a magnet,” wrote G.E. Hale when he undertook to detect the Zeeman effect.(39) The Zeeman effect proved to be most pronounced at 45° in both hemispheres of the sun; Hale found the displacement of lines decreases to zero at the equator and near the poles of rotation; and also that “a first approximate value for the vertical intensity of the sun’s general field at the poles is 50 gausses.” Thus, it was confirmed that the sun is a magnet, but the magnetic field was found not to be strong.
This result is questioned here. The lines of the corona suggested the existence of a magnetic field on the sun to the scholar who discovered it. But the form of the corona suggests a powerful magnetic field.(40) Visible coronal bands and streamers reach a distance equal to ten and more diameters from the disc of the sun—Mercury is only forty solar diameters from the sun and Earth 108 solar diameters. More recent investigation by Stevens, who photographed the streamers from 25,000 feet, disclose a globular corona more extensive than any known from ground photographs.
Disturbances in filaments and vortices of the sun affect the ionosphere of the earth and prove the existence of a powerful charge on the sun; rotating at the speed of the solar rotation, a strong charge must produce a strong magnetic field.
A revised investigation of the magnetic power of the field around the sun is here suggested. It should be kept in mind that the observations have been made from the solar magnetic field, in which the earth is embedded, if our concept is correct. It is possible also that the strongest Zeeman effect will show itself in latitudes higher than 45°. As is well known, the angle of observation must be taken into consideration in observing the Zeeman effect.
The sun is a rotating charged body, and it creates a magnetic field. We assume the solar charge to be large enough to produce a magnetic field with lines of force reaching the orbit of Pluto. The charged planets move at right angles to the sun’s magnetic lines of force and describe the usual circular motion to which moving charged bodies are subjected in a magnetic field. Satellites, in turn, revolve in smaller magnetic fields produced by the rotation of the charged planets. The non-rotating planets have no satellites, for they do not produce magnetic fields. If there are rotating satellites, they may be able to revolve trabants around them.
“The origin of the earth’s main magnetic field has so far defied all attempts of solution.” (41) The cause of the earth’s magnetic field is in (1) the magnetic field of the sun, and (2) the rotation of the charged earth around its axis.
It has been calculated(42) that if the earth is a magnet because of the rotating charge on its surface, the charge must be so great as to “enter as a serious factor in planetary perturbations,” and therefore the theory was dropped.(43) But this is exactly what happens: the electromagnetic fields of the earth and of other planets are the causes of the planetary perturbations.
We have constructed a theory according to which the members of the solar system are charged bodies; electric attraction and repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction act in the system; the origin of the magnetic field around the sun is in its charge—the sun is an electromagnet; planetary motion is due to the electromagnetic force exerted on the planets by the sun. The planets as charged bodies create magnetic fields by their rotation. It follows that (a) gravity, depending on electrical charge, varies with the charge, (b) the masses of the planets are inaccurately calculated, (c) the positive and negative charges are manifested only in relation to the charge of the earth.
One of the differences between the conception of celestial mechanism expounded here and the theories of gravitation of Newton and Einstein is that in our understanding the revolution of the moon is a process of a different order from that of the falling of objects near the terrestrial ground. The revolution of the moon is a phenomenon of circumduction of a charge by a magnetic field and is not a fall combined with inertia; the primary motion of planets and satellites along a straight line is a fallacious notion. At the distance of the moon the electromagnetic field of the earth causes circumduction while in the terrestrial atmosphere the electric field between the earth and the ionosphere causes the movement of the dipoles. Like the moon, the earth and other planets and satellites are subject to electromagnetic circumduction.
Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass.(30)
The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus.(31) Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance.(32)
Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”
II
Thorough theoretical and experimental investigations will be necessary to build a new theory in place of the now accepted theory of gravitation. For the present we shall offer only general suggestions.
Attraction between two neutral atoms. Each atom is made up of positive and negative electricity and, though neutral as a whole, may form an electric dipole when subjected to an electric force. Thus, in the theory presented here, this attraction is not due to “inherent gravitational” properties of mass, but instead to the well known electrical properties of attraction. Two dipoles arrange themselves so that the attraction is stronger than their mutual repulsion.
Inertia, or the passive property of matter. “The equality of active and passive, or gravitational and inertial mass was in Newton’s system a most remarkable accidental coincidence, something like a miracle. Newton himself decidedly felt it as such” (W. DeSitter).(33)
In Einstein’s explanation, inertia and gravitation are not two different properties, but one and the same property viewed from different points in space. According to his illustration, a man in an elevator that is being continuously pulled up by a rope invisible to the man will feel his feet pressed against the bottom of the elevator and will think that he gravitates toward the floor. But someone else observing the situation from the outside in space will judge that there is a fact of inertia; the pulled elevator has to overcome the inertia of the man standing on its floor. If the man in the elevator lets an object fall from his hand, it will approach the floor at an accelerated speed because the elevator is being continuously pulled upward; to the observer on the outside it rises with acceleration.
By this illustration Einstein tried to explain the equivalence of inertia and gravitation. But it is impossible to adopt this explanation for the gravitational effect of the globe: the observer from outside cannot perceive the globe as moving simultaneously in all directions. Einstein sees the difficulty and says: “It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.” (34)
In our explanation the active property is due to one kind of charge in the atom - the attracting (attracted) charge; the passive property, to the opposite charge, which repels (is repelled). Both exist in equal quantities in a neutral atom; this explains the equality of the gravitating and inertial properties of matter.
However, the charges must arrange themselves in such a manner that attraction proceeds: the attracting force overcomes the repelling force because the attracting poles of the dipoles are closer to one another than the repelling poles; when the repelling poles are closer, the atoms (or their combinations in molecules) repel each other, as is the case with gases.
A charged body attracts more strongly than a neutral body because of the presence of free electrons; in dipoles the charges rearrange themselves only a little, but free electrons can rearrange themselves much more.
Attraction of bodies toward the earth. The ionosphere is strongly charged with respect to the “neutral” earth; a potential difference of 100 volts per meter altitude exists near the ground, or a difference in potentials which forces the current through the electric lamps. Does any relation exist between the difference in voltage in the lower atmosphere and the difference in weight (“at the ceiling of a room 3 meters high a kilogram weighs about one milligram less than at the floor” )?
With the altitude a voltage difference per meter is not the same as near the ground, but it accumulates to a high figure: “Between a point ten miles high and the surface of the earth there is an electrical pressure difference of about a hundred and fifty thousand volts.” (35)
Neutral bodies consist of both positive and negative charges. Neutral atoms form dipoles along the lines of force of the electric field with poles turned toward the earth and the ionosphere. Is the fall of objects due to their “dipole attraction” and to their movement in an electrical field as dipoles? The proximity to the ground gives its action preference over that of the ionosphere as far as the attracting force is concerned, since the distance between the opposite electric poles of the atomic dipole is much smaller in comparison to its total distance from the ionosphere than from the ground. This means, however, that when objects reach a certain altitude, they would be attracted upward. Meteorites, repelled into space, are apparently charged identically with the upper layer of the ionosphere.
This part of the theory (concerning falling bodies) requires experimentation and exact calculation. It is probable that besides carrying a charge, the ground turns all of its atoms as dipoles toward the ionosphere.(36)
“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.” (Einstein)(37)
This law is supposed to hold with great accuracy. The velocity of the fall is generally explored with the help of a pendulum; it appears to us that a charged object must fall with a different velocity than a neutral object. This is generally denied. But the denial is based on the observation that there is no difference in the number of swings of a pendulum in a unit of time, in the case where a charged or neutral bob is used. This method may produce inaccurate results. In an accurate method, the falling time and the time of ascent of the pendulum must be measured separately. In the case of a charged body, the increase in the velocity of descent of the pendulum may be accompanied by a decrease in the velocity of ascent, and thus the number of swings in a unit of time would remain the same for charged and non-charged bobs.
In a charged body the attracting and the inertial properties are not equal.
It appears also that the weight of a body increases after it is charged. An experiment made with a piece of hard rubber (ten grams), neutral and again charged by rubbing, on a scale with a sensitivity of one-tenth of a milligram, showed a change in weight of over ten milligrams. This appears to be the result of an induced charge in the bottom (ebony) of the balance (placed on a thick plate of glass). A grounded wire held over the scale with the charged rubber raises the scale. If “gravitation” is an electrical phenomenon, attraction by induced electricity is not an entirely different phenomenon. Nevertheless, this experiment cannot be regarded as conclusive for the present problem.
In the oil-drop experiment the action of the charges may be made equal to the “gravitational” pull: One and the same action is ascribed to two fundamentally different principles.
A photograph may provide the answer to the question of how much a charged drop revolving around a pole of a magnet is influenced by the terrestrial pull.
Would a metal container filled with gas fall (in a vacuum) with the same velocity as a solid piece of metal?
III
Attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction act in the solar system. Sun, planets, satellites, comets are charged bodies. As charged bodies they are interdependent.
The solar surface is charged negatively in relation to the charge of the earth, as the spectral lines (with the dominant red line in the spectrum of hydrogen) reveal. The sun carries a charge and rotates: it is an electromagnet.
The spots of the sun are magnetic, and the filaments of hydrogen on the sun’s surface arrange themselves as iron particles in a magnetic field.(38) Besides the spots, the sun as a whole is a magnet. “The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it is a magnet,” wrote G.E. Hale when he undertook to detect the Zeeman effect.(39) The Zeeman effect proved to be most pronounced at 45° in both hemispheres of the sun; Hale found the displacement of lines decreases to zero at the equator and near the poles of rotation; and also that “a first approximate value for the vertical intensity of the sun’s general field at the poles is 50 gausses.” Thus, it was confirmed that the sun is a magnet, but the magnetic field was found not to be strong.
This result is questioned here. The lines of the corona suggested the existence of a magnetic field on the sun to the scholar who discovered it. But the form of the corona suggests a powerful magnetic field.(40) Visible coronal bands and streamers reach a distance equal to ten and more diameters from the disc of the sun—Mercury is only forty solar diameters from the sun and Earth 108 solar diameters. More recent investigation by Stevens, who photographed the streamers from 25,000 feet, disclose a globular corona more extensive than any known from ground photographs.
Disturbances in filaments and vortices of the sun affect the ionosphere of the earth and prove the existence of a powerful charge on the sun; rotating at the speed of the solar rotation, a strong charge must produce a strong magnetic field.
A revised investigation of the magnetic power of the field around the sun is here suggested. It should be kept in mind that the observations have been made from the solar magnetic field, in which the earth is embedded, if our concept is correct. It is possible also that the strongest Zeeman effect will show itself in latitudes higher than 45°. As is well known, the angle of observation must be taken into consideration in observing the Zeeman effect.
The sun is a rotating charged body, and it creates a magnetic field. We assume the solar charge to be large enough to produce a magnetic field with lines of force reaching the orbit of Pluto. The charged planets move at right angles to the sun’s magnetic lines of force and describe the usual circular motion to which moving charged bodies are subjected in a magnetic field. Satellites, in turn, revolve in smaller magnetic fields produced by the rotation of the charged planets. The non-rotating planets have no satellites, for they do not produce magnetic fields. If there are rotating satellites, they may be able to revolve trabants around them.
“The origin of the earth’s main magnetic field has so far defied all attempts of solution.” (41) The cause of the earth’s magnetic field is in (1) the magnetic field of the sun, and (2) the rotation of the charged earth around its axis.
It has been calculated(42) that if the earth is a magnet because of the rotating charge on its surface, the charge must be so great as to “enter as a serious factor in planetary perturbations,” and therefore the theory was dropped.(43) But this is exactly what happens: the electromagnetic fields of the earth and of other planets are the causes of the planetary perturbations.
We have constructed a theory according to which the members of the solar system are charged bodies; electric attraction and repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction act in the system; the origin of the magnetic field around the sun is in its charge—the sun is an electromagnet; planetary motion is due to the electromagnetic force exerted on the planets by the sun. The planets as charged bodies create magnetic fields by their rotation. It follows that (a) gravity, depending on electrical charge, varies with the charge, (b) the masses of the planets are inaccurately calculated, (c) the positive and negative charges are manifested only in relation to the charge of the earth.
One of the differences between the conception of celestial mechanism expounded here and the theories of gravitation of Newton and Einstein is that in our understanding the revolution of the moon is a process of a different order from that of the falling of objects near the terrestrial ground. The revolution of the moon is a phenomenon of circumduction of a charge by a magnetic field and is not a fall combined with inertia; the primary motion of planets and satellites along a straight line is a fallacious notion. At the distance of the moon the electromagnetic field of the earth causes circumduction while in the terrestrial atmosphere the electric field between the earth and the ionosphere causes the movement of the dipoles. Like the moon, the earth and other planets and satellites are subject to electromagnetic circumduction.
continued again
IV
“Universal gravitation” is an electromagnetic phenomenon, in which the charges in the atoms, the free charges, the magnetic fields of the sun and the planets play their parts.
In the frame of this theory the following phenomena become explainable:
All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.
The planets have a greater aggregate energy of motion than the sun. The revolution of the planets did not originate in the angular velocity of rotation of the sun; the magnetic field of the sun effected their revolution. Also, the fact that one of the satellites of Mars revolves with an angular speed greater than that of the rotation of this planet is explained here by electromagnetic circumduction.
The retrograde revolution of a number of satellites. It is due either to retrograde rotation of the primary with inversed magnetic poles or to a difference of charges. The fact that the retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn are the most remote from their primaries poses the problem whether their remoteness from the primaries and their relative closeness to the sun play a role in their being of a presumably different charge than the other satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.(44)
In the case of Uranus, the retrograde revolution of its satellites follows the retrograde rotation of the planet and its magnetic field. (One of the magnetic poles of Uranus can be readily investigated because it faces the ecliptic.)
The rotation of the earth. The tidal theory fails to account for the rotation of the planets. The position of the magnetic poles of the earth at a distance of about 20 degrees from the geographical poles may be related to the rotation of the earth. Once each day the magnetic poles of the earth occupy the southernmost and the northernmost positions in the lines of the magnetic field of the sun.
Perturbations among the members of the solar system are actions of attraction as well as of repulsion and depend on the charges of the planets and satellites and their magnetic properties. The fact that after perturbations, the planets resume their normal courses is due to the regulating action of the sun’s magnetic field. Similarly, the satellites are regulated in their motion by the electromagnetic fields of the primaries.
The anomalies in the motion of Mercury and other planets. The velocities of revolution of the planets depend on their charges. A strongly charged body is carried across the lines of the magnetic field more swiftly than a weakly charged body. If the charge of a planet increases, the velocity of revolution of such a planet must increase too. Positive as well as negative charges arrive from the sun in an uninterrupted flow.
The planet Mercury moves faster and faster. This must be the result of an increasing charge of the planet. Also, the anomalies in the motion of other inner planets may be attributed to a changing charge; other irregularities in the motion of the planets can be attributed to the fact that the electrical charge of the sun is not equally distributed on the solar surface.
The deflection of a ray of light passing close to the sun. Before attributing the deflection to the gravitational field of the sun, the influence of the magnetic field of the sun on the rotation of light should be calculated. (The influence of the moon on a ray of light by creating a ripple in the atmosphere during a solar eclipse must not be overlooked; an investigation of the trajectory of a stellar ray passing close to the moon in a lunar eclipse is suggested here.)
The repulsion of a comet’s tail by the sun. The head of a comet and its tail are charged under a great potential difference, accounting for the manifest repulsion of the tail and attraction of the head. The neck of the comet is probably composed of positive and negative elements in equal proportion, thus forming a neutral zone between the head and the tail. Under the influence of the temperature in space the charges change and the comet returns on its orbit.
The displacement of the meteorites in the higher atmosphere. It is caused not by the winds, but by the electromagnetic effect of the ionosphere. The light of the meteorites is caused by electric discharges. Consequently, the passage of meteorites disturbs radio reception.
The influence of the moon on radio reception. The charged moon on its hourly stations exerts an attracting-repelling action on the electrified layers of the atmosphere (ionosphere) to a greater degree than on the “insulating layer” of the earth’s atmosphere.
The semi-diurnal variations of the barometric pressure. These variations with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. have their cause in the semi-diurnal changes of the charge of the ionosphere at the same hours, 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. The barometric pressure reflects the degree of attraction exerted by the ground and the ionosphere on the gaseous envelope.
The defiance of gravity by water and cloud building. The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.
Defiance of gravity experienced in the cumulo-nimbus clouds. This defiance recorded by airplane pilots is the result of charges and electromagnetic effects prevailing in these clouds.
The direction of the cyclonic and anticyclonic whirls. Their direction on the earth, as well as on the sun, depends on the electromagnetic fields and not on the rotation of these bodies.
Increased gravity over the sea. The increase of gravity over the sea as compared with that over the continent may be explained by the higher charge of salt water.
* * *
There were a few attempts made to unite the electromagnetic and gravitational field theories; but as far as I know nobody has tried to solve the problem of planetary movement around the sun as a motion of charged bodies in a magnetic field; my explanation implies that the measurement of the solar magnetic field by Hale is not correct.
If the sun has a sufficiently strong magnetic field so as to reach the farthest of the planets, the quantitative elements are dictated by the charge of the sun, the strength of its magnetic field, and the charge of the planets.
* * *
The theory of the Cosmos without Gravitation given here in synopsis is written also in a comprehensive form (1941-43). I arrived at this concept early in 1941 as a result of my research in the history of cosmic upheavals as they affected the earth and other members of the solar system. A number of facts proved to me that the sun, the earth and other planets, the satellites, and the comets, are charged bodies, that the planets and their satellites have changed their orbits repeatedly and radically, and that gravitational attraction or the weight of objects has changed during human history. I thus recognized the fact that not gravitation, but electric attraction and repulsion and electromagnetic circumduction govern the solar system.
In construction the electromagnetic theory of the solar system, I am indebted to Miss Shulamith Velikovsky for valuable suggestions on the dipole explanation of attraction between the atoms and the dipole concept of inertia.
IV
“Universal gravitation” is an electromagnetic phenomenon, in which the charges in the atoms, the free charges, the magnetic fields of the sun and the planets play their parts.
In the frame of this theory the following phenomena become explainable:
All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.
The planets have a greater aggregate energy of motion than the sun. The revolution of the planets did not originate in the angular velocity of rotation of the sun; the magnetic field of the sun effected their revolution. Also, the fact that one of the satellites of Mars revolves with an angular speed greater than that of the rotation of this planet is explained here by electromagnetic circumduction.
The retrograde revolution of a number of satellites. It is due either to retrograde rotation of the primary with inversed magnetic poles or to a difference of charges. The fact that the retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn are the most remote from their primaries poses the problem whether their remoteness from the primaries and their relative closeness to the sun play a role in their being of a presumably different charge than the other satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.(44)
In the case of Uranus, the retrograde revolution of its satellites follows the retrograde rotation of the planet and its magnetic field. (One of the magnetic poles of Uranus can be readily investigated because it faces the ecliptic.)
The rotation of the earth. The tidal theory fails to account for the rotation of the planets. The position of the magnetic poles of the earth at a distance of about 20 degrees from the geographical poles may be related to the rotation of the earth. Once each day the magnetic poles of the earth occupy the southernmost and the northernmost positions in the lines of the magnetic field of the sun.
Perturbations among the members of the solar system are actions of attraction as well as of repulsion and depend on the charges of the planets and satellites and their magnetic properties. The fact that after perturbations, the planets resume their normal courses is due to the regulating action of the sun’s magnetic field. Similarly, the satellites are regulated in their motion by the electromagnetic fields of the primaries.
The anomalies in the motion of Mercury and other planets. The velocities of revolution of the planets depend on their charges. A strongly charged body is carried across the lines of the magnetic field more swiftly than a weakly charged body. If the charge of a planet increases, the velocity of revolution of such a planet must increase too. Positive as well as negative charges arrive from the sun in an uninterrupted flow.
The planet Mercury moves faster and faster. This must be the result of an increasing charge of the planet. Also, the anomalies in the motion of other inner planets may be attributed to a changing charge; other irregularities in the motion of the planets can be attributed to the fact that the electrical charge of the sun is not equally distributed on the solar surface.
The deflection of a ray of light passing close to the sun. Before attributing the deflection to the gravitational field of the sun, the influence of the magnetic field of the sun on the rotation of light should be calculated. (The influence of the moon on a ray of light by creating a ripple in the atmosphere during a solar eclipse must not be overlooked; an investigation of the trajectory of a stellar ray passing close to the moon in a lunar eclipse is suggested here.)
The repulsion of a comet’s tail by the sun. The head of a comet and its tail are charged under a great potential difference, accounting for the manifest repulsion of the tail and attraction of the head. The neck of the comet is probably composed of positive and negative elements in equal proportion, thus forming a neutral zone between the head and the tail. Under the influence of the temperature in space the charges change and the comet returns on its orbit.
The displacement of the meteorites in the higher atmosphere. It is caused not by the winds, but by the electromagnetic effect of the ionosphere. The light of the meteorites is caused by electric discharges. Consequently, the passage of meteorites disturbs radio reception.
The influence of the moon on radio reception. The charged moon on its hourly stations exerts an attracting-repelling action on the electrified layers of the atmosphere (ionosphere) to a greater degree than on the “insulating layer” of the earth’s atmosphere.
The semi-diurnal variations of the barometric pressure. These variations with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. have their cause in the semi-diurnal changes of the charge of the ionosphere at the same hours, 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. The barometric pressure reflects the degree of attraction exerted by the ground and the ionosphere on the gaseous envelope.
The defiance of gravity by water and cloud building. The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.
Defiance of gravity experienced in the cumulo-nimbus clouds. This defiance recorded by airplane pilots is the result of charges and electromagnetic effects prevailing in these clouds.
The direction of the cyclonic and anticyclonic whirls. Their direction on the earth, as well as on the sun, depends on the electromagnetic fields and not on the rotation of these bodies.
Increased gravity over the sea. The increase of gravity over the sea as compared with that over the continent may be explained by the higher charge of salt water.
* * *
There were a few attempts made to unite the electromagnetic and gravitational field theories; but as far as I know nobody has tried to solve the problem of planetary movement around the sun as a motion of charged bodies in a magnetic field; my explanation implies that the measurement of the solar magnetic field by Hale is not correct.
If the sun has a sufficiently strong magnetic field so as to reach the farthest of the planets, the quantitative elements are dictated by the charge of the sun, the strength of its magnetic field, and the charge of the planets.
* * *
The theory of the Cosmos without Gravitation given here in synopsis is written also in a comprehensive form (1941-43). I arrived at this concept early in 1941 as a result of my research in the history of cosmic upheavals as they affected the earth and other members of the solar system. A number of facts proved to me that the sun, the earth and other planets, the satellites, and the comets, are charged bodies, that the planets and their satellites have changed their orbits repeatedly and radically, and that gravitational attraction or the weight of objects has changed during human history. I thus recognized the fact that not gravitation, but electric attraction and repulsion and electromagnetic circumduction govern the solar system.
In construction the electromagnetic theory of the solar system, I am indebted to Miss Shulamith Velikovsky for valuable suggestions on the dipole explanation of attraction between the atoms and the dipole concept of inertia.
my words now:
the earth was at one point one of saturns moons,, this was known as the
"golden age".. and mars, mercury and neptune were also its moons,, this was known as the axis mundi..
this is a while before our age but all of the symbolism of this era remains preserved in the old cultures to this day,, the peoples in different parts of the world had a different view point on this so they developed their own images and story about it,, however it wasnt to last that long relatively,, maybe only a few 10s of 1000s of years..
the deluges were caused by the planets as well,, the exodus which was also recorded globally was the last one to happen,, the one that included noah happened the time before but they repeatedly happen when planets get too near to the earth because the sea is lifted up into the sky and eventually dropped,, which is why in places like the norfolk caves or the tar pits in la brae, and so many other places, there are all those mammals,fish,birds etc from all climates of the planet smashed together in one place,,, monkeys with polar bears with fish and snakes, many of them young and healthy but broken as though the forces of nature set fire to them and then washed them there from thousands of miles away..
the say that the animals in la brae are there because some got stuck and then their families came to help them, got stuck and then eventually the predators turned up to get stuck as well,, which sounds good to a 10 year old that knows nothing about animal behaviour, but this theory should seem strange to anyone else,, it simply is not what would happen even if the tar pits were already there before the animals got stuck..
there are whole mountain ranges in india and russia made up of nothing but trees and animal bones that were swept there during the floods,, darwin noted himself when he went up a mountain in south america that their must have been a huge catastrophe that caused such fossils to be where they were,, 30 years later he contradicted everything he knew when he was working for the royal society and released the origin of species..
and the origin of species was basically another version of charles lyells book upon which large parts of mein kampf was based as well.. these books were proponents of the elitist survival of the fittest model,, and of course it happens but is only one part of evolution..
the earth was at one point one of saturns moons,, this was known as the
"golden age".. and mars, mercury and neptune were also its moons,, this was known as the axis mundi..
this is a while before our age but all of the symbolism of this era remains preserved in the old cultures to this day,, the peoples in different parts of the world had a different view point on this so they developed their own images and story about it,, however it wasnt to last that long relatively,, maybe only a few 10s of 1000s of years..
the deluges were caused by the planets as well,, the exodus which was also recorded globally was the last one to happen,, the one that included noah happened the time before but they repeatedly happen when planets get too near to the earth because the sea is lifted up into the sky and eventually dropped,, which is why in places like the norfolk caves or the tar pits in la brae, and so many other places, there are all those mammals,fish,birds etc from all climates of the planet smashed together in one place,,, monkeys with polar bears with fish and snakes, many of them young and healthy but broken as though the forces of nature set fire to them and then washed them there from thousands of miles away..
the say that the animals in la brae are there because some got stuck and then their families came to help them, got stuck and then eventually the predators turned up to get stuck as well,, which sounds good to a 10 year old that knows nothing about animal behaviour, but this theory should seem strange to anyone else,, it simply is not what would happen even if the tar pits were already there before the animals got stuck..
there are whole mountain ranges in india and russia made up of nothing but trees and animal bones that were swept there during the floods,, darwin noted himself when he went up a mountain in south america that their must have been a huge catastrophe that caused such fossils to be where they were,, 30 years later he contradicted everything he knew when he was working for the royal society and released the origin of species..
and the origin of species was basically another version of charles lyells book upon which large parts of mein kampf was based as well.. these books were proponents of the elitist survival of the fittest model,, and of course it happens but is only one part of evolution..
more by velikovsky,, all credit is due to him and to varchive.org for keeping his legacy open to everyone who is interested,,
My Challenge
to Conventional Views in Science
“Books written about the solar system before the advent of the space age could as well have been written in Latin or Greek, so dated do they appear to a contemporary reader.”
Zdenek Kopal - The Solar System (Oxford University Press, 1973)
In my published books, notwithstanding often repeated allegations, no physical law is ever abrogated or “temporarily suspended”; what I offered in them is primarily a reconstruction of events from the historical past. Thus I did not set out to confront the existing views with a theory or hypothesis and to develop it into a competing system. My work is first a reconstruction, not a theory; it is built upon studying the human testimony as preserved in the heritage of all ancient civilizations—all of them in texts bequeathed beginning with the time man learned to write, tell in various forms the very same narrative that the trained eye of a psychoanalyst could not but recognize as so many variants of the same theme. In hymns, in prayers, in historical texts, in philosophical discourses, in records of astronomical observations, but also in legend and religious myth, the ancients desperately tried to convey to their descendants, ourselves included, the record of events that took place in circumstances that left a strong imprint on the witnesses. There were physical upheavals on a global scale in historical times; the grandiosity of the events inspired awe. From the Far East to the Far West—the Japanese, Chinese and Hindu civilizations; the Iranian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hitto-Chaldean, Israelite and Egyptian records; the Etruscan, Attic and Roman theogonies and philosophies; Scandinavian and Icelandic epics; Mayan, Toltec and Olmec art and legends—all, with no exception, were dominated by the knowledge of events and circumstances that only the most brazen attitude of science could so completely disregard.
The scientific community starts its annals with Newton, paying some homage to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, unaware that the great ones of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries searched through classical authors of antiquity for their great discoveries. Did not Copernicus strike out the name of Aristarchus of Samos from the introduction to De Revolutionibus before he signed imprimatur on his work? Did not Tycho Brahe find the compromising theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth—but Mercury and Venus circling around the Sun—in Heracleides of Pontus, yet announce it as his own? Did not Galileo read of the equal velocity of heavy and light falling bodies in Lucretius;1 did not Newton read in Plutarch of the Moon removed from the Earth by fifty-six terrestrial radii and impelled by gravitation to circle around the Earth,2 the basic postulate of Newton’s Principia, and did not Halley read in Pliny about comets returning on their orbits?3 Then why does modern science disregard the persistent reports of events witnessed and recorded in many languages in the writings of the ancients and also transmitted from generation to generation by communities unable to write, by American Indians, by the people of Lapland, the Voguls of Siberia, the aborigines of tropical Africa, the Tahitians in the South Pacific?
Why is theomachy the central theme of all cosmogonical myths? Should not a thinking man pause and wonder why the ancients in both hemispheres worshipped planetary gods; why temples were erected to them, and some are still standing; why sacrifices, even human sacrifices, were brought to them? Why was Saturn or Cronos or Brahma the supreme deity to be replaced by Jupiter of the Romans, Zeus of the Greeks, Ormuzd of the Iranians, Marduk of the Babylonians, Shiva of the Hindus, Ammon of the Egyptians? Why did the planet Venus—Ishtar, Athene, Kukulcan of the Mayas or Quetzalcohuatl of the Toltecs—become the feared deity, as I saw it omnipresent in Yucatan, where I savored a few days this February, writing this paper? Why is this Morning Star shown in sculpture as a feathered serpent on the grandiose monuments of Uxmal and Chichen Itza, where temples were built, one upon the other, if not to commemorate the ages, the last of which was dominated by Huitzilopochtli, Ares of the Greeks, who protected the people of Troy, while Athene clashed with him protecting the Achaean host?
Why was Mars of the Romans chosen as the protector of Rome, the greatest empire after the Empire of Heaven (Livy), while Athene gave her name to the capital of Attica, as Tanis to Tunisia? Why were human sacrifices brought in this country by the Pawnee Indians only a few scores of years ago, every fifty-two years connected with the Venus calendar? Why did the Ancient Assyrians mark on tens of thousands of clay tablets, free from any mythological theme, astronomical observations, but all data from before -687 are in contradiction to known values such as the duration of the daily rotation of the Earth, the time of the vernal equinox—that by the way was repeatedly transferred, as was also the beginning of the year—the ratio of the longest and shortest days of the year, the length of the month and of the year and the motion of the planets? The legends and myths clearly point to an astral origin of all ancient religions.
The problem that occupied the minds of the Classicists, Meso-american scholars. Orientalists, and students of social anthropology and mythology, was not solved in any one of these disciplines separately. Like the early memory of a single man, so the early memory of the human race belongs into the domain of the student of psychology. Only a philosophically and historically, but also analytically trained mind can see in the mythological subjects their true content—a mind that learned in long years of exercise to understand the dreams and phantasies of his fellow man.
Thus I entered a field that should be at the basis of the natural sciences, not only of the human soul and of racial memories, and soon I observed that the divisions in science are but artificial. I had to cross barriers. How could I do otherwise? Upon the realization that we are unaware of the most fateful events in human history, I had before me the task of explaining this well-known phenomenon of repression, the realization of which could also become crucial to the survival of the victim of amnesia playing with thermonuclear weapons. But before that I had the task of confronting the humanistic heritage with the message of stones and bones—do geology and paleontology carry the same testimony? I went again from shelf to shelf, once more around the Earth, and the record from the bottom of the sea and from the top of the mountains, from the deserts, jungles, tundras, lakes, rivers and waterfalls, told the same story—documented in every latitude and in every longitude. This evidence is presented in Earth in Upheaval, which I kept free from any bit of testimony that can be classified as human heritage. The scenes of devastation, mass extinction of many species in circumstances that are by far in excess of what can be considered as local catastrophe, the simultaneous change of climate all over the globe thirty-four and twenty-seven centuries ago, the drop of the level of the ocean and many other phenomena observed, could not be accounted for but by paroxysms in which the entire Earth was involved.
A psychological situation provoked the change in the attitude of the scholarly world with the beginning of the Victorian age. The founders of the sciences of geology—Buckland, Sedgwick, and Murchinson (who gave the classification of formations used today); of vertebrate paleontology—Cuvier; and of ichthyology—Louis Agassiz—never doubted that what they observed was the result of repeated cataclysms in which the entire globe partook. Actually, Charles Darwin, observing the destruction of fauna in South America, was convinced that nothing less than the shaking of the entire frame of the Earth could account for what he saw. But the introduction of the principle of uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell, a lawyer who never had field experience, and the acceptance of it on faith by Charles Darwin, are a psychological phenomenon that I observed again and again. Exactly those who, like Darwin, witnessed the omnipresent shambles of an overwhelming fury of devastation on a continental scale, became the staunchest defenders of the principle of uniformitarianism, that became not just a law, but a principle that grew to a statute of faith in the natural sciences, as if the reasoning that what we do not observe in our time could not have happened in the past can in any measure claim to be philosophically or scientifically true.
Obviously, a motive is at play that makes appear as scientific principle what is but wishful thinking. For over a century after Copernicus man did not wish to believe that he lives on an Earth that travels, and Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare were not persuaded by that firebrand, Giordano Bruno, of the truth of the Copemican doctrine. Even much less man wishes to face the fact that he travels on a rock in space on a path that proved to be accident-prone. The victory of Darwin’s evolution by natural selection over a six-day creation less than six thousand years ago made it appear that evolution, the only instrument of which is competition, is the ultimate truth. But by competition for survival or for means of existence, never could such different forms as man and an insect with many legs evolve from the same unicellular form, not even in the six billion years that replaced the biblical six thousand. Mutations were necessary, and today we know that by cosmic and x-rays, by thermal and chemical means—conditions brought about in the catastrophes of the past—massive mutations can be achieved.
The pre-1950 astronomy followed the same pseudo-scientific statute of faith, elevated to a fundamental principle, and made believe that the Earth and other planets travel the same paths for the same six billion years, always repeating the same serene circling. Against this violation of the principle of empiricism in science stood my work. In it I rejected the postulate that the ancients, the Greek philosophers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus and Plato included (O. Neugebauer in The Exact Sciences in Antiquity wonders why Plato is considered anywhere a philosopher of any rank4) were childish in their claims of repeated world conflagrations, and that the ancients were almost imbeciles in their beliefs. The ancients, the canard goes, believed in the Earth placed on the back of a tortoise. Thus it is preferred to start science three hundred years ago, and my work was pronounced (by those who did not read it) as an act of destruction of the entire edifice of science erected by the giants of science since Copernicus.
I offered a series of claims that naturally followed from the reconstruction. In science they are usually called predictions, but I prefer to term them advance claims. Thus I claimed that Venus, due to its recent birth and dramatic though short history, must be very hot under the clouds, nearly incandescent, and gives off heat—it has not reached thermal balance; that it must have every massive atmosphere; that the atmosphere consisted largely of hydrocarbons but that if oxygen is present petroleum fires must be burning—thus explaining also the present massive carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere; that sulfur and iron (ferruginous pigment) must be present too; and that if the same catalytic process that took place on the Earth when it was enveloped by clouds of Venus’ origin takes place in Venus’ own clouds, they must consist mainly of organic material infused with sulfur and iron molecules. Further, I considered that Venus was disturbed in its rotation.
Venus was found over 750°K. hot—many metals are incandescent at this temperature—while the consensus of opinion among astronomers was 17°C., 3° above the mean annual temperature on Earth. Venus was found rotating slowly and retrogradely. The atmosphere was found very massive, 95 terrestrial pressures near the ground surface, and not reckoning with this possibility, the first Venera probes were crushed. The content of the clouds is still unsolved, but in a paper in the Winter, 1973-74 issue of Pensée, a journal dedicated to the reconsideration of my views, I elucidated that the spectral features in the ultraviolet, near infrared, infrared and deep infrared can be accounted for by organic matter, and so can the volatility and the index of refraction. Nitrogen gas, expected by all specialists to comprise as much as 90% of the atmosphere, was not found. The enigma of the very rich content of carbon dioxide below the clouds is solved if the combustion of hydrocarbons took and still takes place. I expect that the Venus Mariner X probe of this month will bring us nearer to properly evaluating the content of Venus’ clouds. But the preliminary report already says that “the manner in which that planet was born and matured differed basically from that of Earth.” An editorial in the New York Times, commenting on the bands and streaks first discovered by Mariner X, spoke of an “uncanny similarity” to the bands “in the atmosphere of Jupiter.” It added that “it is a problem that poses a formidable challenge to astronomers.”
There are problems requiring study that were not discussed in Worlds in Collision because the origin of Venus belongs to the volumes dealing with the earlier catastrophes. How did Venus, in Latin, “the Newcomer,” escape from Jupiter four hundred times more massive?—and Lyttleton’s work gives some idea; or how could Venus be so much heavier per unit of volume than Jupiter?—either it was expelled from inner parts of the giant planet, or gases like hydrogen entered into chemical compounds of higher molecular weight. In Worlds in Collision I suggested that electrical discharges in the atmosphere of ammonia and methane in which Jupiter is rich, would produce hydrocarbons of heavy molecular weight—an experiment successfully performed ten years later by A. T. Wilson. Further, I envisaged fusion of elements—like oxygen to sulphur—in interplanetary discharges.
Orbiter and Surveyor probes of the Moon were followed by Apollo probes; and on the historic night of July 21, 1969, when Man stepped on the Moon, I made a series of claims in an article written at the invitation of the New York Times, and spelled out earlier as well in memos to the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Strong magnetic remanence, I claimed, would be discovered in lunar rocks and lavas, though the Moon itself hardly possesses any magnetic field whatsoever. A steep thermal gradient would be found already a few feet under the surface. Thermoluminescence would disclose that the Moon was heated considerably only thousands of years ago. Hydrocarbons, preferably of aromatic structure, would be found in small quantities, but carbides, into which hydrocarbons would transform when heated, in substantial quantities; expressed radioactivity would be detected in lunar soil and rocks; and several more claims. Already following Apollo XI and XII the score was complete. But each of the discoveries—steep thermal gradient, strong remanent magnetism, recent heating of the lunar surface, carbides and traces of aromatic hydrocarbons, and rich radioactivity of the rocks and dust—evoked exclamations of surprise and at best some far fetched, ad hoc hypotheses. Magnetic anomalies, especially where interplanetary bolts fell, and huge enclaves of neon and argon 40 in lunar rocks, were also claimed by me in advance of the findings.
The Mars probes disclosed, as I had claimed in Worlds in Collision, a dead planet that went through enormous cataclysmic events, not unlike the Moon. The “canali” proved to be not the product of intelligent work, but rifts caused by twisting of strata. Like on the Moon, enormous craters resulted from bubbling, but some formations, especially surrounded with “rays,” resulted, in my view, from interplanetary discharges.
My Challenge
to Conventional Views in Science
“Books written about the solar system before the advent of the space age could as well have been written in Latin or Greek, so dated do they appear to a contemporary reader.”
Zdenek Kopal - The Solar System (Oxford University Press, 1973)
In my published books, notwithstanding often repeated allegations, no physical law is ever abrogated or “temporarily suspended”; what I offered in them is primarily a reconstruction of events from the historical past. Thus I did not set out to confront the existing views with a theory or hypothesis and to develop it into a competing system. My work is first a reconstruction, not a theory; it is built upon studying the human testimony as preserved in the heritage of all ancient civilizations—all of them in texts bequeathed beginning with the time man learned to write, tell in various forms the very same narrative that the trained eye of a psychoanalyst could not but recognize as so many variants of the same theme. In hymns, in prayers, in historical texts, in philosophical discourses, in records of astronomical observations, but also in legend and religious myth, the ancients desperately tried to convey to their descendants, ourselves included, the record of events that took place in circumstances that left a strong imprint on the witnesses. There were physical upheavals on a global scale in historical times; the grandiosity of the events inspired awe. From the Far East to the Far West—the Japanese, Chinese and Hindu civilizations; the Iranian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hitto-Chaldean, Israelite and Egyptian records; the Etruscan, Attic and Roman theogonies and philosophies; Scandinavian and Icelandic epics; Mayan, Toltec and Olmec art and legends—all, with no exception, were dominated by the knowledge of events and circumstances that only the most brazen attitude of science could so completely disregard.
The scientific community starts its annals with Newton, paying some homage to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, unaware that the great ones of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries searched through classical authors of antiquity for their great discoveries. Did not Copernicus strike out the name of Aristarchus of Samos from the introduction to De Revolutionibus before he signed imprimatur on his work? Did not Tycho Brahe find the compromising theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth—but Mercury and Venus circling around the Sun—in Heracleides of Pontus, yet announce it as his own? Did not Galileo read of the equal velocity of heavy and light falling bodies in Lucretius;1 did not Newton read in Plutarch of the Moon removed from the Earth by fifty-six terrestrial radii and impelled by gravitation to circle around the Earth,2 the basic postulate of Newton’s Principia, and did not Halley read in Pliny about comets returning on their orbits?3 Then why does modern science disregard the persistent reports of events witnessed and recorded in many languages in the writings of the ancients and also transmitted from generation to generation by communities unable to write, by American Indians, by the people of Lapland, the Voguls of Siberia, the aborigines of tropical Africa, the Tahitians in the South Pacific?
Why is theomachy the central theme of all cosmogonical myths? Should not a thinking man pause and wonder why the ancients in both hemispheres worshipped planetary gods; why temples were erected to them, and some are still standing; why sacrifices, even human sacrifices, were brought to them? Why was Saturn or Cronos or Brahma the supreme deity to be replaced by Jupiter of the Romans, Zeus of the Greeks, Ormuzd of the Iranians, Marduk of the Babylonians, Shiva of the Hindus, Ammon of the Egyptians? Why did the planet Venus—Ishtar, Athene, Kukulcan of the Mayas or Quetzalcohuatl of the Toltecs—become the feared deity, as I saw it omnipresent in Yucatan, where I savored a few days this February, writing this paper? Why is this Morning Star shown in sculpture as a feathered serpent on the grandiose monuments of Uxmal and Chichen Itza, where temples were built, one upon the other, if not to commemorate the ages, the last of which was dominated by Huitzilopochtli, Ares of the Greeks, who protected the people of Troy, while Athene clashed with him protecting the Achaean host?
Why was Mars of the Romans chosen as the protector of Rome, the greatest empire after the Empire of Heaven (Livy), while Athene gave her name to the capital of Attica, as Tanis to Tunisia? Why were human sacrifices brought in this country by the Pawnee Indians only a few scores of years ago, every fifty-two years connected with the Venus calendar? Why did the Ancient Assyrians mark on tens of thousands of clay tablets, free from any mythological theme, astronomical observations, but all data from before -687 are in contradiction to known values such as the duration of the daily rotation of the Earth, the time of the vernal equinox—that by the way was repeatedly transferred, as was also the beginning of the year—the ratio of the longest and shortest days of the year, the length of the month and of the year and the motion of the planets? The legends and myths clearly point to an astral origin of all ancient religions.
The problem that occupied the minds of the Classicists, Meso-american scholars. Orientalists, and students of social anthropology and mythology, was not solved in any one of these disciplines separately. Like the early memory of a single man, so the early memory of the human race belongs into the domain of the student of psychology. Only a philosophically and historically, but also analytically trained mind can see in the mythological subjects their true content—a mind that learned in long years of exercise to understand the dreams and phantasies of his fellow man.
Thus I entered a field that should be at the basis of the natural sciences, not only of the human soul and of racial memories, and soon I observed that the divisions in science are but artificial. I had to cross barriers. How could I do otherwise? Upon the realization that we are unaware of the most fateful events in human history, I had before me the task of explaining this well-known phenomenon of repression, the realization of which could also become crucial to the survival of the victim of amnesia playing with thermonuclear weapons. But before that I had the task of confronting the humanistic heritage with the message of stones and bones—do geology and paleontology carry the same testimony? I went again from shelf to shelf, once more around the Earth, and the record from the bottom of the sea and from the top of the mountains, from the deserts, jungles, tundras, lakes, rivers and waterfalls, told the same story—documented in every latitude and in every longitude. This evidence is presented in Earth in Upheaval, which I kept free from any bit of testimony that can be classified as human heritage. The scenes of devastation, mass extinction of many species in circumstances that are by far in excess of what can be considered as local catastrophe, the simultaneous change of climate all over the globe thirty-four and twenty-seven centuries ago, the drop of the level of the ocean and many other phenomena observed, could not be accounted for but by paroxysms in which the entire Earth was involved.
A psychological situation provoked the change in the attitude of the scholarly world with the beginning of the Victorian age. The founders of the sciences of geology—Buckland, Sedgwick, and Murchinson (who gave the classification of formations used today); of vertebrate paleontology—Cuvier; and of ichthyology—Louis Agassiz—never doubted that what they observed was the result of repeated cataclysms in which the entire globe partook. Actually, Charles Darwin, observing the destruction of fauna in South America, was convinced that nothing less than the shaking of the entire frame of the Earth could account for what he saw. But the introduction of the principle of uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell, a lawyer who never had field experience, and the acceptance of it on faith by Charles Darwin, are a psychological phenomenon that I observed again and again. Exactly those who, like Darwin, witnessed the omnipresent shambles of an overwhelming fury of devastation on a continental scale, became the staunchest defenders of the principle of uniformitarianism, that became not just a law, but a principle that grew to a statute of faith in the natural sciences, as if the reasoning that what we do not observe in our time could not have happened in the past can in any measure claim to be philosophically or scientifically true.
Obviously, a motive is at play that makes appear as scientific principle what is but wishful thinking. For over a century after Copernicus man did not wish to believe that he lives on an Earth that travels, and Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare were not persuaded by that firebrand, Giordano Bruno, of the truth of the Copemican doctrine. Even much less man wishes to face the fact that he travels on a rock in space on a path that proved to be accident-prone. The victory of Darwin’s evolution by natural selection over a six-day creation less than six thousand years ago made it appear that evolution, the only instrument of which is competition, is the ultimate truth. But by competition for survival or for means of existence, never could such different forms as man and an insect with many legs evolve from the same unicellular form, not even in the six billion years that replaced the biblical six thousand. Mutations were necessary, and today we know that by cosmic and x-rays, by thermal and chemical means—conditions brought about in the catastrophes of the past—massive mutations can be achieved.
The pre-1950 astronomy followed the same pseudo-scientific statute of faith, elevated to a fundamental principle, and made believe that the Earth and other planets travel the same paths for the same six billion years, always repeating the same serene circling. Against this violation of the principle of empiricism in science stood my work. In it I rejected the postulate that the ancients, the Greek philosophers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus and Plato included (O. Neugebauer in The Exact Sciences in Antiquity wonders why Plato is considered anywhere a philosopher of any rank4) were childish in their claims of repeated world conflagrations, and that the ancients were almost imbeciles in their beliefs. The ancients, the canard goes, believed in the Earth placed on the back of a tortoise. Thus it is preferred to start science three hundred years ago, and my work was pronounced (by those who did not read it) as an act of destruction of the entire edifice of science erected by the giants of science since Copernicus.
I offered a series of claims that naturally followed from the reconstruction. In science they are usually called predictions, but I prefer to term them advance claims. Thus I claimed that Venus, due to its recent birth and dramatic though short history, must be very hot under the clouds, nearly incandescent, and gives off heat—it has not reached thermal balance; that it must have every massive atmosphere; that the atmosphere consisted largely of hydrocarbons but that if oxygen is present petroleum fires must be burning—thus explaining also the present massive carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere; that sulfur and iron (ferruginous pigment) must be present too; and that if the same catalytic process that took place on the Earth when it was enveloped by clouds of Venus’ origin takes place in Venus’ own clouds, they must consist mainly of organic material infused with sulfur and iron molecules. Further, I considered that Venus was disturbed in its rotation.
Venus was found over 750°K. hot—many metals are incandescent at this temperature—while the consensus of opinion among astronomers was 17°C., 3° above the mean annual temperature on Earth. Venus was found rotating slowly and retrogradely. The atmosphere was found very massive, 95 terrestrial pressures near the ground surface, and not reckoning with this possibility, the first Venera probes were crushed. The content of the clouds is still unsolved, but in a paper in the Winter, 1973-74 issue of Pensée, a journal dedicated to the reconsideration of my views, I elucidated that the spectral features in the ultraviolet, near infrared, infrared and deep infrared can be accounted for by organic matter, and so can the volatility and the index of refraction. Nitrogen gas, expected by all specialists to comprise as much as 90% of the atmosphere, was not found. The enigma of the very rich content of carbon dioxide below the clouds is solved if the combustion of hydrocarbons took and still takes place. I expect that the Venus Mariner X probe of this month will bring us nearer to properly evaluating the content of Venus’ clouds. But the preliminary report already says that “the manner in which that planet was born and matured differed basically from that of Earth.” An editorial in the New York Times, commenting on the bands and streaks first discovered by Mariner X, spoke of an “uncanny similarity” to the bands “in the atmosphere of Jupiter.” It added that “it is a problem that poses a formidable challenge to astronomers.”
There are problems requiring study that were not discussed in Worlds in Collision because the origin of Venus belongs to the volumes dealing with the earlier catastrophes. How did Venus, in Latin, “the Newcomer,” escape from Jupiter four hundred times more massive?—and Lyttleton’s work gives some idea; or how could Venus be so much heavier per unit of volume than Jupiter?—either it was expelled from inner parts of the giant planet, or gases like hydrogen entered into chemical compounds of higher molecular weight. In Worlds in Collision I suggested that electrical discharges in the atmosphere of ammonia and methane in which Jupiter is rich, would produce hydrocarbons of heavy molecular weight—an experiment successfully performed ten years later by A. T. Wilson. Further, I envisaged fusion of elements—like oxygen to sulphur—in interplanetary discharges.
Orbiter and Surveyor probes of the Moon were followed by Apollo probes; and on the historic night of July 21, 1969, when Man stepped on the Moon, I made a series of claims in an article written at the invitation of the New York Times, and spelled out earlier as well in memos to the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Strong magnetic remanence, I claimed, would be discovered in lunar rocks and lavas, though the Moon itself hardly possesses any magnetic field whatsoever. A steep thermal gradient would be found already a few feet under the surface. Thermoluminescence would disclose that the Moon was heated considerably only thousands of years ago. Hydrocarbons, preferably of aromatic structure, would be found in small quantities, but carbides, into which hydrocarbons would transform when heated, in substantial quantities; expressed radioactivity would be detected in lunar soil and rocks; and several more claims. Already following Apollo XI and XII the score was complete. But each of the discoveries—steep thermal gradient, strong remanent magnetism, recent heating of the lunar surface, carbides and traces of aromatic hydrocarbons, and rich radioactivity of the rocks and dust—evoked exclamations of surprise and at best some far fetched, ad hoc hypotheses. Magnetic anomalies, especially where interplanetary bolts fell, and huge enclaves of neon and argon 40 in lunar rocks, were also claimed by me in advance of the findings.
The Mars probes disclosed, as I had claimed in Worlds in Collision, a dead planet that went through enormous cataclysmic events, not unlike the Moon. The “canali” proved to be not the product of intelligent work, but rifts caused by twisting of strata. Like on the Moon, enormous craters resulted from bubbling, but some formations, especially surrounded with “rays,” resulted, in my view, from interplanetary discharges.
Last edited:
continued
When last December [1973] I was invited to address the scientists of the Langley Space Research Center that prepares the June 1976 Viking probes to Mars, I was told of the program and shown the module. I found that my 1945 copyrighted view, printed also in Worlds in Collision, of the possible abundant presence of argon and neon in the atmosphere of Mars, then a very far-fetched idea, is now incorporated in the program of the 1976 Viking probes. Today, in one of the alternative atmosphere models (the other has nitrogen richly presented - the same alternative I discussed in Worlds in Collision), NASA anticipates as much as 33.3% argon in the atmosphere, but, in my opinion, too little—666 parts per million—neon. Actually, in 1969 I saw my assumption indirectly confirmed when after I expressed my expectation of rich inclusions of argon and neon in lunar rocks, such enigmatic inclusions were found. I based my expectation on the realization that in the eighth century before the present era Mars and the Moon repeatedly came into near-contacts.
I would speculate that the red color of Mars, due mainly to the ferruginous material acquired from Venus when the latter displaced it from its orbit (in the theomachy described in great detail in the Iliad), may partly be due also to an electrical effect in a neon-rich Martian atmosphere. I recommended in my lecture and consultation at Langley Space
Research Center several tests not found in their program as it stands now:
To study the electrical nature of the sandstorms, occasionally reaching the velocity of one hundred to two hundred miles per hour, in the rarefied atmosphere of the planet.
To search for strong remanent magnetism of rocks and lavas, not just to photograph soil particles attractable to a magnet. As just explained, iron particles will be found in abundance. In future probes anomalous remanent magnetism will be discovered near places where electrical bolts emerged or fell.
To search for expressed radioactivity of the rocks and regolith, especially near large circular formations that resulted from interplanetary discharges.
To investigate the thermal gradient, presumably rather steep, even if only at the depth of two or three feet.
To perform a thermoluminescence experiment on glass-like particles in the Martian soil which will disclose a very recent heating of the Martian surface; if it were not for the expected radioactivity on Mars, the proper result would be twenty-seven centuries for the last heating.
The logic that led me to these conclusions and suggestions was the same that made me make similar advance claims concerning the Moon before the lunar landings.
I understand that the program will be dominated by an effort to find out whether there is or there was life on Mars; organic materials will be searched for and I count with the possibility that traces of hydrocarbons may be found in the Martian soil, but almost all hydrocarbons must have turned into carbide rocks by heating; cultures of possible micro-organisms will be investigated for changes in color and for the production of gases.
In Worlds in Collision I compiled descriptions from many sources of a widely spread pestilence that accompanied Mars’ close approaches; it is not excluded that Mars is richly populated by micro-organisms pathogenic to man. I suggested an inclusion of a microscope in the equipment of Viking and, if possible, of an electron microscope for the study of viruses. I do not discount the probability that the seasonal changes in the color of the Martian surface may be due to seasonal microbial or other low vegetative activity.
It is preferable to postpone the second Viking probe, now planned as identical with the first and following it by one month, in order to rework the program and to include the instruments needed for the test I enumerated.
When earlier, a year and a half ago, in August [1972] , I was invited to lecture and consult at Ames Space Research Center (Division of Exobiology), I suggested also that microbial life able to catalyze can possibly be found in Venus’ clouds, lower forms of insect life on Jupiter, and primitive plant life on Saturn, besides what I said now of Mars. So much for cosmology and also the evolution of life.
If I was completely at odds with the cosmogony that had the solar system without history since creation, I was also carrying my heresy into a most sacred field, the holy of holies of science—celestial mechanics. I had a chapter on the subject at the end of Worlds in Collision, but I kept those galleys from inclusion in the book and instead I included only one or two paragraphs—and the only italicized words in the book are found in them—namely: ‘The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only ;/ the sun, the source of light, warmth, and other radiation produced by fusion and fission of atoms, is as a whole an electrically neutral body, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies.” I showed how the events I reconstructed could have occurred in the frame of the classical celestial mechanics, but coming from the field of studying the working of the brain—I was the first to claim that electrical disturbances lie at the basis of epileptic seizures—I was greatly surprised to find that astronomy, the queen of sciences, lives still in the pre-Faraday age, not even in the time of kerosene lamps, but of candles and oil. It was, of course, known since Gilbert that the Earth is a magnet, and G. E. Hale discovered that solar spots are magnetic and that the Sun possesses a general magnetic field. But this did not keep Einstein, a few years later, from accounting for the Mercurial precession by a new principle instead of first eliminating the effect of the newly discovered solar magnetic field on Mercury’s movement.
I claimed the existence of a magnetosphere above the terrestrial ionosphere - it was discovered by Van Allen in 1958; I claimed that this magnetosphere reaches as far as the lunar orbit—it was discovered by Ness in 1964; I claimed that the interplanetary space is magnetic and the field centers on the Sun and rotates with it—it was discovered in 1960 by simultaneous observation of Pioneer V and Explorer X, one travelling around the Sun and the other around the Earth; I claimed that Jupiter sends out radio noises,5 and actually offered in writing in June 1954 to Albert Einstein to stake our protracted debate as to whether, besides inertia and gravitation, electromagnetic interactions participate in celestial mechanics: Does or does not Jupiter send out radio noises?—and Einstein wrote his note of disbelief on the margin of my letter. But on the 8th of April, 1955, nine days before his death, I brought to him the news that Jupiter noises were discovered by chance; those who detected them for long weeks disbelieved their find and the Jovian origin of the noises.
Lately I lecture frequently for physical and engineering societies and faculties, and I challenge those in the audience who believe that a magnetic body can move through a magnetic field without being affected by it to lift their hands. Can Jupiter with its immense magnetosphere move in the magnetic field centered on the Sun, if only of a few gammas, without being affected by it? Can the satellites of Jupiter plow through the magnetosphere of the giant planet without being affected by it? On no occasion I saw a hand raised.
Only a few weeks ago, preliminary reports in Science on the Pioneer X December flyby recorded a series of unusual electromagnetic phenomena involving Jupiter and its satellites. At about the same time we read of radio noises for the first time detected from a comet, as Kohoutek was approaching its perhelion. (Incidentally, contrary to the unanimous opinion expressed by astronomical authorities, with which I disagreed, Kohoutek did not develop into the greatest celestial spectacle of the century.) The role of electromagnetic interaction between a comet and the Sun was another subject of my detailed discussion, oral and written, with Einstein.
With the discovery of quasars, magnetic binaries, black holes and colliding galaxies sending out agonized radio signals, the electromagnetic nature of the universe is no more in question. Space is not empty either. I feel like calling René Descartes from the Land of Shades to present his appeal, because as late as 1949, a year before the publication of Worlds in Collision, the verdict was, according to the philosopher Butterfield, that “The clean and comparatively empty Newtonian skies ultimately carried the day against a Cartesian universe packed with matter and agitated with whirlpools, for the existence of which scientific observation provided no evidence.”
But ten years later we read: “Gone forever is any earthbound notion of space as a serene thoroughfare . . . . a fantastic amount of cosmic traffic (hot gaseous clouds, deadly rays, bands of electricity) rushes by at high speed, circles, crisscrosses, and collides.”
How could I produce this score of correct prognostications? Professor V. Eshleman of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, obviously astounded, wrote on September II, 1970, to a news-writer— “I am completely mystified as to how Velikovsky reaches his conclusions. It is almost as though he does it through will power alone. . . .” But could I, by will power alone, initiate Jupiter’s noises?
There is no mystery. My advance claims are a “natural fallout from a single central idea,” in the words of one student of the affair. Reading of my work is a prerequisite for understanding the way I reach my conclusions.
Yet not a few upheld the scientific method by absolving themselves from reading the book they discuss and occasionally suppress. These days one planetarium astronomer authoritatively pronounced my score of correct predictions as compatible with the law of averages and added that I would have been unfortunate if my score were any less. Seven years earlier the same planetarium astronomer was the mastermind in the refusal of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia to permit the oldest astronomical association of America, the Ritten-house Society, to convene at their traditional meeting place in the Institute when they invited me to address their members—a story that had many reverberations.
The behavior of the scientific community was and partly still is a psychological phenomenon. The spectacle of the scientific establishment going through all the paces of self degradation has nothing with which to compare in the past, though every time a new leaf in science was turned over there was a minor storm, and it is not without precedent that most authoritative voices in science usually served to discourage the trail blazers—think of Lord Kelvin, unsurpassed authority of later Victorian days, who rejected Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, demeaned Guglieimo Marconi’s radiotelegraphy, and till his death in 1907 proclaimed Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen for a charlatan.
But it is without precedent that the entire scientific community should be aroused to very base actions of compelling, by organized boycott, the publisher of a book checked and rechecked before the printing to discontinue its publication, to destroy the entire stock, and to punish the editor of twenty-five years service by dismissal. This community offered a united front of academic and scientific societies, of faculties, of scientific and semi-scientific press against a solitary figure whose only iniquity was to present views carefully arrived at in more than a decade of work, supplied with all references to enable the reader to check multitudinous sources, with never a jest or a harsh word against those with whom the non-conformist disagreed, with no new terms introduced, in lucid language, though foreign to me, never given to misunderstanding.
Now, after twenty-four years, and more than seventy-two printings in the English language alone, forty of which were in hard cover, my Worlds in Collision, as well as Earth in Upheaval, do not require any revisions, whereas all books on terrestrial and celestial sciences of 1950 need complete rewriting. The opposition and the indecent forms it took are a psychological phenomenon and cannot be explained by a mere desire to protect the vested interests. The forms the suppression assumed are so multiple and sometimes ingenious, but mostly crassly rough and often dishonest, that only having been trained in recognizing various forms of resistance with which analytical patients react when unwelcome truth is about to reveal itself, could I understand the unique spectacle which I observe now for a full generation.
If a sociologist endeavors to divide the guilt between the establishment and the non-conformist, and claims neutrality, then he did not learn to discern objectivity from neutrality. And if a professor of astronomy puts passages in my book which are not there and then makes the class of tuition-paying students roar by attacking those passages, this roar may still sound in his ears when there will be no merriment in it. In these antics, an experienced psychoanalyst recognizes a state of anxiety. “We are shaking in our shoes—but with laughter” wrote an early critic, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin of Harvard. Actually the astronomers of that university must have felt threatened by the book and even an entire generation later, acting as if in peril, a Nobel prize winner wrote to a high school girl to close Worlds in Collision and not to open it again in her lifetime, only to admit three years later to the editor of Pensée that he never himself read the book. Those who act almost suicidally should keep their fingers on the pulse of time.
In the behavior of the scientific establishment the desperate resistance that bedevils human society found its expression. As members of the human race, we are afraid to face our past. But as Santayana wrote, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it and—this time, I am afraid, in a man-made thermonuclear holocaust.
My work today is no longer heretical. Most of it is incorporated in textbooks and it does not matter whether credit is properly assigned. My work is not concluded—I only opened new vistas. The young and the imaginative flock in an ever increasing stream. Numerous colleges and universities in this country hold courses or seminars on my work, include my books among the required readings and have theses on my ideas written for graduate degrees. Those who stopped thinking since graduating will claim authority, soon to find that they are left without a following. I may have even caused retardation in the development of science by making some opponents cling to their unacceptable views only because such views may contradict Velikovsky - like sticking to the completely unsupportable hypothesis of greenhouse effect as the cause of Venus’ heat, even in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This spring, besides this Symposium on my work, two more international symposia dedicated to the subject will take place without my having any part in initiating them. Those who prefer name calling to argument, wit to deliberation, or those who point a triumphant finger at some detail that they misinterpret, yet claim that my entire work ought to collapse, and boast of their own exclusiveness as a caste of specialists—as if I claimed omniscience and infallibility and as if I wrote a sacred book that falls due to some possible error—are not first in their art. I shall quote Giordano Bruno, and one of the organizers of this symposium, Professor Owen Gingerich, Harvard’s historian of science, is well familiar with Bruno’s description of how his contemporaries used to conduct a dispute:
“With a sneer, a smile, a certain discrete malice, that which they have not succeeded in proving by argument—nor indeed can it be understood by themselves—nevertheless by these tricks of courteous disdain they pretend to have proven, endeavouring not only to conceal their own patently obvious ignorance but to cast it on to the back of their adversary. For they dispute not in order to find or even to seek Truth, but for victory, and to appear the more learned and strenuous upholders of a contrary opinion. Such persons should be avoided by all who have not a good breastplate of patience.”
After all, it really does not matter so much what Velikovsky’s role is in the scientific revolution that goes now across all fields from astronomy with emphasis on charges, plasmas and fields, to zoology with its study of violence in man. But this symposium in the frame of the AAAS is, I hope, a retarded recognition that by name-calling instead of testing, by jest instead of reading and meditating, nothing is achieved. None of my critics can erase the magnetosphere, nobody can stop the noises of Jupiter, nobody can cool off Venus, and nobody can change a single sentence in my books.
some of this may seem off topic but immanuel was always insightful and saying things for intelligent reasons..
velikovsky was hounded from all sides and forced to defend his arguements until his death,, called a heretic by the mainstream,, no doubt in another time he would have been burned by religious literalists,,, luckily for us we arent in the dark ages again,, yet..
he formed most of his theories at the beginning of the last century when plasma science was in its infancy,, yet most plasma scientists today are proud to call themselves velikovskites,,
his words live on and he will be known by all people one day..
there are many good sources for further reading,,
all of velikovskys books are worth reading, as are the electric universe bools by wal thornhill and david walcott,, all these three mens work can be read and understood by anyone..
this saturnian cosmology site is bang on the money for everything as well and seriously full of knowledge,,
http://saturniancosmology.org/tab.php
the best thing about all these men is how obvious it is that they are the real scientists,, open and happy to discuss all arguements, and not caught up in some unfounded faith based fad of our time,,
it is also obvious that the mystics of all previous ages were well aware of all this,, from pythagorians like plato to the druids,vedics,gnostics, aztecs, and osirian schools of egypt etc etc,, now both the church and science together plot against the truth because they are owned and run by the same cabal..
as above, so below
keep researching into this,, im always happy to add more..
[/FONT]
When last December [1973] I was invited to address the scientists of the Langley Space Research Center that prepares the June 1976 Viking probes to Mars, I was told of the program and shown the module. I found that my 1945 copyrighted view, printed also in Worlds in Collision, of the possible abundant presence of argon and neon in the atmosphere of Mars, then a very far-fetched idea, is now incorporated in the program of the 1976 Viking probes. Today, in one of the alternative atmosphere models (the other has nitrogen richly presented - the same alternative I discussed in Worlds in Collision), NASA anticipates as much as 33.3% argon in the atmosphere, but, in my opinion, too little—666 parts per million—neon. Actually, in 1969 I saw my assumption indirectly confirmed when after I expressed my expectation of rich inclusions of argon and neon in lunar rocks, such enigmatic inclusions were found. I based my expectation on the realization that in the eighth century before the present era Mars and the Moon repeatedly came into near-contacts.
I would speculate that the red color of Mars, due mainly to the ferruginous material acquired from Venus when the latter displaced it from its orbit (in the theomachy described in great detail in the Iliad), may partly be due also to an electrical effect in a neon-rich Martian atmosphere. I recommended in my lecture and consultation at Langley Space
Research Center several tests not found in their program as it stands now:
To study the electrical nature of the sandstorms, occasionally reaching the velocity of one hundred to two hundred miles per hour, in the rarefied atmosphere of the planet.
To search for strong remanent magnetism of rocks and lavas, not just to photograph soil particles attractable to a magnet. As just explained, iron particles will be found in abundance. In future probes anomalous remanent magnetism will be discovered near places where electrical bolts emerged or fell.
To search for expressed radioactivity of the rocks and regolith, especially near large circular formations that resulted from interplanetary discharges.
To investigate the thermal gradient, presumably rather steep, even if only at the depth of two or three feet.
To perform a thermoluminescence experiment on glass-like particles in the Martian soil which will disclose a very recent heating of the Martian surface; if it were not for the expected radioactivity on Mars, the proper result would be twenty-seven centuries for the last heating.
The logic that led me to these conclusions and suggestions was the same that made me make similar advance claims concerning the Moon before the lunar landings.
I understand that the program will be dominated by an effort to find out whether there is or there was life on Mars; organic materials will be searched for and I count with the possibility that traces of hydrocarbons may be found in the Martian soil, but almost all hydrocarbons must have turned into carbide rocks by heating; cultures of possible micro-organisms will be investigated for changes in color and for the production of gases.
In Worlds in Collision I compiled descriptions from many sources of a widely spread pestilence that accompanied Mars’ close approaches; it is not excluded that Mars is richly populated by micro-organisms pathogenic to man. I suggested an inclusion of a microscope in the equipment of Viking and, if possible, of an electron microscope for the study of viruses. I do not discount the probability that the seasonal changes in the color of the Martian surface may be due to seasonal microbial or other low vegetative activity.
It is preferable to postpone the second Viking probe, now planned as identical with the first and following it by one month, in order to rework the program and to include the instruments needed for the test I enumerated.
When earlier, a year and a half ago, in August [1972] , I was invited to lecture and consult at Ames Space Research Center (Division of Exobiology), I suggested also that microbial life able to catalyze can possibly be found in Venus’ clouds, lower forms of insect life on Jupiter, and primitive plant life on Saturn, besides what I said now of Mars. So much for cosmology and also the evolution of life.
If I was completely at odds with the cosmogony that had the solar system without history since creation, I was also carrying my heresy into a most sacred field, the holy of holies of science—celestial mechanics. I had a chapter on the subject at the end of Worlds in Collision, but I kept those galleys from inclusion in the book and instead I included only one or two paragraphs—and the only italicized words in the book are found in them—namely: ‘The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only ;/ the sun, the source of light, warmth, and other radiation produced by fusion and fission of atoms, is as a whole an electrically neutral body, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies.” I showed how the events I reconstructed could have occurred in the frame of the classical celestial mechanics, but coming from the field of studying the working of the brain—I was the first to claim that electrical disturbances lie at the basis of epileptic seizures—I was greatly surprised to find that astronomy, the queen of sciences, lives still in the pre-Faraday age, not even in the time of kerosene lamps, but of candles and oil. It was, of course, known since Gilbert that the Earth is a magnet, and G. E. Hale discovered that solar spots are magnetic and that the Sun possesses a general magnetic field. But this did not keep Einstein, a few years later, from accounting for the Mercurial precession by a new principle instead of first eliminating the effect of the newly discovered solar magnetic field on Mercury’s movement.
I claimed the existence of a magnetosphere above the terrestrial ionosphere - it was discovered by Van Allen in 1958; I claimed that this magnetosphere reaches as far as the lunar orbit—it was discovered by Ness in 1964; I claimed that the interplanetary space is magnetic and the field centers on the Sun and rotates with it—it was discovered in 1960 by simultaneous observation of Pioneer V and Explorer X, one travelling around the Sun and the other around the Earth; I claimed that Jupiter sends out radio noises,5 and actually offered in writing in June 1954 to Albert Einstein to stake our protracted debate as to whether, besides inertia and gravitation, electromagnetic interactions participate in celestial mechanics: Does or does not Jupiter send out radio noises?—and Einstein wrote his note of disbelief on the margin of my letter. But on the 8th of April, 1955, nine days before his death, I brought to him the news that Jupiter noises were discovered by chance; those who detected them for long weeks disbelieved their find and the Jovian origin of the noises.
Lately I lecture frequently for physical and engineering societies and faculties, and I challenge those in the audience who believe that a magnetic body can move through a magnetic field without being affected by it to lift their hands. Can Jupiter with its immense magnetosphere move in the magnetic field centered on the Sun, if only of a few gammas, without being affected by it? Can the satellites of Jupiter plow through the magnetosphere of the giant planet without being affected by it? On no occasion I saw a hand raised.
Only a few weeks ago, preliminary reports in Science on the Pioneer X December flyby recorded a series of unusual electromagnetic phenomena involving Jupiter and its satellites. At about the same time we read of radio noises for the first time detected from a comet, as Kohoutek was approaching its perhelion. (Incidentally, contrary to the unanimous opinion expressed by astronomical authorities, with which I disagreed, Kohoutek did not develop into the greatest celestial spectacle of the century.) The role of electromagnetic interaction between a comet and the Sun was another subject of my detailed discussion, oral and written, with Einstein.
With the discovery of quasars, magnetic binaries, black holes and colliding galaxies sending out agonized radio signals, the electromagnetic nature of the universe is no more in question. Space is not empty either. I feel like calling René Descartes from the Land of Shades to present his appeal, because as late as 1949, a year before the publication of Worlds in Collision, the verdict was, according to the philosopher Butterfield, that “The clean and comparatively empty Newtonian skies ultimately carried the day against a Cartesian universe packed with matter and agitated with whirlpools, for the existence of which scientific observation provided no evidence.”
But ten years later we read: “Gone forever is any earthbound notion of space as a serene thoroughfare . . . . a fantastic amount of cosmic traffic (hot gaseous clouds, deadly rays, bands of electricity) rushes by at high speed, circles, crisscrosses, and collides.”
How could I produce this score of correct prognostications? Professor V. Eshleman of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, obviously astounded, wrote on September II, 1970, to a news-writer— “I am completely mystified as to how Velikovsky reaches his conclusions. It is almost as though he does it through will power alone. . . .” But could I, by will power alone, initiate Jupiter’s noises?
There is no mystery. My advance claims are a “natural fallout from a single central idea,” in the words of one student of the affair. Reading of my work is a prerequisite for understanding the way I reach my conclusions.
Yet not a few upheld the scientific method by absolving themselves from reading the book they discuss and occasionally suppress. These days one planetarium astronomer authoritatively pronounced my score of correct predictions as compatible with the law of averages and added that I would have been unfortunate if my score were any less. Seven years earlier the same planetarium astronomer was the mastermind in the refusal of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia to permit the oldest astronomical association of America, the Ritten-house Society, to convene at their traditional meeting place in the Institute when they invited me to address their members—a story that had many reverberations.
The behavior of the scientific community was and partly still is a psychological phenomenon. The spectacle of the scientific establishment going through all the paces of self degradation has nothing with which to compare in the past, though every time a new leaf in science was turned over there was a minor storm, and it is not without precedent that most authoritative voices in science usually served to discourage the trail blazers—think of Lord Kelvin, unsurpassed authority of later Victorian days, who rejected Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, demeaned Guglieimo Marconi’s radiotelegraphy, and till his death in 1907 proclaimed Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen for a charlatan.
But it is without precedent that the entire scientific community should be aroused to very base actions of compelling, by organized boycott, the publisher of a book checked and rechecked before the printing to discontinue its publication, to destroy the entire stock, and to punish the editor of twenty-five years service by dismissal. This community offered a united front of academic and scientific societies, of faculties, of scientific and semi-scientific press against a solitary figure whose only iniquity was to present views carefully arrived at in more than a decade of work, supplied with all references to enable the reader to check multitudinous sources, with never a jest or a harsh word against those with whom the non-conformist disagreed, with no new terms introduced, in lucid language, though foreign to me, never given to misunderstanding.
Now, after twenty-four years, and more than seventy-two printings in the English language alone, forty of which were in hard cover, my Worlds in Collision, as well as Earth in Upheaval, do not require any revisions, whereas all books on terrestrial and celestial sciences of 1950 need complete rewriting. The opposition and the indecent forms it took are a psychological phenomenon and cannot be explained by a mere desire to protect the vested interests. The forms the suppression assumed are so multiple and sometimes ingenious, but mostly crassly rough and often dishonest, that only having been trained in recognizing various forms of resistance with which analytical patients react when unwelcome truth is about to reveal itself, could I understand the unique spectacle which I observe now for a full generation.
If a sociologist endeavors to divide the guilt between the establishment and the non-conformist, and claims neutrality, then he did not learn to discern objectivity from neutrality. And if a professor of astronomy puts passages in my book which are not there and then makes the class of tuition-paying students roar by attacking those passages, this roar may still sound in his ears when there will be no merriment in it. In these antics, an experienced psychoanalyst recognizes a state of anxiety. “We are shaking in our shoes—but with laughter” wrote an early critic, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin of Harvard. Actually the astronomers of that university must have felt threatened by the book and even an entire generation later, acting as if in peril, a Nobel prize winner wrote to a high school girl to close Worlds in Collision and not to open it again in her lifetime, only to admit three years later to the editor of Pensée that he never himself read the book. Those who act almost suicidally should keep their fingers on the pulse of time.
In the behavior of the scientific establishment the desperate resistance that bedevils human society found its expression. As members of the human race, we are afraid to face our past. But as Santayana wrote, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it and—this time, I am afraid, in a man-made thermonuclear holocaust.
My work today is no longer heretical. Most of it is incorporated in textbooks and it does not matter whether credit is properly assigned. My work is not concluded—I only opened new vistas. The young and the imaginative flock in an ever increasing stream. Numerous colleges and universities in this country hold courses or seminars on my work, include my books among the required readings and have theses on my ideas written for graduate degrees. Those who stopped thinking since graduating will claim authority, soon to find that they are left without a following. I may have even caused retardation in the development of science by making some opponents cling to their unacceptable views only because such views may contradict Velikovsky - like sticking to the completely unsupportable hypothesis of greenhouse effect as the cause of Venus’ heat, even in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This spring, besides this Symposium on my work, two more international symposia dedicated to the subject will take place without my having any part in initiating them. Those who prefer name calling to argument, wit to deliberation, or those who point a triumphant finger at some detail that they misinterpret, yet claim that my entire work ought to collapse, and boast of their own exclusiveness as a caste of specialists—as if I claimed omniscience and infallibility and as if I wrote a sacred book that falls due to some possible error—are not first in their art. I shall quote Giordano Bruno, and one of the organizers of this symposium, Professor Owen Gingerich, Harvard’s historian of science, is well familiar with Bruno’s description of how his contemporaries used to conduct a dispute:
“With a sneer, a smile, a certain discrete malice, that which they have not succeeded in proving by argument—nor indeed can it be understood by themselves—nevertheless by these tricks of courteous disdain they pretend to have proven, endeavouring not only to conceal their own patently obvious ignorance but to cast it on to the back of their adversary. For they dispute not in order to find or even to seek Truth, but for victory, and to appear the more learned and strenuous upholders of a contrary opinion. Such persons should be avoided by all who have not a good breastplate of patience.”
After all, it really does not matter so much what Velikovsky’s role is in the scientific revolution that goes now across all fields from astronomy with emphasis on charges, plasmas and fields, to zoology with its study of violence in man. But this symposium in the frame of the AAAS is, I hope, a retarded recognition that by name-calling instead of testing, by jest instead of reading and meditating, nothing is achieved. None of my critics can erase the magnetosphere, nobody can stop the noises of Jupiter, nobody can cool off Venus, and nobody can change a single sentence in my books.
some of this may seem off topic but immanuel was always insightful and saying things for intelligent reasons..
velikovsky was hounded from all sides and forced to defend his arguements until his death,, called a heretic by the mainstream,, no doubt in another time he would have been burned by religious literalists,,, luckily for us we arent in the dark ages again,, yet..
he formed most of his theories at the beginning of the last century when plasma science was in its infancy,, yet most plasma scientists today are proud to call themselves velikovskites,,
his words live on and he will be known by all people one day..
there are many good sources for further reading,,
all of velikovskys books are worth reading, as are the electric universe bools by wal thornhill and david walcott,, all these three mens work can be read and understood by anyone..
this saturnian cosmology site is bang on the money for everything as well and seriously full of knowledge,,
http://saturniancosmology.org/tab.php
the best thing about all these men is how obvious it is that they are the real scientists,, open and happy to discuss all arguements, and not caught up in some unfounded faith based fad of our time,,
it is also obvious that the mystics of all previous ages were well aware of all this,, from pythagorians like plato to the druids,vedics,gnostics, aztecs, and osirian schools of egypt etc etc,, now both the church and science together plot against the truth because they are owned and run by the same cabal..
as above, so below
keep researching into this,, im always happy to add more..
[/FONT]
Last edited:
I know but the mods already shut down some of my science threads when people bring up god, politics, or global warming. It is the trifeca of shit fest subjects
Lost at Sea. i will get to all that in a little while after some caffine is in me. . thanks for sharing
