🚀 go-pugleaf

In _Cosmos_Without_Gravitation_, Immanuel Velikovsky writes:
>
>Phenomena not in accordance with the Theory of Gravitation:
I would say, not in accordance with his understanding...

>1. The ingredients of air - oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gasses - 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.

A nicely mixed meda, for sure...

>2. 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."

There is no suprise at finding an unstable substance near its source and that it
be less common the further away from the source it gets.  It breaks down.

>3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets,
>by the millions of tins, miles above the ground.

A suspension.  

>4. Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gasses, the
>motion of the molecules, if affected by a mechanical cause, must subside
>because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the
>gravitational pull of the earth.

He appears to thing that there is some kind of gravitational collapse here?  I would
think that a brief study of the kinetic property of gasses would easily show the
fallacy in this statement.

>5.  The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric
>pressure indicates.

yup.  It is a dynamic media that is often out of equilibrium.

>6. Laplace... came to the conclusion that the atmosphere...must be lenticular in form,
>its polar and equatorial axes must be 35,000 and 52,000 miles respectively; at the
>equator the atmosphere must extend more than 21,000 miles....From the measurement of
>the pressure of the earth's atmosphere...it has been deduced that the atmosphere is but
>17 miles high.  Observation of the flight of meteorites and of the polar auroras
>lead to the conjecture that the atmosphere reaches...130 miles...or over 400 miles.
>Radio measurements yield about 200 miles for the upper layer recognizable through this
>method of investigation.

So Velikovsky has shown that Laplace had an incredible misunderstanding of the
atmosphere.  The "17 miles high" seems to assume that an elastic gas behaved
inelastically.  I am not especially suprised when ignorance does not agree with
misconception.

>7. ...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.

I do not recall any such problem.

>8. ...the unequal distribution of masses (land in northers vs southern hemispheres)
>does not effect the position of the earth...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.

What does "effect the position of the earth" and "equilibrium of the earth" mean,
and how large effect should a tiny fraction of one percent have?
 
>9. Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of
>gravitation.

News to me.  He's quoting 1855 reports.  What does more recent observation indicate?
I've been directly involved in a project where the seabed was mapped using this
trick - I recall no such problem.

>10.  Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though
>according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true...

huh? This appears to be from a 1939 paper.  Any recent observations?

>11.  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 large solar mass), is much
>smaller...
>
>12.  Because of its swift rotation, the gasseous sun should have a latitudinal axis
>greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it.

Why should it?  Does someone have the supporting calculations that Velikovsky's
paper does not provide?

>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been able to
>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with
>respect to its primary)

I do not see this conclusion.  Even drops of water, not rotating, go spherical in
free fall.

>14.  ...The Newtonian orbits (calculated) differ from the Keplerian, found empirically.

How so? (Do they?)  The space program seems to do quite well with Newtonian
calculations...

>15.  Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion
>as well as attraction.

huh?  In his paper he gave no references to this.  Anyone know anything?

>16.  The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets...As these planets
>did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from...theory
>of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

The time is 1898-1899.  What happened?

>17.  The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the
>satellites...but this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome
>this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

I may be incorrect, but photonic/solar wind pressure seems several orders of magnitude
for this to have an observable effect.

>18. The sun moves in space...This motion, according to Lodge (1918) must change the
>eccentricties of some of the planetary orbits to an extent that far exceeds the observed
>values.

Anything more recent than a 1918 calculation not borne out by observation?  What did
he do wrong?

>19.  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...the
>irregularities in the movements of venus and mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein's
>formula.

What irregulatrities?

>20.  Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the
>records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations.

And are they accounted for now?

>21. (paraphrase: variance in altitude of ionosphere as observed through radio
>transmissions cannot be explained by tidal forces)

What does tide have to do with ionospheric effects?  Solar radiation, yes.

>22.  The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by
>the sun.

He should read his own paper, item 17.  The solar wind (streaming protons) combined
with photonic pressure explain this phonomena quite well.

>23.  The change in the angular velocity of comets is not in accordance with the
>theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.

He refers to a german encyclopedia article.  What is current data?

>24.Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200km above the ground,
>are violently displaced towards the east.

What is he talking about?

>25.  As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces
>in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism...

Sure it does.  I'd be amazed at anything that claimed otherwise.


email explainations appreciated.  I'll include responses into this file.

Thank you.


James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.