🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5236@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
 (Mark William Hopkins) writes about Velikovsky:
>No.  It was because his book related to possible celestial events in the
>past giving Mythological evidence to support it (and geological and
>paleontological in the following work Earth In Upheaval).  His interpretation
>of the evidence he collected boiled down to the assertion that Electromagnetic
>forces play a large role in shaping the orbits of our planets and that the
>solar system is electromagnetically active (something that was not accepted
>back in the late '40's.)

It isn't accepted now, either. The solar wind is intricate, but puny.
The Jovian system does some fun stuff, but only the Jovian moons care.

>This is true in part.  Obviously, Astronomers know astronomy.  However, they
>usually know next to nothing about geology, ancient history or mythology nor
>do many appreciate how one goes about gathering evidence in these fields.

Odd you should mention geology. When geology and astronomy are put together,
it gets titles like "planetary science". Are you aware that there has been
considerable work on subjects like the crustal effects of tides ?
Velikovsky's near-collisions would have caused earthquakes sufficient to
flatten the world's limestone caverns. (They are quite fragile - look up
"Karst topography".) Since the world contains limestone caverns which were
here in Moses' day, I would say that planetary science has fairly thoroughly
disproved Velikovsky.

>>>	 Never mind that the very same kind of hypothesis has been 
>>>	 invoked to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs.
>>The dinosaur-extinction hypothesis, as I understand it, is that dust
>>raised by a large meteorite striking the earth caused climactic changes
>>that the dinosaurs couldn't survive.
>Velikovsky's hypothesis was that the climatic change brought about by the
>near collision caused the mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age ... the
>very same kind of hypothesis.

A planet floating by, and an asteroid ramming us, are not "the same kind of
hypothesis". The observational evidence is that there are a lot of asteroids
with eccentric orbits, but no planets acting like recent arrivals. (Recent
meaning 4000 years, on a scale of billions.)

There was no mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age. A few species
vanished, but absolutely zip as mass extinctions go. Furthermore, there is
no evidence of an unreasonably major climatic change. Personally, I wouldn't
try to explain something that didn't happen.

-- 
	Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science