Re-examining Velikovsky
Immanuel Velikovsky’s (in)famous book “Worlds in Collision” (1950) stirred tremendous controversy in the then scientific community as it alleged that, within historical times, Earth had experienced “close encounters” with Venus and Mars to the extent that electrical phenomena (plasma-like discharges) between Earth and each of its neighbors caused cataclysms recorded in human history.
While rejected by the then mainstream as ridiculous, predictions such that Venus itself was extremely hot later proved to be correct. The Electric Universe proponents continue to advocate that there is truth in Velikovsky’s theories, given that electromagnetic phenomena should dominate not only in the solar system but also throughout the universe over gravity, given 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all matter (excluding the likely fictitious “Dark” variety) is plasma and the electromagnetic force is 10 to the 39th power greater than gravity.
This paper attempts to examine some of the physics behind what would have been necessary for Venus and Mars to have closely encountered Earth in human history, given the present positions and apparent stabilities of their three solar orbits.
RE-EXAMINING VELIKOVSKY
Raymond HV Gallucci, PhD, PE; 8956 Amelung St., Frederick, Maryland, 21704
[email protected], [email protected]
Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision and other books inspired founders of the Electric Universe Theory with its implication of plasma-based electrical interactions between planets, as recorded in historical records such as the Bible. His theories sparked great controversy by implying close encounters between some of the inner planets (Venus, Earth and Mars) within recorded human history, but were summarily dismissed as fiction by mainstream scientists and continue to be dismissed today. Nonetheless, Electric Universe theorists contend that there may be truth in Velikovsky’s conclusions when these “interactions” are considered in light of a “plasma/electric universe.” Having also read Velikovsky’s works, and Electric Universe Theory, I endeavored to perform a simple set of calculations to ascertain if any of Velikovsky’s interactions could have been possible.
- Introduction
The “Electric Universe” Theory (EUT) owes part of its inspiration to the work of Immanuel Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision [1950]), at least for introducing the concept of catastrophism of an electrical nature potentially inducing what EUT proponents see as plasma-arced “scarring” on some planets and other objects within our solar system, such as Mars. Though discredited by mainstream physicists and astronomers since the publication of his ideas in 1950 (see Wal Thornhill, “The Impact of Pseudo-Science,” March 17, 2000 [http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-impact-of-pseudo-science/]):
In 1974, the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] held a session in San Francisco which was supposed to allow Velikovsky a forum to answer his critics. It was, as it transpired, a disgraceful ambush. Now, some quarter century later, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has discussed a similar topic but without Velikovsky’s presence. The subject was “unpredictable events of extra-terrestrial origin and their impact on humanity”. It was an occasion for the sensationalists to parade their predictions of doomsday by impact from a comet or asteroid. It also became another opportunity for academics to rewrite history and indulge in yet another miserable attack on Velikovsky. As reported in the WhyFiles: “…there are some neo-catastrophists, located mainly in Britain, who have an almost Velikovskian pseudo-scientific take on this matter and have argued that such impacts are more frequent … Velikovsky, of course, is the guy who gave asteroid impacts such a bad name back in 1950.”
Velikovsky nonetheless ushered in an era where catastrophic events, rather than just immeasurable eons of uniformitarianism, became acknowledged as a potential contributor to the current state of our solar system (and maybe beyond). While EUT proponents acknowledge that “[i]t seems unlikely that Velikovsky’s historical reconstruction of planetary catastrophes is correct,” they also contend that
None of this denies Velikovsky priority in identifying the major destructive influence in the Earth’s past as the near approaches of the planets Mars and Venus. His reconstruction of awesome celestial events in the dimly remembered past follow the laws of physics and the rules of evidence. His model is a good one when measured by its prediction score against that of conventional models. Conventional models are woefully deficient to pronounce upon impacts and their effects. To begin with, planetologists have admitted they are unable to experimentally reproduce the features of so-called impact craters. So, what are the craters? If they are not a result of impacts, what possible use are they in predicting future impacts? Is the science of impacts a pseudo-science?
I agree that the EUT proponents’ contentions regarding electrically plasma-arced scarring of certain planetary features such as those on Mars seem plausible. However, it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that, within human memory, a planetoid (or comet) the size of Venus careened through the solar system over a distance of at least ~ 4.5 Astronomical Units (~ 400 million miles, the distance of closest approach between the orbits of Venus and Jupiter [see Table 1]), encountering both the planets Mars and Earth before settling into its current orbit as the planet Venus. Certainly the perturbations induced by such an “astronomical” event would still have left all three planets “ringing” today. This is not to say that perhaps Mars and Earth (and perhaps even Venus) did not experience “close encounters” with some “rogue” planetoid or comet within human history that inspired the human memory cited by Velikovsky and caused the evidential scarring (e.g., see Allan and Delair, When the Earth Nearly Died [1997]). But to ascribe this to what is now the planet Venus seems too much to believe.
- Analysis
Rather than dismiss this outright, I decided to perform some very simple, hopefully conservative, physics calculations to determine if such encounters could have happened within human memory. (Velikovsky proposed that Venus was ejected from Jupiter and had a close encounter with Earth roughly 3500 years ago [see “Immanuel Velikovsky” (http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky)]). While Velikovsky proposed multiple encounters between Earth and Venus, I will assume just one for my analysis. Table 1 lists the planetary properties that will be relevant for my calculations (retaining Pluto as a “planet”).
If Venus were ejected from Jupiter as Velikovsky contends, it would have had to achieve at least the Jupiter Escape Speed of ~ 60 km/s (see “Escape Velocity” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Escape_velocity#List_of_escape_velocities]). An object escaping Jupiter will have a speed, depending upon its direction of escape, relative to the Sun of 60+13 km/s, since the latter is Jupiter’s orbital speed. If Venus were expelled from Jupiter (which seems unlikely given the factor of four difference in their densities [see Table 1], but perhaps it was a very large moon that somehow was ejected), its slowest initial speed relative to the Sun would have been 47 km/s.
Ignoring any increase in speed as Venus accelerated inward toward the Sun, upon encountering Mars (presumably close enough to induced electrically plasma-arced scarring but not to have physically disrupted planetary integrity via tidal forces, i.e., no closer than the Roche limit of ~ 33,500 km, or about 2.5 times Venus’ diameter), conservation of momentum would have required that
MvSv1 – MmSm1 = MvSv2 – MmSm2
where M = mass and S = speed; for the subscripts, v = Venus, m = Mars, 1 = pre-encounter, 2 = post-encounter.
Note that I assume no change in mass for either planet during the encounter, only changes in their speeds. Further, I assume they pass each other going in parallel but opposite directions, to minimize the final speeds after the encounter (a slowing process). With the M values from Table 1, Sv1 = 47 km/s (assuming the minimum ejection speed) and Sm2 = 24 km/s (Mars’ current orbital speed), the following relation evolves:
Sv2 = 47 + (0.641/4.83)(24 – Sm1)
Assuming Venus next encountered Earth (again, presumably no closer than the Roche limit of ~ 32,800 km, or ~ 2.5 times Earth’s diameter), the same conservation of momentum would have required that (now with subscripts e = Earth and 3 = Venus’ post-encounter with Earth)
MvSv2 – MeSe1 = MvSv3 – MeSe2
again assuming no change in mass, no acceleration of Venus due to the Sun and an anti-parallel encounter. With the M values from above, Sv3 = 35 km/s (Venus’ current orbital speed) and Se2 = 30 km/s (Earth’s current orbital speed), the following relation evolves:
Se1 = 30 + (5.2/5.52)[12 + (0.641/4.83)(24 – Sm1)]
Unfortunately, we do not know Sm1, the initial speed of Mars, i.e., prior to its encounter with Venus. However, if we assume the original (“pre-Venus-encounter”) speeds of Earth and Mars were in the same proportion as their current, we can derive
Sm1 = (24/30)Se1
Substituting this in the previous equation yields Se1 = 40 km/s, or ~ 33{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} faster than today. (The corresponding “pre-Venus-encounter” speed for Mars would have been 32 km/s, or also ~ 33{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} faster than today.) Thus, if Venus encountered Earth within human memory, there would be evidence of a pre-encounter “year” that was ~ 33{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} shorter than current, i.e., ~ 245 days.
Even if all these approximations and simplifications yield a result that is off by a factor of 10, a pre-encounter Earth “year” only ~ 3.3{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} shorter (353 days) than current would quickly accumulate into one of our current years in only ~ 30 years. Presumably even our ancestors would have noticed such a difference, as a “century” would have been over three “years” shorter than it is now. Coincidentally, a “year” shorter by ~ 3.3{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (~ 12 days) has precedence regarding human reaction. In 1750, the Parliament of Great Britain switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar (other countries had previously converted as early as 1583), which had over time amounted to an 11-day difference. Thinking their lives had been shortened, the uneducated populace rioted for the “return of our 11 days.” (By the time Russia switched in 1918, the difference had increased to 13 days.) (see “Calendar [New Style] Act 1750” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750]; and “Gregorian Calendar” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gregorian_calendar])
- Conclusion
Based on my admittedly quite crude calculations, it still appears too far-fetched to believe the planet Venus arose out of Jupiter and careened through the inner solar system anytime within human history (if ever at all). However, this does not invalidate the EUT contention that planetary scarring due to electrical plasma-arcing may be responsible for the bizarre surface features seen on Mars and perhaps other celestial objects. But just what particular planetoids or comets might have been responsible for this remains unknown.
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ray,
” If Venus were expelled from Jupiter (which seems unlikely given the factor of four difference in their densities [see Table 1], [Good observation] but perhaps it was a very large moon that somehow was ejected) [Possible], its slowest initial speed relative to the Sun would have been 47 km/s. Ignoring any increase in speed as Venus accelerated inward toward the Sun, [Bad] … ”
Newton wrote at length about comets in Book III. Of which I read every word maybe 18 years ago. One thing I remember, but cannot quickly find now, is he considered that the motion of comets was not greatly influenced by the planets which were closest to the sun because they were undergoing acceleration since they had reached their aphelion where their motion was the slowest. For he applied the principle of impulse (force X delta time) and reasoned that the motion of a comet would be most perturbed from its orbit when it was near its aphelion because delta time is so large even though the force was not necessarily great. But because of their continual acceleration as fell toward the sun so as (if) they passed near Mars or the Earth or Mercury (probably should not be considered because of it small mass) delta time would small even if the force was significantly greater.
But, of course, if the approach of a comet were very close to a massive planet, the gravitation attraction could be very great and therefore perturb the comet’s orbit.
Possibly enough of a perturbation that the comet began to orbit the planet. Maybe that is why Jupiter has 9 moons. Of course, this is only speculation on my part. But what I remember reading is not speculation and what Newton reasoned seems rational.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ray Gallucci
| #
My goal was to perform a most conservative calculation to give Velikovsky’s conjecture as much benefit of the doubt as possible for Venus being ejected from Jupiter and yet achieving the stable orbit it has today. Therefore all assumptions, admittedly extreme, were made with that philosophy in mind, requiring that I find the maximum means by which to slow it down, such as assuming an alignment of planets where Venus would encounter both Mars and Earth (extremely unlikely) vectorially to maximize its deceleration en route to its present orbital position. So assuming as much deceleration as possible is consistent with this philosophy, given that the goal was to examine even the most remote plausibility. As shown, even with these extremely conservative assumptions, it is a great stretch of the imagination to accept the possibility of Venus being a “comet” ejected from Jupiter. EUT itself does not advocate such – it is an historical leftover from Velikovsky’s speculations well before the Space Age began. But his belief that cosmic bodies can interact electrically has been adopted by EUT.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ray,
Newton listed four rules of reasoning in philosophy. The first was: “We are to admit more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
I conclude that both Velikovsky and you disregard what Newton wrote. When you ignore the acceleration caused by gravity in our solar system as a planet continually falls from a rightline inertial path because Newton’s theory of universal gravity, you are wrong before you start. Nothing but nothing can result from such a beginning.
Newton’s second rule was: “Therefore to the same natural effect we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”
Velikovsky’s assumption of a collision, generally considered a brief event as is an explosion, likely could not generate the heat necessary to drive the Venus volcanic activity which was still being observed. When his book was published in 1950 he should have been aware of natural radioactivity. I do not know if this natural radioactivity was then being considered the possible cause of the earth’s molten iron core and and its very obvious volcanic history, which was still on going.
Do you understand why Newton wrote as a comment about his first law: “Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes”?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ray Gallucci
| #
And I conclude that you do not have an appreciation of the purpose of performing a simplified analysis to gauge whether something is even plausible before diving into unnecessary complications, a skill that an engineer employs to good effect. It was unnecessary for me to overmodel my analysis with these other effects if they would only have increased the acceleration on Venus and made it even more implausible that it could have settled into its current orbit – I was able to reach my conclusion with a conservative analysis. Regarding Velikovsky, he was not theorizing from a physics perspective, but from one based on historical records and did much to advance thinking that had previously never been considered – electrical phenomena within the solar system. Although Einstein’s relativity, big bangs, black holes, etc., are considered “wrong” by many today, even those who disagree with him still respect him for providing original thought within the knowledge limitations of his time (likewise for Newton). It is not “wrong” to perform a simplified analysis for the purpose of determining whether something is even plausible before diving into a more complicated one that is unnecessary. My goal was only to make an effort to provide insight within the limits of a simplified analysis – a “skill” practiced by engineers.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ray,
Maybe I should not reply but I wonder if you understand there is a difference between science and technology (engineering?). In our introductory chemistry classes we tried to clarify the difference between these two disciplines which can seem very similar to some. Because I have never had an engineering class I do not do not know if a similar effort is made there. In fact, I do not know if there is such a class as introduction to mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil engineering, etc. or if the introduction to any specific engineering field is the required chemistry, physics, and mathematics courses.
But my textbooks and I, near the beginning of the introduction of chemistry, tell our students that both scientists and technologists experiment but the purpose of this experimentation is different. We teach that scientists experiment to try to understand why something worked and that technologists experiment to find what works. Which is what I understand that you have just stated about engineering.
Edison was the classical technologist. He discovered 10,000 ways not to invent the electric light bulb as he tested every different material he could test. And when he found one which worked he quit looking for another. His goal was achieved.
In the second to last paragraph of The Principia Newton wrote (as translated by Motte): “And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”
To better appreciate what Newton just stated it might help one to be aware he had just before written: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.”
Now, many know that the motions of our sea (tides) are observed to occur differently at various locations and times. But Newton knew he not only could explain the occurrence of semi-diurnal tides but also use other observations to qualitatively explain why all tides are not the same. At least that is my understanding.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ray Gallucci
| #
There is indeed not only introductory engineering classes but classes in chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc., i.e., the foundation for a physicist or engineer is the same. Only later on does each begin to specialize in the particular field. As a nuclear engineer, I had more physics, including relativity and quantum, than other engineers might, so am fairly well versed in the foundations. I also took astronomy as a personal interest. So while there may be a difference in what scientists and engineers do during their careers, both are well-versed in the basics, which are the same for both. Anyone who feels I have done Velikovsky’s “Venus as a Comet” theory a disservice by using an intentionally simplified and idealized “engineering” type analysis to find it implausible is free to enhance/revise/replace what I’ve done with a detailed astrophysics analysis. But my belief is that showing even more acceleration inward for a Venus “comet” by accounting for the full astrophysical realm will merely reinforce my point that its ability to have settled into such a currently stable orbit will be even more implausible. Both engineers and scientists can cross over into each other’s field to a reasonable extent – I contend that I have properly crossed the boundary by keeping to plausibility considerations, leaving the detailed astrophysics to the “experts.”
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ray,
I find it interesting that you seldom refer to what others, such as Newton, actually wrote as you contend that I have properly crossed the boundary by keeping to plausibility considerations. Who has defined these plausibility considerations?
Have a good day, Jerry
raymond gallucci
| #
I did not state that you have crossed boundaries but that I, as an engineer with a solid background in physics and math, sometimes cross the boundary of “science,” which I consider an open one (I also took a course in electromagnetism, as I considered branching off into plasma physics for a brief time before returning to nuclear engineering and science [my degree titles include “science” along with “engineering”]). There are many other “dissident” (“renegade”) whatevers that come from all professions who do likewise, and if their arguments seem reasonable, I do not dismiss them just because they may lack the usual “credentials.” I try to examine them for plausibility to the extent that I have the ability in math and physics for my own edification; and, if I think my effort may be of interest to others, write a paper and publish it via a conference or the various on-line outlets such as vixra or PSI. I endeavor to clarify anything in my analysis about which a reader may ask. I do not find reference to Newton’s quotations necessary to utilize his equations. I suggest we terminate further discussion at this point – I have my opinion on what “engineers” can do and where they can cross into the “science” realm and you have yours. Let’s leave it at that.
Reply