Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!elsie!imsvax!ted
From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: The realm of physics, and the late Immanuel Velikovsky
Message-ID: <457@imsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 21:56:32 EST
Article-I.D.: imsvax.457
Posted: Sat Nov  9 21:56:32 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 07:31:27 EST
Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD
Lines: 128






              It  has been  brought  to my  attention  that a number of the
          amateur physicists who regularly post to  net.physics have posted
          articles on the late Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky.  This discussion is
          normally confined to net.origins,  since  it  involves historical
          and  mythological   interpretation,  things  physicists  are  not
          normally interested in.   I  would  like  to  invite  any  of the
          net.physics viewers  who have  any interest in this topic to pick
          it up on net.origins.  I thought you might also like to read what
          a  couple  of  PROFESSIONAL  physicists  have  had  to  say about
          Velikovsky.


                                          I

               Robert  Bass  is  a  former  Rhodes  scholar  who  took  his
          doctorate under  Aurel Wintner  in 1955  and three years of post-
          doctoral work in non-linear  mechanics  under  national  medal of
          science winner  Solomon Lefschetz  at Princeton.   He is credited
          with the  only dynamical  explanation of  Bode's law,  and with a
          paper in  the Summer  1974 issue  (# 8) of Pensee which basically
          settled  once  and  for  all  the   whole  question   of  whether
          Velikovsky's scenarios  were "physically possible".  The abstract
          for the paper reads as follows:

               1)  The  subtle  but  fatal  flaw  in  the  received opinion
               regarding   the   alleged   immutability  of  the  planetary
               distances is  the  following  inadequately  recognized fact:
               whether  or  not  the  solar  system is stable in any of the
               senses defined by Laplace, Lagrange, Poisson, or Littlewood,
               or is quasi-periodic, it need not be orbitally stable.

               2) As demonstrated in the text in considerable detail, it is
               perfectly possible, according to  Newton's laws  of dynamics
               and gravitation  when three or more bodies are involved, for
               planets to nearly collide and then relax into  an apparently
               stable Bode's  law kind of configuration within a relatively
               short  time;    therefore  Velikovsky's  historical evidence
               cannot be ignored.

               3) If  one started  Venus in an orbit lying entirely between
               Jupiter and Saturn, with  precisely the  appropriate initial
               position and velocity, it would within less than two decades
               work its way inward into an orbit lying entirely between the
               orbits of Mars and Jupiter.  (This follows from observations
               of the comet Oterma III and the fact that, in the restricted
               problem of  three bodies,  the mass  of the smallest body is
               irrelevant.)

               4) There  is  no  plausible  explanation  for  the anomalous
               (retrograde)   rotation   of   Venus,  other  than  that  it
               originally had prograde spin  and was  later flipped upside-
               down by a near collision with some other planet. 

               5) The  fact that the spin rate of Venus is now mysteriously
               locked in resonance with the  rate  of  revolution  of Venus
               relative to  the Earth (so that Venus presents the same face
               to  Earth  at  every  inferior  conjunction)  may  provide a
               dynamical clue as to which planet Venus encountered.

               6)  Laplace's  theorem  allegedly  proving  stability of the
               solar system (1773) was  shown to  be fallacious  in 1899 by
               Poincare;   in 1953, dynamical astronomer W. M. Smart proved
               that the maximum interval of reliability of the perturbation
               equations of  Laplace and  Lagrange was not 10**11 years, as
               stated in 1895 by S. Newcomb, but actually  at most  a small
               multiple of 10**2 years.

               7)  The  eminent  dynamical  astronomer  E. W. Brown, in his
               retiring speech as President  of  the  American Astronomical
               Society in  1931, quite  explicitly stated  that there is no
               quantitative reason known to  celestial mechanics  why Mars,
               Earth, and Venus could not have nearly collided in the past.

               The paper  itself amounts  to about  ten pages  of very fine
          print and I can't reproduce it here without getting thrown out of
          usenet for  cause.  Copies  are  probably  still  available  from
          the BYU physics dept.   If  all  else  fails,  I  could photostat
          copies  of  this  article  and send them anyone interested, offer
          limited to those with  advanced degrees  in physics, astrophysics
          etc. since nobody else would have a prayer of understanding it.
          Contact me by UNIX mail if interested.

                                         II

               I don't  have to  tell any  of you  who Albert Einstein was.
          But did any of you know that he and Velikovsky  had been  pals at
          the Prussian Scientific Academy; that, along with Heinrich Loewe,
          they had edited the Scripta Universitatus,  the major cornerstone
          of  the  present  Hebrew  University  in  Jerusalem?  Some of his
          thoughts on Velikovsky may be  read  in  a  letter  TO Velikovsky
          dated March 17, 1955:

               Dear Mr. and Mrs. Velikovsky,
                 At  the  occasion  of  this inauspicious birthday you have
               presented me once more with the fruits of an almost eruptive
               productivity.   I look  forward with pleasure to reading the
               historical book that does not bring into danger  the toes of
               my own  guild.   How it  stands with  the toes  of the other
               faculty, I do not know yet.  I think of the touching prayer,
               "Holy St. Florian, spare my house, put fire to others!"
                 I  have  already  read  carefully  the first volume of the
               memoirs to "Worlds in Collision" and have supplied it with a
               few marginal  notes in  pencil that can easily be erased.  I
               admire  your  dramatic  talent  and  also  the  art  and the
               straightforwardness  of   Thackery  who  has  compelled  the
               roaring astronomical lion [Shapley] to pull in a  little his
               royal tail,  yet not  showing enough  respect for the truth.
               Also, I would be gratified  if  you  could  savor  the whole
               episode for its humorous side.
                 Unimaginable letter debts and unread manuscripts that were
               sent in, force me to be brief.  Many thanks  to both  of you
               and friendly wishes.
                                        Your,  
                                             A. Einstein



               I  am  just  an  ordinary  businessman myself, and know very
          little of physics.  Therefore, when I read  or hear  about anyone
          ridiculing  or  "debunking"  Velikovsky's  theories  because they
          supposedly violate the "laws of physics", I can only assume it is
          because they  think they know more about physics than Robert Bass
          and Albert Einstein.