I have been reading "The Velikovsky Heresies.” It talks about his book “Worlds in Collision.” In that book he claims that Venus is a comet that became a planet in a fixed orbit. Scinetists have scoffed at his ideas and said they are impossible.
Recently, I found out that astronomers have discovered a planet that acts as a comet in the same manner as Venus. I think there may be some truth to Velikovsky's theories.
Its not Venus though. It was the plantet that was mentioned in the article as well as Pluto – I think. They have also discovered that Venus has a “tail”. What Velikovsky also said in his book, there is writing / documentation from the Ancients that possibly verify this fact. This is shown in the way Venus is represented in symbology. I love him, have read most of his books. The more you read the more you will see that he was right on a lot of accounts, but the scientific world – we all know whom in particular – is still not admitting or they are playing around with the facts of their new discoveries, so that Velikovsky still wont come out looking better than the “others”.
A revisited trove of data from NASA's Apollo missions more than 40 years ago is helping scientists answer a lingering lunar question: How fast does moon dust build up? The answer: It would take 1,000 years for a layer of moon dust about a millimeter (0.04 inches) thick to accumulate, the researchers found. That rate may seem slow by the standards of Earth but it's 10 times faster than scientists had believed before, and it means moon dust could pose big problems for astronauts and equipment alike. "You wouldn't see it; it's very thin indeed," Brian O'Brien, a physicist at the University of Western Australia, said in a statement. "But, as the Apollo astronauts learned, you can have a devil of a time overcoming even a small amount of dust."
How deep is the dust? MAYBE an inch? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil#/media/File:Apollo_17_orange_so...
Some neo-darwinist site claims 2.5"....ok even using that 2.5 divided by .04 = 62.5 or 62,500 years.
Velikovsky seems to have hit the nail on the head in claiming the event took place in semi historical times.
Immanuel Velikovsky thought the ancient myths death with planets – and so do all his followers. They are all fooled by the Roman Empire which dubbed the planets (When adopting Christianity) AFTER their Pantheon Deities which belongs to the pre-creation and the creation itself of the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way and our Solar System.
This confusion also takes place with the founder of the “ThunderBoltsProject”, (TBP) David Talbott, author of the “Saturn Myth”, who inherited most of the Velikovsky confusion.
The stars and planets as gods long precede the ‘Johnnie Come Lately’ Romans. In Egypt, they named planets as living, ruling pharaohs from c3100 – 200BC, Chiselling their actions into temple walls. This practice of naming the Sun etc as living humanoid gods or as the spirits of the deceased has no known initial source or time. We probably always did it. The Romans simply renamed them. I applaud support of the very great Immanuel Velikovsky. He was an ‘original’ – spot on in identifying our cosmic history, perhaps less so with ancient history, although even when mistaken, his contributions were the much-needed spur for a new, more enlightened re-examination of huge amounts of questionable historical research
Yes, the planet Venus does have a “tail” of sorts. It is simply it’s Ionosphere being blown outward on the night side of the planet, from the pressure of the Solar Wind. Unlike Earth, Venus has no magnetic properties, and therefore, no magnet fields surrounding the planet to buffer the effects of the solar wind.
I do not believe that Venus is, or was, by any stretch of the imagination, a Comet. Comets are formed within the Oort Cloud, and enter the inner solar system due to the gravitational pull of the Sun. For it to have been a Comet, it would have needed to have entered it’s current position long after the formation of the other planets and in doing so would have caused tumult with the already existing planetary bodies and their orbits.
Velikovsky was, no doubt, a highly intelligent man, and I believe as time goes on, many of his theories many be shown to have some degree of merit.
Just not this one.
R. Lee Bowers
Whoa, whoa. Comets are hypothesized to form in the Oort cloud, which is itself hypothetical, and they are hypothesized to fall into the outer and inner solar system not because of the sun, but due to some form of gravitational disturbance of their orbit, variously hypothesized to be caused by close passage of some unknown massive object also orbiting way out there, or by the alignment of multiple outer planets, or even by transitions of the solar system across the galactic plane. Point is, all that is purely hypothetical, so it doesn't really work as a falsification of Velikovsky.
It is true that if Venus originally had a cometary orbit, it would have caused tumult with existing planets, and it would only have taken its current orbit relatively recently. This doesn't really work as a falsification of Velikovsky either, because it is exactly what Velikovsky proposed happened.
Interestingly, he predicted that if his hypothesis were correct, Venus would be extraordinarily hot and have a very young surface, geologically speaking. His predictions were vastly different than those of the mainstream, which predicted Venus would be warmer than earth but not by a lot, and would have a surface whose geological age was similar to that of earth.
It was Velikovsky's predictions that turned out to be correct.
Also, there is the very strange problem of the movements of Venus as recorded by ancient astronomers, which show Venus in a highly erratic orbit that became gradually less erratic over the centuries until it stabilized fully as it is today. Of course, modern astronomers want to dismiss this as being sloppy work by humans working in primitive conditions, but the high quality of all the other measurements made by these ancient astronomers makes that argument rather flimsy. Instead, what actually appears to be true is that the measurments of the erratic nature of Venus' motion made by these ancient astronomers was of similar high quality as their other work, and that Venus was once in a highly eccentric orbit, similar to a cometary one.