PDA

View Full Version : Velikovsky and energy requirements.



Grashtel
2007-Sep-01, 01:24 AM
In this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/63630-life-venus-bugging-us.html) the OP has gone off on a tangent about how ey believes Velikovsky's version of the history of the solar system is the correct one, this has got me wondering as to just how much energy it would take to create the events the Velikovsky claims:

Ejecting Venus from Jupiter into a cometary orbit.

Venus (while on its "cometary orbit") Being captured into orbit around Earth and then breaking away again.

Venus knocking Mars into an Earth crossing orbit.

Mars going into its current orbit.

Venus entering its current orbit.

(oh and before anyone wonders if I believe in Velikovsky I don't)

Nowhere Man
2007-Sep-01, 02:03 AM
Carl Sagan did some analysis along these lines in his Velikovsky chapter of Broca's Brain. I don't have it handy, but the IIRC just the energy required to eject Venus from Jupiter would have vaporized Jupiter.

Fred

01101001
2007-Sep-01, 02:15 AM
See topic Disproving Velikovsky (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/46497-disproving-velikovsky.html)

Leads to some Sagan calculations, I think, as well as BAUT-member criticism.

Recounting of 1974 AAAS Meeting (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/velikovsky.htm#Morrison2) from topic More Velikovskian orbital mechanics and physics insight.... (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/49035-more-velikovskian-orbital-mechanics-physics-insight.html)

There's probably more to be had by searching BAUT for Velikovsky. I only looked at a couple threads.

astromark
2007-Sep-01, 04:34 AM
Once again this 'Velikovsky' fellow get publicity he does not deserve.
If I were researching data for a fiction novel then I might be tempted to use some of Velikovsky's ideas, but only if I wanted it to be a sensationally unrealistic with a high improbability factor. You can perhaps detect that I do not tolerate this explanation of dynamics for our solar system. Its just rubbish. Not even good fiction.

Tim Thompson
2007-Sep-01, 04:52 AM
Ejecting Venus from Jupiter into a cometary orbit.
A simple answer is to calculate the kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) of something with the mass of Venus (4.8685x1024 kg) travelling at the Jovian escape velocity (59.5 km/sec). I get 1.7x1034 Joules (J). That translates into 4.2x1018 megatons, for all of you H-bomb fans, and is equal to 512 days of total solar energy output (3.8x1024 J/sec). That's a lot of energy, but it is still only part of the problem, because it is the energy required to lift Venus from the "surface" of Jupiter. If Venus is not sitting on Jupiter, but has to be ejected from inside Jupiter, then you need to worry a lot about the viscosity if whatever resisting medium Venus has to get through on the way out. It strikes me as fair to say that this is a really unlikely thing to happen.


Venus (while on its "cometary orbit") Being captured into orbit around Earth and then breaking away again. ... Venus knocking Mars into an Earth crossing orbit. ... Mars going into its current orbit. ... Venus entering its current orbit.
In the ejection case, a simple energy calculation gives you a good approximation of the energy you will need. But in the remaining cases listed, it's not so easy as that. Each one of them relies on a chain of events, where each event in the chain is very fussy about things happening just right. For instance, if Venus is going to get "captured" by Earth, it has to be moving slower than the proverbial molasses in January. And since the mass of Venus is 81.5% of the mass of Earth, the two would, if anything, form a true double planet. But unless Venus approached at just the right speed, and at just the right angle, it would flyby and not get captured. Indeed, it is hard enough even for a hunk like Jupiter to capture a measly asteroid. The very idea of Earth & Venus capturing each other is a dynamacists nightmare. And that is equally true for everything on the list, all of them are either outright impossible, or really on the hairy edge of possible, if the ant crawling on either planet will stand still for a while. They are all problems in non-linear dynamics which are frightfully sensitive to initial conditions. Calling the whole lot simply impossible would be very reasonable.

Velikovsky is famous for the solar system "billiards" enshrined in his book Worlds in Collision. But Velikovsky also wrote a small booklet entitled Cosmos Without Gravitation, which I would link to, but the server for it is not responding at the moment. Velikovsky believed that there was no such thing as gravity, and that it was actually just electromagnetism mis-diagnosed. In this booklet he introduced such erudite notions as his attempt to prove that gravity does not exist by virtue of the fact that clouds do not fall out of the sky. As a scientist, Velikovsky was in reality rather pathetic.

Maksutov
2007-Sep-01, 05:07 AM
[edit]As a scientist, Velikovsky was in reality rather pathetic.Very true. He should have stayed with what he was good at, medicine (his degree), in which he made a number of significant and useful findings.

Re billiards, exactly. There's a big difference between collisions in the solar system, which did and still happen (Shoemaker-Levy 9), and biblical cosmic pinball.

Van Rijn
2007-Sep-01, 08:50 AM
Velikovsky is famous for the solar system "billiards" enshrined in his book Worlds in Collision. But Velikovsky also wrote a small booklet entitled Cosmos Without Gravitation, which I would link to, but the server for it is not responding at the moment.


Here it is:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

And may I just say . . . wow. It would have been fun having him in the ATM forum.

mugaliens
2007-Sep-01, 10:59 AM
From Wiki: "Velikovsky argued, without reliance on existing scientific evidence or theories, that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics."

They didn't? Hmmm... Let's see, gathering hot gas (some plasma), swirling clouds of , resulting magnetic fields which influence the plasma...

Electromagnetism may not have played a very big role once the basic planets had roughly formed in their rough orbits (that being dictated by gravitational harmonics), but I'm sure it had a much larger role during our Solar System's earlier years.

antoniseb
2007-Sep-01, 02:08 PM
this has got me wondering as to just how much energy it would take to create the events the Velikovsky claims:

I don't support him either, but I think it is worth noting that Velikovsky was not claiming that Venus has the mass of a planet, but rather that it is essentially a minimal-mass object controlled more by its charge, and electrical forces than by gravity.

His claims do not take the math celestial mechanics very much into account. He was a hand-waver.

galacsi
2007-Sep-02, 11:44 AM
I have read two times "Worlds on collision" at 20 years interval , the first time with passion and the second time with attention ; and I have several things to say about this "cosmic billiard" :

1. I could never believe in it , even not doing precise calculations , it clearly impossible.

2. If you really read with attention , this story come like a hair in the soup. And in the intro Velikovsky doesn't not talk about Comet Venus at all . He talk about the great wars which occurred in the solar system. So i am not sure Velikovsky did believe himself in this comet story.May be he just need a convenient explanation .

3. I think the historical work of Velikovsky is great , the physical explantion is just dead wrong.

4. At the time of the catastrophes described by Velikovsky
Venus was already in the same orbit as it is now or very near it. The reference to Jupiter is just an astronomical notation meaning Venus was just near Jupiter when the drama occurs.

5. In the list of Events claimed by Velikovsky , an important one is omitted : The Joshua miracle :
"The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since…”

6. Mars has nothing to do with the Venus catastrophe and its impact on Earth.It is another of Velikovsky error.

7. IMO , War is a much credible explanation of the events described by Velikovsky.Venus has been destroyed by a Nuclear war.

Nowhere Man
2007-Sep-02, 11:50 AM
Re. your point #3, Sagan (in the chapter I cited above, if memory serves) reports that historians were impressed with V's astronomy, but thought his history was bunk. Astronomers were the other way around.

So if both groups are underwhelmed by the claims that are covered by their area of expertise, then, well, that pretty much wraps it up for V.

And as a side question, re. your point #7, who had a nuclear war on Venus?

Fred

01101001
2007-Sep-02, 02:05 PM
And as a side question, re. your point #7, who had a nuclear war on Venus?

As a place for galacsi's answering such, and to expound on the opinion, certainly not fact, that Venus was destroyed in a nuclear war, may I suggest the ATM forum?

The original unveiling would probably have best been done there, too.

galacsi
2007-Sep-02, 05:02 PM
yes let's do that

galacsi
2007-Sep-02, 05:08 PM
And as a side question, re. your point #7, who had a nuclear war on Venus?

Fred

The short answer : I don't know . The long one : i don't know precisely either.After all it was 3,500 years ago and we have just legends to recall it. But It is an important topic of course , more in the Sitchin line that the Velikovsky one.

Nowhere Man
2007-Sep-02, 08:23 PM
Take it away, galacsi. Remember, since it will be in ATM, to present your evidence and answer all questions.

Fred