Site Section Links
The Third Story
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Origin of Modern
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions
Modern Mythology Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors
The Velikovskian Upheaval: A Temporocentric Challenge
SIDNEY M. WILLHELM
. . .the boundless infinity of space and the vast immensity of past time..... - C. L. Morgan
Velikovsky is today what Copernicus was for astronomical
understanding several centuries ago; both scientists challenge a basic
mooring to which fundamental cosmological ideas have been anchored.
Copernicus assaulted the geocentric theory of the cosmos; Velikovsky
challenges the temporocentric notion about the cosmos. The first displaced
the human habitat, Earth, as the center of the universe and around which all
heaven swirls for the contention of an Earth in motion about the Sun; the
second dislodges the human faith that Earth's temporal experience in the
present holds true throughout the solar system and throughout the past. The
former upsets human spatial concepts, the latter disrupts our time concepts.
Temporocentrism, according to sociologist Robert Bierstedt
(1948:27-28), is "the unexamined and largely unconscious acceptance of one's
own century, one's own era, one's own lifetime, as the center of
sociological significance, as the focus to which all other periods of
historical time are related, and as the criterion by which they are
judged." It is an adversity which "results from a lack of historical
perspective. It afflicts in large measure the untutored man who has had no
opportunity to study history" (Bierstedt, 1970:178). History, as a source
of explanation, is held in disrepute; instead, "We tend to project present
understandings of the world backward into the ancient records and test their
credibility, not by what they describe or narrate, but by what we consider
reasonable given our present knowledge of the universe" (Deloria,
1974:45; emphasis supplied).
This temporal stance means that truths are in our present
era since we believe science is a relatively recent human achievement.
If recorded history departs from present scientific theories there is no
compelling reason to reconsider our existing explanations; rather, we simply
redefine our past as nonscientific in the form of myths, legends, folklore,
and religious faith. This in spite of the awkwardness that, in the words of
Lynn Rose (1972:3 1), "if historical data conflict with astronomical
theories, it is strange that history should have to be rewritten to conform
to these theories!" Scientists teach us that the force of gravity is at
work when an apple falls from a tree today just as surely as it operated
thousands and millions of years ago; the same principle of falling bodies on
Earth holds true for planets remaining in orbit today just as they have for
billions of years.
The time formulation to which modern scientists give
unswerving allegiance receives its validation in what has come to be
known as the doctrine of uniformity. Uniformitarianism, William R.
Farrand (quoted by Macbeth, 1971:115-116; emphasis supplied) explains,
is "the geologist's concept that processes that acted on the earth in
the past are the same processes that are operating today, on the
same scale and at approximately the same rates." The doctrine
emphasizes permanence, stability, and order rather than change and
growth; what is perceived in the present becomes eternal, unchanging,
"The physical world ten million years ago was the same as it
is today, and its laws were the same," J. Bronowski (1973:309) asserts.
Sameness is the hallmark of science, and, consequently, there can
be no history when determining, in the present, the composition
and nature of the planetary system. There is also no future except in
time lengths of such magnitude that events transcend human relevance.
The regularity of the present banishes all doubts about the future and
instills confidence about the past; to know the present is to know the
past and the unfoldment of the future.
Velikovsky's interpretations reverse the customary procedure
in astronomy for determining what occurs in the heavens by
comprehending what happens upon Earth; Earth is not the universal
medium for projection into space. Instead, astronomical events project
themselves upon Earth so that what becomes significant for developing
explanations does not take place upon Earth but in the skies; what
happens to the planet Earth is of far greater importance to account for
what is taking place upon Earth in the Velikovskian approach.
Velikovsky rejects the advocacy of an unalterable solar system; he
introduces the possibility of an unstable universe, catastrophe in the
stead of uniformity. He does so by contending that the solar system as
we see it today has not been consistent even for human history.
In short, our planetary system as it now stands is of recent
vintage inasmuch as at least one planet, Venus, was expelled from
Jupiter as a comet-like body that had near-collisions with Earth and,
later, Mars (and probably also Jupiter), just several thousand years
ago. Contrary to the orthodoxy of uniformitarians, neither the orbits
of astronomical bodies nor even all of the planets themselves have been
in existence for billions of years. By bringing the heavens to Earth,
Velikovsky expounds a multitude of geological reverberations that have
had immediate impact rather than processes requiring eons of time: the
climate suddenly changes; whole mountain ranges thrust upward; coal
forms in virtual moments by geological standards; deserts come forth;
dry lands stand where water once dwelled; tropical areas become encased
in ice; the axis, rotation, and poles reverse quickly; Earth's strata
twist under exorbitant pressures; and so forth. Neither human nor
animal nor plant life finds escape; entire species vanish overnight,
and whole peoples and civilizations succumb in the instant.
Nonetheless, out of the quickness of death comes life, for the
chemical reactions, intense electrical charges, radiation, and immense
heat generate mutations thereby introducing entirely new species while
simultaneously wiping out the old. In short, the very evolution of life
itself cannot be considered purely earth-bound; new forms do not--and
cannot--emerge out of minute alterations stretching over millions of
years as a consequence, according to Darwinians, of natural selection
resulting out of the competition to survive and adapt upon Earth.
The revolutionary impact of mutation through cataclysmic upheavals
dispenses with the principle of uniformity and its adherence to a
gliding pace of creation as effectively as the radical alterations
initiated by Venus and its predecessors (viz., Jupiter, Mercury, and
Saturn) dispel any possibility for a harmonious universe holding claim
to billions of years of tranquil serenity.
Wherever Velikovsky's fertile mind touches the rockbed of
scholarship, he implants a new perspective about TIME.
Evolutionists depend upon vast amounts of time--Velikovsky postulates
the rapidity of evolution via cataclysmic processes for the rise and
fall of species; astronomers treat time as a constant in order to
conceive of a constant heaven--Velikovsky formulates a recent history
for major events in our planetary system extending back only a few
thousand years; geologists call upon gradualism and speak for eons of
time--Velikovsky invokes catastrophes that quickly remold Earth's
structure and composition; historians and archaeologists establish
resolute time periods for major chronologies of
civilizations--Velikovsky transforms historical constructs both by
disposing of extraneous centuries and logically adjusting the duration
of certain time periods through methodical resynchronization.
Whereas pre-Copernican Earth was the constant center of the
universe about which the skies turn, Velikovsky now informs us that
Earth is not the center of time, as expressed in the doctrine of
uniformity, for projection into space and back into time itself.
Velikovsky says there is a past for the heavens; he has studied and
documented that past; and with his reconstruction of the past he
initiates a temporal upheaval that shakes the foundation of virtually
all scholarly disciplines. To upset a people's notions of space and
time is certain to introduce disruption in any cosmic faith and view: no
people can remain in a steady state in the midst of transformations that
destroy their spatial and temporal concepts.
THE RELIGIOUS CONFRONTATION - AGAIN
Life can only be understood backward but it must be lived forward
- Soren A. Kierkegaard
A catastrophic approach generally, in the words of Loren
Eiseley (I 961:3 53; emphasis supplied), "implies the work of forces
unknown in the present era and there thus lingers about the
doctrine a certain aroma of the supernatural even though not always
directly expressed or avowed by its more scientific proponents."
The slightest reference to creation in terms of a sudden
outburst raises the spectrum of religion which, in turn, revives the
epic when the forbearers of scientific inquiry struggled against the
religious hierarchy. For the theory of evolution, with its doctrine of
uniformity, to win out over its religious antagonists it was necessary
to assault the theory of catastrophe that commanded scientific thought
at the time of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, co-founders of
evolutionary theory. "The uniformitarian school," Eiseley (Ibid.:
1 14; emphasis supplied) informs us, ". . . is essentially a revolt
against the Christian conception of time as limited
and containing historic direction, with supernatural intervention
constantly imminent." Cataclysmic interpretations lend support to
religious dogma by giving at least implicit endorsement to the biblical
accounts of special creation, the degeneration of human civilizations,
the world-wide deluge associated with Noah's Ark, and so forth.
Scientific thoughts, expressed from time to time, are judged,
therefore, not on a factual basis but rather by the degree to which
they tend to provide confirmation for Christian theology; when arguments
are presented in the name of science but which appear in conformity to
Christian precepts, strong denunciation and repudiation can be expected
from the scientific community.
The initial explosion for the "Big Bang" theory as to the
origin of the universe, Robert Jastrow (1977:18E; emphasis
supplied) relates in a recent survey describing contemporary disputes in
astronomy, "was brought about by forces that have no scientific
explanation. The astronomical view of the origin of the universe is
[thus] surprisingly similar to the biblical account. To avoid it,
three ingenious English theorists . . . proposed a few decades ago
that fresh matter is created out of nothing throughout the universe. .
It is very clear that Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision
carries religious overtones for its readership. The January 1950 issue
of Harper's (1950:8), containing Eric Larrabee's overview about
the book, sets forth the editorial comment, "No one who has read Mr.
Larrabee s articles can ever again read the Old Testament prophets with
the same blind piety or the same blind skepticism that he felt before."
Shapley, according to Kallen (1972:38), launched his vindictive assault
to prevent the appearance of Worlds in Collision because
Velikovsky's views endorsed the biblical description of the Sun standing
still at the battle of Beth-horon; Payne-Gaposchkin (The Reporter -
3/14/50), in her review of Worlds in Collision, expressed her
greatest amazement that there was any plausible scientific support for
suggesting "the sun stood still."
Martin Gardner f 1952:6), a particularly caustic critic,
displayed great anxiety: "Who can say how many orthodox Christians and
Jews read Worlds in Collision and drifted back into a cruder
Biblicism because they were told that science had reaffirmed the Old
Testament miracles?. . . Times have changed, but it is easy to forget
how far from won is the battle against religious superstition." Charles
Fair (1974:38 and 161) considers Velikovsky to be a "corrupted
theologian": ". . . his real affiliations are not with modern science
or supposedly supranationalistic scholarship. At bottom, he seems more
akin to Christian divines of the past several centuries. . ." Sagan
(1976:63), an established astronomer, claims that "Worlds in
Collision is an attempt to validate biblical and other folklore as
history if not theology."(These reactions are invalid and result from
By reviving a catastrophic perspective, Velikovsky has
simultaneously revived an unwelcomed past; although differing from his
19th century predecessors, he, nonetheless, disturbs today's scientists
by adhering to a view - catastrophism - which supposedly had been
discredited. In this sense, then, Velikovsky appears to some as a
reactionary scientist, though, in fact, he has presented science with
an entirely new, radical, and, therefore, revolutionary view.
Velikovsky has introduced a time factor into catastrophic theory
that pertains directly to historic and, hence, modern man.
To have to backtrack and retrace lost ground mars the cadence
of scientific progress and leaves a sense, to say the least, of
exasperation. Velikovsky's revolutionary interpretation upsets the
linear progress for scientific advancement; instead of a straightforward
March of scientists working on the fringe of new frontiers, Velikovsky
now compels scientists to make a 180-degree turn. For conventional
scientists this is a retrograde move, equivalent to the degeneratists'
notion of a fall from grace. And to go back means a return to religion,
legends, myths, fables, and other documentary sources recorded and
passed on for generations by a multitude of people throughout the world.
To drift and sift once again through historical evidence opens
old wounds that have not healed, namely, the scientist's war with
religion and the "irrational." Science, supposedly, is a rational
repudiation of mythology and religion in favor of observable data in the
here and now. Nonetheless, "myths," Johann Bachofen (1967:150)
contended century ago, "are the memory of real events experienced by the
human race." Historical documentation is itself a referral system
expressing what our ancient scribes not only saw but experienced and is
therefore no less authentic. "History," Rose (1976:472) suggests,
should set guidelines for astronomical theory, rather than having
astronomical theory dictate what shall be admissible as historical fact."
Velikovsky (1950:298-300) presents his own interpretation to
account for the scientist's resistance. He contends that just as the
person represses terrifying experiences from memory so, too, an entire
people erase the cataclysmic destructions visited upon Earth from a
collective memory. Fearful of facing an uncontrollable and intimidating
past, individuals become forgetful or else force the undesirable events
into the unconscious, while an entire people also forget, in the form of
what Velikovsky calls "collective amnesia", and therefore may also force
anxieties about catastrophes into a collective unconscious mind; the
unconscious is carried throughout the lifetime of the person, and the
collective unconscious is passed on from generation to generation
through what Velikovsky refers to--perhaps artistically--as the "human
soul." Velikovsky (quoted by Talbott, 1972:48) maintains that "the
cause of the opposition to me was in great part psychological: my
critics could not accept my bringing their unconscious to
consciousness." He (1974:11) apparently believes that "wishful thinking"
for a stable universe, expressed in the doctrine of uniformity, forced
the abandonment of catastrophic theories: "A psychological situation
provoked a change in the attitude of the scholarly world with the
beginning of the Victorian age."
Opposition to a catastrophic interpretation, Velikovsky
(1974:11) contends, reveals the person's reluctance "to face the fact
that he travels on a rock in space on a path that proved to be
accident-prone." But what is to be taken as "the fact"? Whose fact?
Facts are highly susceptible to change and interpretation. Thus, how is
it possible to hold a people accountable to an ephemeral standard?
Moses, during his sojourn in the desert, repeatedly condemned his
followers as sinners for not complying to the Truths of God; Velikovsky
(1974:14) sees those who ridicule him not as sinners but rather people
whose behavior assumes a wide range of suppression--"mostly crassly
rough and often dishonest"--against his ideas. He supplants Moses'
religious doctrine for ethical standards of civility and honesty. In
effect, Velikovsky sees his opponents as the carriers of an original
trauma who sustain the same anxiety that humans experienced thousands of
years ago, hundreds of generations past, from events which have yet to
Academia will never let him get away with it. No
matter how many of his predictions prove correct, it will see
him dead first. - Charles Fair
Thus has Charles Fair (1974:185) condemned Velikovsky.
Unfortunately, he is not alone. It is not just that some scientists
prefer a natural death instead of the accuracy of predictions, but also
gross distortions of the predictions themselves so that academia might
destroy Velikovsky rather than merely await the moment of natural
death. Sagan (1976:62; emphasis supplied), for example, states: "Since
there is negligible oxygen and water vapor in the Martian atmosphere,
Velikovsky argues, some other constituent of the Martian atmosphere must
be derived from Earth. The argument, unfortunately, is a non
sequitur." The statement by Sagan is, however, a non
sequitur because Sagan himself reversed Velikovsky's words
that it was Mars that gave to Earth certain gases. Sagan
made no slight mistake; his distortion must be considered either
deliberate, his effort incompetent, or his ethics of honesty were tossed
to the winds in light of the fact that upon the two-page length
discussion (under the title "The Atmosphere of Mars") to which Sagan's
comments are addressed, Velikovsky (1950:366-367) clearly writes--on
three separate occasions--that the shift in gases took place from Mars
Thomas Kuhn's analysis of major upheavals in the scientific
enterprise offers little understanding about the reception given to
Velikovsky and, apparently, Kuhn would have to concede his own
incapacity in light of the fact that he deals with tradition-shattering
developments in astronomical theories without even mentioning
Velikovsky's reconstruction. Kuhn (1970:69; emphasis supplied) remains
weak for the very reason he acknowledges:
In a mature science--and astronomy had become that in
antiquity--external factors . . . are principally significant
in determining the timing of breakdown, the ease with which it can be
recognized, and the area in which, because it is given particular
attention, the breakdown first occurs. Though immensely important,
issues of that sort are out of bounds for this essay.
Science, however, is not a mere exercise of the intellect,
undertaken and conducted as though in a vacuum. As Kuhn admits,
"external factors" are extremely influential and any exploration
purporting to probe the replacement of a prevailing scientific paradigm
must take them into account; like advocates of celestial mechanics, who
must necessarily operate in the relatively empty Newtonian skies where
no such "external factors" as magnetic forces exist, Kuhn cogitates a
science operating in a relative void, an endeavor unaffected by social
forces. It is precisely because Kuhn deals with scientific revolutions
as though science were a clash of intellects that his approach has been
so widely acclaimed. Scientists live by the dogma of science and one
such blind allegiance is a faith in absolute rational processes par
excellence as the fundamental process of theory construction.
Because Kuhn gives affirmation to this particular faith his theory is
Kuhn's framework is inoperative in the case of Velikovsky for
a number of reasons. The challenge Velikovsky poses to astronomers is a
genuine revolutionary threat that assaults today's "normal science" not
just because, as Kuhn's thesis requires, it introduces an entirely new
set of premises but rather because it also resurrects the
paradigms of an earlier scientific model, namely, the catastrophic view.
As Sagan (1976:7; emphasis supplied) himself has said: "There is
nothing unorthodox about the idea of cosmic catastrophes, and this
is a view which has been common in solar system physics at least back to
late 19th century studies of the lunar surface by G. K. Gilbert, the
first Director of the U. S. Geological Survey.
"What then is all the furor about? It is about the
timescale and the adequacy of the purported evidence."
Furthermore, if theoretical judgment as to the merits of
explanations were the issue, as Kuhn proclaims, Velikovsky's
interpretations long ago would have prevailed. Finally, it is necessary
to explain the basis upon which some scientists did not react with
contempt but with tolerance; while an overwhelming majority of scholars
expressed bitter, unfounded, and unethical condemnations-- some without
even bothering to read what they criticized--there have always been
those who have been willing to entertain and examine Velikovsky's
If the power of the intellect is not the significant dividing
line where, then, is the division? What separates one group from the
other is apparently the fact that opponents reify science while the
proponents--those who are positive or tolerant--are committed to the
activities of scientific inquiry. For the former, science assumes a
life of its own which means that it becomes independent of the
phenomena that are supposedly to be investigated; it has publications
and practitioners professionally trained to preserve science as an
entity with an established body of knowledge for acquisition by an
oncoming generation of scholars. Any test of an unacceptable
perspective, e.g., the instance of Velikovsky, is a charade precisely
because there is no sincerity toward factual examination inasmuch as
loyalty is to a science that must survive as an autonomous enterprise.
"Science," Polanyi (1967:539; emphasis supplied) maintains,
"cannot survive unless it can keep out such contributors [i.e.,
"nonsensical" people] and safeguards the basic soundness of
its publications." The opponents of innovation become disturbed
because of the relevancy a new theory has to science vis-a-vis
an "external" factor such as the public, support for religion,
legitimacy, impact upon the rational qualities of scientists,
professional qualifications, political consequences, financial support,
and so forth. Scientists are the guardians charged with the
responsibility to reject all external dangers to science's affinities
with other social entities. When disciplinary science reigns,
investigation of phenomena becomes a secondary concern.
Thus, Sagan (1976:2; emphasis supplied) supported a special
session in the AAAS national meetings for 1974 to confront Velikovsky as
one of "a regular set of discussions at the annual AAAS meeting of
hypotheses which are on the borderlines of science and which have
attracted substantial public interest." The panel, then, is not to
probe a theory about astronomical phenomena so as to reach a better
understanding of astronomical events; rather, it is merely coping with a
public interest event.
When Shapley assaulted Velikovsky by saying, "The laws of
mechanics . . . have been tested competently and thoroughly . . . if Dr.
Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy," (Kallen, 1972:37) he
promoted scientific laws as a body of knowledge and he perceived
Velikovsky to be a threat to the rational faculties of scientists.
Shapley, in a conversation with Velikovsky, contended that if
Velikovsky were correct, "science" would be wrong (Ibid.:38);
Velikovsky therefore poses a danger to all science because Shapley
reified science by elevating a theory--celestial mechanics--about
the workings of the universe as science itself. Quite obviously, only
theories can be tested, not science; Shapley's response to Velikovsky
must be a defense of science by a condemnation of Worlds in
Collision, which had not been read, rather than to undertake "one or
two uncomplicated spectroscopic analyses" as requested by Velikovsky to
test several assertions set forth when Worlds in Collision was
still in manuscript form (Ibid.:37-38). Haldane (cited by Juergens,
1966:32) concluded his negative review of Worlds in Collision
with the comment that the work was "equally a degradation of science and
religion." An editorial in Nature (1974:541; emphasis supplied)
It would have amazed the Victorian
steadfasts of science how confused some of our attitudes towards
science still are. Instead of the logical world they hoped for and
tried to work in there is a discernible tendency for the public and even
some practitioners of science to turn their backs on science
and become preoccupied with the bizarre and the magical....
People who are receptive to, or who disagree with, yet
tolerate Velikovsky's interpretations give no indication of a personal
loyalty to science; they focus upon inquiry and are therefore prepared
to acknowledge validity for claims counter to their own perspective.
They do not adhere to the notion of "science" being a self-correcting
Instead, they realize that deliberate examinations must be pursued with
a direct analysis of phenomena rather than holding an obligation to a
disciplinary pursuit. Thus, after listing Velikovsky's success in
predicting the emission of radio noise from Jupiter and the confirmation
of Velikovsky's claims of a very hot surface upon Venus when all others
insisted upon much lower readings, V. Bargrnann of Princeton's
Department of Physics and Lloyd Motz (1962:1352) of Columbia's
Department of Astronomy issued a call to their fellow scientists in a
letter published in Science:
"Although we disagree with Velikovsky's
theories, we feel impelled to make this statement to establish
Velikovsky's priority of prediction of these two points and to urge, in
view of these prognostications, that his other conclusions be
Ted Thackrey, as editor, reprinted the Harper's
pre-publication account of Worlds in Collision in his
publication, Compass; Shapley wrote a letter highly critical of
Velikovsky to Thackrey for permitting the re-publication, and the latter
replied by saying that Velikovsky is "a man of unusual integrity and
scholarship, whose painstaking approach to scientific theory is
at least a match for your own" (quoted by Kallen, 1972:38; emphasis
supplied). Einstein, although firm in his belief that celestial bodies
are unaffected by electricity and magneticism, agreed to exert his
influence for conducting certain experiments Velikovsky had suggested to
him after learning of Jupiter's radio emissions. These several
instances of positive responses reveal that by addressing interest in
the very phenomena which Velikovsky himself explores, Velikovsky's views
become tenable and therefore subject to intense review for tests of
The professional, disciplinary approach to scientific
discoveries has today become just as much a barrier to innovation as was
the Church of yesterday; whereas religious dogma once impeded direct
contemplation of phenomena, the reification of science now allows for
the perpetuation of doctrines, e.g., the faith in uniformity, as
criteria by which responses are made to "untenable" prognoses. Just as
heretics were read out of the Church so, too, the true believers in
Science dismiss the Velikovskian theories.
Velikovsky (1955:297) stated in his forum address at Princeton
University on October 14, 1953 that "In Jupiter and its moons we have a
system not unlike the solar family.
The planet [i.e., Jupiter] is cold, yet its gases are in motion." In
1967, Velikovsky (1967: 15) wrote: "Jupiter was also thought to be a
cold body, with an ice mantle ten thousand miles thick. But thermal
radiation (at decimeter wavelengths) from Jupiter indicates that it is
not cold but hot. How hot, is not definitely established." That
Jupiter was once thought to be a cold planet is the reason Bargmann and
Motz (1962:1351), in their Science letter, expressed amazement at
learning of radio noises from Jupiter: "This discovery came as something
of a surprise because radio astronomers had never expected a body as
cold as Jupiter to emit radio waves."
Because we now live in a Space Age, the empirical confirmation
for Velikovsky's views continues to keep Velikovsky in the limelight of
science (see Willhelm, 1973:35). Velikovsky's correct diagnosis over a
time span of twenty-seven years, so contrary to conventional theories,
can only mean that Velikovsky himself is the foremost scientist of the
twentieth century; his contributions for expanding our understanding in
so many areas of specialization place him among the foremost thinkers of
Bachofen, J. J.: 1967 - Myth, Religion and Mother Right: Selected
Writings of Johann Jakob Bachofen, trans. By Ralph Manheim
Bargmann, V. and Lloyd Motz: 1962 -- Letter to Editor, Science 138 (December
Bierstedt, Robert: 1948 -- "The Limitations of Anthropological Methods in
Sociology," American Journal of Sociology (July):22-33.
Bierstedt, Robert: 1970 -- The Social Order (New York), 3rd ed.
Bronowski, J.: 1973 -- The Ascent of Man (Boston).
Deloria, Vine Jr.: 1974 -- "Myth and the Origin of Religion," Pensee
Eiseley, Loren: 1961 -- Darwin's Century (New York).
Fair, Charles: 1974 -- The New Nonsense (New York).
Gardner, Martin: 1952 - In the Name of Science (New York).
Harper's: 1950 - "Personal and Otherwise," (January): 6ff.
Jastrow, Robert: 1977 -- "A Discipline in Which Only the Sky is the Limit,"
New York Times (March 20):18E.
Juergens, Ralph E.: 1966 -- "Minds in Chaos," in The Velikovsky Affair,
Alfred de Grazia, Ralph E. Juergens, and Livio C. Stecchini, eds. (New
Kallen, Horace: 1972 -- "Shapley, Velikovsky and the Scientific Spirit,"Pensee
Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1970 -- "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,"
International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2: iii-210.
Macbeth, Norman: 1971 -- Darwin Retried (New York).
Nature: 1974 -- "Science Beyond the Fringe," 248 (April 12):541.
Polanyi, Michael: 1967 -- "The Growth of Science in Society," Minerva 5
Rose, Lynn: 1972 -- "The Censorship of Velikovsky's Interdisciplinary
Synthesis," Pensee I (May): 29-31.
Rose, Lynn: 1976 -- "The Domination of Astronomy Over Other Disciplines," in
PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the
Philosophy of Science Association, R. S. Cohen, et al., eds.
(Boston); idem, KRONOS 11:4 (May, 19 77), pp. 56-63.
Sagan, Carl: 1976 -- "An Analysis of Worlds in Collision," mimeographed.
Talbott, Stephen L.: 1972 -- "Velikovsky at Harvard," Pensee, I
Velikovsky, Immanuel: 1950 -- Worlds in Collision (New York).
Velikovsky, Immanuel: 1955 -- Earth in Upheaval (New York).
Velikovsky, Immanuel: 1967 -- "Venus--A Youthful Planet," Yale Scientific
Magazine, XLI (April): 8-11 ff.
Velikovsky, Immanuel: 1974 -- "My Challenge to Conventional Views in
Science," Pensee VII (Spring): 10- 14.
Willhelm, Sidney M.: 1973 -- "Velikovsky's Challenge to the Scientific
Establishment," Pensee III (Winter):32-35.
See 1. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (N.Y., 1955),
"Cataclysmic Evolution"; L. M. Greenberg, "Cataclysmic Evolution,"
KRONOS I:4 (April, 1976), pp. 98-110.
This explanation is rather strange--to "avoid" a biblical
perspective and then claim fresh matter out of nothing--and amounts
to a replacement of one mystery by another just as mysterious as
God's own existence without a universe and the Christian belief in a
creation "Out of nothing."
But see G. Grinnell, "The Origins of Modern Geological Theory,"
KRONOS I:4 (April, 1976),pp. 68-76;W. 1. Thompson, At the
edge of history (N. Y., 1972), p. 185.
See L. M. Greenberg, "The Martian Atmosphere," KRONOS II: 1
(Aug.,1976), pp. 107-108 where Sagan's transpositional error has
already been exposed and discussed. Sagan's additional error
regarding the presence of nitrogen in the Martian atmosphere is also
cited on p. 109.
As Velikovsky has often said and emphasized, however: "In my
published books, notwithstanding often repeated allegations, no
physical law is ever abrogated or 'temporarily suspended'; what I
offered is primarily a reconstruction of events in the historical
past" (See 1. Velikovsky, "My Challenge to Conventional Views in
Science" elsewhere in this issue).
A claim set forth by Sagan (1976: 1).
Cp. this statement of Velikovsky with one by Dietrick E. Thomsen in
Science News (1/17/76), P. 43: "Jupiter's collection of
orbiting bodies, which now counts up to 14, looks very much like a
miniature solar system inside the big one."
But see I. Velikovsky, "On the Advance Claim of Jupiter's
Radionoises," KRONOS III: 1 (August, 1977), p. 28: "Jupiter
was believed to be a cold planet--since the 19th century it was
thought to be covered by a frozen mantle of ices to over ten
thousand miles thick. To me, however, from the knowledge of its
activities in ancient times, it did not appear as an inert
gravitational body; I thought also of Jupiter as a dark star
(Worlds in Collision, p. 373); but the radionoises that I
expected it to be sending out I considered as of non-thermal origin
and so I also expressed myself in the . . . Forum Lecture" of 14
October, 1953. -- And Velikovsky, Ibid., p. 30: "The realization
that Jupiter, which participated in a vigorous way in the theomachy
(celestial battles), is not inert and cold led me to the conclusion
that Jupiter must be also hot under its cloud cover, at some depth.
This afterthought made me also claim that Jupiter is hot in a
discussion with Prof I. I. Shapiro of M.I.T., well-known authority
in astrophysics, who denied such a possibility. This claim was
confirmed recently by probes of the temperature underlying the