Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


The Velikovskian Upheaval: A Temporocentric Challenge

. . .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, and immutable.

"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. [1]  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.


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. . ."[2]

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 misperceptions.)

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."[3]

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 be repeated.


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 to Earth.[4]

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 well received.

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. [5]  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 theories.

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) lamented:

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 system.[6]  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 objectively re-examined."

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 validity.

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.[7] 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."[8]

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 all times.


Bachofen, J. J.: 1967 - Myth, Religion and Mother Right: Selected Writings of Johann Jakob Bachofen, trans. By Ralph Manheim (Princeton).

Bargmann, V. and Lloyd Motz: 1962 -- Letter to Editor, Science 138 (December 21): 1350-52.

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 IX:45-50.

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 York), 7-49.

Kallen, Horace: 1972 -- "Shapley, Velikovsky and the Scientific Spirit,"Pensee I (May):36-40.

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 (Summer):533545.

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 (May):47-9.

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.

[1].  See 1. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (N.Y., 1955), "Cataclysmic Evolution"; L. M. Greenberg, "Cataclysmic Evolution," KRONOS I:4 (April, 1976), pp. 98-110.

[2].  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."

[3].  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.

[4].  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.

[5].  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).

[6].  A claim set forth by Sagan (1976: 1).

[7].  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."

[8].  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 surface clouds."

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665