Site Section Links
Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features
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
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article
Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors
|
KRONOS Vol. I, Issue 3
Lunar Acquisition
C. J. RANSOM
For years people have been told that the orbital changes described by
Velikovsky are impossible. Stability proofs, Bode's Law and other exotic
theories were invoked as support, though Bass (see "Can Worlds Collide?"
elsewhere in this issue) has astutely annihilated the effectiveness of those
arguments against changes in the order of the solar system.
Many of the initial arguments used against Velikovsky were irrational,
and it took very little education to notice that slight of hand instead of
science was being used to supposedly refute his work. For example:
astronomer Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin once stated that if the Earth stopped
rotating, everyone would fly off at 900 miles an hour. Many people noticed,
however, that without her hands having ever left her arms, she skillfully
removed any reference to time. Had she included time in any calculation she
may have made, she would have realized that even the Earth stopping in 30
minutes would not have led to an early invention of seat belts.
More recently, the trend has been toward citing highly complex arguments
which require an in depth analysis such as that provided by Bass. Along with
these arguments, it is often stated or implied that no one who understood
anything about the complexities of astrophysics would ever consider
possibilities of the type described by Velikovsky.
More than two months prior to the AAAS meeting in February of 1974 ' the
moderator of the session dealing with Velikovsky's work, Ivan King, stated
the following - "None of us in the scientific establishment believes that a
debate about Velikovsky's views of the Solar System would be remotely
justified at a serious scientific meeting." Evidently the official word had
not spread to all the scientific community nor, specifically, to all who are
allowed to publish astronomy related papers, since some recent publications
describe the same type of events which King disavowed.
In 1970, S. F. Singer published in Science 170, p. 438, an
article titled "Where Was the Moon Formed?" He mentioned some of the
Properties discovered about lunar rocks and a previously published opinion
about how these properties might have occurred. Singer then made some
calculations relating to the accretion process for material in Earth orbit
and for material accreting elsewhere and later being captured as one body by
the Earth. He stated that "the conclusion can be drawn that the moon
accumulated not in earth orbit but as a separate planet, and that it was
later captured by the earth."
Later, A.G.W. Cameron expanded on this concept in his publication in
Nature 240, p. 299 (1972). He reasoned that the natural place the Moon
to form with the described characteristics would be inside the orbit of
Mercury, and that the relative difference of the orbital radii of the Moon
and Mercury would be less than other adjacent planets. "Thus gravitational
perturbations of the orbits of the two bodies would probably accumulate
until a close approach took place, at which a very large modification in the
elements of the Moon's orbit would become possible. If the modified orbit of
the moon were sufficiently great to allow it to approach the Earth, then
gravitational capture of the Moon by the Earth would become possible, even
if improbable."
Cameron then proceeded with an "illustrative" energy analysis no more
complicated than that used by Rose and Vaughan in Pensee, I (May,
1972), p. 43, where they considered orbital changes of Venus, Mars, and
Earth. The orbital changes described by Cameron require the same physics as
those changes described by Velikovsky. This is not intended as proof that
the orbital changes actually occurred. It is intended as more of a
demonstration of the schizophrenic capabilities of the astronomical
community. Is Cameron not called a "fraud" and "charlatan" merely because he
has an astronomy union card? Does having the proper credentials keep a
person from being a fraud? Do astronomers feel that they should protect the
public from Cameron? Or, could it be that the physics involved does not
preclude the suggestions of Cameron - OR Velikovsky? It would appear that
the actual perpetuators and perpetrators of fraud are the protectors of
uniformitarian dogma.
* This Work was sponsored by Cosmos and Chronos, a non-profit corporation
interested in research related to the ideas originally presented by Immanuel
Velikovsky. |