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
Relativity Theory

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
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
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 IX, No. 3



To the Editor of KRONOS:

Before we lay the matter of "Jonathan Swift and the Moons of Mars" (Ken D. Moss, KRONOS VIII:4, pp. 17-28) to rest, we have yet to consider the findings of Charles McDowell ("Catastrophism and Puritan Thought", Symposium on Creation VI, ed. Donald W. Patten, pp. 57-90).

Dr. John Arbuthnot was appointed by Newton to resolve the claims and counterclaims of Newton and Leibniz on the invention of calculus and the understanding of cosmology. Leibniz had a direct pipeline to Chinese data through the Jesuits. At that time in China, Chinese scholars were investigating their own data from antiquity. McDowell found evidence that some of Leibniz' data may have been filched after his death, and possibly found their way into Newton's files.

McDowell suggests that the part of Swift's work which deals with the astronomers of Laputa was actually written by Arbuthnot, and that, in view of his privileged position with Newton, he could have had knowledge of the contents of Leibniz' data. If we assume here that Mars did pass close enough to the Earth for the ancients to observe the satellites without telescopes, all the arguments against Swift's figures are invalidated, except that the Laputan orbital periods do not conform to Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion, which states that the ratio of the square of the orbital period to the cube of its orbital radius is the same for all satellites of a given planet. Suspecting an error in interpretation of the Chinese time scales, McDowell computed the orbital periods using Swift's orbital radii, comparing them with modern values for Phobos. Using McDowell's data in his Table I and Table II we have the following:

Properties of Mars' Satellite

Swift's Calculations
Orbital Radius Orbital Period
Phobos 3 Martian diameters
(19944 km.)
10 hours
(.4167 day)
Deimos 5 Martian diameters
(33240 km.)
21.5 hours
(.89583 day)

Properties of Mars' Satellite

Modern Calculations
Orbital Radius Orbital Period
Phobos 9380 Km. 7 hours 39 minutes
(.39 day)
Deimos 23500 km. 30 hours 18 minutes
(1.2625 day)

(3 * 6648)3 * .319*24)2
The period for Phobos in hours = SQRT 末末末末末末- 23.7365

(5 * 6648)3 * .319*24)2
The period for Deimos in hours = SQRT 末末末末末末- 23.7365

Dividing these results by 2.4 to convert to a decimal division of the day, we get 9.89 and 21.28, which compare favorably with the 10 and 21.5 "hours" in Table I. Norton's Star Atlas (1973) gives 6790 and 6750 for the equatorial and polar diameters of Mars, respectively. The former yields 10.21 and 21.98, and the latter yields 10.12 and 21.77, which is still remarkably close to the values of Table I. Therefore, the orbital periods in Table I are consistent with the radii if we assume the Chinese used a decimal division of the day when these data were recorded. McDowell shows this was a definite possibility.*

[* This possibility was pointed out to McDowell by Lynn E. Rose in a letter of January 14, 1974. - LMG]

Taking a second look at Roscoe Lamont's analysis as given by Moss (KRONOS VIII:4, pp. 22-24), we see that he has shown how Swift could have arrived at the periods of 10 and 21.5 hours. He then assumes that Swift did just that, and observes that this is "bad reasoning". Next he quotes Swift to the effect that the Laputans are "bad reasoners" to clinch his argument.

Admittedly, this is bad reasoning, but on whose part? Not only is there no evidence that Swift arrived at the correct value by Lamont's line of thought, but he tops it off by quoting Swift out of context in support of his charges.

It seems to be a bit premature to dismiss Swift's Moons of Mars as a fabrication.

William James Douglas

Rockville, MD



Copyright at 1984 by the Estate of Elisheva Velikovsky

Editor's Note: Though this was originally written in the 1960's, and intended as a section in The Test of Time, it serves to answer Ken Moss's main criticisms regarding the link between Swift's predictions, Kepler, and ancient knowledge. - LMG.

In order to bring into proper focus the significance of correct prediction in science, I offer at the start a short survey of the most celebrated cases, and it is not by chance that almost all of them come from the domain of astronomy. These cases are spectacular and, with one or two exceptions, are well known.

The story of scientific "clairvoyance" in modern astronomy starts with Johannes Kepler, a strange case and little known. When Galileo, using the telescope he had built after the model of an instrument invented by a Danish craftsman, discovered the satellites circling Jupiter, Kepler became very eager to see the satellites himself and begged in letters to have an instrument sent to Prague; Galileo did not even answer him. Next, Galileo made two more discoveries, but before publishing them in a book, he assured himself of priority by composing cryptograms, not an uncommon procedure in those days: statements written in Latin were deliberately reduced to the letters of which the sentences were composed, or, if the author of the cryptogram so wished, the letters were re-assembled to make a different sentence. The second way was chosen by Galileo when he thought he had discovered that Saturn is "a triple" planet, having observed appendices on both sides of Saturn, but not having discerned that they were but a ring around the planet, a discovery reserved for Christian Huygens in 1659, half a century later. Kepler tried to read the cryptogram of letters recombined into a non-revealing sentence, but did not succeed. He offered as his solution: "Salute, fiery twin, offspring of Mars" ("Salve, umbistineum geminatum Martia proles"). Of this, Arthur Koestler in The Sleepwalkers (1959) wrote (p. 377): "He [Kepler] accordingly believed that Galileo had discovered two moons around Mars." But Galileo did not discover them and they remained undiscovered for more than two hundred fifty years. Strangely, Koestler passes over the incident without expressing wonder at Kepler's seeming prescience.

As I have shown in Worlds in Collision ("The Steeds of Mars") the poets Homer and Virgil knew of the trabants of Mars, visualized as his steeds, named Deimos (Terror) and Phobos (Rout). Kepler referred to the satellites of Mars as being "burning" or "flaming", the same way the ancients had referred to the steeds of Mars.

Ancient lore preserved traditions from the time when Mars, Ares of the Greeks, was followed and preceded by swiftly circling satellites with their blazing manes. "When Mars was very close to the earth, its two trabants were visible. They rushed in front of and around Mars; in the disturbances that took place, they probably snatched some of Mars' atmosphere, dispersed as it was, and appeared with gleaming manes" (Worlds in Collision, p. 230).

Next, Galileo made the discovery that Venus shows phases, as the Moon does. This time he secured his secret by locking it in a cryptogram of a mere collection of letters-so many A's, so many B's, and so on. Kepler again tried to read the cryptogram and came up with the sentence: "Macula rufa in Jove est gyratur mathem etc." which in translation reads: "There is a red spot in Jupiter which rotates mathematically."

The wondrous thing is: how could Kepler have known of the red spot in Jupiter, then not yet discovered? It was discovered by J. D. Cassini in the 1660's, after the time of Kepler and Galileo. Kepler's assumption that Galileo had discovered a red spot in Jupiter amazes and defies every statistical chance of being a mere guess. But the possibility is not excluded that Kepler found the information in some Arab author or some other source, possibly of Babylonian or Chinese origin. Kepler did not disclose what the basis of his reference to the red spot of Jupiter was - he could not have arrived at it either by logic and deduction or by sheer guesswork. A scientific prediction must follow from a theory as a logical consequence. Kepler had no theory on that. It is asserted that the Chinese observed solar spots many centuries before Galileo did with his telescope. Observing solar spots, the ancients could have conceivably observed the Jovian red spot, too. Jesuit scholars travelled in the early 17th century to China to study Chinese achievements in astronomy.

Kepler was well versed in ancient writings, also knowledgeable in medieval Arab authors; for instance, he quoted Arzachel to support the view that in ancient times Babylon must have been situated two and a half degrees more to the north, and this on the basis of the data on the duration of the longest and shortest days in the year as registered in ancient Babylon.(1)

Jonathan Swift, in his Gulliver's Travels (1726) tells of the astronomers of the imaginary land of the Laputans who asserted they had discovered that the planet Mars has "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars, whereof the innermost is distant from the center of the primary planet exactly three of [its] diameters, and the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten hours, and the latter in twenty-one-and-a-half; so that the squares of their periodical times are very near in the same proportion with the cubes of their distance from the center of Mars, which evidently shows them to be governed by the same law of gravitation that influences the other heavenly bodies."

About this passage a literature of no mean number of authors grew in the years after 1877, when Asaph Hall, a New England carpenter turned astronomer, discovered the two trabants of Mars. They are between five and ten miles in diameter. They revolve on orbits close to their primary and in very short times: actually the inner one, Phobos, makes more than three revolutions in the time it takes Mars to complete one rotation on its axis; and were there intelligent beings on Mars they would need to count two different months according to the number of satellites (this is no special case - Jupiter has twelve moons and Saturn ten*), and also observe one moon ending its month three times in one Martian day. It is a singular case in the solar system among the natural satellites that a moon completes one revolution before its primary finishes one rotation.

[* Since this was written, additional moons orbiting both planets have been discovered. - JNS]

Swift ascribed to the Laputans some amazing knowledge - actually he himself displayed, it is claimed, an unusual gift of foreknowledge. The chorus of wonderment can be heard in the evaluation of C. P. Olivier in his article "Mars" written for the Encyclopedia Americana (1943):

"When it is noted how very close Swift came to the truth, not only in merely predicting two small moons but also the salient features of their orbits, there seems little doubt that this is the most astounding 'prophecy' of the past thousand years as to whose full authenticity there is not a shadow of doubt."

The passage in Kepler is little known - Olivier, like other writers on the subject of Swift's divination, was unaware of it, and the case of Swift's prophecy appears astounding: the number of satellites, their close distances to the body of the planet, and their swift revolutions are stated in a book printed one hundred and fifty years to the year before the discovery of Asaph Hall.

Let us examine the case. Swift, being an ecclesiastical dignitary and a scholar, not just a satirist, could have learned of Kepler's passage about two satellites of Mars; he could also have learned of them in Homer and Virgil where they are described in poetic language (actually, Asaph Hall named the discovered satellites by the very names the flaming trabants of Mars were known by from Homer and Virgil); and it is also not inconceivable that Swift learned of them in some old manuscript dating from the Middle Ages and relating some ancient knowledge from Arabian, or Persian, or Hindu, or Chinese sources. To this day an enormous number of medieval manuscripts have not seen publication and in the days of Newton (Swift published Gulliver's Travels in the year Newton was to die), as we know from Newton's own studies in ancient lore, for every published tome there was a multiplicity of unpublished classical, medieval, and Renaissance texts.

That Swift knew Kepler's laws, he himself gave testimony, and this in the very passage that concerns us: ". . . so that the squares of their periodical times are very near in the same proportion with the cubes of their distance from the center of Mars" is the Third Law of Kepler.

But even if we assume that Swift knew nothing apart from the laws of Kepler to make his guess, how rare would be such a guess of the existence of two Martian satellites and of their short orbits and periods? As to their number, in 1726 there were known to exist: five satellites of Saturn, four of Jupiter, one of Earth, and none of Venus. Guessing, one could reasonably say: none, one, two, three, four, or five. The chance of hitting on the right figure was one in six, or the chance of any one side of a die's coming up in a throw. The smallness of the guessed satellites would necessarily follow from their not having been discovered in the age of Newton. Their proximity to the parent planet and their short periods of revolution were but one guess, not two, by anybody who knew of the work of Newton and Kepler. The nearness of the satellites to the primary could have been assumed on the basis of what was known about the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn. Io, one of the Galilean (or Medicean) satellites of Jupiter, revolves around the giant planet in 1 day 18.5 hours (the satellite closest to Jupiter was discovered in 1892 by Barnard and is known as the "fifth satellite" in order of discovery; it revolves around Jupiter, a planet ten thousand times the size of Mars, in 11.9 hours). The three satellites of Saturn discovered by Cassini before the days of Swift-Tethys, Dione and Rhea - revolve respectively in 1 day 21.3 hours, 2 days 17 hours, and 4 days 12.4 hours. (Mimas and Enceladus, discovered by Herschel in 1789, revolve in 22. 6 hours and 1 day 8.9 hours.) The far removed satellites of Jupiter were not yet discovered in the days of Newton and Swift.

It remains to compare the figures of Swift with those of Hall: there was no true agreement between what the former wrote in his novel and what the latter found through his telescope. For Deimos, Swift's figure, expressed in miles from the surface of Mars, is 18,900 miles; actually it is 12,500 miles; Swift gave its revolution time as 21.5 hours - actually it is 30.3 hours. For Phobos, Swift's figures are 10,500 miles from the surface and 10 hours revolution period, whereas the true figures are 3,700 miles and 7.65 hours. Remarkable remains the fact that for the inner satellite Swift assumed a period of revolution, though not what it is, but shorter than the Martian period of rotation, which is true. However, Swift did not know the rotational period of Mars and therefore he was not aware of the uniqueness of his figure. If he were to calculate as an astronomer should, he would either have decreased the distance separating the inner satellite from Mars - a distance for which he gave thrice its true value - or increased its revolution period to comply with the Keplerian laws by assuming the specific weight of Mars as comparable with that of Earth. But Swift had no ambitions toward scientific inquiry in his satirical novel.

Immanuel Velikovsky


1. The reference is found in the collected works of Kepler (Astronomi opera omnia, ed. C. Frisch, vol. VI, p. 557) published in 1866.

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