Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

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

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
Selected Velikovskian Article

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

 

 VELIKOVSKIAN                                                                                                       Vol. I, No. 4

Before the Day Breaks[1]   --A Perspective
Charles Ginenthal

"Before the Day Breaks" is a memoir of the relationship Velikovsky shared with Albert Einstein, of their debate over the history of the solar system and the Earth, and of the significant role played by electromagnetism in celestial motion.  The two men had met in Europe in the 1920s, when Einstein was editing the mathematics and physics sections of the Writings of the University and the Library of Jerusalem-­Scripta Universitatis atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum, edited by Velikovsky.

Velikovsky likened the later years with Einstein, 1952 to 1955, to the wrestling struggle Jacob had one night with a man near the Jordan River.  The man cried out, "Let me go, for the day breaketh."[2]     Jacob, irrepressible, demanded, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me."[3]     In a deep sense, Velikovsky struggled and labored with Einstein for three years, seeking to convince him of the rightness of his theories.

Their interaction is chronicled in discussions and letters, ending in April, 1955, with Einstein's death.

By 1952, the wholesale public relations assault by certain members of the scientific establishment and, specifically, the astronomers at Harvard University, had so poisoned the atmosphere that Velikovsky was made a pariah among most academicians and scientists.  His work had been labeled "pseudoscience" and was considered anathema; his reputation had been greatly tarnished by the incessant slander presented by his scientific opponents.  Thus, when Velikovsky moved from New York City to Princeton, New Jersey, with his wife and two young daughters, his reputation preceded him.

Inadvertently, while out for a day with his family, he met Einstein, who was returning from a sail on Lake Carnegie.  Recognizing Einstein, Velikovsky went over to reintroduce himself.  Einstein criticized him, remarking that it was Velikovsky who had brought the planets into disorder.  But Velikovsky, not to be put off, persisted in his request for a meeting so as to explain his views.  He was rebuffed by the great man at that time; however, Einstein allowed that correspondence be sent to him.  The vicious public relations attacks had done their mischief and Einstein's attitude was one of resentment toward Velikovsky.  His was the same smug and ignorant response many Velikovskians have encountered from establishment types.

Undaunted by the reproachful response, Velikovsky sent Einstein a letter briefly outlining some of the evidence he had gathered regarding electromagnetism in astronomy, with the sincere request that his work be examined without rancor since, as he stated, "For over two years, I have been a target of abuse and calumny."[4]  

In his reply, Einstein budged not one inch, but he realized that Velikovsky was completely sincere in his views.  "It became clear to me," Einstein wrote, "that intentional misleading was entirely foreign to you."[5]     Mathematics, physics and astronomy were all marshalled against Velikovsky's thesis, but Einstein's character was magnanimous enough to overcome the irrational resentment created by the hostile environment surrounding Velikovsky and he listened openly to reason and evidence.

Einstein had, himself, been the target of establishment abuse earlier in the century, when he presented his Theory of General Relativity.  I remember reading J. J. Callahan's Euclid or Einstein and about the brutality of this former president of Duquesne University, who verbally assaulted Einstein.  Velikovskians have become accustomed to this type of abuse and to worse.  Here, then, is a snatch of Callahan's attack against Einstein and his supporters:

There have been sophists in every age of the history of thought, and none better known than those who gave us the name among the clear-minded Greeks, who used the clear acumen of their intellects on every subject of human thought, which they tested with ... acid skepticism and rationalism.  They attacked the most obvious truths of common sense, as much for the love of argument and the love for intellectual battle as from anything else.  But we can imagine them with their tongues in their checks, that they were but playing a clever game .... themselves not believing in its results.  Moreover, sophism never stopped the healthy trend of Greek thought, but, if anything, only brought it out more sharply and clearly.

But the modem sophists [Einstein and his supporters] are of a different kind.  They take themselves so seriously that the world has been willing to take them at their word....

These new geometers climb and climb, at least they go through the motions, and they never worry whether or not they have anything to climb; they weave and weave their web, and never bother whether it is of solid cable attached to reality, or is a spun gossamer floating on the autumn breeze.  Their whole aim is in the climbing and weaving.  That their theories combat common sense, that they contradict the elementary facts of intuition, causes them no concern; so much the worse for common sense; overboard with intuition.  Their system stands by itself on nothing else.  They need no previous foundation, and no basis at all for hypothesis.  If they can weave from a hypothesis, the hypothesis is established.  The only proof they ever extracted or proclaimed as necessary for their Geometry is that it ... contradict itself.  But if it contradicts anything else, the anything else has to go.

We may seem to be exaggerating; but this is not a rhetorical presentation but cold fact, as we shall see.  It goes without saying [that] the real scientist will always be ready to abandon any theory that the facts prove to be false; that he will, moreover, be ever on the lookout for whatever is unsatisfactory or incomplete in his scientific reasoning.  He knows that science is a growth subject to change and to rejection of the useless and outworn.  But, on the other hand, he will not lightly reject what has stood the test of ages and has received the full sanction of talent and genius of all time [Newton's theory of gravitation] .... (Emphasis added.)

But when we are asked to cut loose from all that has been previously held, to scrap all our acquired ideas and notions, to start out completely anew, as if nothing had been hitherto attained, to construct new notions of fundamental geometric concepts, of distance, and direction, of space and time, all because of a simple difficulty in finding a satisfactory proof for what was after all simple enough and clear enough to be accepted as a postulate, and, moreover, when we find that such a method has been adopted by serious-minded scientists, it is time to call a halt.[6]  

The entire gist of Callahan's statement is that Einsteinians are really modern sophists who, unlike the ancient Greek sophists, take their theory and themselves seriously--and so do others.  Scientists are not dogmatic and are always on the lookout for facts that contradict their theories, readily accepting a new theory when the facts are provided.  Only real scientists can see clearly what is "Real Science" and what is "bogus or pseudoscience." A theory that contradicts the most fundamental concepts achieved by talent and genius, has stood the test of the ages and received the sanction of all time based on clear proofs, is not to be dismissed by sophistry and novel theories.

Readers of the historical debates that Velikovsky faced may remember Dr. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin comparing Worlds in Collision to the Great Moon Hoax, using guilt by association in the same way as Einsteinians were compared to ancient Greek sophists.  Her argument, like Callahan's, is that others take Velikovsky's work seriously and should not:

Is this scientific age so uncritical, so ignorant of the nature of evidence, that any considerable number of people will be fooled by a sloppy parade of jargon of a dozen fields of learning?  Evidently a great national magazine [Harpers] and a publisher [MacMillan] who has in the past handled great works of science, believe that they will.[7]  

Payne-Gaposchkin, like Callahan, tells us, "We [real scientists] who are engaged in research are not concerned in preserving the existing framework of theories.  We spend our lives searching for the wherewithal to modify and supplant them.  The discovery of discordant facts is cause for rejoicing, not consternation."[8]  

Like Callahan, she sees Velikovsky's theories as "what [are] perhaps the most amazing example of a shattering of accepted concepts on record."[9]  

Regarding so-called talent and genius, and work that has stood the test of the ages, Harlow Shapely, Payne-Gaposchkin's friend and associate at Harvard University, stated that Velikovsky was "apparently genuinely sorry that I and the likes of me had been misled by Isaac Newton, La Place, Lagrange [and] Simon Newcomb."[10]  

Einstein read these arguments directed against Velikovsky much later, in Velikovsky's Stargazers and Gravediggers, and must have recalled the arguments raised against himself and his theory.  It was the same game, the same scenario, with different personalities in the principal roles.

Another side to Einstein made him less apt to condemn or abuse.  He had seen the nature of human hatred while he had lived in Germany, prior to World War II, and understood the consequences that followed from hatred run amuck.  A story has been told that, when J. Robert Oppenheimer saw the first successful atomic bomb test carried out at Alamo Gordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, at the Trinity site, he recited a Hindu statement from the god Shiva which indicated that he had now gazed upon the face of evil.  When Einstein saw the same motion picture of this explosion, he spoke more eloquently: "Oui vey!"

In his response to Einstein, Velikovsky penned a reply pointing out that the theory of gravitation, supposedly employed by Urbain Leverrier, in France, and John C. Adams, in England, to discover the position of Neptune--which was unknown to the world--based on its perturbations of Uranus, was in error.  Both Leverrier and Adams had placed Neptune at a distance from the Sun based on Bode's law of planetary distances: at about 38.4 AU (Astronomical Units).  In fact, the planet Neptune was only located at a distance of 30.05 AU; therefore, its gravitational effects on Uranus, used in Leverrier and Adams' calculations, were erroneous.  For Neptune to perturb Uranus at 38.4 AU, its mass would have had to be three times greater than what it is.  Perturbations by Pluto could not resolve this problem because Pluto's mass is too small to affect Uranus.  Velikovsky also pointed out to Einstein that Ptolemy's geocentric theory was supported by mathematics and that the great nay-sayers of the Copernican theory were mathematically-trained professors.  He asked that electricity and magnetism, as possible forces in celestial motion, not be rejected out of hand.  In his notebook, Velikovsky analyzed Einstein's scientific reply to his notions regarding electromagnetic concepts, admitting to the "obstinacy of my race, the race of Marx, of Freud and of Einstein."[11]  

Einstein, who had read several parts of the manuscript of Worlds in Collision as far back as 1946, admitted that

[t]here is much interest in the book, which proves that, in fact, catastro­phes had taken place, which must be attributed to extraterrestrial causes.  However, it is evident to every sensible physicist that these catastrophes can have nothing to do with the planet Venus .... It were best, in my opinion, if you would in this way revise your books, which contain truly valuable material.[12]  

Hence, Einstein felt that Velikovsky had documented recent, historical, terrestrial catastrophes, perhaps from celestial sources, but flatly rejected interplane­tary near-collisions.  Einstein's partial acceptance of Velikovsky's view strengthened Velikovsky's confidence in the accuracy of his theory: "If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore, laws must conform with historical facts, not fact with laws."[13]  

In 1946, Velikovsky had set himself the task of testing his hypothesis of Venus, identified as the cause of a global catastrophe, by searching its atmosphere spectroscopically for hydrocarbons.  This, ultimately, led him to Harlow Shapely, so that Shapely would conduct this experiment.  He sent his views on celestial mechanics, into which he had incorporated electromagnetism, to be examined by a small group of experts, to get their criticisms.  That paper, "Cosmos Without Gravitation," suggests that gravity and electromagnetism were different expressions of the same underlying power and not separate forces.  In his manuscript, Velikovsky states that "[n]o copies were designated for sale, and only a limited number were sent to some scientists and to selected university libraries around the country.  Einstein was among the recipients."[14]     Einstein also received a full copy of Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.  For four years, Velikovsky had postponed submitting Worlds in Collision for publication so as to strengthen his research regarding Venus.

After their initial correspondence, Velikovsky met Einstein at a concert at McCarter Theater in Princeton, during the intermission.  Einstein requested that Velikovsky send him the letter which Sigmund Freud had written to Velikovsky, in which Freud claimed that he had almost identical ideas respecting the concept of a collective unconscious as did Velikovsky.  A week later, Einstein and Velikovsky encountered each other again at the theater, but, this time, they discussed Espinoza.  Apparently, these meetings with Velikovsky and the reading of Worlds in Collision impressed Einstein so much that he invited Velikovsky and Elisheva, Velikovsky's wife, over to his home--at 112 Mercer Street, Princeton, New Jersey--for tea.

During this social gathering, Velikovsky discussed his theory.  He asked Einstein why ancient man worshipped the planet Jupiter, not a specially bright star, and claimed that

in the Illiad, it is said that Zeus can pull all the other planetary gods together, the Earth included, with his chain, being stronger than all of them together; and that an old commentary (by Eustatius, a Byzantine scholar) state[d] that this mean[t] that the planet Jupiter is stronger in its pull than all the other planets, the Earth included.[15]  

Einstein found this ancient knowledge quite strange.

A deeper psychological connection had apparently been made between the two men, because Einstein then related to Velikovsky a dream he recalled, which had occurred years before.  In it, Einstein called from his unconscious the memory of an old colleague whom he had not liked, expecting Velikovsky, a psychoanalyst, to comment.  Rather than analyze the dream, Velikovsky ethically followed basic psychoanalytic procedure and offered neither investigative nor non-directional questions to probe further.  It was not an appropriate setting to do so; present were Einstein's secretary, Miss Helen Dukas, Velikovsky's wife and another of Einstein's guests.

Nevertheless, it is both intriguing and interesting to speculate about the meaning of Einstein's dream.  Perhaps, he had linked Velikovsky with the past negative experiences he had suffered when his own theory was initially presented and drew upon this colleague to represent his feelings about the violent attacks he had endured.  Velikovsky, a new friend, was, like himself, considered a heretic.  This, perhaps, stirred up in Einstein old memories of rejection.  Recalling the emotive image of this distant colleague might have been the mechanism with which he could deal with his inner conflict.  Though surrounded by friends and by much love, Einstein remained a rather solitary figure.  He had chosen isolation from his colleagues and from the world in order to maintain his own inner peace, and, thus, the reentrance into his life of an acquaintance from the past with radical ideas could have brought on unconscious distress.

Although Einstein was, in large measure, accepted by the scientific establish­ment, he was not secure regarding his theoretical position and lived under a cloud created by a new physics--quantum mechanics.  A new generation of scientists had arisen, following this new theory, and had rejected him.  Thus, in Velikovsky, he had found a comrade, a fellow heretic whose theories of celestial mechanics based on electromagnetic fields, like those of quantum mechanics, also undermined his own.

Velikovsky was, in a sense, of Einstein's generation and background, an educated Jew of European extraction.  It was in Europe that quantum theory developed and, hence, the recollection of the past colleague in the dream.  If this highly speculative analysis is correct, then Velikovsky had struck a deep chord of inner conflict in Einstein that he had not yet resolved.  The conflict would be played out over the following years, as the two men wrestled in the darkness.

Einstein clearly admired Freud.  Perhaps the letter in which Freud claimed that he viewed a psychological concept in almost the same light as had Velikovsky may have helped trigger Einstein's inner feelings about his vulnerable condition.  As we know, the late years of Einstein's life were filled with doubts about his work.  As H. C. Dudley states,

Philosophically, looking back on his life at age 70, Einstein gave a clear evaluation of what he believed were his accomplishments.  This was, in a letter, made public many years after his passing:

"Personal Letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949.

You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction.  But, from nearby, it looks quite different.  There is not a single concept of which I am convinced it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am, in general, on the right track."[16]  

Given the circumstances in his old age, Einstein's feelings had to be in conflict.  It was into this psychological landscape that Velikovsky entered with a theory of electromagnetic celestial motion, a theory carrying with it more seeds of doubt and conflict for Einstein.

Einstein's change in attitude came about after he received a copy of Velikovsky's lecture before the Forum of the Graduate Students at Princeton University on October 14, 1953.  A few months thereafter, Einstein requested that Velikovsky come to him to discuss the contents of the lecture.

During that February meeting in 1954, Velikovsky asked Einstein to "build a working plan for another universe; only [do not] apply gravitation ... but [use] electricity and magnetism. [Y]ou may use as much as you need."[17]     Einstein demurred; he had another problem on his mind.  Velikovsky's discussion of the round shape of the Sun, at the Forum, was clearly a problem related to Einstein's theory of general relativity.  The Sun, a gaseous sphere, rotates in about 25 days, therefore, like Jupiter and Saturn, gaseous bodies also, it should possess an equatorial bulge.  However, this is not observed.  A bulge would be influential in the experiments carried out to determine how greatly starlight should be bent from a straight line as the starlight passes near the edge of the Sun.  This matter touched directly on the evidential validity of general relativity.

That night, after Velikovsky's departure, Einstein called him via phone to suggest the size of the solar equatorial bulge.  Einstein's calculation indicated that the difference between a perfectly spherical Sun and the one he had calculated was too small for observation.  Both men agreed to have this calculation evaluated by Professor Lyman Spitzer, Jr., Director of the Princeton Observatory, to whom Velikovsky wrote.  Spitzer replied that he believed no flattening of the solar disk "ha[d] ever been firmly established."[18]   Therefore, neither Einstein nor Velikovsky were able to determine whether or not the Sun, which should have an equatorial bulge, actually possessed one.

The following March, Einstein reached his 75th birthday and was inundated with congratulatory mail.  At this time, Velikovsky took the opportunity to write:

Beware when great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.  Then all things are at risk.  It is as when a conflagration has broken out in a great city, and no man knows when it will end.  There is not a piece of science but its flanks may be turned tomorrow; there is not any literary reputation, not the so-called eternal names of fame, that may not be revised and condemned.  The very hopes of man, the thoughts of his heart, the religion of nations, the manners and morals of mankind are all at the mercy of a new generalization.[19]  

Einstein telephoned Velikovsky to thank him.

In May, Velikovsky visited Einstein again.  The misrepresentations originating from the Harvard group were making the rounds and the public was being misinformed, now through popular magazines and journals.

            Once inside Einstein's second floor study, Einstein asked Velikovsky if he would "like [their] conversation between four eyes, or between eight?"[20]     Velikovsky's wife, Elisheva, and Miss Dukas, Einstein's secretary, were admitted after Velikovsky's "Between eight."[21]   Einstein replied that the women would "listen but not participate."[22]  

Velikovsky explained that he was being repeatedly accused of misrepresenting his sources and that, unless he responded, his silence would be regarded an admission of guilt.

Einstein recalled how misrepresentations had also been used to besmirch the reputation of the nuclear physicist, J. Robert Oppenheimer.  Velikovsky responded, "I do not think of you personally, but of your colleagues."[23]  

Velikovsky presented Einstein with the letters of Harlow Shapely and Fred Whipple, who attempted to smear him, and with Shapely's denial of this smear tactic, published in the Harvard Crimson.  After reading the letters and Shapely's denial, Einstein expressed his anger at the mean and miserable behavior of his colleagues.  He advised Velikovsky to make the scientists' behavior public, calling the action of Velikovsky's opponents "worse than the Oppenheimer case."[24]  

Einstein considered Harlow Shapely's behavior as explainable, but not excusable: "This is the intolerance and arrogance, together with brutality, which one often finds in successful people, but especially [in] successful Americans."[25]  

All this notwithstanding, Einstein rejected interplanetary collisions to explain the geological evidence pertaining to the end of the Ice Age.  He had received the work of Charles Hapgood, which suggested that the giant ice caps at the poles could grow so massive that, by their off-centered position with respect to the geographic poles, they had caused the entire crust of the Earth to catastrophically slip over the mantle.  Einstein emphasized to Velikovsky that this terrestrial effect would explain Velikovsky's catastrophes.

Thereafter, Einstein returned the files of Earth in Upheaval, convinced that

the proof of "sudden" changes ... is quite convincing and meritorious.  If you had done nothing else but to gather and present, in a clear way, this mass of evidence, you would have already a considerable merit.  Unfortunately, this valuable accomplishment is impaired by the addition of a physical astronomical theory to which every expert will react with a smile or with anger.[26]  

Einstein rejected Velikovsky's theory because interplanetary collisions were not realistic and believed that the Earth's entire crust would have been completely destroyed by such an event.  Having covered this 19th century concept in his notes for Earth in Upheaval,[27]   Velikovsky rejected this notion, saying that Hapgood's theory, though different implied the same fate for the Earth's crust as his own theory and gave his evidence to substantiate that Hapgood's theory was untenable because the equatorial bulge of the Earth was so large that it would be impossible for the entire Earth's crust to slip.  As a result of this, the battle fine had been drawn between them.  Einstein could deny that electromagnetic forces operated in celestial motion and he possessed a terrestrial theory which explained recent catastrophes.  The debate hinged on whether or not electromagnetic forces in space were capable of significantly influencing planetary or stellar motion.

At a July 21 meeting in Einstein's home, Velikovsky remarked, "All the sciences--neurology, physiology, physics and chemistry--recognize the overwhelming role of electromagnetic forces; only astronomy lives in the age before kerosene, in the age of candles."[28]     Then he read aloud from Worlds in Collision: "The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only if the Sun...is as a whole an electrically neutral body, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies.[29]  

Over the next several months, Einstein and Velikovsky carried on the debate regarding these issues.  Einstein responded as have several of Velikovsky's critics, "Nobody denies electromagnetic effects between the heavenly bodies.  But these are too small to assert themselves upon the observable motions.  With qualitative considerations only, one can achieve nothing against keen quantitative perceptions."[30]     Against physics and mathematical analyses, Velikovsky was unable to move Einstein.

In the face of this fundamental objection, Velikovsky sought physical and celestial phenomena which would show Einstein that electromagnetic forces did, indeed, play the role Einstein denied them.  Einstein discussed, explained and analyzed these points for Velikovsky, detail by detail.  Ultimately, Einstein, trying to be constructive, said, "A theory has a much greater chance for acceptance if it can predict a phenomenon."[31]     This was the one opening that Einstein offered regarding celestial electromagnetism.  Neither Einstein nor Velikovsky could know that, in about one month, Velikovsky's major prediction--that Jupiter would possess a substantial electromagnetic field--would be confirmed.

During that year, Einstein's health had deteriorated.  Nevertheless, he had found time to invite Velikovsky into his small circle of friends, seeming to enjoy the repartee.  After all, in their friendly rivalry, Einstein was the physicist who could dismiss Velikovsky's concepts with both physics and mathematics.

In April, 1955, Bernard F. Burke and Kenneth L. Franklin's discovery of Jupiter's magnetic field was dramatically announced in the April 6 issue of The New York T@.   For Velikovsky, this news was extremely important.  It confirmed his view that Jupiter, the ancient hurler of thunderbolts in mythology, was electrified, that is, charged.  With this confirmation in hand, Velikovsky made an appointment to meet Einstein and acquaint him with the discovery.  Their meeting was arranged for April 8, 1955, in the late noon.

At that meeting, Einstein said, "I have again read Worlds in Collision.  It is a book of immeasurable importance and scientists should read it."[32]     He wondered why Velikovsky needed to challenge evolutionary theory and celestial mechanics, saying that he could explain everything described in Velikovsky's book "on the basis of the accepted celestial mechanics of gravitation and inertia .... Even the circular orbit of Venus, though this would require a very unusual degree of coincidences."[33]  

Velikovsky wished Einstein would elaborate on the celestial mechanical motions in terms of Newtonian dynamics, but put off asking him to do so.  He showed one of his letters to Einstein, upon which Einstein had added marginal notes regarding Jupiter and reminded Einstein of the importance he had attributed, a month earlier, to making a correct prediction.  Velikovsky then dropped his bombshell, informing Einstein of the discovery reported in the Times.  After the surprise had passed, Einstein "stood up.  His face was glowing.  He spoke loudly, in a way [Velikovsky] had never heard him speak before."[34]     Einstein asked, "Which experiment would you like to have performed now?"[35]  

Velikovsky requested that Einstein use his influence to have radiocarbon tests performed so as to evaluate the accuracy of his historical analysis.  Einstein promised to do this a few days later.

The two men spent two hours together discussing and analyzing the evidence.  Afterwards, Velikovsky left, not knowing that this would be the last time he would see Einstein alive.

It took Velikovsky a full week to write the details Einstein needed to present to Dr. W. C. Hayes, of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, for the radiocarbon tests.  In addition, Velikovsky gathered data regarding electromagnetism to present to Einstein, explaining why his theory required that Jupiter be a charged body.  On Friday, April 15, 1955, he phoned Einstein to arrange another meeting.

To his dismay, Miss Dukas told him that Einstein was gravely ill and that an ambulance had been called.  Einstein had been in pain for two days.  Velikovsky's heart sank.  At first, Einstein appeared to recover.  Velikovsky probably assumed that he would soon be well again.  He had been informed by Miss Dukas of this turn for the better on Sunday, April 17.

The next morning, Velikovsky went out to his garden, where the forsythia were already in bloom and met his neighbor, Mrs. Baker, who asked, "Have you heard on the radio?  Dr. Einstein died last night."[36]  

The rest, of course, is history.  One of the few, truly great scientists, who had shown Velikovsky humanity and decency was gone.  We may surmise that it was an illness that overtook Einstein; but Birgit Liesching, a colleague of mine from Brussels, Belgium, told me years ago that the shock of the revelation regarding Jupiter's magnetic field had inflicted a psychosomatic blow and the damage of the shock had killed Einstein.  We will never know for certain.  Einstein's life ended in self-doubts though he had been greatly honored and admired.  Velikovsky was vilified by the scientific and academic world, though he felt quite differently about his work before his death in 1979.

One is left to wonder what Einstein might have done, had he lived, to get Velikovsky's theory fully and properly tested.  That was almost 40 years ago.

[1]    Immanuel Velikovsky (A), "Before the Day Breaks," unpublished memoirs of Velikovsky's friendship with Albert Einstein, 138 pages, Charles Ginenthal's private collection of Velikovsky's unpublished works, New York.  

[2]   Holy Bible, King James Version, Genesis 32: 26.

[3]   Ibid., Genesis 32: 27.

[4]   Velikovsky (A), "Before the Day Breaks," unpublished memoirs, p. 8.

[5]   Ibid., p. 10.

[6]   J. J. Callahan, Euclid or Einstein (New York, 1931), pp.  XVI-XVIII.

[7]   Immanuel Velikovsky (B), Stargazers and Gravediggers (New York, 1983), p. 94.

[8]   Ibid., pp. 252-253.

[9]   Ibid

[10]   Ibid, p. 103.

[11]   Velikovsky (A), op. cit.. p. 17.

[12]   Ibid, p. 24.

[13]   Ibid, p. 25.

[14]   Ibid, p. 29.

[15]   Ibid., p. 49.

[16]   H. C. Dudley, "The Personal Tragedy of Albert Einstein," KRONOS I: 4 (Winter 1974): 66.  See also B. Hoffmann, Albert Einstein--Creator and Rebel (New York, 1972), in which Solovine's letter is presented.

[17]   Velikovsky (A), op. cit., p. 53.

[18]   Ibid.,

[19]   Ibid, p. 56.

[20]   Ibid., p. 57.

[21]   Ibid.

[22]   Ibid.

[23]   Ibid., p. 58.

[24]   Ibid., p. 59.

[25]   Ibid., p. 63.

[26]   Ibid., p. 62.

[27]   Notes for Immanuel Velikovsky (C), "The Rotating Crust," Earth in Upheaval (New York 1955), pp. 124-128.

[28]   Velikovsky (A), op. cit., p. 70.

[29]   Immanuel Velikovsky (D), Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950), P. 387.

[30]   Velikovsky (A). op. cit., pp. 85-86.

[31]   Ibid., p. 102.

[32]   Ibid., p. 118.

[33]   Ibid.

[34]   Ibid., p. 120.

[35]   Ibid.

[36]   Ibid., p. 129.

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