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
Vol. I, No. 4
the Day Breaks --A
"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."
Jacob, irrepressible, demanded, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless
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
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.
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
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
Like Callahan, she
sees Velikovsky's theories as "what [are] perhaps the most amazing
example of a shattering of accepted concepts on record."
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]
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."
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.
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."
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."
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.
Einstein found this
ancient knowledge quite strange.
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
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
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.
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,
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."
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."
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
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
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
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.
inside Einstein's second floor study, Einstein asked Velikovsky if he
would "like [their] conversation between four eyes, or between eight?"
Velikovsky's wife, Elisheva, and Miss Dukas, Einstein's secretary, were
admitted after Velikovsky's "Between eight."
Einstein replied that the women would "listen but not participate."
that he was being repeatedly accused of misrepresenting his sources and
that, unless he responded, his silence would be regarded an admission of
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."
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."
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."
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.
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
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,
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."
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.
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."
Against physics and mathematical analyses, Velikovsky was unable to move
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."
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
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."
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."
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
Einstein asked, "Which experiment would you like to have performed now?"
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
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
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."
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.
 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,
Bible, King James Version, Genesis 32: 26.
Genesis 32: 27.
(A), "Before the Day Breaks," unpublished memoirs, p. 8.
J. Callahan, Euclid or Einstein (New York, 1931), pp.
Velikovsky (B), Stargazers and Gravediggers (New York, 1983),
(A), op. cit.. p. 17.
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.
(A), op. cit., p. 53.
for Immanuel Velikovsky (C), "The Rotating Crust," Earth in
Upheaval (New York 1955), pp. 124-128.
(A), op. cit., p. 70.
Velikovsky (D), Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950), P. 387.
(A). op. cit., pp. 85-86.