One can get standardisation in the market without a monopoly. Much of the internet is now driven by the stand components found in Netscape Navigator. This has largely displaced third-party special purpose software [like the AOL client and the MSN client], with a high level of interopterability. It also did in a lot of BBS programs.
And this choice was made by the market, not by some monopoly.
In the end, you see a high level of standardisation going on, whether or not this is driven by regulation or a monopoly. Even refills for Parker pens are now a standard product that fits a range of pens.
M$ may have hastened the adoption of a standard, and that may have become entrenched, but in the long run, their incessant desire to keep fiddling with it may be their undoing. OS/2 and Linux do quite nicely because their APIs are very stable and established. [Shell scripts in OS/2 2.0 still run under the latest version, 10 years later.]
What may also force the issue is the tieing of multiple parts together. One can not use POP3 to clients other than OutLook, yet this has many serious bugs. This, and the restraint of trade it imposes, may do MS more damage.
There was a very good parody of this on the PC_Answers magazine, called Bubba, Bob's Country Cousin. It's main feature was an office in a barn. It actually worked as a Windows interface, and fitted on a 720K floppy. The other free shell that fits on a 720K floppy was an add for OS/2's WPS. It is the only shell that allows you to set folder backgrounds.
For a product that failed to make an inpact on the market, Bob has a supprisingly large number of entries in Microsoft's Technet. Despite Bob being gone, its annoyances and bugs soldier on through Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Office and ultimately, Windows XP.
Firstly the sound themes are already present in BOB. So is the annoybot that ultimately becomes clippit. Then there are the sound schemes. And cab files. But there are prehaps a lot of technical features that ultimately appeared in Win95, the P!us pack, and later.
When you want to annoy the hell out of some MSCE or Microserf, you tell them that Windows NT is Microsoft Bob on top of a bloated WinOS2 shell running on top of 16-bit OS/2 1.3
This explains the extensive entries for both MS OS/2 [in both Technet and WinNT/2K help], and Bob. It's a handy place to hide surplus bugs.:)
It consists of a smattering of DOS, Windows and OS/2 stuff, along with some of my favourite bitmaps.
The DOS stuff is either third-party, or from PCDOS 7.0 (these run under most versions of DOS). Some MSDOS stuff is there: qbasic.exe, edit.com and scandisk from Win95.
I have a little 10K utility for making boot disks for most versions of DOS and Win9X. In the redraft, I plan to make bootable diskettes in ram, and copy these to blank disks.
OS/2 stuff is selected so that it can run under NT as well: tinyedit, QH.
Windows stuff is mainly file management utilies like 4NT, FCW and Windows Commander. I have also the program Infraview32, and a smattering of useful WinNT reskit stuff.
It's not only useful for fixing up machines, but making machines that you live on more usable.
The trouble with globalisation is that it allows for free movements of goods. While this is not in itself an evil, what is, is the systematic destruction and dependance of local ecconomies on imports, and the killing of local industries in favour of imports.
The reduction of tariffs to allow "free trade", and the "leveling of the playing field", prove on close analysis, to be frauds. Those areas that are close to the rules settled on, and already have the power and culture to move, dominate.
What ultimately happens is that great amounts of power are concentrated into a few hands, for whom there is little or no account.
The fact that all of the major political parties are on the same issue does not, in a democracy, prevent population discontent. Parties like the neo-nazies in Germany, and One-Nation in Australia, listen and play on this discontent.
If the discontent is loud, eg where traditional industries have been "globalised" out, then this translates to rather agressive behaviour, including the rise of radical parties.
Because, with globalisation, we concentrate on the economic issues, and not the strategic or social issues. Strategic issues include what happens when supplies fail to arrive, for example, because of war, a cartel [eg 1973 oil prices], or other tensions.
When all is said and done, we seek to lead rewarding and meaningful lives. Globalisation, and standardisation, to a great extent demeans that. And since economy serves our whole of being, and is not an end to itself, Globalisation must be seen as an evil.
Unfortunately, the documents must be transscribed, which means that we may well miss out on the doodles and other things that gets written with writing.
Consider, for example, the carry dots that some people use to add up numbers. Dots and things like that in the text may well uncover the way that calculations were done.
The reality of Velikovsky's theory suggests that Venus is ejected from Jupiter, and heads inwards and upsets the earth in 1450BC, and then mars, from their orbits. Mars, on its way out, upsets earth again in 687BC.
Velikovsky offers no astronomical calculations or explaninations for this, but advances it as an observer might. Others have dealt with this in the book Velikovsky Reconsidered.
Whether escape velocities come to play in it, and how they might escape jupiter on an inbound orbit, I am not sure. But orbital capture of bodies is not unknown.
As for the others comments, they are essentially true.
I've seen the calculations involved in "Velikovsky Reconsidered". Just because a number has a few more naughts on the end of it, does not make it impossible. Big amounts for energy does not stop random earthquakes.
A third body does the process quite nicely, thank you. But Velikovsky relies on other things, just as astronomers play with "dark matter".
Also, the notion that Jupiter (which is exothermic) might be preducing its own energy might not be dismissed either.
there is NOT a shred of real evidence
Depends on what reality you deal with. Most of the ancient evidence can be interpreted to fit in either theory. The rarer and really old stuff just fit Velikovsky better.
Of course we have ancient records with Venus moving in its current orbit. By Velikovsky, this happened at 1200BC, which is pretty ancient. Velikovsky also relies on ancient records. Well.
Regarding me being a troll. No, as far as I can see, the matter is unsettled, and I am entitled to sit on either side of the fence. The people are saying that the matter is being refuted, but the refute is not being presented to me that I might understand. Since I am advancing a legitimate comment on the parent article, and subsequent articles, I do not see what I am saying is a troll. I am no more a troll than you a microserf [Orthodoxy/M$ is right, everything else is wrong].
If you look at much of what has been said in this thread, you will see that all that has been advanced on Velikovskt is that:
Some astronomers said that he was wrong, this view was based on the two-page article that appeared in Harpers Magazine before the first book appeared.
And because it was not accepted science in 1950, and against the prevailing authodoxy, ergo, he was a crackpot.
The point is that orthodoxy does not have the resources to dismiss all sorts of crank ideas that might arise, but that does not mean that they should not address high profile issues either.
Proof is not lacking in Velikovsky. It's a reading of evidence there, rather than some new find. In fact, from the evidence presneted by him and others, his reconstruction of history makes sense. And therefore, there are big events around 1450BC and 680BC that need to be addressed. Velikovsky looked through a crack and saw a different world. He has warnings for us today.
Notwithstanding, the thing has had a lot of predicitive power: radio noise from Jupiter, Venus is hot enough to burn hydrocarbons, Venus has unusual rotation and very fast winds, Mars has a tilt and day close to that of earth, and other ones in History as well.
Were Velikovsky such a crackpot, then someone sould seriously look at his work objectively and publish some sort of refutation. I have not seen much on this light.
Regarding the comet falling into Jupiter, and Venus coming out of it:
Admitting that things fall out of the sky has nothing to do with science or what is possible, but what it is safe to admit. It was only in the 18th century, when a meteorite was seen to land, that they admitted such things happen. That scientists should admit that "these things happen" when Jupiter was hit by a comet, is not an indication of what is possible, but what the minds are prepared to admit. This in spite of exposure to movies and theories that deal with the Earth being hit. Sounds a bit like the WTC to me.
The fact that we do not understand how a planet might break into two does not stop people advancing theories that the moon came from the earth, and the planets emerging from a giant solar flare.
No, but then again, they do clarify things. Was not Troy (the city) found from the account by Homer, classified as a legend.
While legends are not "hard evidence", they are worth the listen, because they act as sign posts to what *is* hard evidence.
Further, it is fair to treat myths as accounts of powerful and long past events. The Black Sea as Noah's flood is an example. Certianly, these events are not that of some severe riverine flood or whatever.
Just because you don't need them, it does not mean that they don't happen.
Riverine floods do not make it into legends. What does is the sort of thing that may have happen if some major disaster happens.
In fact, the distribution of legends and their original source has been used to locate events. Keys used it to locate his volcano in his book "Castrophe".
Here, the 1974 floods of Brisbane are barely remembered by the locals. It was the worst flood in the century.
The near approaches of Venus to Earth with the consequent slowing of the Earth's rotation violates the law of conservation of angular momentum. Also, the circularisation of Venus' orbit after these transits doesn't jibe with what we know about gravity, tidal effects, etc.
You forget Mars was involved in a show. The matter is dealt with in some detail in "Velikovsky Reconsidered". It does not contridict the laws of physics. It does not voilate the conservation of angular momentum, since these apply only to elastic interactions. We're not dealing this here.
Also, the laws of physics have been used to uncover planets, eg Neptune.
The escape velocity from the Jovian system is very close to the escape velocity of the solar system as a whole.
It would only escape if the radial component was the escape velocity.
Presumably, if a planet-sized body somehow managed to be ejected from Jupiter
Why not. Stranger things have been advanced for the Earth and Moon.
... without being melted...
The earth has a molten core, without danger of falling to bits.
,
it is more likely to go flying off into deep space than settle down into orbit (an orbit, furthermore, with one of the lowest eccentricities of any body in the Solar System) around the Sun.
This problem can be perfectly addressed with a third body. Mars actually tames it, and it is Mars, not Venus, that has a last unstable orbit.
The whole "Venus born of Jupiter's brow" shtick is an over-literal
Just because you can't cope with it, does not mean it didn't happen. It's called denial.
Also, the circularisation of Venus' orbit after these transits doesn't jibe with what we know about gravity, tidal effects, etc
But what we knew in the 1950's has been shattered by what we found out by going there. I mean, the idea that things can fall from the sky was not taken seriously until seen.
The interesting thing with your URL is that the first review says "Use with caution".
So a refutions from people who have difficulty thinking that things can fall from the sky should not be taken seriously.
If he had ever, ever admitted to being wrong just once, I'm sure people would have lightened up a bit.
I wonder what you mean by "wrong". The underlying facts have many interpretitations. One can be wrong because the interpretations contridict each other, or wrong because they contradict the accepted orthodoxy.
None less than Gauss struggled with hyperbolic geometry because it was "wrong" with the accepted orthodoxy of Euclidean geometry, but not "wrong" for being internally inconsistant.
The "crackpot" stuff is made by people who struggle with the concept of reality vs actuality, or fact from theory.
Or prehaps you should. My proposition was that ancient legends and traditions, ie people, repeat events that were shaped by extraordinary events. Velikovsky deduced these to be Venus and Mars.
But it is against logic
Logic is based on rules. Maybe your rules and assumptions are wrong. Fundementalists can argye from the logic that the Bible is true, because it says so, and if it is not in the Bible, it's not true or logical.
You seem to have touble letting go of outmoded things (OS2, Velikovsky).
Why reinvent the wheel. OS/2 was on the right track all those years ago. Velikovsky is still valid as a scientific explination of what happened.
Hmm - I see that Unix is 30 years old. Linux tries to be like Unix - now, who'se outmoded. Or do you like the new version of Windows because M$ told you it was written this year from scratch.
Nearly a quarter of a century later, after a special session devoted to his theory was organized by Carl Sagan at the 1974 AAAS meeting, Velikovsky boasted, despite all the errors and mistakes that experts had identified in his book, that "my Worlds in Collision as well as Earth in Upheaval do not require any revisions, whereas all books on terestrial and celestial science of 1950 need complete rewriting... and nobody can change a single sentence in my books." Unwillingness to submit to peer review and inability to admit error are the antitheses of good science.
The event was discussed at length in "Velikovsky Reconsidered". Aparently, the scientists did not have the decisive time you seem to think.
It's interesting that there are altenative ideas, such as Velikovsky was right, and that his is not the only one with errors.
Not to consider reasonably presented alternatives is the antithesis of science, but not of religion. Consider Mary Madgley's Science as Religion, which deals with authodoxy inertia in science.
Check out the book Eden in the East which deals with the submersion of the sundra peninsula, and the formation of the islands of Java, Borneo and Samatra.
Could it be possible that os/2 (the poster) is stupid? Nah...
Could it be that she prefers variety in science and has an open mind.
Um, no. He is pointing out that while sometimes people with really good ideas are rejected for a while, rejection does not imply that your idea was good.
What you're doing is called "Guilt by association". This means, you dress him up in straw, and call him a straw man. Does nothing for your case. Um, you're awfully silent on what the astronomers had to say when the comet fell into Jupiter: "Yes, these things do happen."
You have a very tenuos grasp on elementry logic.
Logic is an organised way of going wrong with confidence. Much of the occult is logical. Unfortunately, they, and you, forget to check back with reality.
Is that simple enough or do you want it in even shorter words?
Ideally, we would like you to address why the theory is fundementally wrong, rather than attack the character of Velikovsky.
A crater is not proof that Venus went AWOL from the laws of physics. You have a very tenuos grasp on elementry logic.
The laws of physics do not change, but we do not know them all. Sometimes, the models we use fail us, as in the case of magnetic charge, the plum pudding model of atoms, "everything is made of hydrogen", etc. These were only rejected after the hard evidence was shoved under the nose.
Right - that's why the recent 0S/2 kernel and GUI developments
There are a number of OS/2 kernel developments this year. The OS/2 WPS is very flexable, and I have seen calls for it to be ported to Linux. Of course there are improvements to be made, but there are shareware programs that do this already.
The real reason why McMillan did not publish Worlds in Collision, was not because of an unfavourable review, but because of a threatened boycott of their text-book department.
What is your proof that Venus and Mars moved in the way that you discribe. I mean, when Keys in Casthrophe said a big volcano devastated the ancient world in 535AD, there was not even a whimper of protest. In fact, this is held to be good deductive science.
Velikovsky did not pick the planets because they might make the legend more interesting: he picked them because that's what the sources told him. It's not for nothing that that the movements of Venus are tracked to this day by the Mayan natives, or that the olympics are held every four years [2 1/2 the syndonic periods of Venus].
No, you have no evidence of the continuity of the planets in the past, and so therefore you can not emphatically dismiss Velikovsky on that count.
I mean, the big reaction to the comet falling into Jupiter is "Ghee, these things can happen". And that was long after the space age started.
Vekikovsky was a clinical psychologist. These people can glark the true cause of events from a person's behaviour and descriptions. The arguement presneted by Velikovsky is as closely argued, and as well presented, as any of the alternatives. It has predictive power, and the outcomes described are a likely outcomes of what goes in.
Like Freud before him, Velikovsky applied his knowledge to the past legends. But unlike Freud, he saw there, evidence of traumatic reaction to a massive event. He was able to deduce the nature sufficiently to see what it may have been.
He then checked the history, to see if it reflected his discovery. But in doing so, he needed to drag bits of it around, so that Egyptian phoarohs exist in Jewish history, and so on, and account for this. This is the main topic of the books Ages in Chaos.
Because the then current Geology and Astronomy did not support chastrophism, he needed to address those issues. These were dealt with in the books Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheavel. The latter does not attribute any particular geological event to either Mars or Venus, but emphisise that the steady state currently observed suggests a young age of the described events.
Velikovsky did not explore the numbers needed to make planets move in the way that they do, but other people have, some of these are described in the book Velikovsky Reconsidered.
Also, the ability to predict an existing but unknown state is a valid scientific result: Chemistry and Computer Science have no future-looking crystal ball powers, but predict outcomes given certian inputs. Were Venus involved as Velikovsky, it should be hot. Indicators at the time said it was not, while recent probes made the orthodoxy, but not Velikovsky, rethink their claims.
Velikovsky presents valid science.
Prehaps you ought hunt down Mary Midgley's Science as Religion, or Velikovsky's Mandkind in Amnesia, which does look into the future.
The reason why Velikovsky is not accepted is the same that Copernicus's theory was not. Not that it was against logic, but against the organisation. It took a comet tumbling onto Jupiter for some astromoners to accept that this happens. They could not understand the notion as a proposition advanced in a book. So why would they not attack something seen as absurd as the sky is falling.
The thing is that an event of this order of magnitude is not dealt with objectively, but rather as a religious experience.
In the first few years after WW1, the passage of 11am on 11 Nov was observed with a silence that stopped the trains. An event that upsets the whole of one's society is likely to be recalled through a range of changed cultural behaviour, such as ceronomies, unlucky numbers (eg 13), and days (eg Fri), building house on tops of stilts or hills, and other events that indirectly suggest a echo of a disturbed past. This is what Velikovsky studied.
Slashdot Mirror
And this choice was made by the market, not by some monopoly.
In the end, you see a high level of standardisation going on, whether or not this is driven by regulation or a monopoly. Even refills for Parker pens are now a standard product that fits a range of pens.
M$ may have hastened the adoption of a standard, and that may have become entrenched, but in the long run, their incessant desire to keep fiddling with it may be their undoing. OS/2 and Linux do quite nicely because their APIs are very stable and established. [Shell scripts in OS/2 2.0 still run under the latest version, 10 years later.]
What may also force the issue is the tieing of multiple parts together. One can not use POP3 to clients other than OutLook, yet this has many serious bugs. This, and the restraint of trade it imposes, may do MS more damage.
For a product that failed to make an inpact on the market, Bob has a supprisingly large number of entries in Microsoft's Technet. Despite Bob being gone, its annoyances and bugs soldier on through Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Office and ultimately, Windows XP.
Firstly the sound themes are already present in BOB. So is the annoybot that ultimately becomes clippit. Then there are the sound schemes. And cab files. But there are prehaps a lot of technical features that ultimately appeared in Win95, the P!us pack, and later.
When you want to annoy the hell out of some MSCE or Microserf, you tell them that Windows NT is Microsoft Bob on top of a bloated WinOS2 shell running on top of 16-bit OS/2 1.3
This explains the extensive entries for both MS OS/2 [in both Technet and WinNT/2K help], and Bob. It's a handy place to hide surplus bugs. :)
There's a freeware ramdisk that you can load from the command prompt that allows you to set the drive letter.
For DOS games, go for Civ1, which fits into 3 megs.
It consists of a smattering of DOS, Windows and OS/2 stuff, along with some of my favourite bitmaps.
The DOS stuff is either third-party, or from PCDOS 7.0 (these run under most versions of DOS). Some MSDOS stuff is there: qbasic.exe, edit.com and scandisk from Win95.
I have a little 10K utility for making boot disks for most versions of DOS and Win9X. In the redraft, I plan to make bootable diskettes in ram, and copy these to blank disks.
OS/2 stuff is selected so that it can run under NT as well: tinyedit, QH.
Windows stuff is mainly file management utilies like 4NT, FCW and Windows Commander. I have also the program Infraview32, and a smattering of useful WinNT reskit stuff.
It's not only useful for fixing up machines, but making machines that you live on more usable.
The reduction of tariffs to allow "free trade", and the "leveling of the playing field", prove on close analysis, to be frauds. Those areas that are close to the rules settled on, and already have the power and culture to move, dominate.
What ultimately happens is that great amounts of power are concentrated into a few hands, for whom there is little or no account.
The fact that all of the major political parties are on the same issue does not, in a democracy, prevent population discontent. Parties like the neo-nazies in Germany, and One-Nation in Australia, listen and play on this discontent.
If the discontent is loud, eg where traditional industries have been "globalised" out, then this translates to rather agressive behaviour, including the rise of radical parties.
Because, with globalisation, we concentrate on the economic issues, and not the strategic or social issues. Strategic issues include what happens when supplies fail to arrive, for example, because of war, a cartel [eg 1973 oil prices], or other tensions.
When all is said and done, we seek to lead rewarding and meaningful lives. Globalisation, and standardisation, to a great extent demeans that. And since economy serves our whole of being, and is not an end to itself, Globalisation must be seen as an evil.
Yes, it is truly wonderful. It runs very fast on a 486, much better than Windows NT4 (I should know), and its command line is much more powerful.
And besides, it adds variety .....
Consider, for example, the carry dots that some people use to add up numbers. Dots and things like that in the text may well uncover the way that calculations were done.
Velikovsky offers no astronomical calculations or explaninations for this, but advances it as an observer might. Others have dealt with this in the book Velikovsky Reconsidered.
Whether escape velocities come to play in it, and how they might escape jupiter on an inbound orbit, I am not sure. But orbital capture of bodies is not unknown.
As for the others comments, they are essentially true.
Wonder how long it will be before someone finds something interesting here, and how long it will take to "doctor" it?
Alternately, how long will it take for someone to fake something.
A third body does the process quite nicely, thank you. But Velikovsky relies on other things, just as astronomers play with "dark matter".
Also, the notion that Jupiter (which is exothermic) might be preducing its own energy might not be dismissed either.
there is NOT a shred of real evidence
Depends on what reality you deal with. Most of the ancient evidence can be interpreted to fit in either theory. The rarer and really old stuff just fit Velikovsky better.
Of course we have ancient records with Venus moving in its current orbit. By Velikovsky, this happened at 1200BC, which is pretty ancient. Velikovsky also relies on ancient records. Well.
If you look at much of what has been said in this thread, you will see that all that has been advanced on Velikovskt is that:
- Some astronomers said that he was wrong, this view was based on the two-page article that appeared in Harpers Magazine before the first book appeared.
- And because it was not accepted science in 1950, and against the prevailing authodoxy, ergo, he was a crackpot.
The point is that orthodoxy does not have the resources to dismiss all sorts of crank ideas that might arise, but that does not mean that they should not address high profile issues either.Proof is not lacking in Velikovsky. It's a reading of evidence there, rather than some new find. In fact, from the evidence presneted by him and others, his reconstruction of history makes sense. And therefore, there are big events around 1450BC and 680BC that need to be addressed. Velikovsky looked through a crack and saw a different world. He has warnings for us today.
Notwithstanding, the thing has had a lot of predicitive power: radio noise from Jupiter, Venus is hot enough to burn hydrocarbons, Venus has unusual rotation and very fast winds, Mars has a tilt and day close to that of earth, and other ones in History as well.
Were Velikovsky such a crackpot, then someone sould seriously look at his work objectively and publish some sort of refutation. I have not seen much on this light.
Regarding the comet falling into Jupiter, and Venus coming out of it:
While legends are not "hard evidence", they are worth the listen, because they act as sign posts to what *is* hard evidence.
Further, it is fair to treat myths as accounts of powerful and long past events. The Black Sea as Noah's flood is an example. Certianly, these events are not that of some severe riverine flood or whatever.
Riverine floods do not make it into legends. What does is the sort of thing that may have happen if some major disaster happens.
In fact, the distribution of legends and their original source has been used to locate events. Keys used it to locate his volcano in his book "Castrophe".
Here, the 1974 floods of Brisbane are barely remembered by the locals. It was the worst flood in the century.
You forget Mars was involved in a show. The matter is dealt with in some detail in "Velikovsky Reconsidered". It does not contridict the laws of physics. It does not voilate the conservation of angular momentum, since these apply only to elastic interactions. We're not dealing this here.
Also, the laws of physics have been used to uncover planets, eg Neptune.
The escape velocity from the Jovian system is very close to the escape velocity of the solar system as a whole.
It would only escape if the radial component was the escape velocity.
Presumably, if a planet-sized body somehow managed to be ejected from Jupiter
Why not. Stranger things have been advanced for the Earth and Moon.
The earth has a molten core, without danger of falling to bits.
, it is more likely to go flying off into deep space than settle down into orbit (an orbit, furthermore, with one of the lowest eccentricities of any body in the Solar System) around the Sun.
This problem can be perfectly addressed with a third body. Mars actually tames it, and it is Mars, not Venus, that has a last unstable orbit.
The whole "Venus born of Jupiter's brow" shtick is an over-literal
Just because you can't cope with it, does not mean it didn't happen. It's called denial.
Also, the circularisation of Venus' orbit after these transits doesn't jibe with what we know about gravity, tidal effects, etc
But what we knew in the 1950's has been shattered by what we found out by going there. I mean, the idea that things can fall from the sky was not taken seriously until seen.
The interesting thing with your URL is that the first review says "Use with caution".
So a refutions from people who have difficulty thinking that things can fall from the sky should not be taken seriously.
I wonder what you mean by "wrong". The underlying facts have many interpretitations. One can be wrong because the interpretations contridict each other, or wrong because they contradict the accepted orthodoxy.
None less than Gauss struggled with hyperbolic geometry because it was "wrong" with the accepted orthodoxy of Euclidean geometry, but not "wrong" for being internally inconsistant.
The "crackpot" stuff is made by people who struggle with the concept of reality vs actuality, or fact from theory.
Or prehaps you should. My proposition was that ancient legends and traditions, ie people, repeat events that were shaped by extraordinary events. Velikovsky deduced these to be Venus and Mars.
But it is against logic
Logic is based on rules. Maybe your rules and assumptions are wrong. Fundementalists can argye from the logic that the Bible is true, because it says so, and if it is not in the Bible, it's not true or logical.
You seem to have touble letting go of outmoded things (OS2, Velikovsky).
Why reinvent the wheel. OS/2 was on the right track all those years ago. Velikovsky is still valid as a scientific explination of what happened.
Hmm - I see that Unix is 30 years old. Linux tries to be like Unix - now, who'se outmoded. Or do you like the new version of Windows because M$ told you it was written this year from scratch.
The event was discussed at length in "Velikovsky Reconsidered". Aparently, the scientists did not have the decisive time you seem to think.
It's interesting that there are altenative ideas, such as Velikovsky was right, and that his is not the only one with errors.
Not to consider reasonably presented alternatives is the antithesis of science, but not of religion. Consider Mary Madgley's Science as Religion, which deals with authodoxy inertia in science.
Check out the book Eden in the East which deals with the submersion of the sundra peninsula, and the formation of the islands of Java, Borneo and Samatra.
g/MSCEs/r//scientists/g /r// Scientist /g
g/ MS
g/technology/r//theories/g
w
q
The original olympics were held every eight years, but this was halved to four years. The modern games revive the later tradition.
Could it be that she prefers variety in science and has an open mind.
Um, no. He is pointing out that while sometimes people with really good ideas are rejected for a while, rejection does not imply that your idea was good.
What you're doing is called "Guilt by association". This means, you dress him up in straw, and call him a straw man. Does nothing for your case. Um, you're awfully silent on what the astronomers had to say when the comet fell into Jupiter: "Yes, these things do happen."
You have a very tenuos grasp on elementry logic.
Logic is an organised way of going wrong with confidence. Much of the occult is logical. Unfortunately, they, and you, forget to check back with reality.
Is that simple enough or do you want it in even shorter words?
Ideally, we would like you to address why the theory is fundementally wrong, rather than attack the character of Velikovsky.
A crater is not proof that Venus went AWOL from the laws of physics. You have a very tenuos grasp on elementry logic.
The laws of physics do not change, but we do not know them all. Sometimes, the models we use fail us, as in the case of magnetic charge, the plum pudding model of atoms, "everything is made of hydrogen", etc. These were only rejected after the hard evidence was shoved under the nose.
Right - that's why the recent 0S/2 kernel and GUI developments
There are a number of OS/2 kernel developments this year. The OS/2 WPS is very flexable, and I have seen calls for it to be ported to Linux. Of course there are improvements to be made, but there are shareware programs that do this already.
Sounds awfully like what MS did to OS/2 to me.
Velikovsky did not pick the planets because they might make the legend more interesting: he picked them because that's what the sources told him. It's not for nothing that that the movements of Venus are tracked to this day by the Mayan natives, or that the olympics are held every four years [2 1/2 the syndonic periods of Venus].
No, you have no evidence of the continuity of the planets in the past, and so therefore you can not emphatically dismiss Velikovsky on that count.
I mean, the big reaction to the comet falling into Jupiter is "Ghee, these things can happen". And that was long after the space age started.
Like Freud before him, Velikovsky applied his knowledge to the past legends. But unlike Freud, he saw there, evidence of traumatic reaction to a massive event. He was able to deduce the nature sufficiently to see what it may have been.
He then checked the history, to see if it reflected his discovery. But in doing so, he needed to drag bits of it around, so that Egyptian phoarohs exist in Jewish history, and so on, and account for this. This is the main topic of the books Ages in Chaos.
Because the then current Geology and Astronomy did not support chastrophism, he needed to address those issues. These were dealt with in the books Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheavel. The latter does not attribute any particular geological event to either Mars or Venus, but emphisise that the steady state currently observed suggests a young age of the described events.
Velikovsky did not explore the numbers needed to make planets move in the way that they do, but other people have, some of these are described in the book Velikovsky Reconsidered. Also, the ability to predict an existing but unknown state is a valid scientific result: Chemistry and Computer Science have no future-looking crystal ball powers, but predict outcomes given certian inputs. Were Venus involved as Velikovsky, it should be hot. Indicators at the time said it was not, while recent probes made the orthodoxy, but not Velikovsky, rethink their claims.
Velikovsky presents valid science.
Prehaps you ought hunt down Mary Midgley's Science as Religion, or Velikovsky's Mandkind in Amnesia, which does look into the future.
The reason why Velikovsky is not accepted is the same that Copernicus's theory was not. Not that it was against logic, but against the organisation. It took a comet tumbling onto Jupiter for some astromoners to accept that this happens. They could not understand the notion as a proposition advanced in a book. So why would they not attack something seen as absurd as the sky is falling.
The thing is that an event of this order of magnitude is not dealt with objectively, but rather as a religious experience.
In the first few years after WW1, the passage of 11am on 11 Nov was observed with a silence that stopped the trains. An event that upsets the whole of one's society is likely to be recalled through a range of changed cultural behaviour, such as ceronomies, unlucky numbers (eg 13), and days (eg Fri), building house on tops of stilts or hills, and other events that indirectly suggest a echo of a disturbed past. This is what Velikovsky studied.