The reason is that the competing theories fit very well into the whole of physics, wheras, for the points at which Velikovski was correct, requires something that cannot be fully explained by physics, and may not be possible with current physical models.

Velikovski's arguments may have been aprreciated at the time, but soon attracted hostilities. However, 50 years of physics has resulted in a far better understanding of the solar system. I do think that at the time Velikovski's ideas were treated unfairly, and that they should not have been attacked as venomously as they were.

It has been a while since I read Velikovski. Can anyone list all the predictions that Velikovski's theory states to do with physical parameters of the planets of the solar system. For complete honesty, could this list include all predictions, for those that are good (like the partial list above), and for those that are bad (not obseverved to be true), and also for those that are still to be determined.

If such a list appears, I will try and put together some arguments, based on the current understanding of the solar system, to each point. We can then compare the validity of the arguments of Velikovski. For example, it is entirely possible for one to be correct about observed phenomena, but for entirely the wrong reasons. I think that in the case of Velikovski, this last sentence applies.

Certainly this would be a large scale project, and I dont expect a definitive list straight of the bat. I will have to hunt out my copy of Worlds in Collision and give it a fresh read. This might even make a good Forum article. It would be nice to have a fresh take on both sides of the argument. It has been 58 years since the books first publication.

Jonny