Science & Space :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board).

Laird Scranton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> O Captain wrote:

>

>

>

> I'm sure you understand that Velikovsky was making

> qualitative arguments, not quantitative ones,

> which is one reason why they didn't lend

> themselves well to chemistry. Einstein also

> pointed out that his own essential work was

> qualitative - inferring from straightforward

> observations what the likely truth of a concept

> would be.

>

> As an example in Velikovsky's case, the simple

> cause-and-effect observations that if Venus were a

> young body, it would likely be hot, have a

> pristine surface, and a rotation anomalous to the

> other planets, all of which proved to be true. One

> official outlook, preferred over Velikovsky's, is

> that Venus has been "globally resurfaced by

> unknown forces." Not much math in that one.

>

> - Laird

And yet, plenty of math in old Einstein's writings.

So, Velikovsky couldn't be bothered to do the math? Or you can't be bothered to find his evidence??

-------------------------------------------------------

> O Captain wrote:

>

>

*Alright, but both the examples you gave*

> eventually showed the math behind their

> observations. Where did Velikovsky show the math

> that explains his observations?> eventually showed the math behind their

> observations. Where did Velikovsky show the math

> that explains his observations?

>

> I'm sure you understand that Velikovsky was making

> qualitative arguments, not quantitative ones,

> which is one reason why they didn't lend

> themselves well to chemistry. Einstein also

> pointed out that his own essential work was

> qualitative - inferring from straightforward

> observations what the likely truth of a concept

> would be.

>

> As an example in Velikovsky's case, the simple

> cause-and-effect observations that if Venus were a

> young body, it would likely be hot, have a

> pristine surface, and a rotation anomalous to the

> other planets, all of which proved to be true. One

> official outlook, preferred over Velikovsky's, is

> that Venus has been "globally resurfaced by

> unknown forces." Not much math in that one.

>

> - Laird

And yet, plenty of math in old Einstein's writings.

So, Velikovsky couldn't be bothered to do the math? Or you can't be bothered to find his evidence??

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.