> No, he wasn't trying to solve a problem at all.
> Just try to use sciency sounding words to convince
> people without a science background that he could
> be right.
Velikovsky tried to connect reported celestial observations of ancient cultures with our more detailed observations of astronomy as he understood both, and produced unique alternative interpretations of both that were credible foundational ideas to many nonspecialists and specialists alike in his time. Looked at in great detail, these Velikovskian ideas fell apart--both for ancient cultures and the astronomy of his time.
> It doesn't explain why you accept it
> wholeheartedly, nor does it explain why you've put
> this thread in the science forum, when there's in
> fact, no science in it.
Laird has taken it upon himself to act as a sort of Velikovskian devil's advocate, showing in this thread that some of Velikovsky's interpretations of the formation of Venus may be closer to modern emerging knowledge than classical interpretations based on very simplified models of the foundation of our solar system of that era.
I don't see anything wrong with that.