Certain issues that relate to Velikovsky's Venus scenario have been tested through computer modeling: University of Peking studies to explain the size and temperature of Jupiter's core, and Caltech studies to explain crustal damage we see on Mar. In each case, hundreds of scenarios were run, and the preferred scenario in each case falls in Velikovsky's ballpark.
A pre-requisite to any new testing directly related to Velikovsky calls for a shift in outlook. The 65-year history of examination of his work has seen far more effort put into denying that his outlook possibly could be true than into exploring whether it could be true.
In my view, a re-adjusted outlook would acknowledge that current theory overlaps increasingly with Velikovsky's outlook, and so should move it out of the realm of a lunatic's ravings and into the realm of a theory to be carefully considered. Likewise, it would agree that no currently-known fact about Venus precludes the possibility that it is a geologically young body.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-Nov-15 14:45 by Laird Scranton.