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).
laughin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> the current "comet models", i.e., fluffy snowball,
> dirty snowball, snowy dirtball, icy wanderer,
> etc,
> were created to invalidate Velikovsky
>
> while this doesn't "validate" Velikovsky,
> it removes a lot of the "scientific" reasons
> why he was deemed incorrect
And who exactly created them to invalidate Velikovsky?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>Quote
OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Starbinder Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > At some point maybe they'll start looking at
> > alt
> > > hypothesis in lieu of the never-ending
> > surprises.
> > > The standard Solar System formation models
> are
> > > pretty well shot of late.
> > >
> > > “We weren’t really expecting to detect O2
> > at
> > > the comet – and in such high abundance –
> > > because it is so chemically reactive, so it
> was
> > > quite a surprise,” says Kathrin Altwegg of
> > the
> > > University of Bern, and principal
> investigator
> > of
> > > the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and
> > > Neutral Analysis instrument, ROSINA.
> > >
> > > “It’s also unanticipated because there
> > > aren’t very many examples of the detection
> of
> > > interstellar O2. And thus, even though it
> > must
> > > have been incorporated into the comet
> > during
> > > its formation, this is not so easily
> > explained
> > > by current Solar System formation
> > models.”
> >
> >
> > How does any of this validate
> Velikovsky?
>
> the current "comet models", i.e., fluffy snowball,
> dirty snowball, snowy dirtball, icy wanderer,
> etc,
> were created to invalidate Velikovsky
>
> while this doesn't "validate" Velikovsky,
> it removes a lot of the "scientific" reasons
> why he was deemed incorrect
And who exactly created them to invalidate Velikovsky?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.