Laird Scranton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
>
> 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??