Talk:Worlds in Collision

to do
I have been preparing some of this, mainly references and slight expansions. I'll try to include what I have so far tomorrow. Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help so far in this article. I think that this has the potential to become at least a good article with some effort. The section probably needing the most expansion is the 'core ideas' one - it has to be a comprehensive summary of the book unlike the (rather unsatisfactory) current version. Sheehan (Talk) 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Without wanting to be overly harsh, the article is a bit rubbish at the moment. It keeps concentrating on astronomy aspects. There is very little astronomy in WinC (certainly nothing about radio noises of Jupiter, etc). WinC is primarily a book on *comparative mythology*. The article needs more stuff about that aspect. In particular, it should probably mention that V's entire identification of his celestial agent as Venus rests on the use of Rockenbach's De Cometis, which is extremely dubious. All this waffle about astronomical aspects is somewhat irrelevant.--feline1 07:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The main tenant of Worlds In Collision is that its compares a whole series of unrelated data, and proposes a theory to tie that data together. Once the core mechanics of a theory is proved to be rubbish then the theory is rubbish. So the "astronomy aspects" is highly relevant since it is the smoking gun that shoots the theory down. Halfblue 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The data is only unrelated if it is assumed a priori to be unconnected. I can't see anything in the article that suggests that the astronomy was rubbish, but you are absolutely right that the astronomy is relevant, as is the ancient history which should be subjected to the same scrutiny. --Iantresman 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Halfblue, with respect, your grasp of epistemology is somewhat weak :) If the orginal data can be easily demonstrated to be shakey, then there is no need to expend effort on showing difficulties with the rammifications. For instance, if I told you I saw pigs flying, there would be little point in you conducting a lengthy feasibility study on porcine aerodynamics, if instead you could simply note that I did not actually have any eyes, and thus could not have seen any flying pigs in the first place. Of course, a die-hard Velikovskian may retort that I lost my eyes in the first place due to a collision with an air-bourne boar, but them's the breaks...--feline1 09:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A detailed dissection of the “astronomy” of Velikovsky's theory is perfectly reasonable - given how "avid" his fans are. And a failure to grasp the epistemology of the situation would be to go into the *comparative mythology* in the book... since the whole thing fell flat at the astronomy level. Does this article and its parent article Immanuel Velikovsky have problems? Sure does. Both of them suffer from server Undue weight i.e they give a lot of paragraph space to a minority viewpoint. And they suffer from server "spin". For example the opening of "Critical reaction and controversy" reads:

First paragraph "Velikovsky was persecuted - without reason"

Second paragraph "Why didn't astronomers complain earlier?"

Third paragraph "Astronomers persecuted Velikovsky and banned him"

This is the old "If Velikovsky ideas are BS how come Shapley et-al persecuted him?" An augment that a) builds up the "persecution" to a bigger deal than it was (we are talking about a publisher boycott - not "the stake") and b) fails to take in to account the fact that pseudoscience was not the mainstream phenomenon that it is today, and Harlow Shapley's reaction was (and is) the normal one a thinking person would have to pseudoscience. Halfblue 13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "And a failure to grasp the epistemology of the situation would be to go into the *comparative mythology* in the book... "... well, you're entitled to your opinion - but I assure you, it is completely bass ackwards. There is precious little astronomy in "WinC" to critique, if any. You have actually read it, right?--feline1 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well ... and the Titanic was perfectly sound ship except for a few pesky little holes in it. Actually one needs not read any of "Worlds in Collision" to judge a Wikipedia article on it since it is possible to recognize the tactics of an "advocate" in this and many other subjects. NPOV violations are easy to spot especially when they are this blatant. But I will say I am well versed in Velikovsky, his theories, his fans, and his detractors, and for that mater common tactics used to support a pseudoscience. Velikovsky main attributes were that he was a good writer and a damn good public speaker (he spoke many times here in Philly), but the yarns he spun are mostly that... yarns... and should be recognized as such. That is not to say he was not a nice guy and his tactic of taking a shotgun to history didn't score some hits. But random chance is not a proof that he was right... as this article seems to imply. Halfblue 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not some Velikovsky apologist myself! Neither do I think this "WinC" article is currently very good (although I have done a lot of work on the main Immanuel Velikovsky article). You don't need to have read WinC to spot POV language, no... but that's not quite the point I was making. I'm saying that the thesis can be dismantled on its comparative mythology & use of sources long before there's any need to bother with trying to calculate a way to circularize Venus' orbit whilst maintaining conservation of angular momentum etc etc (e.g. because V's reasoning as identifying *Venus* as his agent of destruction is actually very weak - he simply harps on about it so much that critics tend to take it as given). Kinda like when someone is convinced their television is broken but actually, just the batteries in the remote are flat. --feline1 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"advocate" refers to (who ever) has been editing these article - not you in particular. But you do state that you are "sympathetic to Velikovsky's ideas" but I am not going to get into the motives of somebody i don't know. The Immanuel Velikovsky article is as bad or worse than this on the basis of POV --- for example the "Criticism" section starts with a rebuttal of the Criticism! That is nothing but POV. And the "proofs" (Venus and Jupiter) are basically the nonsense you see all over the net, i.e. IV proposed a whole series of fantastical physical "happenings" all of which would leave evidence and the "proofs" section cherry pics the few coincidental matches. Such "fuzzy logic" should probably be left out of what is supposed to be a natural assessment of IV's life and work. I can see how both these articles have become a battleground where the Velikovskians (who ever they may be) go to battle for "their guy" and it may be a way of life on a wiki... adding neutrality may be one of my lazy evening hobbies one of these days but if you are dedicated to that as well you may want to re-read these articles. Halfblue 14:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with presenting a point of view, as long as it is presented neutrally, AND, has reliable sources. I can find you citations claiming that "critics demomolished Velikovsky", and "Velikosky rebutted his critics". I need to accept either viewpoints myself, but it represents the views accurate, neutrally and reliably. --Iantresman 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--->Fairness of tone Halfblue 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Stephen J. Gould's quote? It seems quite balanced to me, verifiable, and definitely a criticism. --Iantresman 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Doubts whether many scientists even read Velikovsky
Jefffire, the text reads:
 * "Although some express doubts whether many scientists even read Velikovsky"

I added the citation:
 * For example, "On May 25, 1950, [McMillan book president] Brett showed Velikovsky a letter from Michigan astronomer Dean B. McLaughlin, who insisted Velikovsky's book was nothing but lies. On the same page Mclaughlin averred he had not read and never would read the book.", Ralph E. Juergens, "Minds in Chaos" in The Velikovsky Affair (1966), Edited by Alfred de Grazia

Can you explain why this is "taken out of context"? Does the text not confirm that astronomer Dean B. McLaughlin did not indeed read the book? --Iantresman 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Velikovsky distributed copies of his work to several astronomers before the book was published. Astronomers knew what was going to be in the book before it came out.  This is in the Velikovsky Affair Beyond Velikovsky.  I'll try to look up the exact reference sometime.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * McLaughlin said he "never would read the book", and the link above is indeed, to The Velikovsky Affair. I don't think we can speculate that astronomers knew what was in the book beforehand, except in the broadest of terms. Certainly we can't quantify how many scientists did not read the book, nor how many were aware of it (though as a New York Times best seller, I would have expected most scientists to be aware of it, though again, it is not quantifiable). --Iantresman 17:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just this second realized the ambiguity here:
 * That many scientists didn't read the book (perhaps because they didn't care, or want to)
 * That many scientists didn't read the book (and commented on it anyway)
 * I read the latter because the preceding sentence mentioned that "the theory was summarily rejected" .. even by scientists who had not read the book! --Iantresman 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of his most vocal critics are known to have gotten copies of the material before publication. To say that they criticized the book without reading it is improperly implying that they didn't know what was in the book, where in fact they did know what was in it.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The source says that Mclaughlin both criticised the book (he says it contained lies) and says he never read it, and had no intention of reading it. Of course it's possible that someone told him it contained lies, but I don't have a source to confirm that. It's also possible he read the manuscript before it was published, and is distinguishing between the manuscript and the book, but we are speculating. --Iantresman 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bubba, which "some of his most vocal critics" had you in mind? The only single one I can think of is Harlow Shapley, who had read the "Cosmos Without Gravitation" pamphlet (*not* Worlds in Collision).--feline1 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Shapley was one, and another one was Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, also at Harvard. She had read the article in Harper's about it before the book came out.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on, pull the other one - Shapley whipped up everyone in his own department at Harvard to tear Velikovsky to shreds (and then started on the rest of the country!). He asked Gaposchkin to write a hatchet job. It had nothing to to with her having independently read the promo-piece in Harpers and reacting to it. --feline1 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comyns Beaumont influence
What about the link to Comyns Beaumont? -Eep² 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant and Outdated References
I agree with AuntEntropy that the references to Hale and Alfvén are irrelevant to support for Velikovsky since the Hale is outdated and the Alfvén irrelevant since it ignores the fundamental difference between the behavior of massive bodies such as planets and charged particles. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of Wikkidd, while it is true that electromagnetism exists in space, the relevant point here is that it does NOT sensibly affect the motion of massive bodies such as planets which concerned Velikovsky, as opposed to charged particles whose motion in space is irrelevant to the issues relating to the problems of Worlds in Collision. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's the Hebrew and or Bible stories
Most of the criticism is based on current science. Is this current science believeable? Some would argue for and some would argue against. What makes Immanuel's work believeable is the direct quotes from the bible. What Immanuael is writing about is what happened in that part of the world as per the Old and New Testament Bible's and all the people involved. So in my opinion, what the current scientists criticize about Immanuel's writings is invalid. Immanuel does provide some of his scientific ideologies and states that. My question to the current scientist's ---they did not live during that time period and if some scientists didwhere are those records and or teachines?

Immanuel has helped the general public in understanding the many stories and events that took place in the Hebrew Bible and or Old/New Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.148.18 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with Velikovsky's ideas in Worlds in Collision is not the physics/science implied, but simply the fact that there is no physical evidence on Earth supporting his story. Velikovsky claimed that a close passage of Venus past Earth ca. 3500 years ago dumped so much debris in our upper atmosphere that it caused 40 years of darkness at the time of Exodus. There is no sign of this extra-terrestrial debris from Venus anywhere on Earth: not in the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica or any other glacier provenance in such as Tibet and Peru, the ocean bottoms, or even the Sea of Galilee.  Furthermore, for Venus to transfer its atmosphere to Earth would require a passage so close, as Phil Plait explains in his BAD Astronomy, that the Moon would have been lost; but it is still here in its almost circular orbit which indicates it has not been disturbed in a very, very long time. If Velikovsky's version of events cannot be trusted on so crucial a biblical episode as what happened at Exodus, then what else would?  Whatever validity there might be for Earth's having interacted with extra-terrestrial agents during Velikovsky's time frame, those events would better be interpreted in the context of the model developed by British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier and their co-workers since 1979, along with supportive material by tree ring expert Mike Baillie--see esp. his chapter on Velikovsky in Exodus to Arthur (1999), involving Earth's energetic, episodic interaction with Comet Encke and its Taurid meteor streams, all during the Holocene, i.e., the past 10,000 years or so. Whereas Velikovsky claimed that Earth has been free from extra-terrestrial cataclysms since the last interaction with Mars in 687 B.C., Baillie (with co-author Patrick McCafferty) has shown in The Celtic Gods: Comets in Irish Mythology (2005) that the Taurid-Encke complex was responsible for a global climate crisis in the 6th century A.D. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes no sense in the English language
Macmillan's interest in publishing it was encouraged by the knowledge that Velikovsky had obtained a promise from Gordon Atwater, Director of the Hayden Planetarium, for a sky show based on the book when it was published.[2] The book, Velikovsky's most criticized and controversial, was an instant New York Times bestseller, topping the charts for eleven weeks while being in the top ten for twenty-seven straight weeks

who wrote this ? it need to be debabelised and turned into english language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.129.10.184 (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like English to me. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

social & popular legacy?
While I find the article to present clear and cogent criticism, the popularity of the book is unfairly given short shrift. The fact remains that people do continue to take it at face value (albeit not so many as in the 1950s), and that it's constantly referenced by various fans.

Then there's television programming: at a casual browse (the programs bore me), I've seen Velikofsky referenced positively on the various "aliens among us" pseudohistory programs on The History Channel (ironic name!!) and A&E and even National Geographic. (And now we've got the madness of social media.) Hardly Velikovsky's only book, yet Worlds is almost always the title mentioned.

Certainly this persistent placement in the popular mind ought to be noted here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sticking to the facts
My mom is a fan so I have done some research and try to let her down gently about some of Velikovskys ideas when they fail my classical mechanics test.

However there are some ideas that seem to merit further investigation.

I doubt Venus was involved but what if there was a near miss my some other comet that is since gone, could it explain some of the weird stuff?

The one thing that seems very hard to fake is the sun changing direction and having a crust slip due to random chance is a bit of a stretch.

However what if the earth is near a point of instability and an outside force shows up could it not cause the described events?

I refer to that rather fringe Dzhanibekov Effect described so well in the popular video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU

Would it not be cool if the earth did have some near misses that may have caused the flip or a partial flip to occur due to outside forces.

While reports and research currently favour no or unlikely catastrophe occurrences if there was research into upheavals then the evidence might come to light.

So does anyone know if the Dzhanibekov Effect would be possible on a fluid filled planet if an external gravitational pull was exerted?

Would the manuver result in the conditions described by the witnessed accounts?

Idyllic press (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)