Newton, Einstein, and Velikovsky

By Charles Ginenthal

If Velikovsky’s celestial hypothesis is correct, it must not only correlate with historical evidence, but must also correlate with and be corroborated by scientific evidence. His thesis requires that there should exist unambiguous scientific evidence that celestial mechanics, accepted by all scientists as being perfect as possible, is in error. If that can be proved to be the case, that cosmological theory for the stability of the solar system and the evolution of the universe  birth and evolution of galaxies, as well as stars  must also be in error.

The need for such a book that gathers the evidence for celestial mechanics, the cosmology of the universe and especially the evolution of the solar system in recent times that Immanuel Velikovsky presented, is long overdue.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Dec 7, 2015
• ISBN: 9781329742567

Book preview

Newton, Einstein, and Velikovsky

NEWTON, EINSTEIN & ELIKOVSKY

COPYRIGHT

Copyright © 2015 Charles Ginenthal.

ISBN 978-1-329-74256-7

All rights reserved.  Other than as permitted under the Fair Use section of the United States copyright act of 1976, no part of this publication shall be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of the author.

Quoting of this work must be attributed to this book, and not in a manner which would indicate any sort of endorsement.  No derivative works are permitted without express permission of the author.  Reproduction of artwork contained in this book must be properly attributed to this book.

THE VELIKOVSKIAN

A JOURNAL OF MYTH, HISTORY AND SCIENCE

Quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?

________________________________________________

Charles Ginenthal

Editor-in-Chief

Associate Editors

  Irving Wolfe

  Clark Whelton

Copy Editor

Dale Ann Pearlman

Technical Consultant

Theodore Holden

PREFACE

"[In science] there are no sacred truths, all

assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless.

Whatever is inconsistent with facts must be discarded or revised . . . we must understand [the] cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be.  The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected sometimes true.

Carl Sagan, Cosmos TV. series,

Episode 13, Who Speaks for Earth

If Velikovsky’s celestial hypothesis is correct, it must not only correlate with historical evidence, but must also correlate with and be corroborated by scientific evidence.  His thesis requires that there should exist unambiguous scientific evidence that celestial mechanics, accepted by all scientists as being perfect as possible, is in error.  If that can be proved to be the case, that cosmological theory for the stability of the solar system and the evolution of the universe  birth and evolution of galaxies, as well as stars  must also be in error.

The need for such a book that gathers the evidence for celestial mechanics, the cosmology of the universe and especially the evolution of the solar system in recent times that Immanuel Velikovsky presented, is long overdue.  Although I intend to present a great deal of new evidence regarding these matters, it is unavoidable that I will have to present materials already published in order to elucidate the problems, and possible solutions that face Velikovsky’s unstable solar system hypothesis.  In this respect, one must not only deal with the question of planetary orbital changes, but also of these changes in terms of their chronology in recent history into which these chaotic motions must be proved to fit.  Hence, much of this book will examine not only the evidence for the very recent unstable orbits of Mars and Venus, but it must examine the chronological, scientific evidence that conforms with Velikovsky’s time scale as well.

Both the evidence for solar system instability and for the return to stability for the chronological framework that Velikovsky presented must agree if his theory is valid.  More than that, these varied forms of scientific evidence must contradict the scientific establishment’s hypothesis on the very same points.  Much of this book will, therefore, deal with various forms of scientific evidence that contradicts the chronology of a stable solar system over, say, 20 million years.  For those who have read Pillars of the Past, Volumes I, II, III and IV, will remember I employed several forms of scientific evidence to analyze the chronology of the ancient world.  In this respect, my approach to the established astronomical chronology of the solar system, like that of the ancient historical established chronology, will be based on presenting a great number of different forms of interdisciplinary scientific evidence that correlate and corroborate one another, but are also fully congruent with Velikovsky’s hypothesis, and are clearly contradictory to, or highly problematic for, the thesis that the solar system has been stable in recent times.

In the next part of this book, Velikovsky’s concept of the important role electromagnetism plays in celestial mechanics will be examined, as well as its application to solar system stability, and also to cosmology.  Thus, in a sense, this volume is a continuation of my book, The Electro-Gravitic Theory of Celestial Motion and Cosmology.  As we will see in the next chapters, the astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists have literally outdone Aristotle and the Greek astronomers’ inventions of epicycles by creating new forms of matter, new celestial mechanical forces, and even new dimensions of space.  It has actually reached the point where many scientists are now saying the entire cosmological edifice upheld by these new forms of matter, energy and multiple dimensions, is a colossally false rendering of celestial reality.

What has always been the problem for Velikovsky and his followers is the important role mathematics has played in all this. Up until now, we have assumed that Newtonian/Einsteinian theory is as perfect as can be and perfectly reflects the forces governing the motions of celestial bodies.  It will be shown that mathematics has played a leading part in driving the entire scientific community regarding these matters of celestial mechanics blindly into error.  This will be examined toward the end of the book that too great a reliance and belief in the absolute validity only of mathematics to explain the universe is not just a modern cosmological blunder, but a repetition of these same blunders of the ancient past like the Aristotelian geocentric theory.

Lastly, I will deal with the philosophy of science in order to understand the relationship between what has been assumed to be objective scientific truth, the method and human psychology and sociology as these interrelate and as these were understood by Velikovsky and others. It must be noted that those who attempt to criticize this book but ignore or who have failed to read The Electro-Gravitic Theory of Celestial Motion & Cosmology, are not dealing honestly with the materials presented here.  The celestial mechanics presented in the earlier work will be greatly enlarged in this.  Therefore, failure to understand that earlier evidence or deal with as it relates to the foregoing evidence means that that critic is either ignorant of what scholarship requires, or is determined to discredit this book’s evidence without knowing it, or even allowing their readers to know it.

What I conceive to be Velikovsky’s greatest problem and misfortune is that his ideas are so far ahead of his time that he had to be pilloried because the great paradigms and scientists whose concepts he challenged were the false idols of his age, and it was inconceivable to the scientists, academics and mass media that their idols could be wrong.  Newton, Einstein and all their theories, and those that had been derived from them, were the scientific idols of the twentieth century to whom all bowed as having established the indisputable laws that govern reality.  This book is addressed to dealing with these giants and their theories.

Because this theory is largely derived from Velikovsky who maintained that planets in close contact would be cushioned by their repelling magnetic fields, I have maintained that these fields must weaken at greater distances but are still operating in a repelling manner.  Therefore, since this book is a defense of my own theory and indirectly of Velikovsky’s celestial scenario, I take full responsibility for it.  Velikovsky could not have known what would be developed and/or derived from his recent unstable solar system theory and he cannot, therefore, be held responsible for what I produced.  No more, could Velikovsky be held responsible for the creationists that followed him.  Nevertheless, this connection has been employed by Michael D. Gordin, in his book, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe (Chicago 2012).  It is a simple ‘guilt by association’ critique of Velikovsky and in no way proves anything about Velikovsky because it fails to examine Velikovsky’s thesis but only his connection with later other groups.  As Tom Van Flandern tells us, THE VALIDITY OF AN IDEA CAN BE DETERMINED SOLELY BY AN EXAMINATION OF ITS MERITS. . .[1] This examination Gordin has not done and, thus, his critique is shallow and beside the point.

---

[1] Tom Van Flandern, Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets (Berkeley, CA 1993), p. 358.

CHAPTER 1: CELESTIAL MECHANICS

Einstein, when discussing an experimental test of his general theory of relativity was once asked what he would do if the experiment didn’t agree with theory. He was unperturbed at the prospect, ‘so much the worse for experiments, the theory is right.’

P.C. Davies, The Mind of God; The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (NY 1992) p. 175.

This statement by Einstein, in a sense, explains the dilemma Velikovsky and his proponents have faced from the beginning.  The physicists, astronomers and mathematicians have argued that there is no evidence to bring Newtonian/Einsteinian celestial mechanics into question.  How can Velikovsky be right when the most perfect of sciences  celestial mechanics  completely corroborated, correlated and congruent with the motions of celestial bodies and with the most perfect of sciences, mathematics that absolutely proves him in error.  The reason I maintain that Velikovsky can be and is correct is that celestial mechanics is not corroborated, correlated and congruent with the motions of celestial bodies; in fact, application of the most perfect of sciences, mathematics, shows that the laws of physics presented by Newton and Einstein fail to prove or explain these motions.  To the contrary, the application of Newton’s laws and Einstein’s curved space, to mathematically prove what they claim to prove, does no such thing.  Let me begin.

I. Bernard Cohen has written:

"Immanuel Velikovsky attempted to revolutionize physical science with a radical set of ideas concerning the way the solar system came into its present state . . .  Needless to say, Velikovsky’s ideas contradict basic laws of dynamics and gravity.  Velikovsky proposed that electrical and magnetic forces overwhelmed the action of gravity on the close encounter of planets.  Though widely disseminated in the public press, Velikovsky’s ideas were not accepted by the scientific community. . . .

. . . Robert Jastrow . . . ‘nothing could be more exciting than to witness a revolution of scientific thought in our own lifetime.’ ‘Unfortunately,’ he concluded, ‘the evidence does not support this possibility.’" [2]

Therefore, let us examine these laws that Cohen claimed refuted Velikovsky’s hypothesis to see if they truly are all that is claimed for them.

---

[2] I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science (Cambridge, MA 1985), p. 33.

TIDAL THEORY, GRAVITY AND MATHEMATICS

We have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our [tidal] sea by the power of gravity . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist and act according to the laws we have explained and abundantly serves to account for the motions of celestial bodies and of our sea [tides].

Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3, General Scholium (1931), pp. 546-547.

The understanding of the tides has been a problem; for science from the very early times as described by Dominic Reeve, Andrew John Chadwick and Christopher A. Fleming: Tides have been studied from earliest times.  Indeed, it is documented that Aristotle spent the final part of his life on the Island of Euboa, where he studied the tidal flows.  It has been suggested that his failure to explain tidal variations drove him to hurl himself into the ocean where he drowned.[3]

Galileo also had a theory of tides to prove that the Earth rotated and the tides were a clear indication of this motion.  J. Glyn Ford maintains that Galileo’s tidal theory As an empirical attempt to explain the facts . . . worked much better than Newton’s wholly theoretical treatment of the problem.[4]  He goes on to suggest:

Galileo’s tidal history has normally been treated by historians of science as an aberration within the context of his work.  It is generally thought of as nothing more than a hasty attempt to supply an answer to one of the demands of the anti-Copernicans who wished for proof of the Earth’s motion.  However, when looked at from the point of an empirical oceanographer, it turns out to be a sophisticated theory which explains, to a high degree of accuracy, the complex tidal movements of the Adriatic [Sea], from where it is known Galileo obtained his data.  His theory [of the Adriatic’s tides] was in this respect of far greater explanatory value than the later Newtonian theory, although less theoretically satisfying.  Hence, this theory was an attempt by a scientist in the true Baconian spirit to make the theory fit the facts.  Set in the scientific context of the time it was a creditable attempt to solve a problem WHICH IS STILL CAUSING DIFFICULTIES TODAY.[5] (Capitalization added)

Nevertheless, Newton’s analytical description of the tide has been accepted as correct by most modern scientists as it is presented in textbooks and books on astronomy and gravity.  But Ford, above, just told that the problem of applying gravitational theory to explain tides is still causing difficulties today.  Harlow Shapley was unaware that these difficulties were actually contradictions to Newtonian tidal theory – in a letter to Horace Kallen, Dean of the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research on May 27, 1950, chided Velikovsky for not understanding these long established laws of gravity that explain the tides writes:

Dr. Velikovsky’s claim that there have been changes in the structure of the solar system during historical times has implications which apparently he has not thought through; or perhaps he was unable to convey to me in our brief conversation.  If in historical times there have been these changes in the structure of the solar system, in spite of the fact that our celestial mechanics has been for scores of years able to specify without question the positions and motions of the planetary system for many millennia fore and aft, then the laws of Newton are false.  The laws of mechanics which worked to operate the tides . . . are fallacious.  But they have been tested competently and thoroughly.  In other words, if Velikovsky is right the rest of us are crazy.  And seriously that may be the case.  It is however improbable.[6]

The point regarding tides as proposed and explained by Newton and all who attempted to make gravitational theory correlate with tidal motions has failed, but Shapely, and nearly all those who repeat Shapley’s claim, are simply not mindful of that basic fact.  Newton, himself, was unable to make his theory congruent with the actual behavior of tides and was forced to repeatedly cull the data to force it to appear to fit gravitational theory.  In this respect, Hans C. Ohanian explains.

"A careful examination of Newton’s writings have revealed that some of the errors in the Principia were a deliberate and dishonest attempt to mislead.  In the Principia, Newton proposed that the exact quantitative agreement between theory and observation was the ultimate criterion of scientific truth.  As he said in the preface, ‘He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic, and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all.’ And to convince his audience he would be the ‘most perfect mechanic,’ he proceeded to fabricate the required agreement between theory and observation, by fair means or foul.  Newton faked some theoretical calculations and he engaged in flagrant cherry-picking of observational data, discarding those data that did not quite fit his calculations.  Richard Westfall, one of Newton’s most incisive biographers, called this ‘nothing short of deliberate fraud,’ and he labeled Newton a master of the . . . ‘fudge factor’ . . .

". . . examples of . . . fakery are found in Newton’s theoretical calculations of the precession of the equinoxes, the magnitude of the force of gravity acting on the moon, THE HEIGHT OF THE TIDES . . . In all of these cases he has a good qualitative understanding of the underlying physics, but inadequate mathematical tools and/or inadequate observational data for an adequate quantitative analysis…

"These instances of fraud by Newton are somewhat reminiscent of . . . that Galileo perpetrated with his theory of tides.  But whereas we might give Galileo the benefit of the doubt and charity regarding his mistaken theory of tides as an isolated case of self-delusion, no such excuse will serve for Newton.  His acts of fraud occurred repeatedly, much too often to admit of self-delusion as a plausible explanation.  In the perpetration of fraud, Newton was a recidivist, deserving of no charity.  Besides, we have documentary evidence from letters between Newton and Roger Cotes, the editor of the second edition of the Principia, that they engaged in collusion to ‘mend’ the numbers.  Cotes would propose some fraudulent adjustment of observational data ‘to make that Scholium appear to best advantage as to the numbers’ and Newton would do Cotes one better by contriving some fudge factor that suited the occasion."[7]

As will be shown below, Newton’s laws do not now, nor ever could, mathematically explain ocean tides.  It is only by assuming that a Newtonian explanation works that Shapley’s argument for tides has been presented by many of Velikovsky’s critics.  The fact of the matter is that Velikovsky did answer Shapley directly on this point:

"Oceanic tides according to Shapley, follow precisely Newton’s formula . . . [was] proof that Velikovsky could not be right.  How precisely do they follow the formula?  [In James Gilluly, Aaron C. Waters and A.O. Woodford’s Principles of Geology (1951), the year after Shapley used tidal theory to discredit Velikovsky, pages 396 and 398 we read]:

"‘The ancients knew that the ebb and flow of the tides varied with phases of the moon.  So complex is the real Earth as compared with the idealized Earth assumed by astronomers and physicists that we have, as yet, no general [gravitational] theory that permits tidal forecast for any point on an ocean.  Tides are, of course, predicted with great accuracy for all principal ports; these are not computed from general [Newtonian] theory, however, but from analysis of tidal records over a long period of years at the particular port concerned.’

‘[And] the Newtonian scheme fails to explain fully the vagaries of the local tides.  For example, many ports have but one tide in a lunar day; [instead of two which Newtonian theory requires]; in others the lag is many hours from the time the moon is at zenith; in still others the two daily tides are of greatly different height.  They also vary with the seasons [which does not affect the distance between the Earth and the moon as gravity is only affected by mass and distance squared.]  These and many other facts make it clear that the tides are not a simple direct response to the vertical component of THE MOON’S GRAVITATIONAL PULL WHICH IS REALLY FAR TOO SMALL FOR EFFECTIVE LIFTING OF WATER MASSES ANYWAY.’[8]

Velikovsky and many of his supporters have failed to dig deeper into this problem, and his critics have failed to gather the full significance of just how important this failure of gravitational theory is.  In this respect, Velikovsky wrote:

The authors of the textbook on geology . . . did not express any doubt concerning the Newtonian theory of tides; they showed only that there exist many irregularities that require explanation, that the force of the moon’s gravitational pull is insufficient [to raise the size of the tides observed], and that no theoretical prediction of tides is possible.  Therefore, to refer to the tides as providing support for the Newtonian theory is once more a statement in contradiction with the known facts.[9]

Many critics will respond saying that these are complications caused by the shape of continents, bays, depths of water, etc. that can account for these discrepancies between theory and observation.  That is simply not true of the overall problem with tidal theory and is simply a way to avoid facing the fundamental fact that tidal theory has always failed as will be shown below.  The problems with this theory have long been debated.  For example, a popular weekly magazine, Our Home Journal, for September 2, 1871, page 151 contains a response to a writer who maintained that the moon produces these tides. G.W.P. writes his views on this problem:

"Your correspondent [W.R.E.] has presented no new arguments in favor of Lunar theory of the tides, except those founded upon a mistaken view of facts; and the insuperable objection to such a theory . . .  We may very well admit, as he says, that ‘the difficulties connected with the Lunar theory presented by G.W.P., may not be explained satisfactorily, in harmony with the moon theory.’ That is really giving up the whole matter in controversy.  If there are facts against a theory, that cannot be made to harmonize with it, then the theory is false.

"That ‘the tides keep time with the revolutions of the moon’ is by no means in accordance with the facts . . . The tides gradually and regularly rise or flow about six hours – remain stationary about six hours to flow again after another brief response.

"The attraction of gravitation confines the moon . . . to its orbit . . . the moon’s attraction of the Earth is so small as to be imperceptible.  If the moon’s attraction is so powerful as to lift the waters of the ocean from forty to seventy feet above their natural level, it would surely raise a feather from the ground; and ‘W.J.B. would be enabled to demonstrate his theory by his own weight [when standing on a scale] which would . . . when she is overhead exerting her vast power of attraction in raising him up. But the fact that he really weighs the same in any possible position of the moon is fatal to his theory.

"The Lunar theory involves the following absurdities. The moon has not the slightest power to attract solid bodies [on the Earth’s surface]; not even lifting the down of a thistle from the ground; while her attraction of water is so powerful as to lift up to a height of sixty to seventy feet, thousands of square miles of the waters of the ocean . . . But while she attracts water with so vast a power, she exercises no perceptible influences over another fluid, the air which surrounds the Earth to a [closer] great depth, and from its nature and position [to the moon] should be more susceptible to the moon’s attraction than are the waters of the ocean.

"Your correspondent is mistaken in supposing that the Lunar theory has never been questioned by men of scientific reputation.  Lieut. Maury has done more toward explaining the causes and the directions of the currents of air and of the ocean than any living man . . . yet he rejects the Lunar theory aswithout foundation in fact, and replete with inconsistencies.

"But the moon’s force of attraction, small as it is compared to that of the Earth, is diminished and nearly destroyed by her great distance, of nearly two hundred and thirty-nine thousand miles from the Earth.  It would be in utter violation of the [Newtonian laws of nature for a small body like the moon, at so great a distance to overcome the attraction of the Earth, a larger body [whose gravity is pulling down the ocean levels with a force far greater than that of the moon pulling the oceans upward] . . .

"The waters of the ocean being fluid may be put in motion by the wind, by the daily rotation of the Earth, or by currents of electricity, and rolled up into waves, or tides or caused to flow in vast currents like the Gulf Stream; but to be lifted up by attraction [of the moon’s gravity] would require a force strong enough to overcome the [far greater gravitational] attraction of the Earth . . . Not until the [Newtonian] laws of nature shall be entirely reversed, . . . can such a [tidal] event take place."

This description, however flawed, is only the tip of the tidal theory problem, but it indicates that for a long time it was well-known that tidal theory was deeply mired in contradictions.

With regard to atmospheric tidal theory, which should follow the behavior of oceanic tides. Sidney Chapman and Richard S. Lindzen tell us:

"By analogy with the sea tides, the lunar atmospheric tide must cause a rise and fall of the barometer, of semidiurnal period [each about six hours long].  In the tropics the barometer does show a marked semidiurnal variation, but its period half a solar, not lunar, day"[10]

They show that at Batavia in Indonesia over a five-day period near the equator there is only one atmospheric tide each day; while at Potsdam in Europe there are only two tides that occur over the same five day period.  And, of course, they attempt to find ways to explain these differences away.  That is, the atmospheric tides occur once every twelve hours with very slight indications of these, even at Potsdam.[11]  What tidal theory cannot explain is this dichotomy between ocean and atmospheric tides.

In this respect, M. Arago, who tested these barometric readings at Paris over several years, discovered: It is evident, then, that if the moon had any influence on our atmosphere it does not proceed from any cause analogous to that which produces the tides of the ocean; and therefore, that the fact that the moon does not produce such tides can afford no countenance to the imputed meteorological influence.[12]

The problem of tides has baffled the greatest minds of science for centuries and is still inexplicable in terms of gravitational law, although it should not be inexplicable.  If gravity was solely responsible for lifting masses, then the atmospheric tides should coincide with the oceanic ones, not that they should be of the same height.  The atmosphere, being easier to lift than water, should be raised to a greater height than the ocean, but in reality, it falls far short of the ocean tidal heights and it does not exhibit the same periodicities as the ocean is clear proof that gravity is not the sole force operating.  There must be some other force creating these great dichotomies between oceanic and atmospheric tides. 

Richard Lindzen has argued that heating and cooling of ozone in the upper atmosphere by the Sun causes that part of the atmosphere to expand or contract, thus allowing atmospheric tides to be fully explained.  As the atmosphere heats up during the day, it expands, and at night, when it cools, it contracts, each phase occurring every 12 hours.  Nevertheless, in a 1980 paper, he admits to a contradiction that exists with this theory, namely that the expansion and contraction are not connected with surface air pressure: None of the above [expansions and contractions] resulted in any improvement in the phase discrepancy of the solar semi-diurnal [12 hour] surface pressure oscillation.[13]

If Lindzen’s theory was correct, then the daily heating of the upper atmosphere should cause the surface pressure to fall, while contractions should act to raise the surface pressure.  But these day-night oscillations do not correlate with surface atmospheric pressures; as Lindzen admits, they exhibit a phase discrepancy.  Again, as with ocean tides, neither gravity nor solar heating explains atmospheric tides.  What, then, is the possible solution?  Again, electromagnetism has been left out of these matters.

Since the discovery in 1752 by Benjamin Franklin’s kite experiment, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the atmosphere is electrically charged and that electricity can be drawn down from the clouds.  Other later experiments that were carried out show not only that the atmosphere is charged, but that its charge varies over a 12-hour period from the day side to that of the night side.  According to D. R. MacGorman and W. D. Rust:

Also in 1752, the French scientist, [Emile] Lemonnier, detected weak electrification in the atmosphere, when there were no clouds and determined that the intensity of fair weather electricity varied from night to day.  This was confirmed in 1775 by the more sensitive experiments of the Italian scientist [Cesare] Beccaria . . .[14]

What we have here, instead of a thermal forcing oscillation of the atmosphere, as Lindzen suggested, is an electrical oscillation operating every 12 hours in phase with the day and night atmospheric tides.  This is not connected to the solar day to night heating variation, nor to the Sun’s gravitational pull.  In essence, what we actually have is an oscillating, electrified atmosphere in phase with the Sun, and the atmospheric tides rising and falling with it.  This is never taken into scientific consideration because of the shackles that Newtonian theory has on the thinking of atmospheric scientists.  Electromagnetic effects have no place in their tidal theories.

As we can see, electromagnetism apparently correlates with ocean tides in tandem with lunar gravitation.  It also correlates with atmospheric tides and solar electromagnetic effects on the Earth.  Having omitted electromagnetic evidence from their considerations, the scientists are left with many contradictions associated with ocean and atmospheric tides, and actually have no theory at all!

Typical of the failure to understand the problems inherent in tidal theory is one of Velikovsky’s most severe modern critics, astronomer Philip Plait of the physics and astronomy department of Sonoma State University, California. Laird Scranton, in his book, The Velikovsky Heresies, reports:

"Astronomer and skeptic-at-large Philip Plait has argued steadfastly against the proposition raised by Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision.  He states in an online [Internet] blog regarding Velikovsky, ‘I wrote a chapter in my book about V[elikovsky]’s theories, and could easily have written a whole book on just his terrible astronomy claims.  I can’t remember a single thing V[elikovsky] said in his book ‘Worlds in Collision’ that was astronomically correct.  It is an astonishing collection of rampant wrongness."[15]

In the same book where he criticizes Velikovsky, Bad Astronomy, Plait claims that he has a very clear understanding of tides and explains this understanding in a chapter titled, The Gravity of the Situation: The moon and the Tides.  Let us examine whether Plait actually knows what he claims to know about tides or whether his knowledge is, in his own words, Terrible astronomy and whether he has presented in his chapter on tides an astonishing collection of rampant wrongness. Plait writes:

"Because the moon is smaller and less massive than the Earth you would feel a gravity [on it of] about one-sixth that of the Earth. . .

"That [gravitational] grasp weakens with distance giving rise [to a tidal] effect on Earth.  The part of the Earth nearest the moon feels a stronger pull than the part of the Earth farthest from the moon.  The difference in distance  the diameter of the Earth  means a difference in gravity.  The near side of the Earth feels a pull about 6 percent stronger than the far side. . .

"So you would think, since the near side of the Earth feels a stronger pull, water would pile up there, giving us a high tide.  [But] On the far side of the Earth there should be a low tide . . .

"But we know that’s not right.  There are two high tides and two low tides a day . . . How can this be?"[16]

Plait explains this seeming incongruity between the near side and the far side tides by the analogy of a man holding a child in his arms while dancing in circles.  Since the child, like the far side of the Earth, moves in a larger circle at a greater velocity than the man’s back that represent the near side of the Earth to the moon, this difference explains the tides generally observed on the Earth each day.  Plait adds:

"So what does this have to do with tides? Everything. Our little dance is a tiny version of the same tango in which the Earth and moon participate.  Instead of holding each other’s hand, the Earth and moon use gravity to embrace . . . they both make circles . . . the moon makes a big circle around the Earth, the Earth also makes a little circle at the same time.  [Actually these are not circles but ellipses.]

"This means that the moon and the Earth are actually orbiting a point in between the two bodies as if all the mass in the Earth-moon system is concentrated.  This point is called the center of mass, or technically the barycenter . . .

"Someone standing under the moon on the Earth’s surface would feel the moon pull [upward as does the water in the ocean] . . . But the person on the far side of the Earth feels less force toward the moon . . . [which creates] a positive force in the other direction, away from the moon.

"It seems paradoxical that gravity can act in such a way as to make something feel a force away from an object but in this case it’s because we are measuring that force relative to the center of the Earth.  When you do that then you do indeed get a force pointing away from the Earth.

"That is why we have two high tides.  There is a net [gravitational] force toward the moon on the near side, and a net force away from the moon on the far side."[17]

All this Plait considers good astronomy, in spite of the fact that, on Earth, there are two high tides in certain places but not others, and atmospheric tides do not correlate with sea tides. This clearly contradicts Newtonian theory.   But for all Plait’s understanding of the standard model of tides, once gravitational theory is actually applied mathematically to this standard model, it simply fails.  The model and the Newtonian mathematics that should fit it are in such great disagreement that the theory cannot be made to work.  In short, Newtonian theory does not mesh the mathematics with the data Plait presented.  Plait simply has no understanding that what he presented regarding tides is bad astronomy.  This was pointed out in 1974, the time of the AAAS Symposium on Velikovsky, by Irving Michelson who spoke there.  He wrote an analysis of tidal theory in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled Tides’ Tortured Theory that very same year.

Pressing questions of Earth’s physics, astronomy and the eternal riddle of Solar System formation should be explainable in terms of tidal motions and tidal friction but tidal knowledge always falls short of these expectations in these discussions.  Tide theory condemned by competent impartial experts as being no theory at all but only a mass of doubtful assumptions obstructing scientific progress is due for a major overhaul.[18]

How can Harlow Shapley and Philip Plait be correct regarding tidal theory when an authority on tidal theory says it is only a mass of doubtful assumptions obstructing scientific progress, condemned by competent impartial experts.

Michelson goes on to say:

Neither the results of Laplace’s calculations nor the efforts of tidal researchers in the past 200 years . . . have appreciably reduced the huge discrepancy between the composite theory [of tides] and the hard facts of observations on the other.  However, Laplace’s doctrine still remains as the cornerstone in the baroque structure of monolithic ocean tide theory and as the unquestioned tidal model base for allied [astronomical] studies.  Rival theories have been assigned to the [scientific] Index Expurgatorius without exception.[19]

Michelson further shows:

"Francois Arago, the French astronomer and physicist called the study of tides ‘the tomb of human curiosity’ and all who have attempted it agree.  For if we rely solely on the relevant physical principles, consisting of nothing more than Newtonian mechanics and gravitation, we are to this day unable to decide whether high tide occurs when the moon is in the meridian or whether the exact opposite, low tide is more nearly correct."[20]

How can Newtonian theory be correct when it can predict both a high tide and low tide at one place on the Earth at the same time?  That is why Michelson claimed it was no theory at all.  But Plait is totally oblivious to all this!  Michelson reports just as did Velikovsky: It is fortunate that routine preparation of tide tables does not suffer from this strong and glaring failure of the exact sciences, since the computation for [tide] tables are based on empirical methods.[21]  Of course, critics of Velikovsky can argue this has nothing to do with the rest of the solar system, but in this respect they are also incorrect.  Tidal theory is tied to a large number of celestial phenomena that are crucial to a correct understanding of astronomy and cosmology.  Here Michelson pertinently shows:

"Apsidal motions of binary star systems [where the major axis between the stars rotates in space] have been observed and explained tentatively in terms of tidal friction; but no agreement is found when standard tide theory is introduced.  Deceleration of the Earth’s rate of rotation evidenced by the secular accelerations of the sun, moon and planets is reasonably supposed to be a consequence of the action of tidal friction.  Classical tidal theory indicating maximum dissipation rates that are roughly 1,000 times smaller than observations lead us to expect.  In all these cases, and numerous others as well, the only consistent feature of our knowledge of tides is its failure to confirm seemingly reasonable [Newtonian gravitational] hypotheses."[22]

The entire ensemble of astronomical phenomena related to tidal theory is not, nor ever has been, explained by gravitational theory.  For example, Michelson pointed out that the Deceleration of the Earth’s rate of rotation, especially related to tides caused by the moon is a failure. Nevertheless, Carl Sagan also erroneously argued that tidal theory and the conservation of energy and angular momentum with the Earth-moon system [show that Velikovsky is wrong] without appeal to cometary or other exogenous intervention.[23]  But tidal theory does not explain the slowing of the Earth’s rotation; there too it has failed, but Sagan was also ignorant of this.

The underlying problem with all analyses of tidal theory is that the application of gravitational theory to that problem shows the mathematics employed always gives figures that are so much greater than the actual observations require or contradictions to the theory showing that the theory must be wrong or as Michelson said above, is due for a major overhaul.  Clearly, something is missing, some other force than gravity applies to all these astronomical phenomena. As with Velikovsky, I suggest it is electromagnetism that is the missing force.  Lee Smolin’s discussion of the superstring theory, I maintain, also applies to tidal theory: The one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that new ideas are needed . . . we are missing something big . . . every physicist I know will agree that probably at least one big idea is missing.[24]  Henri Poincaré stated that the solar system may in fact be subject to forces other than those of Newton.[25]

At this stage it must be pointed out that when the scientific establishment was shown that its theory of tides is invalid, it failed to acknowledge this very fact. Miles Mathis, a physicist, whom we will be discussing below, sent a mathematical analysis to the Wikipedia that proved what that bastion of establishment science was presenting to the world via the Internet about tides was totally incorrect; they simply used administrative means to cover up that failure.  Mathis informs us that:

Confronted with parts of this paper [on tidal theory] in late 2005, Wikipedia deleted all its tidal theory math, its tidal theory page, and ordered a rewrite with lots of new illustrations.  It appears they are perfecting their propaganda rather than admitting their math and theory doesn’t work. This change affected many other websites as well, since wiki is linked to a large percentage of online encyclopedia entries.  Large parts of tidal theory have gone into hiding since the publication of this [Mathis] paper.[26]

With respect to Einstein’s theory; how does it create tides when Einstein claims a body in curved space feels no force?  Mathis explains:

Notice how theorists who claim to believe in General Relativity always revert to Newton when it comes time to explain [tidal] forces in gravitational fields.  In . . .  General Relativity we are told that an orbiting body is feeling no forces.  It is simply following curved space, the ‘line’ of least resistance . . . the ball-bearing [orbiting] on the piece of rubber and the tiny marble orbiting it . . . [feel] no centripetal [center pulling] force.  All quite ingenious, except that it does not explain the genesis of the forces at a distance used in tidal theory.  How can an orbiter that is feeling no force achieve tides?  Even more to the point, how can another orbiter [the moon] that is traveling in the curved space of its primary [the Earth] recurve that space in order to transmit a tidal force to the primary . . . It cannot be curving both ways at once.[27]

What we see is that when Newtonian theory is mathematically calculated to explain tides, the math does not agree with the theory and can even give both high tides or low tides at the same point on the Earth at the same time as Michelson pointed out.  When we turn to Einstein, whose warped space theory was created to explain Newton’s laws, there is no way for the moon orbiting in the warped space around the Earth to rewarp it, and in terms of Einsteinian theory, the Earth oceans should feel no force since General Relativity does not create forces.  Both Newton and Einstein’s theories fail to explain tides, but that fact will never see the light of day at Wikipedia nor, I believe, anyplace else in media presentations for the public.

There is, in fact, no tidal theory and no mathematics that correlates with reality and it.  If Mathis’s analysis was false or in some way fraudulent, the university authorities at Wiki would have found that out. When they pulled down the Wikipedia site with its mathematics they were admitting that their theory and math were wrong.  Furthermore, if they had better mathematics to replace it they would have done so.  Illustrations are not mathematics but that is all they have to uphold their tidal theory – pictures! Mathis has literally torn the heart out of standard tidal theory and this will be presented again in the Appendix where Plait’s work will be examined again.

Velikovsky pointed to massive contradictions with gravitational theory as early as 1946 in his paper, Cosmos Without Gravitation, now on the Internet, particularly as it relates to gravity over the oceans:

"Over the oceans the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true.  The hypothesis of isostasy also in unable to explain this phenomenon.  The gravitational pull drops at the coastline of the continents.  Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper: In the whole Gulf of the Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish the sea tides do not influence the plumb line which is contrary to what is expected.

This clearly implies that salt water oceans are not aligning themselves with Newtonian theory.  As with tidal theory that too is a failure; the ocean itself as a whole is not responding to gravitation.  The fact of the matter is that sea water is to a certain degree electrified.  David Edgar Cartwright describes these effects on conducting cables:

"Probably the strongest electromagnetic effect of a tidal nature to be directly measured was the difference in electric potential recorded in 1851 . . . on the first telephone cable across the English Channel.  The signal of amplitude about 1 volt was obviously fluctuating in sympathy with the tidal stream in Dover Straight and was in fact generated by the mass of water in the vertical component of the Earth’s magnetic field . . .

Most recently, electromagnetic signals of tidal nature have been recorded at the bottom of the ocean using pairs of electrodes separated by a meter and a sensitive three-component magnetometer.  The recorded signals are [believed to be] partly due to ionospheric origin and partly due to direct induction by barotropic tidal flow. (i.e. the depth-mean tidal current).[28]

That is, the depth of the water affects an electric current in a wire or a magnetometer.  The deeper the water the greater the effect.

Here, Mae-Wan Ho points out,

"The water molecule is a permanent electric dipole in which positive and negative charges are separated, with the two hydrogen atoms of the positive pole and the oxygen atom at the negative pole . . . Like other dipoles, water molecules can stack together in dipole interactions with alternating positive and negative poles next to each other.  They can also engage in electrostatic interactions with charged ions and other dipoles [of minerals] dissolved in the water."[29]

In essence, water will often, as it slows or stops flowing, create an electromagnetic field that can respond (as Velikovsky suggested) to outside space fields by repelling them and offset the pull of gravity, as Ho goes on to show.

The dipolar nature of water and its propensity for hydrogen account for its unusually high dielectric constant of ~78 at room temperature . . . the dielectric constant or relative static permittivity is a measure of the extent to which it concentrates electrostatic lines of flux relative to a vacuum.  Researchers led by Manu Shama at Princeton University have shown by molecular dynamics computer simulations from first principles that the high dielectric constant of water is due to two effects of the hydrogen bonds contributing in almost equal measure.  The hydrogen-bonding serves to align the dipoles and, at the same time, pull away positive and negative charges within a molecule, enhancing the average molecular polarization.[30]

Putting this together with Velikovsky’s evidence in Cosmos Without Gravitation, the deeper the water the greater its gravity and its electromagnetism, the shallower the water the smaller is its gravity and its electromagnetism.  What follows from this is that tides in the central oceans will be harder to raise because they are gravitationally more massive and have an electromagnetic repulsion to lunar gravity and/or lunar electromagnetism.  At points along the coasts where the water is shallow, gravity pulls it more strongly than electromagnetism repels it.  The typical answer to this variation is that the tide is forced to pile up along a coast where the water is shallow, and expressed by Arnold Schumacher thus:

"Out in the open sea the range of the tide is small.  This follows from theoretical considerations and is supported by the tide observations made on oceanic islands.  In the Atlantic Ocean the tide on the shores of such midocean islands as St. Helena, Ascension Island and the Azore Islands has a mean range from 1½ to 3 feet.  In the Hawaiian Islands, and in the North Pacific, the mean range is less than 2 feet; and in the great number of midocean islands of the South Pacific the range is with few exceptions less than 3 feet.

It is only along the coasts of the continental land masses that large ranges of the tide occur.  In accordance with the stationary-wave theory of the tide this is explained by the existence of stationary waves, with the continental land masses at the ends of the waves [acting as barriers to allow the tidal waters to pile up].[31]

All this would make perfect sense if, and only if, tidal theory actually correlated with Newtonian theory.  Based on the physics/mathematics, the tides in the midocean should be about 40 times greater, as Mathis points out in the Appendix.  On the basis of tidal theory, the height of the tides on midocean islands, which range from about two to three feet, should range from about 80 to 120 feet, and the coastal tides should range up to several hundred feet!  What the physicists are doing is maintaining that their failed tidal theory is valid by suggesting tides operate on the baroque structure of monolithic ocean tide theory.  Since that theory is invalid, our interpretation, although not proved, has at least the merit of explaining tides by observations of gravity made directly over the oceans.  Deeper oceans do in fact have more gravity and greater electromagnetism; shallower oceans do in fact have less gravity and less electromagnetism.  The laws of gravity specifically demand that heavier or more massive bodies are harder to lift than lighter or less massive objects.  The deeper ocean, having greater mass cannot, according to Newton, be lifted to a greater height than the waters along the coastal regions which have far smaller mass.  This behavior of the oceans appears to be completely in accord with Velikovsky’s theory.  To negate this behavior is to negate the laws of gravity.

The deep ocean, because it is more difficult to lift, having greater gravity and, as I suggest, a greater electromagnetic repulsion to lunar gravity and electromagnetism, rises only a few feet.  The shallow oceans near the continental coasts are less difficult to lift, having weaker gravity and a weaker electromagnetic repulsion to lunar gravity and electromagnetism can be raised a great many feet.  This is an interpretation which seemingly conforms with the data that is actually measured  the gravimeters’ readings over midocean and coastal ocean regions and the observed sizes of the tidal readings in both regions.  Neither of these gravimeter and tidal gauge readings agree with tidal theory.  If gravitational tidal theory is correct, these fundamental contradictions should not exist.  As Lee Smolin suggested above, we are missing something and at least one big idea is missing in modern physics.  The experimental evidence that electromagnetism does play a direct role in motion will be discussed in the chapter on Electromagnetism below and how these experiments are directly related to tides, as well as to gravity.  That is, experimental data and observations are completely in agreement with the interpretation of tides just presented.  Now this does not in any way suggest that tides in very large or small bays are directly related to this explanation.  The shapes of bays etc. do require that high tides in them will come later and more slowly and therefore not be related to the forces just presented, nor does this theory reject the power of winds to heap tides far higher than normal.

Note: Velikovsky pointed out above that the gravity in the Gulf of the Caribbean, that is the Gulf of Mexico, is quite large because of its great depth.  But the Gulf of Mexico is an immensely wide bay-like structure into which the supported tide from the Atlantic Ocean spills. Therefore, it should exhibit moderately high tides.  But this is not the case.  They are relatively small.[32]

Thus, we are specifically told Gulf of Mexico tides are small and noticeably less developed than many other coastal areas of the Atlantic or Pacific states.  The ranges of tides throughout the Gulf are typically on the order of 0.3-1.2 m[eters] depending on location and time of year.[33]  That is, the tides in the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Atlantic and Pacific coastal regions, are on about one to three and a half feet high.  The opening to the Gulf of Mexico is quite large, which will admit Atlantic Ocean tidal waters to enter it to produce high tidal ranges, unlike the Red Sea, with a very small opening that will not allow Indian Ocean tides to fill it rapidly.  As the tides move from east to west the Gulf should have much larger tides from the Atlantic; instead the Atlantic tides flowing into it play no role nor have any effect.  Where the oceans have the strongest gravity – the deepest midocean regions, it is naturally more difficult to raise high tides; conversely, where the oceans have the weakest gravity – the shallowest coastal regions, it is naturally very easy to raise high tides.  The physics and the logic of this evidence unites all the phenomena together.

On the other hand, I also suggest:  Can electricity act as a hydraulic lifter of water?  That is the question I will now address.  According to Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird:

"In 1747 Jean Antoine Nollet . . . physics tutor . . . was informed by a German physicist in Wittenberg that water – which normally issued drop by drop from a capillary tube, would run at a constant stream if the tube was electrified.  After repeating the German’s experiments . . . Nollet as he put it ‘began to believe that this electrical virtue employed in a certain manner might have some remarkable effect on . . . bodies which can be looked upon in some way as hydraulic machines prepared by nature itself.’  Nollet put several plants in metallic pots next to a conductor and was intrigued to note that the rate of transpiration [lifting water from the roots to the leaves and out the leaf pores] increased.[34]

That is, the water in the ground flowed upward in response to an electric current.  But what then of the oceans?  Robert Michael Ballantyne long ago reported:

"We turn back now from the atmosphere to the aqueous ocean.  Yet so intimate is the connection between the two . . . it is impossible to avoid occasional reference to the former.

"Our present subject waterspouts, are to a great extent, if not altogether obliges us to refer . . . to the atmosphere . . .

"There is now no doubt that waterspouts are to a great extent if not altogether due to the presence of electricity in the air.  When . . .  clouds have been raging [with lightning and thunder] for some time in the skies of tropical regions . . . they seem to grow unusually thirsty, the ordinary means of water supply [evaporation] through the atmosphere do not appear to be sufficient for the demand . . . [of] nature.  The clouds therefore descent to the sea and . . . lick up the water in the form of waterspouts.  These whirling pillars of water frequently appear in groups of several at a time.  These are of various heights sometimes ranging [sic] up to several hundred yards with a thickness of fifty yards . . .

"That they are caused by electricity has been proved by experiment  miniature waterspouts have been produced by artificial means and as Dr. Bonazano of New York gives . . . we quote his words . . .

"‘(From the conductor of an electrical machine suspended by a wire or chain a small metallic ball (one of wood with tin foil), under the ball place a rather wide metallic basin, containing some oil of turpentine at a distance of about a quarter of an inch. If the handle of the machine is now turned slowly, the liquid in the basin will begin to move in different directions and form whirlpools.  As the electricity on the conductor accumulates, the liquid will elevate itself in the center and at last become attached to the ball.’ . . .

"The same phenomena take place with oil or water, using the latter [the water] the ball must be brought nearer, or a much greater quantity of electricity is necessary to raise it. 

‘If, in this experiment we let the ball swing to and fro, the little waterspout will travel over the miniature sea carrying its whirlpools along with it.’. . .[35]

In essence, water can be lifted by electricity. Tides may also be a clear indication of charging and discharging of water, while gravity plays only a minute role.  However, gravitational theorists cannot bring themselves to consider this even in the face of a failed theory.

It is obvious that all the astronomers who maintain that gravitational theory is as near to a perfect explanation of the motions of tides are incapable of proving their case.  Worse, than that, nearly every discussion of tides fails to address the immense failure of gravitational theory to prove itself valid there.  The physicists and mathematicians, for over 300 years, have been unable to connect gravitational theory through mathematics to the behavior of tides and have failed to live up to their scholarly duty of presenting this factual objective truth both to their students and informing the broad public of that failure.  What they have done, like the Wikipedia, when shown that fact, was to present instead a willful distortion of science.  This, indeed, speaks volumes about the dishonesty that permeates modern science. How could Shapley, Plait and all those others have been so ignorant of the findings in their own field?  And I again point out that tidal theory applies not only to oceanic tides but as Michelson showed above, to the eternal riddle of Solar System formation.  Yet the critics of Velikovsky do not suggest that their theory of solar system formation based on tidal theory has failed.  They claim that solar system formation occurred by condensation and contraction of gas and dust and that the present form of the solar system has been stable for billions of years.  Yet this is based on a theory that has never been proved. Since Michelson showed the Apsidal motions of binary stars . . . explained tentatively in terms of tidal friction . . . [exhibit] no agreement when standard tidal theory is introduced, how can one accept as proven the apsidal motions of planets around the sun based on the same failed tidal theory?  The slowing of the Earth’s rotation based on tidal theory also failed, as it did In all these cases and numerous others as well.

Note:  This author must admit that I, too, had accepted tidal theory as a valid aspect of Newtonian/Einsteinian theory until I uncovered this research.[36] I retract this acceptance based on all this research above.  Would that Velikovsky’s critics have the decency to do the same.  They simply can’t because to admit this is to also admit that Newtonian/Einsteinian theory breaks down when it comes to tides.  That means that some other force than gravity is operating in space, and that would imply Velikovsky could be right about what this force is.  That they will not and cannot ever admit for very understandable reasons.  Not only must they admit that the theory of gravity is not universal, but that it clearly implies Velikovsky may very well be right!  More on this will be presented in the Appendix.

Nevertheless, critics will surely argue that because Newton’s laws do not account for lunar tides and numerous other phenomena, has nothing to do with the criticism of Velikovsky’s instability thesis.  They will argue that, as a matter of fact, planetary motions are in full accord with Newtonian celestial mechanics and nothing can explain this away.  The problem is that since no one has reevaluated Newtonian theory, vis à vis planetary motion, this argument can and will be shown below to be false.

---

[3] Dominic Reeve, Andrew John Chadwick, Christopher A. Fleming, Coastal Engineering (Abingdon OX UK 2004), p. 103.

[4] J. Glyn Ford, Galileo’s tidal theory: a reassessment, New Scientist (Dec 23-30, 1975), p. 711.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Immanuel Velikovsky, Stargazers and Gravediggers Memoirs to Worlds in Collision (NY 1983),

pp. 53-54.

[7] Hans C. Ohanian, Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius (NY 2008), pp. 71-72. (Capitalization added)

[8] Velikovsky, Stargazers and Gravediggers, op. cit., p. 57. (Capitalization added)

[9] Velikovsky, Stargazers and Gravediggers, op. cit.,