From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Summary: Velikovskian scenarios still remarkably poorer than "standard" models
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:39:27 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: The ONLY contribution which I personally have made to this whole picture,
: other than trying to explain it to the deadwood of t.o, is the observation
: that some scenario such as Talbott, Cardona, Velikovsky et. al. are
: describing is absolutely NECESSARY to explain the sizes which living
: creatures grew to in those times.

Ted conveniently overlooks that

   1) his theory contradicts Rose's and Talbott's on several points
      (Roses on how much force is needed, by a factor of 10, and
       Talbott's as to how far away the bodies need to be to produce
       Talbott's visual effects, by 2 to 4 times at least as I recall.)
   2) his theory can't explain sauropod sites where they are found
   3) his theory as presented would involve forces large enough to
      destroy the earth

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: As far as my scenario or description (the ones I have presented) being
: totally sufficient to explain all details of the sizes of antique creatures,
: I have no difficulty in saying that they are not.  If Wayne Throop could
: somehow add something to this by coming up with a better explaination than I
: or anybody has so far, I'd be thrilled.

Sadly, Ted has given me such a remarkably poor basis from which to start, 
that it is essentially impossible to repair Ted's theory at this point. 

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: So far, the only forces I have ever tried to bring into the discussion are 
: those which I know of for certain, the gravitational attraction of the
: small star and possibly of one or more earth/Mars-sized planets between
: us and it on creatures living on earth.  That obviously leaves gaps:  we
: don't know how massive Saturn or whatever Saturn is the remains of was at
: that time, exactly how close, how close any intermediate bodies were...

The analysis that shows that the "felt effect" could only be lowered
by the amount Ted requires within 30% of the sub-saturn point is
independent of the mass or distance, because it assumes a best-case
scenario for Ted's hypothesis.  I can repost or email the article
showing this upon request.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: Beyond that, I have not mentioned anything more speculative, the possibility
: of any effects involving interaction between electro-magnetic forces and
: gravity.

Well....  Ted has mentioned this a few times.  But since no such forces
have ever been observed under any conditions whatsoever, let alone near
Saturn, discussing them would be equivalent to discussing new laws of
physics, which he has (up to now) not explicitly done. 

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: Albert Einstein was a friend of Velikovskys from the old Prussian Scientific
: Academy, and is known to have spent the last ten years or so of his life
: working on a unified field theory, a shot at explaining all natural forces
: in common terms.  He is also known to have died with a copy of Worlds in
: Collision open on his desk.

Irrelevant.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: There is thus some possibility that a full explaination of the attenuated
: gravity of antique times would require physics beyond what exists in the world
: today (much less any expertise claimed by the JWM/A&A Physics Consortium).

It is no mere "some possibility".  It is quite clearly the case that
Ted's scenario is IMPOSSIBLE under currently known physical models. 

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
: What is NOT speculative, is that antique life forms would not work in our
: world as it is presently constituted, and that some theory such as Talbotts
: is absolutely necessary.

This is false.  Ted's attempts to show this have flaws, which
regular followup postings present.  Ted has never substantiatively
addressed the flaws in his demonstration, but appeals only to intuition
and how much stronger human weightlifters "look" than do artists
conceptions of sauropods.

In other words, Ted has departed from a quantitative discussion, and is 
attempting to patch up problems with his model by appealing to
"intuition" and "common sense" alone.  Yet, intuition and common sense
is KNOWN to be faulty in dealing with physics and mechanics problems 
such as these, as pointed out in the Scientific American issue
covering "intuitive physics" a few years ago.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: Again, it is standard theory (the assumption that felt gravity has
: always been as it is now) which is clearly and easily shown to violate
: reality.

Ted has never succeeded in showing this, however.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: While the Saturn Myth as a general outline for explaining this
: attenuated antique gravity is not complete or totally satisfying, it is
: a step in the right direction.  

A "step in the right direction" that raises at least a half-dozen
physical problems while solving only one (and that one inadequately). 

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: And it has the further benefit of explaining what we actuallky see in
: antique data sources.

It is unclear that this is a benefit of any significance whatsoever.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: We're not talking about my "intuition", but of the vast bulk of man's
: early writings.  They all say these things were:  your "the earth
: would be....." is flimsy as a counter to recorded fact.

Perhaps not "intuition", but "interpretation".  Since Ted's interpretation
of early writings is at odds with all known physical mechanisms, it is
perfectly legitimate to throw out the interpretation of early writings.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: It is a known problem with many scientists that they do not easily
: RECOGNIZE when they are outside the areas of their expertise.  

For instance, a psychologist in discussing history, physics, astronomy,
chemistry, anthropology, archeology, and even mythology.

I totally agree with Ted here.  Velilovsky was completely out of his
depth on essentially all of the topics he offered his opinions on.

:: how come all the ancient astronomical records show exactly the same
:: configuration of constellations?
: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: They don't.  You've been misled.  

Ted is also misleading you.  The "ancient astronomical records" also
conflict with Ted and Talbott's saturn scenario, most blatantly in
the absense of the moon from the Holden/Talbott scenario.

:: Why do you hold Velokovsy (and co.) in such high regards?
: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: Why not?  Everybody should have heroes.  

But it still doesn't explain why Velikovsky should be trusted outside
his area of training, namely, psychology.

:: You then twist everything else around that perceived problem. No-one
:: else has a problem with the dinosaurs weight. 
: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: Only the ones who've thought about it.  
: The ones who haven't, as you say, don't.

Blatantly false.  McGowan, Alexander, Bakker, Gillette, and literally
dozens of others have studied and thought about this extensively.
Not a one of them proposes a reduced effective acceleration as
necessary to explain the sauropods.

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <118@fedfil.UUCP>
: Very rarely, and not to an extent which would force any modification
: of the majory theories which I have presented on t.o.

Of course, Ted's major theories are based, not on science, but on
interpretation of myth.  He has been presented with large volumes
of scientific data, but since his theories are not scientific, it
is not surprising that he has not felt motivated to modify it to
better fit facts.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins