From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Worlds in confusion Ib
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:09:06 GMT

} [Babylon move south ] - [page 315 to 316]
} [Faijum moves south ] - [ page 321]
} [ Thebes moves north] - [ page 321]

Notice anything odd here about nearby cities moving hundreds to thousands
of miles in different directions?

}Of course, a sundial or shadow clock from before -687 can no longer serve
}the purpose for which it was devised, but it might well be of use in 
}proving out assumption.
} [page 321]

Instability of axis of earth deduced from just one wrong sun dial. 
Now sun dials were often transported from one place to another, many of 
them are correct, but errors are not unknown.

} [mammoth stuff]
} [page 326-327]

The original article extracted here is cited as "Farrand, Wm. R.;
_Science_,133:729-735, March 17, 1961 (Copyright, 1961 American Association
for the Advancement of Science)" My comments are in []; the material in ()
is included in the article.

"...In contrast to scientific efforts, a number of popular and quasi-scien-
tific articles have appeared in recent years, in which fragnmentary knowledge,
folk tales, and science fiction are combined under the guise of veracity--
much to the chagrin of scientists and the confusion of the public. The most
recent of such articles is that of [Ivan] Sanderson, who comes to the
conclusion that the "frozen giants" must have become deep-frozen within only
a few hours time. Such a thesis, however, disregards the actual observations
of scientists and explorers. Adding insult to injury, Sanderson proceeds to
fashion a fantastic climatic catastrophe to explain his conclusions....

"...The cadavers are unusual only in that they have been preserved by freez-
ing; the demise of the animals, however, accords with uniformatitarian
concepts...The ratio of frozen specimens (around 39) to the probable total
population (more than 50,000) is of the order of magnitude expected
among terrestrial mammals on the basis of chance burials. Furthermore, the
occurance of whole carcasses is extremely rare (only four have been found)...

"...There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death.
In fact, the
healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue
against death by _slow_ freezing. [their emphasis] On the other hand, the
large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatable with _sudden_ freez-
ing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten...only dogs showed
any appetite for [the flesh]...'the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.'
 
"Histological examination of the fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth show-
ed, "deep, penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow
decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid
odor, implying decay before freezing [actually, no--the ground could have
thawed after the mammoth was frozen and permitted decay, then refrozen. ERE]
Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berazovka mammoth
were, "a hundred per cent invention."
 
"...The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least
some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of
asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud-
flow...Asphyxia is indicated by the erection of the penis in the case of the
Berazovka mammoth and by the blood vessels of the head of a wooly rhinoceros
from the River Vilyui, which were still filled with red, coagulated blood.

"The specific nature of the deposits enclosing the mammoths is not known
well enough to be very helpful as an indicator of the mode of death or burial.
Most of the remains are associated with river valleys and with fluviatile
and terrestial sediments, but whether the mammoths bogged down in marshy
places or fell into 'riparian gulies' or were mired in and slowly buried by
sticky mudflows is not clear...in Siberia only mammoths and wooly rhinoceroses
have been found frozen and preserved...
 
"...so far no other members of the contemporary Eurasian fauna [except
mammoths and wooly rhinos]...have been found frozen and well preserved. That
only the bulky and awkward 'giants' of the fauna are so preserved points to
some pecularity in their physique as a contributing factor...the mammoth,
with his stiff-legged mode of locomotion would have difficulty on such
[Siberian] terrain and moreover would not be able to cross even small gullies.
It would be nearly impossible for him to extricate himself if he had fallen
into a snow filled gully or had been mired into boggy ground...
 
"The stomach contents of the frozen mammoths indicate that death occured in
the warm season...when melting and soluflication would have been at a maximum
and, accordingly, locomation would have been difficult.
 
"...Digby was impressed by 'countless riparian gullies' that would have been
ideal mammoth traps...Vollosovich...theorized that an animal so trapped
might fall on its side and act as a dam, being slowly buried and suffocated
by mud. The Berezovka mammoth is commonly regarded as having fallen as a
cliff slumped beneath it; its broken bones attest to such a fall...the Mam-
ontova mammoth perished in a bog...Quackenbush [wasn't he also Groucho Marx?]
believed that his specimen from Alaska perished on a floodplain and that most
of the flesh rotted away...
 
 
"...All of these theories are credible and can be accepted as possibilities.
There seems to be no need to assume the occurance of a catastrophe."

Thanks to edeck@av8or.enet.dec.com
 
}"A year of 360 days" an entire chapter (8)
} [page 330 - 359]

Not to mention that this would come as a complete shock to the Mayans, 
whose astronomical observations go back to the time when you claim the year 
was only 360 days.  Not only did their calendar have 365 days, it matches our 
current year with greater accuracy than our Julian calendar does! It would also
come as a complete shock to the builders of Stonehenge, which has been dated
again to the same period (by C-14, and there is NO sign of flooding at the 
site!).  Various structures of Stonehenge allows one to predict various events
in the year, such as Midsummer's Day and lunar eclipses with excellent 
accuracy.  This would not be possible if the year were longer now than it was 
then.  There are quite a few other ancient observatories throughout the world,
all of which match quite nicely with our current year.

The Egyptians actually had both types of calendar at the same time;
their lunar calendar had 365 1/4 days, and their civil calendar had 12
months of 30 days with 5 holidays tacked on.    These two calendars
diverge by one year in each 1460, and coincide in 2773bc.    That's well
before 700 BC.   They did *not* change from one to the other, but used
each for the cases in which it was most convenient.

The Babylonians used a lunar calendar with alternating months of 29 and
30 days, leading to 354 days in 12 months, not 360.   Then an extra
month was added each three years, leaving an error of three days.
Later, they used the Metonic cycle, based on the observation that 19
solar years equals 235 lunar months.  This led to a calendar which had
seven years with thirteen months in each 19 year cycle.  This was also
the basis of the Jewish calendar.

Instability of the length of the year deduced from calendar reforms.
Calendar reforms were often performed. Maybe according to V. the earth
rotated slower in pre-revolutionary Russia, that kept to the Julian
calendar until 1917. Maybe the sun doesn't shine at all in Islamic
countries, that use a purely lunar calendar.

Any "everyone" used 360 days at the time?  Maybe, 
Except for the Mayans, the builders of Stonehenge, one of the ancient
American Indian tribes, etc. etc. etc.  The 360 day calendar is not
NEARLY as prevalent as you suppose.  The ancient Hebrew calendar, for
instance, consists of 13 lunar months.  This makes for a year LONGER
than 365 days. 

The year 360 days. Copied from Whiston. Argument: according to
Diogenes Laertius the year was divided into 365 days by Thales.
Now D.L. was a copist, who lived 1000 years after Thales. Whiston didn't
know that, but V. was in the position to judge the reliability of Diogenes.
The Greeks had lots of cultural heroes to whom all kinds of inventions were
attributed. That the year had 365.25 days was known a long time before Thales
to the Egyptians.

}Repeated changes in the course of the sun across the firmament led the
}astronomers of Babylon to distinguish three paths of the sun: the Anu
}path, the Enlil path, and the Ea path.
} [page 351]

"the paths of Anu, Ea and Enlil" are according to V. different
eclipticas, but long since the books appeared that V. quotes, assyriologists
have discovered that they mean the three main zones in the sky (summer, winter
and between).


} [lunar craters from molten surface bubbles]
} [ pages 360 - 362]

1. Rock does not cool from molten to solid nearly fast enough to leave rings.
2. No combination of orbit and spin could have produced the current shape
from a molten body.
3. The Apollo astronauts would have noticed this trivial detail.  They didn't.
4. The rocks have been solid for millions, even billions, of years.
5. You get craters with impact on solids.  No "semiliquid mass" is needed.
In fact, you get very nice looking, and similar appearing, craters by
impacting projectiles onto solids FAST (rail-gun fast).  You even get
that central peak.

From the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: seven rocks were dated using the
K-AR method.  They yielded consistent dates of 3.0+/-0.7 X 10^9 years.
Radiation exposure ages varied from 10X10^6 to approximately 
160X10^6 years.  This surface was NOT molten recently and the rocks
were NOT "bubbled up" from beneath the surface.

As an aside and relating to his magnetic points, the rocks brought back
solidified in the presence of a magnetic field that was only a few
percent of the present terrestrial field.  It was NOT molten in the
presence of a megagauss field.

} [spectacular catastrophies on mars since it is smaller]
} [page 363-265]

Mariner 9, for instance, showed the surface and it had no such thing.  The
planet is, if anything, less active than the earth.

}"The atmosphere of mars is invisible"
}[page 365]

Interesting, since it looked like a sword just a little while back...
(when it was "a comet approaching earth")

BTW:  From the surface it looks pink.  National Geographic ran a
rather interesting series on the Mars pictures a while ago.
Pretty.

}"The white precipitated masses on mars, which form the polar caps, are
}probably of the nature of carbon, ....  keeps this "manna" from being
} permanently dissolved under the rays of the sun."
} [page 366]

Carbon is black.  Maybe he means Carbon Dioxide?  That would be true, in
part (the permanent part is water), but that would disagree with his
dreams.
Carbohydrates have a strong 3.5 micron absorption feature.  The martian
polar cap doesn't.  Mariners 6,7, and 9 have found abundant evidence
for frozen water and carbon dioxide, though.

}"The main ingredients of the atmosphere of Mars must be present in
}the atmosphere of the earth" [gas exchange during encounter]
} [page 366]

CO2 is the main component at the atmosphere of mars.  It is a very minor
component of the atmosphere of earth.  Nitrogen is the main component
of the atmosphere of earth, with oxygen coming in second.  These gases are
not major components of the atmosphere of mars.

}".... argon and neon...on mars... Mars should be submitted to the test.
} If analysis should reveal them in rich amounts, this would also answer
} the question: What contributions did mars make to the earth when the
} two planets came in contact."
}[ page 367]

Viking landers: 96% Carbon dioxide, 2.5% nitrogen, 1.5% argon.  Very small
traces of oxygen, krypton, and xenon were found.  So the answer is:
None at all.

BTW:  The heavier noble gases (krypton and xenon among them) have yet to
be found associated with comets...

"Mars emits more heat than it receives from the sun."
} [pages 367]

Mars does NOT emit more heat than it receives from the sun.  It has been
observed from earth, orbit, mars orbit, and by landers.  This simply is
not so. As a result of the studies from Mariner 6, 7, and 9 mapping
mars in broad infrared bands near 10-20 microns, the thermal map of
mars is known almost as well as earth and the moon.  All the temperatures
are consistent with thermal equilibrium conditions, there is no indication of
an internal heat source.

}[more destruction on mars during encounter than on earth]
}[page 368]

Not where the landers have put down there isn't.
Nor on the pictures from orbit.

}"The planet (venus) is covered by clouds of dust."
} [page 368]

What kind of dust?  This is a zero statement. It does have clouds of sulfuric
acid droplets, though... (between 75% and 85% concentration)

}"...I assume that Venus must be rich in petroleum gases."
}[page 369]

It isn't.  'Nuff said.
Of the sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and hydrochloric acid we see nothing.
No hydrocarbons.  No carbohydrates.  ESPECIALLY not from Mariner 2.
Read the data, not the press release.  The reporters made that "petroleum
found" up.  Sagan was, BTW, one of the scientists directly associated with
this probe and that instrumentation in particular.  What he finds funny
is that it was postulated to fill the greenhouse hole (filled by CO2 and HOH)
to support the temperature.  Immmanuel used non-data that was used to support
a theory he disclaims.  Double wrong!

}"If the petroleum that poured down..."
}[page 369]

Again, this confusion between hydrocarbons (petroleum) and carbohydrates 
("manna") appears.  Velikovsky appears to add the lack of knowledge of
chemistry to his lack of knowledge of astrophysics.

}"The fact that methane has been discovered on Jupiter- the only known
}constituents of its atmosphere are the poisonous gases methane and
}ammonia - makes it rather probable that it has petroleum.
} [page 369]

Unfortunately, the major constituents of the atmosphere of Jupiter
are hydrogen and helium, neither of which appear too abundant on Venus.
And the presence of methane, a VERY simple molecule, says nothing about
the presence of petroleum extraterrestrially.  What you do is take
whatever Carbon happened to be there and chemically combine it with
the hydrogen that is EVERYWHERE.  Presto!  Methane.

}"... Venus - and therefore Jupiter - is populated by vermin; this organic
}life can be the source of petroleum."
} [page 369]

HEHEHEHEHEHehehehehehe.
First, Venus has been directly visited on the surface by landers, in the
air by balloons, and from low orbit.  NO indication of such "vermin"
exist. 
Just for fun, let's say "vermin" existed on Jupiter.  Now, given that
Venus is ejected at over 60 km/sec (Jupiter's escape velocity) and
less than 67 km/sec (vector addition of 60 kps jupiter escape and 20 kps
solar escape), which is WAY above the speed at which meteorites land
on earth, and the atmosphere of Jupiter is THICK, what's keeping these
things from being baked off as it exits by "reentry" (going up instead
of down) heat?

BTW:  What mystical mechanism ejects a planetary at 60-67 kilometers
per second from a very select site (in the plane of the elliptic, on
the "back side" of the orbit so it will spiral inward)?  We are talking
10^41 ergs here.  That is about 9 1/2 months worth of the sun's _entire_ 
energy output, which suddenly is released in one moment!

}"The night side of venus radiates heat because Venus is hot"
} [page 371]

No kidding!  Enough to melt lead on most of the surface.  How much
do you think an entire world would cool overnight, if it started at
molten lead temperatures, the atmosphere formed a blanket that
retained the IR, and there are STRONG winds that redistribute the heat?

}"The reflecting, absorbing, insulating, and conducting properties
}of the cloud layer of venus modify the heating effect of the sun
}upon the body of the planet..."
}[page 371]

True, and apparently even more than he thought.  The common label
fastened to this observation is "greenhouse effect"  The same
should happen to any terrestrial world that receives that much sunlight.
The calculated trigger for a runaway greenhouse is about 1.4 times the 
solar flux on earth.

}"Venus gives off heat."
}[page 371]

Correct, but misleading.  It gives off just as much energy as it receives.
The thermal flux ("gives off heat") matches the incoming sunlight.
This is why, for instance, microwave brilliance readings have stayed
constant for decades.  Besides which, you can measure the flux directly.
It matches.

Just for fun:
If venus was travelling 500 kilometers per second (not odd for outter
sol system origin), and the sun's radius is 7x10^10 cm, the transit time
is appox 3000 seconds, less than an hour.  How hot could it get?  The
solar source in the photosphere is 6000 degrees K.  Now, using the
Stefan-Boltzman law of thermodynamics, if there were NO other heating,
by now it would be 79 degrees kelvin.  Cold.  Real, real cold.
Now, just what happens to rock when you heat it to 6000 degrees?
And the vermin, manna, oil,.....

}"The core of the planet venus must be hot."
} [page 371]

Big deal.  The core of EVERY planet is hot compared to its crust.  Even
the moons of of the outter planets.  Remember that volcano of sulfur (dioxide?)
on Io?

}"Astronomers will see the planets stop or slow down in their rotation,
}cushioned in the magnetic fields around them..." [pluto and neptune]
} [page 372]

The magnetic fields of neptune and pluto are nowhere NEAR strong enough
to do this.  We have sent probes, and these little metallic items were
not influenced in the least.  We have sent a couple of Voyagers
through the entire solar system, with a few close approaches (Neptune
included).  In spite of coming REAL close, and in spite of having a
lot of iron in their construction, the force in their precision 
navigation was gravity.  A force that did not measurably influence
a chunk of steel smaller than a car does not seem likely to be able
to bounce planets.

Sagan did the calculations as to what field strength would be
required - about 10 megagauss.  This is a BIG magnetic field!  Since 
earth is .5 gauss, Mars and Venus are about .01, and Jupiter is less than 
10, and the interplanetary flux is about 10^-5, and NO rock shows sign of 
solidifying in a 10 megagauss field, I would say this is totally 
unsubstantiated.

}"Comets may strike the earth, as Venus did when it was a comet"
} [page 373]

Astounding, isn't it.  Direct physical contact that didn't destroy both.
Look at the hole in arizona a LITTLE object made.  Look at the iridium
layer that may have come from a meteorite a bit larger that exterminated
(possibly) most life on earth.  Think what a planetary mass would do.
I doubt if the crust would survive anywhere on either.  And they would
STAY in one piece, not split off again.

For some more fun:
Total kinetic energy in the collision: 
KE = 0.5 (M_e + M_v) v_rel^2   where v_rel is the relative velocity.
v_rel has to be _at_least_ 11.2 km/s (Earth's escape velocity),
and should be larger (gravitational focussing; difference in orbital
velocities).
This gives KE = 7 x 10^39 ergs.  Considering the binding energy
estimate obtained previously, the collision bids fair to disrupt
both planets.  It would be astounding if Earth_after were anything
at all like Earth_before!
(thanks for this from Mr. Gaetz!)

}"Facing many problems"
} [epilogue]
No kidding.  Nothing but, the way I see it.

To pick a couple from Yaron P. Sheffer:
Point A.
After very close encounterS with Earth, which have involved such drastic
effects as tidal disruptions, a complete halt of our planet's
rotation, then a restart at exactly the previous rate, etc.,
one would expect lots of space debris to float around both planets,
maybe even around Mars. A formation of ring systems seems to be very
plausible under the circumstances, YET NONE IS OBSERVED AROUND THESE
THREE TERRESTRIAL PLANETS. In fact, Venus has no natural sats whatsoever,
which are expected after a launch from Jupiter plus the following
planetary encounters. (Not to mention that Venus has been refered to
as a COMET, just about 1,000,000,000 times heavier than any normal comet
we usually see.) NOTE: 4000 YEARS OR SO IS AN INSUFFICIENT TIME SPAN
TO HAVE PLANETARY RINGS COMPLETELY DECAYING.

Point B.
Major effects should have involved our moon, YET ALL WE SEE ARE QUITE
LUNAR MARIA AND UPLANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DATED TO HAVE BEEN METEORITICALLY
ACTIVE NO LATER THAT 3 BILLION YEARS AGO. 

Point C.
Has anyone noticed any other events in which one planet launches another
towards other regions of the solar system...??   UH-UH!!
Even given "plausible" trajectories which stabilize within 4000 years
into almost circular (and at the exact available slot) orbits,
people IGNORE the machanism by which Venus has been Jovianly launched.

Point D.
There are careful Sumerian records of their skies from ca. 5000 years
ago... which give accounts of observing Venus in its ever-normal
orbit, AS IF NOTHING HAS EVER HAPPENED VELIKOVSKY-WISE! Just a reminder:
Earth has stopped its rotation (legend-wise of course) about
2000 years after the Sumerian observations of Venus...

Point E.
As has been mentioned already: The chemical composition of Venus is very
different from that of Jupiter. Instead of dealing with this simple
(yet anti-Velikovsky) hard fact from Reality, people went on to "reconsider"
plausibilities of orbital mechanics. But if there is no way to launch
Venus in the first place....

Point F.
The solar system (INCLUDING VENUS) is 4,600,000,000 years old.
Why do people still consider "scenarios" for "events" which supposedly
occured in the last 0.000001 part of the solar system's age
as "favorable"? Or are these only people who are not updated
with the latest knowledge about our solar system? Hmmmm...

}[venus changed into a comet]
}[page 379]

We know what venus is.  Landers have been there.  We know what comets
are.  Probes have been there.  Venus is not a comet.

BTW:  If Venus was/is a comet, where is the tail?  It is closer to the sun
now than it "was" during this supposidely dashing around.  So where is
the tail now?  And, given that the escape velocity is 6.4 miles per second,
how did it EVER have a tail? And for the "it is its atmosphere" crowd,
why is it bound now and wasn't earlier?  The mass of venus was HIGHER
back "when it was a comet", and so its gravity was higher, so the 
atmosphere would have been bound even tighter. Velikovsky tries to
convince us (later works) that the tail got wrapped around the planet
and is now the atmosphere.  Nice to know how this happened...

}"Magnetic poles of earth became reversed only a few thousand years ago."
}[page 380]

Nope.  There are reversals, but none that recently.  There is NO evidence of
such a proposition.

}[changing months/days/years]
}[page 380]

One would think that there would be some indicator, say in corals or
tree rings, of such.  Velikovsky presents none.  His only dream is that
of people using simpler math using a different base recorded what he
wants and not what was..  As a minor note, "december", means "tenth month".
Are we really only using ten now?  The earlier civilizations often didn't
even NAME the latter months.  The were more interested in the growing season.
That did not mean it was never winter.

}[venus night side heat]
} [page 380]

Absurd.  See above.

}"solved the problem of mountain building..."
}[page 380]

Absurd.  See above.
 
}"This could be caused by the earth's passing through a strong magnetic
} field at an angle to the earth's magnetic axis."
} [page 385]

One would think that some indication of this magnetism would be found in the
rocks.  It has not.  And the spacecraft that measure the field-strength
near Venus found it to be significantly less than even the earth's.

}[slowing of the earths rotation]
[page 385-386]

Lets say that it was NOT done suddenly, since we can see features in Luray
Cavern that are older than this that could not take the stress.  BUT, with
the earth's specific heat taken into account, and the rotational energy,
the earth would warm an average of 100 degrees celsius, more than enough
to boil the oceans.  At low altitudes near the surface (where the people
usually are) the temperature would go up by 240 degrees.  Yet, the 
inhabitants didn't notice.


} [more on the magnetic slowing]
} [page 386]

Absurd.  See above.  No evidence at all.

}[decides an atom is a good model of the solar system]
} [page 387-388]

This flies in the face of observed QM effects.

}[A nova the result of the collision of two stars]
}[ page 388]

A nit here.  Bear in mind the distinction between novae and
supernovae.  Novae are thought to result from thermonuclear
flashes on accreting white dwarfs.  Type II supernovae (like
SN 1987A) are thought to result from core collapse of massive
stars upon exhaustion of nuclear fuel.  (The detection of neutrinos
from SN 1987A was a welcome confirmation of the core-collapse
hypotheses.  Modelling core collapse is extremely tricky because the
explosion itself is a minor perturbation on the dynamics.  I don't
recall the exact figures, but I seem to remember that about
10^54 ergs is released in neutrinos, compared to only 10^51 ergs
in the explosion itself.  It doesn't take much of an error in the
numerics to convert an explosion to a fizzle.) 
(another from Mr. Gaetz.)

odd thought, indeed!  Maybe "some" or "one" or "maybe oughta"?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

references for direct quotes from Immanuel Velikovsky"

Worlds in Collision 
	Immanuel Velikovsky

Earth in Upheaval
	Immanuel Velikovsky

Velikovsky Reconsidered
	The Editors of Pensee
	(has a lot of his papers in it, along with other papers pro-V.)
...........................................................................
counter-velikovsky references I found during this search:

Scientists Confront Velikovsky  
	Donald Goldsmith

Beyond Velikovsky:  The History of a Public Controversy
	Henry H. Bauer
...........................................................................
references that I have sitting here and referred to:

Computer Simulation of the Formation of Planetary Systems by S. Dole in 
      Icarus 13, 494-508 (1970)

Calculations on the Composition of the terrestrial Planets
      Reynolds & Summers, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 74, no 10
      May 15, 1969 p 2494

The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals
      Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981

Fractionation of Iron in the Solar System
      Harris & Tozer, Nature vol 215, Sept 30, 1967

Formation of the Sun and Planets
        A. G. W. Cameron, Icarus 1, 13-69 (1962)

The Supercontinent Cycle
      Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988

Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift
        A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975

Goldreich, Peter, and Stanton Peale, "Spin - Orbit Coupling in the
    Solar System", Astron. J. 71, 6 (August 1966), pp 425- 438

Cloud, Preston E., Jr., "Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Evolution on
   the Primitive Earth", Science 160, (17 May 1968), pp 729 - 736

Hart, Michael H, "Habitable Zones About Main-Sequence Stars",
    Icarus 37 (1979), pp 351 - 357

Mart, Michael H, "The Effect of a Planet's Size on the Evolution of
    its Atmosphere", published in some conference or another; I
    got a copy from the author. (Dave Allen <davea@ll-vlsi.ARPA>)

Planets for Man
      Dole

Our Evolving Atmosphere
        Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov
                      
Second Planet, Second Earth
        S. L. Gillett, Analog Dec 84

The Steady State of the Earth's crust, atmosphere and oceans
      Siever, Scientific American, May 1974

The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth
      Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978

Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans
      Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986

The Atmosphere of Venus
      Schubert & Covey, Scientific American, July 1981, p66

The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere
      Rasool & Bergh, Nature, vol 226, June 13 1970

The Volcanoes and Clouds of Venus
      Prinn, Scientific American, Mar 1985

Venus, Near Neighbor of the Sun
	Isacc Asimov

Structure of the Lower Atmosphere of Venus
        C. Sagan, Icarus 1, 151-169 (1962)

Astronomy of the Ancients
	K. Brecher and M. Feirtag

The Mystery of Comets
	Fred L. Whipple

Geochemical exploration of the Moon and Planets
	I. Adler and J. I. Trombka

The Planet Uranus: a history of observation, theory, and discovery
	A. F. O'D. Alexander

The Planetary System
	Morrison & Owen

Werelden in Botsing (Dutch) 1963
	H. Freudenthal

...........................................................................
references from Matt Briggs on venus's atmosphere:

     Dickinson, R. E. (1986). "Venus mesosphere and thermosphere, pt. 1,
       heat budget and thermal structure," Jounral of Geophysical
       Reasearch: 91 (70-80).

     Kasprzak, W. T. (1986). "Wavelike perturbations observed in the neutral
       thermosphere of Venus," Jornal of Geophysical Research: 93 (11237-
       11245).

     Hou, A. Y. (1989).  "Further studies of the circulation of the Venus
       atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 46 (991-1001).

     Lacis, A. A. (1975).  "Cloud structure and heating rates in the
       atmosphere of Venus," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 32 (1107-1124).

     Walker, J. C. G. (1975). "Evolution of the atmosphere of Venus,"
       Journal of Atmospheric Science: 32 (1248-1255).

...........................................................................
reference from Perry G. Ramsey:
There is an article in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, June 1975
(in fact, the entire issue is about the atmosphere of Venus) by James Pollack
and Richard Young describing a radiative-convective model of the Venusian
atmosphere. 

...........................................................................
Articles relating to geomagnetism:
Evolution of Overlapping Spreading Centers: A Sea MARC II Investigation
	MacDonald, K. C. ; Fox, P. J

Stratigraphic Aspect of Paleomagnetic Studies of Bottom Sediments in Seas
and Oceans
	Tretyak, A. N. ; Vigilyanskaya, L. I. ; Dudkin, V. P.

Magnetic  Anomalies  and  Sea-Floor  Spreading  in the Western North
Atlantic,  and  a  Revised  Calibration  of  the  Keathley  (M) Geomagnetic
Reversal Chronology
Tucholke, p857-876 1979
	Vogt, P. R. ; Einwich, A. M

An  Analysis  of  Near-Bottom Magnetic Anomalies: Sea-Floor Spreading and
the Magnetized Layer
Geophysical  Jnl.  of  The  Royal Astronomical Society v43 p387-424 1975
	 Klitgord, K. D. ; Huestis, S. P. ; Mudie, J. D. ; Parker, R. L.

Magnetic Study of Basalts from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Latitude 37 N
Geological Society of America Bull. v88 n70503 p637-647 May 77.
	Johnson, H. Paul ; Atwater, Tanya

Geochronology of the Neogene Paleomagnetic Polarity Epochs
Proceedings  of  the  Congress  (6th),  International  Union of
Geological Sciences, Bratislava (Czechoslovakia), 4-7 Sep 75, v1 p303-305
	Theyer, F. ; Hammond, S. R.

A  Revised  Time Scale of Magnetic Reversals for the Early Cretaceous and
Late Jurassic
Jnl. of Geophysical Research, v80 n17 p2586-2594, 10 Jun 75.
	Larson, Roger L. ; Hilde, Thomas W. C.

Magnetic   Lineations   Observed   near  the  Ocean  Floor  and  Possible
Implications on the Geomagnetic Chronology of the Gilbert Epoch
Geophysical  Jnl. of the Royal Astronomical Society, v28 p35-48 1972
	Klitgord, K. D. ; Mudie, J. D. ; Normark, W. R.

Evidence for the Opening of the South Atlantic in the Early Cretaceous
Nature, v246 n5430 p209-212 23 Nov 73.
	Larson, Roger L. ; Ladd, John W.

Faunal Extinctions and Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v82 p2433-2447 Sep 71.
	Hays, James D.

Age of the North Atlantic Ocean from Magnetic Anomalies
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 11 p195-200 1971.
	Pitman, III, W. C. ; Talwani, M. ; Heirtzler, J. R.

Magnetic Reversals and Sedimentation Rates in the Arctic Ocean
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v81 p3129-3134 Oct 70.
	Clark, David L.

Palaeomagnetism of Deep-Sea Sediments
International Dictionary of Geophysics, v2 p1134-1141 1967
	Harrison, C. G. A.

Magnetic Anomalies over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge Near 27 Degrees N
Science v157 n3791 p920-3 Aug 1967
	Phillips, J. D.

Reference for volcanic activity:
	The End of Atlantis

...........................................................................
References for the tree-ring data:
Scientists Hope Tree Rings Will Answer Questions About Past
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS       DATE: June 16, 1988  12:44EDT

(Chris Stassen provided these)
Scientists Confront Creationism_, 
	L. Godfrey, Ed.;
        New York: Norton, 1983.  p. 35

Timescale
	N. Calder;
        New York: Viking, 1983.  pp. 28-29, 224, 271-273

Principles of Isotope Geology
	G. Faure;
        New York: Wiley, 1986.  pp. 390-39

Science and Earth History
	 A. N. Strahler;
         New York: Prometheus, 1987. pp. 155-158

Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth:
A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism
	 Dalrymple, G. B.;
         USGS Open-File Report 86-110, 1986.  pp. 39-41

The Unexplained: A Sourcebook of Strange Phenomina
	Wm. Corliss

Science,133:729-735, March 17, 1961
	Farrand, Wm. R.

===================================================================

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."  - Albert Einstein
.............................................................................

--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.