From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Science and Velikovsky (was NASA Coverup)
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:09:21 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

I have removed alt.conspiracy from the newsgroups line as we do not
have it here.

In article <4608@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:

>    On this basis then, I concede that the lunar gravity is 1/6 .

Thank you.

>    I  apologize  ,publicly  ,  over the net, to the general class of people
>   known as "NASA Scientists" who I accused of concealing  the  truth  about
>   the lunar gravity.

Sir/Madam, you are most unusual.  Most people putting forward
"alternative" theories (many would say "crank") will go through any
logical contortion rather than admit that they are wrong.  Your
willingness to concede to evidence is commendable.  I hope that I can
be as open minded.

> [...]

>    I  will  continue , however to point out alternative theories to account
>   for various facts  of  nature.  Theories  are  not  science,  but  merely
>   suggestions  of  possible  explanations  for  observed  phenomena  .   An
>   alternate theory need only be logically and mathematically consistent  to
>   be as viable as relativity , or any other theory.

Not quite.  "Science" as an enterprise covers the whole gamut from
collection of data, through established and less established theories,
to outright speculation.

You mention logical and mathematical consistency (these are actually
the same).  This is the first requirement of a theory.  There are
others.

The second requirement is consistency with reality.  If a theory is
not consistent with reality then it looses.  I could (for instance)
propose a theory of the universe where Newton's constant G is
negative.  This would make everything fly apart instead of clumping
together.   This theory is logically consistent, but is not consistent
with reality.  Hence it is wrong.

The third requirement is simplicity.  Given two theories which both
explain the facts equally well, we pick the simpler.  This is Occam's
Razor.

>    I  am  , at least,gratified to learn that Velikovsky's idea of planetary
>   collisions , long scorned and ridiculed by the scientific community ,  is
>   now the prevailing theory explaining the origin of the moon.

Velikovsky's ideas bear only a passing resemblance to the scientific
theory.  The scientific idea has the planets starting to form 5-6
billion (thousand million) years ago, and it took a long time.  During
this time many smaller bodies formed and collided.  Sometimes they
accreted, other times they split up.  The Earth-Moon system was the
result of such a split.  Things settled down gradually.  This has the
following major differences with Velikovsky:

1: V. has these catastrophic occurances happening only a few thousand
   years ago (time frame out by a factor of a million).

2: V. has a fully formed solar system (planets in well established
   orbits, no large amounts of debris in highly eliptical orbits) and
   only a few highly catastrophic events.  Those events were witnessed
   but not understood by those on Earth.

This ignores all the other problems with V's theory, including
planetary movements which are highly inconsistent with Newton's laws
of gravity, and the strange business of the hydrocarbon residue from
Venus becoming nutritious carbohydrate "manna".

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.space