Talk:Worlds in Collision

message: I have been preparing some of this, mainly references and slight expansions.  I'll try to include what I have so far tomorrow.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help so far in this article. I think that this  has the potential to become at least a good article with some effort. The section probably needing the most expansion is the 'core ideas' one - it has to be a comprehensive summary of the book unlike the (rather unsatisfactory) current version. Sheehan (Talk) 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without wanting to be overly harsh, the article is a bit rubbish at the moment. It keeps concentrating on astronomy aspects. There is very little astronomy in WinC (certainly nothing about radio noises of Jupiter, etc). WinC is primarily a book on *comparative mythology*. The article needs more stuff about that aspect. In particular, it should probably mention that V's entire identification of his celestial agent as Venus rests on the use of Rockenbach's De Cometis, which is extremely dubious. All this waffle about astronomical aspects is somewhat irrelevant.--feline1 07:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main tenant of Worlds In Collision is that its compares a whole series of unrelated data, and proposes a theory to tie that data together. Once the core mechanics of a theory is proved to be rubbish then the theory is rubbish. So the "astronomy aspects" is highly relevant since it is the smoking gun that shoots the theory down. Halfblue 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is only unrelated if it is assumed a priori to be unconnected. I can't see anything in the article that suggests that the astronomy was rubbish, but you are absolutely right that the astronomy is relevant, as is the ancient history which should be subjected to the same scrutiny. --Iantresman 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: "And a failure to grasp the epistemology of the situation would be to go into the *comparative mythology* in the book... "... well, you're entitled to your opinion - but I assure you, it is completely bass ackwards. There is precious little astronomy in "WinC" to critique, if any. You have actually read it, right?--feline1 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ... and the Titanic was perfectly sound ship except for a few pesky little holes in it. Actually one needs not read any of "Worlds in Collision" to judge a Wikipedia article on it since it is possible to recognize the tactics of an "advocate" in this and many other subjects. NPOV violations are easy to spot especially when they are this blatant. But I will say I am well versed in Velikovsky, his theories, his fans, and his detractors, and for that mater common tactics used to support a pseudoscience. Velikovsky main attributes were that he was a good writer and a damn good public speaker (he spoke many times here in Philly), but the yarns he spun are mostly that... yarns... and should be recognized as such. That is not to say he was not a nice guy and his tactic of taking a shotgun to history didn't score some hits. But random chance is not a proof that he was right... as this article seems to imply. Halfblue 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not some Velikovsky apologist myself! Neither do I think this "WinC" article is currently very good (although I have done a lot of work on the main Immanuel Velikovsky article). You don't need to have read WinC to spot POV language, no... but that's not quite the point I was making. I'm saying that the thesis can be dismantled on its comparative mythology & use of sources long before there's any need to bother with trying to calculate a way to circularize Venus' orbit whilst maintaining conservation of angular momentum etc etc (e.g. because V's reasoning as identifying *Venus* as his agent of destruction is actually very weak - he simply harps on about it so much that critics tend to take it as given). Kinda like when someone is convinced their television is broken but actually, just the batteries in the remote are flat. --feline1 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with presenting a point of view, as long as it is presented neutrally, AND, has reliable sources. I can find you citations claiming that "critics demomolished Velikovsky", and "Velikosky rebutted his critics". I need to accept either viewpoints myself, but it represents the views accurate, neutrally and reliably. --Iantresman 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--->Fairness of tone Halfblue 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to Stephen J. Gould's quote? It seems quite balanced to me, verifiable, and definitely a criticism. --Iantresman 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to do 

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

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

message: Most of the criticism is based on current science.  Is this current science believeable?  Some would argue for and some would argue against.  What makes Immanuel's work believeable is the direct quotes from the bible.  What Immanuael is writing about is what happened in that part of the world as per the Old and New Testament Bible's and all the people involved.  So in my opinion, what the current scientists criticize about Immanuel's writings is invalid.  Immanuel does provide some of his scientific ideologies and states that.  My question to the current scientist's ---they did not live during that time period and if some scientists did----where are those records and or teachines?
Immanuel has helped the general public in understanding the many stories and events that took place in the Hebrew Bible and or Old/New Bible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.148.18 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  But it's the Hebrew and or Bible stories 

message: Macmillan's interest in publishing it was encouraged by the knowledge that Velikovsky had obtained a promise from Gordon Atwater, Director of the Hayden Planetarium, for a sky show based on the book when it was published.[2] The book, Velikovsky's most criticized and controversial, was an instant New York Times bestseller, topping the charts for eleven weeks while being in the top ten for twenty-seven straight weeks
who wrote this ? it need to be debabelised and turned into english language  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.129.10.184 (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like English to me. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes no sense in the English language 

message: While I find the article to present clear and cogent criticism, the popularity of the book is unfairly given short shrift. The fact remains that people do continue to take it at face value (albeit not so many as in the 1950s), and that it's constantly referenced by various fans. 
Then there's television programming: at a casual browse (the programs bore me), I've seen Velikofsky referenced positively on the various "aliens among us" pseudohistory programs on The History Channel (ironic name!!) and A&E and even National Geographic. (And now we've got the madness of social media.) Hardly Velikovsky's only book, yet Worlds is almost always the title mentioned.
Certainly this persistent placement in the popular mind ought to be noted here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  social & popular legacy? 

message: My mom is a fan so I have done some research and try to let her down gently about some of Velikovskys ideas when they fail my classical mechanics test.
However there are some ideas that seem to merit further investigation.
I doubt Venus was involved but what if there was a near miss my some other comet that is since gone, could it explain some of the weird stuff?
The one thing that seems very hard to fake is the sun changing direction and having a crust slip due to random chance is a bit of a stretch.
However what if the earth is near a point of instability and an outside force shows up could it not cause the described events?
I refer to that rather fringe Dzhanibekov Effect described so well in the popular video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU 
Would it not be cool if the earth did have some near misses that may have caused the flip or a partial flip to occur due to outside forces.
While reports and research currently favour no or unlikely catastrophe occurrences if there was research into upheavals then the evidence might come to light.
So does anyone know if the Dzhanibekov Effect would be possible on a fluid filled planet if an external gravitational pull was exerted?
Would the manuver result in the conditions described by the witnessed accounts?
Idyllic press (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sticking to the facts