Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (32094)	8/25/2000 2:44:47 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The result of applying this, according to Velikovsky, shows that the conventional picture of uniformity and slow, gradual change is wrong — or, at least, incomplete. This is explained by Gould and Ethridge much better. Velikovsky's work was meticulous and sincere. Irrespective of whether the final verdict vindicates his theories or not, they deserved to be heard with more open-mindedness and respect than they were given by the scientific establishment. I never met Velikovsky, he may have been sincere but he was completely ignorant, unless he was a charlatain. There's no more reason to reanalyse it than there is to re-hash the celestrial spheres, or the flat earth theory. He comes up with ideas like Venus whoosing out of Jupiter, comming so close to Earth that the atmospheres overlap, and yet doesn't try to expain why the planets were not pulled apart by gravitational tidal effects leaving another asteroid belt instead of a plant. (after this near collision both planets settle down in nice stable orbits, and we pump the remaining Venusian atmosphere out of the ground to put in our cars). It's too stupid for a comic book parody. TP