Nah, that's where the name 'claptrap' comes from -- and all the myriad synonyms: Velikovsky, Thornhill, Talbott, Scott, Robitaille, Crothers, et al.
Many of the errors that Velikovsky makes can be explained by examining square-cube relations. For example, let us consider two mistakes: #17 and #22.
Velikovsky has made a rather significant reversal in going from #17 to #22.
First, he says that radiation pressure should push the planets and moons from their orbit.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
17.The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.
Yet he assumes that this same radiation pressure can not push the tails of comets.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
22. The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” (J. Herschel).
Strangely, he ignores the explanation for comets tails which was known even at that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
‘Solar radiation pressure strongly affects comet tails. Solar heating causes gases to be released from the comet nucleus, which also carry away dust grains. Radiation pressure and solar wind then drive the dust and gases away from the Sun's direction. The gases form a generally straight tail, while slower moving dust particles create a broader, curving tail.’
The reason one could ignore solar radiation in the case of the planets but not the comets tail is because the particles in the comets tail (atoms, molecules) are much less massive than a planet (Earth, Venus, Jupiter).
This is basically a square-cube law. The mass of a particle increases with the cube of the diameter of the particle. The cross section that intercepts the radiation increases with the square of the diameter. So the mass to cross section ratio linearly increases with the diameter of the planet.
The mass to cross section ratio basically determines which force dominates. Comet tails are small diameter particles. The radiation pressure dominates so the tail goes outward. The planets are large diameter particles. The gravity dominates so the planets move inward. The comet nucleus is large enough to act like a planet.
Note: Halleys comet nucleus is about the size of Manhattan Island in New York. Methane, a typical molecule in comet tails, is made of about 5 atoms. So gravity dominates the motion of Halley's comet nucleus while radiation pressure dominates the motion of Halley's tail.
Not including jets that erupt from the nucleus, of course. They cause slight changes in the motion of the nucleus. However, they don't make the nucleus velocity completely switch in direction. The gases in the tail are always going away from the sun due to radiation pressure. The ice and rock in the nucleus is always going to go toward the sun due to gravity.
Here is a link on square-cube laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
‘The square-cube law (or cube-square law) is a mathematical principle, applied in a variety of scientific fields, which describes the relationship between the volume and the area as a shape's size increases or decreases. It was first described in 1638 by Galileo Galilei in his Two New Sciences as the "...ratio of two volumes is greater than the ratio of their surfaces." [1]
This principle states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its surface area. When applied to the real world this principle has many implications which are important in fields ranging from mechanical engineering to biomechanics. It helps explain phenomena including why large mammals like elephants have a harder time cooling themselves than small ones like mice, and why building taller and taller skyscrapers is increasingly difficult.’
Note that Velikovsky has it precisely backwards. Further, he has not made any effort to examine what other scientists say on the these matters.
I always wanted to argue with a Velikovsky believer on this point. However, I haven’t found one willing to discuss gravity with me.
Are there any Velikovsky believers out there? Velikovsky, Thornhill, Talbott, Scott, Robitaille, Crothers, et al.? Any Electrical Universe people out there?
PLEASE, guys, contradict me!
.
