Sort of. I was wandering up and down the aisles of the
local public library. I noticed the title "5/5/2000", so I
picked it up. Now I am studying it. Very interesting.
>Anytime I see or hear the name Velikovsky, my bullshit
>detector leaps into the overload sector of the dial.
Who was he? Never heard of him.
>If you examine some of Venus's key characteristics, which
>we have measured with certainty e.g., diameter 12,100 km,
>density 5.2 grams per cubic centimeter, surface temperature
>482 degrees Celsius, we realize that not in a month of
>Sundays could it possibly have originated as a "dirty, fuzzy
>snowball" or comet.
I agree that this theory is suspect.
>As we also have historical references to Venus (in the Vedas)
>dating back to some 6,500BCE, so the dating would be
>suspect, even if it were possible for Venus to have been a comet.
Good example. Does anyone have a more accurate date?
>Finally, there had to be something in Venus' orbit about 4.5E9
>years ago, or neither the Earth nor Mars would be where they
>are today. If it was not Venus, what was it and where did it go to?
Very good answer. Compelling. Mr. V is out the window.
>So if the argument is that somehow the mass of the water
>caused the ice-caps to move, why didn't the much massier
>rocks move because of it too?
Beats me. As far as I can tell, Mr. Noone's theory rests on the
weight of the ice being of such magnitude and lopsidedness
that it is jerked toward the equator by its motion. What do the
numbers say?
CA Cook, LF
coreycook12@email.msn.com