Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,...
Hebrews 11:3
"The existing design of the solar system,
--with rocky planets near the sun
--and gas giants far away,
is ideal for life to thrive on Earth.
As far as is known, it is unique anywhere else in the universe. Thus, the Earth appears to occupy a privileged place in the solar system and, as far as known, in the universe as well.
The question is, how did it get that way?
In attempting to account for the origin of Jupiter and the other planets, Crane and Webb, excluding intelligent design, decided the “only way we can explain the size and disruption of the planets as they now are is if they formed somewhere else and migrated to their current positions. To move whole worlds around you need something to give them a gravitational shove.” This something, they conclude, could only have been the other planets.
The Ghost of Velikovsky Returns
Although Crane and Webb do not mention him for good reasons, they presented an idea eerily similar to one of the most derided
theories in astronomy— that proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky’s most well-known book Worlds in Collision was first published in 1950. The book postulates that around the 15th century B.C., the modern planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter and passed near the Earth, ending up where it is today. On its trip to where it is today, Venus altered Earth’s orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes.
The details of Crane and Webb’s theory are very different than Velikovsky’s account, of course, but the basic idea is similar. It invokes “Jupiter’s gravitational bulldozing” planets into different positions from where they formed. They call this idea astronomers’ “best guess” for how the planets moved around, producing the solar system existing today.
Velikovsky’s idea of the solar system’s formation was treated so poorly in the 1950s and 1960s that the leading American science organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, agreed to hold a session on Worlds in Collision, in which Velikovsky was able to take part Nonetheless, most all of the papers presented at the session were very negative towards his catastrophic views.
Velikovsky’s work is frequently cited as a canonical example of pseudoscience Yet, a team of leading cosmologists at a conference in Nice, France proposed a catastrophic theory of planet formation that is now widely accepted, including drastic rearrangements of planets that led to our present solar system.
It reminds one of Velikovsky’s basic theory! What goes around comes around."
CEH
Hebrews 11:3
"The existing design of the solar system,
--with rocky planets near the sun
--and gas giants far away,
is ideal for life to thrive on Earth.
The question is, how did it get that way?
In attempting to account for the origin of Jupiter and the other planets, Crane and Webb, excluding intelligent design, decided the “only way we can explain the size and disruption of the planets as they now are is if they formed somewhere else and migrated to their current positions. To move whole worlds around you need something to give them a gravitational shove.” This something, they conclude, could only have been the other planets.
The Ghost of Velikovsky Returns
Although Crane and Webb do not mention him for good reasons, they presented an idea eerily similar to one of the most derided
The details of Crane and Webb’s theory are very different than Velikovsky’s account, of course, but the basic idea is similar. It invokes “Jupiter’s gravitational bulldozing” planets into different positions from where they formed. They call this idea astronomers’ “best guess” for how the planets moved around, producing the solar system existing today.
Velikovsky’s idea of the solar system’s formation was treated so poorly in the 1950s and 1960s that the leading American science organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, agreed to hold a session on Worlds in Collision, in which Velikovsky was able to take part Nonetheless, most all of the papers presented at the session were very negative towards his catastrophic views.
Velikovsky’s work is frequently cited as a canonical example of pseudoscience Yet, a team of leading cosmologists at a conference in Nice, France proposed a catastrophic theory of planet formation that is now widely accepted, including drastic rearrangements of planets that led to our present solar system.
It reminds one of Velikovsky’s basic theory! What goes around comes around."
CEH