Answers To Further Critics LYNN E. ROSE Copyright (c) 1986 by Lynn E. Rose (This paper is a sequel to my "Answers to Critics", which appeared in KRONOS XI:2, pages 3-l8.) * * * In our "Analysis" paper in KRONOS II:2 (November, 1976), Raymond C. Vaughan and I discussed the traditional arcus visionis - the angle of the Sun below the horizon - that is needed in order to permit Venus to be visible on the horizon. Michael Reade, in "Ninsianna and Ramesside Star Observations" (S.I.S. Review, forthcoming), complains that Vaughan and I did not mention the fact that Venus can sometimes be seen in the daytime, when the Sun is not below the horizon at all. Reade sees this omission as "sabotaging" the results of our paper. But Vaughan and I were discussing phenomena associated with conjunctions, and we had no reason to mention the fact that under favorable conditions Venus can indeed be seen in the daytime provided that it is substantially removed from conjunction (and therefore much brighter than it is during conjunction-related events). Reade also objects to our having used an arcus visionis of five and three-quarters degrees throughout our discussion. (He believes that the actual circumstances of observation would preclude any such degree of precision.) But we never said that the arcus visionis would always be exactly five and three-quarters degrees. Our Appendix explicitly listed the arcus visionis as one of thirteen variables that must be taken into consideration. In the main text of our paper, we spoke in terms of "roughly five and three-quarters degrees" (italics added). We then continued to use the five and three-quarters degrees, but only for purposes of illustration, and as an arbitrary, typical value that lay somewhere not far from the mean. Other readers understood what we were doing, though Reade apparently did not. In any case, we stand by the bulk of the "Analysis" paper, and we do not see Reade's objections as in any way "sabotaging" it. There are three general respects, however, in which our "Analysis" paper is not entirely up to date, and this may be a good occasion to point them out. The first such respect is that the amount of available data has greatly increased since that paper was written, due to the publication of The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa, by Erica Reiner and David Pingree, in 1975. None of that new data, however, would affect the main text of our "Analysis" paper; the only effect would be on the Appendix at the end, especially Tables I and II, which summarized the data on the various tablets. Much of that material in the Appendix has been extensively updated in our subsequent publications. A second respect in which "Analysis" is not up to date has to do with what the Venus tablets tell us about Venus and about Earth. Like many others, including Velikovsky, we at one time took it for granted that the Venus tablets would tell us about a radically different orbit of Venus. Such an assumption arises very naturally for those who are familiar with the conventional assignment of the Venus observations to the first half of the second millennium, and who are also familiar with Velikovsky's views about the earlier history of Venus. We have gradually come to realize, however, that at the time of the observations Venus might have been on or close to its present orbit. It would be fascinating to have detailed quantitative data on the cometary movements of Venus some thirty-five or more centuries ago, but the sequential observations that have in fact survived seem to be from the early eighth century, a time when the orbit of Venus was no longer cometary at all. The strangeness of these eighth-century observations of Venus seems to be mainly due to their having been made from an Earth that was on a radically different orbit from the present orbit of Earth. If we were rewriting the "Analysis" paper today, we would have to be more careful about how this sort of subject was handled. The third point is related to the second, but has to do with retrocalculation. If the orbit of Earth has been substantially changed since the time of the observations, but the orbit of Venus has not been substantially changed, then we perhaps could use retrocalculation for Venus. This is an attractive approach, one that we are actively pursuing. It illustrates that Velikovskians need not reject all retrocalculation past the seventh century. The determining consideration is whether the Velikovsky theory itself provides indications that a given orbit (in this case the orbit of Venus) might not have been substantially altered since that time. Here, once again, if we were rewriting the "Analysis" paper today, we would have to be more careful about how this sort of subject was handled. Points two and three together would affect only a few scattered remarks in our "Analysis" paper, and Reade's claim - that there has been some sort of "sabotaging" of that paper - would still remain entirely without justification. ........... Having criticized a number of others, let me conclude with a criticism of myself (and Vaughan). The three Tables in our "Sequence" paper (Pensee IVR VIII, pages 30-31) all give a relatively substantial eccentricity for Earth during the post-Beth-horon period or Stage 3. (The post-Beth-horon period covers the more than six centuries between the last near-collision with Venus, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and the first near-collision with Mars, in the eighth century.) In all three Tables, the Stage 3 eccentricity of Earth is 0.090. This raises a problem. Those Tables were intended as possible models for Velikovsky's sequence of orbits. But Velikovsky thought that the post-Beth-horon period featured a year of 360 days and a month of thirty days. Furthermore, he thought that these years and months were not schematic but observational. He also thought that no intercalary months or even intercalary days were used during the post-Beth-horon period. These views of Velikovsky's have frequently been attacked, by his "friends" and his foes alike. I have not yet been convinced either way, and it is not my purpose here to try to resolve these disputes. (I do find that many of those attacks on Velikovsky are unconvincing, but that in itself does not enable me to resolve the basic issue here.) For now, I merely wish to point out that if the thirty-day months were not schematic, but essentially observational, then both Earth and the Moon would presumably have been on orbits of almost negligible eccentricity. If Earth did have an eccentricity of 0.090, then there would have to have been considerable variation in the length of the synodic month at different times of the year, as well as in the length of the solar day. (Both the solar day and the synodic month are longer when Earth is nearer the Sun and shorter when Earth is farther from the Sun.) We would then have to regard the months of thirty days as merely reflecting the mean values, and therefore as being more schematic than strictly observational. Whether Velikovsky was right or wrong about the thirty-day months, the 360-day year, and the lack of intercalation, our figure of 0.090 in Stage 3 still fails to model Velikovsky's actual views, and therefore fails to accomplish our intended purpose. For whatever it is worth, I regard the comments in the preceding paragraph as the first and only legitimate criticism of our "Sequence" paper that has yet appeared. ** * If it seemed desirable, Vaughan and I could revise our three Tables, so as to reduce the 0.090 eccentricity virtually to zero. We are reluctant to do this, however, since the figure of 0.090 might turn out to have been fairly well chosen, despite the fact that it does not mirror Velikovsky's views on the non-schematic character of post-Beth-horon months. Ironically, it is the Venus tablets that are once again important here. * * * Like the post-Beth-horon calendars, the Venus tablets feature thirty-day months. With an Earth eccentricity of at least five or six times the present eccentricity, the months of thirty days on the Venus tablets could not be observational either, and would have to be schematic or at least mean months. Since Vaughan and I would put Years 1 to 17 on the Venus observations early in the eighth century, this problem would not necessarily affect the post-Beth-horon period or Stage 3. It depends upon whether the first Earth-Mars interaction did or did not precede Year 1 of the Venus observations. If it did, then the Venus observations would lie entirely within Stage 4. If it did not, and if there was an Earth-Mars encounter in Year 9, then Years 1 through 8b of the Venus observations would presumably lie at the very end of Stage 3. Since Years 1 through 8b do not display the requisite circularity, the Venus tablets would then have to be counted against Velikovsky's view that the post-Beth-horon or Stage 3 months were observational rather than schematic. On the other hand, if we accept Velikovsky's view as correct, then it would of course follow that Years 1 through 8b of the observations were in Stage 4, not in Stage 3, and the problem would be avoided. But none of this can be regarded as settled yet. It should be pointed out that Velikovsky's views on Stage 3 calendars remained most emphatic. During the Evening Session of the A.A.A.S. Symposium, he spoke as follows (my transcription): "First, I will respond to what was said, namely, about the month of thirty days and twelve months in a year without intercalating days into the year, which were added later. I am very proud of these chapters of mine toward the end of Worlds in Collision [see Chapters 7 and 8 of Part II], because I succeeded to quote from practically every ancient civilization, from Peru, to Mexico, to Rome, to Greece, to Babylon, to Assyria, to Persia, to Hindu, to China, to Japan, and to Egypt, and to Palestine, Judea, and probably several more civilizations, always [a] quotation not by myself, always by [a] specialist, always expressing the same wonder that [there were] no intercalary days - the year was just this: twelve months of thirty days - for a period of time, which was discontinued at the beginning of the eighth century. "Soon after that time, in all places, in all civilization[s], one or another reform was done, and five or five and a quarter days were added by all civilizations. The reform was [carried out] almost simultaneously - at least during one and the same century. And expressions were not just about months - about the Moon, the Moon travels in thirty days. Half of the Moon is fifteen days. Such great errors as a half a day every month, to do was never done." Or, as Velikovsky put it several minutes later: "So it is not so simple to explain everything: the ancient [s] did not know anything, they did not care, half a day does not count. No such thing." The "half a day" refers to those who claim that the mean synodic month was always just over 29.5 days, and that the reported thirty day month is but a rough approximation. I am not yet prepared either to accept or to reject Velikovsky's views about the post-Beth-horon year consisting of twelve non schematic months of thirty days each, with no intercalation. The sort of evidence that is compiled in Worlds in Collision in support of these views is indeed substantial, but it may not be as unequivocal or as exhaustive as Velikovsky thought, and there may even be some counter-evidence . The entire matter requires further study. Perhaps what is most important is that Velikovsky's suggestion that there were changes in the orbit of Earth as recently as about twenty-seven centuries ago remains entirely plausible. The Venus tablets seem to provide extremely strong support for that suggestion of Velikovsky's, though Velikovsky himself did not expressly recognize this. The Venus tablets are discussed in a section of Worlds in Collision entitled "Venus Moves Irregularly"; this section is on pages 198-200 - that is, still in Part I of the book. Velikovsky there presumes that the strangeness of the Venus observations is due to Venus' being "an errant comet" that was on an orbit radically different from the present orbit of Venus. In other words, Velikovsky presumes that the Venus tablets pertain to a time prior to the arrival of Venus onto its present orbit. At first, Vaughan and I approached the Venus tablets in much the same way, but we eventually came to suspect that the Venus tablets show Earth, not Venus, on an orbit radically different from its present orbit. Thus Vaughan and I would prefer to see pages 198-200 of Worlds in Collision in Part II ("Mars") rather than in Part I ("Venus"). For the Venus tablets seem not to pertain to how "Venus Moves Irregularly" in any orbital sense; that is, they apparently do not show Venus on an orbit radically different from its present orbit. Rather, they seem to show Earth on an orbit radically different from its present orbit. The implication is that the orbit of Earth must thereafter have changed substantially. Any such changes would apparently have been later in the eighth century and/or early in the seventh century, and would of course have had more to do with Mars than with Venus. The information that Earth underwent radical orbital change is far more valuable to us than would be any information that Venus or some other planet underwent such change. For if all we knew was that Venus or some other planet underwent such change, that would not provide clear and direct evidence that Earth itself - within historical times - participated in one or more interplanetary near collisions (and experienced one or more global catastrophes). Thus, as it turns out, the Venus tablets provide even stronger support for Velikovsky's overall theory than Velikovsky himself had anticipated, but that support pertains to Act Two of the cosmic drama that is described in Worlds in Collision, not to Act One. (This is perhaps just as well. If we can judge from the way many "supporters" of Velikovsky accept Act One and the related chronology, but reject Act Two and the related chronology, it may be that Act Two can use the support more than Act One anyway! Besides, when Act Two has been solidly established, arguing for Act One should be all that much easier.) * * * Although the Venus tablets provide strong support for Velikovsky's Martian episodes, they do not provide any real support for his views about post-Beth-horon calendars - despite the fact that the thirty-day months of the Venus tablets were sometimes mentioned by Velikovsky as part of the evidence for the post-Beth-horon calendars. As was noted above, Vaughan and I have found that the Venus tablets seem to reflect a situation in which Earth's orbital eccentricity was at least five or six times its present value. An immediate consequence of that finding - regardless of whether the Venus tablets are entirely in Stage 4 or partly in Stage 3 is that the thirty-day months on the Venus tablets must be either schematic or else mean months, not strictly observational as Velikovsky thought. And if the thirty-day months on the Venus tablets are non-observational, it would seem quite plausible that the thirty-day months of the post-Beth-horon period are non-observational also. That is precisely why Vaughan and I have not rushed to revise our Stage 3 figure of 0.090 for Earth's eccentricity. Such a figure may be difficult to reconcile with Velikovsky's views, but perhaps this is one occasion when we are better off not trying to model Velikovsky's views. I concede that the figure of 0.090 does not model Velikovsky's views here, but that figure might still turn out to be a fairly good estimate of the Stage 3 eccentricity, and there is no need to be in any hurry about modifying the Tables. To keep all of this in proper perspective, we should remember that what is most important about the post-Beth-horon calendars is not what they were in exact detail, but rather that they were not reflective of the present orbital arrangements. In this respect, Velikovsky remains correct, even if some of his detailed ideas about the post-Beth-horon calendars may eventually have to be reconsidered. Footnote 1. This warning comes too late to help Henry Bauer (the gullible author of Beyond Velikovsky), who has already swallowed de Grazia's book as if it were historical fact; see Bauer's review of Cosmic Heretics in Skeptical Inquirer IX: 3, pages 284-288 . _________________________________________________________________ \cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol1103\056answr.htm