[Hubert Blaine Wolfschleg]

Hello my friends!

I've recently come across the theories of a certain Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky and I find them rather compelling. However, he unfortunately does not agree with the Flat Earth view, and I was wondering if any qualified scientists out there in our community could help me draft a version of Velikovsky's theories that would reconcile his alternate timeline and Venus' near collision with Earth with a flat, planar view of things. One thing that he did do, though, was suggest that gravity was not what it seemed to be and what we perceive as such is actually just electromagnetism.

[Hubert Blaine Wolfschleg]

If you are not familiar with the theories of Velikovsky, I recommend https://www.velikovsky.info/ as a helpful source for understanding his theories. I have not read it, but I've definitely heard that his memoir Stargazers and Gravediggers is particularly enlightening, as is his magnum opus, Worlds in Collision.

[Алёна]

As a Flat earth researcher I say stop knocking on my door and leave me alone.

[Knickknack]

 

One thing that he did do, though, was suggest that gravity was not what it seemed to be and what we perceive as such is actually just electromagnetism.

I think you'd have to start with explaining why electromagnetism wouldn't result in the earth collapsing into a sphere the same way that gravity would if you want to merge the two theories.

[SimonC]

One thing that he did do, though, was suggest that gravity was not what it seemed to be and what we perceive as such is actually just electromagnetism.

I think you'd have to start with explaining why electromagnetism wouldn't result in the earth collapsing into a sphere the same way that gravity would if you want to merge the two theories.

I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?

[Knickknack]

I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?

I am saying that if magnetism creates the same effect as gravity, then magnetism would eventually cause the earth to collapse into a sphere...because that is the effect of gravity.  Any large enough mass will eventually collapse into a sphere due to their own gravity.

[Knickknack]

So I read some of his stuff last night. He's got quite the imagination and doesn't seem to know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates.  No, that isn't a joke or sarcasm.

I don't know about all flat earth followers, but I don't think you could ever reconcile his beliefs with what is posted on the wiki for this site.  He dismisses the idea that all bodies fall at the same rate in a vacuum regardless of their makeup and that's pretty central to how FET is explained in the wiki. Its also been settled science since Galileo that they do.

“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.” (Einstein)(37)
This law is supposed to hold with great accuracy. The velocity of the fall is generally explored with the help of a pendulum; it appears to us that a charged object must fall with a different velocity than a neutral object. This is generally denied. But the denial is based on the observation that there is no difference in the number of swings of a pendulum in a unit of time, in the case where a charged or neutral bob is used. This method may produce inaccurate results. In an accurate method, the falling time and the time of ascent of the pendulum must be measured separately. In the case of a charged body, the increase in the velocity of descent of the pendulum may be accompanied by a decrease in the velocity of ascent, and thus the number of swings in a unit of time would remain the same for charged and non-charged bobs.

In a charged body the attracting and the inertial properties are not equal

https://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

[SimonC]

I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?

I am saying that if magnetism creates the same effect as gravity, then magnetism would eventually cause the earth to collapse into a sphere...because that is the effect of gravity.  Any large enough mass will eventually collapse into a sphere due to their own gravity.

That's interesting. Is there any way this has been or can be demonstrated as it would be interesting to watch something like this happen?

[Knickknack]

That's interesting. Is there any way this has been or can be demonstrated as it would be interesting to watch something like this happen?

Have we ever watched the a planet being created in real time?  I doubt it, that would take thousands of years.

[SimonC]

That's interesting. Is there any way this has been or can be demonstrated as it would be interesting to watch something like this happen?

Have we ever watched the a planet being created in real time?  I doubt it, that would take thousands of years.

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

[Knickknack]

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

[WTF_Seriously]

I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Some would posit that the evidence is right under your feet.

[Hubert Blaine Wolfschleg]

It's unfortunate that we're probably not going to be able to reconcile the science of Velikovskianism to FET. However, I think that his history may yet be able to match with FET, and reinterpreting his version of history as occuring on a flat earth should not take too much modification of his theories (however, this is not related to science, so I think that this may not be too relevant). Also, this gravity phenomenon in which materials coalesce into a sphere is only existent for large objects--there's a reason that the Moon is round and asteroids aren't.

[SimonC]

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

[andiwd]

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

[SimonC]

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

Thank you. Very interesting. Also interesting was the article in the link you provided. In particular the galactic disk M104. And a thought came to mind; If this 'flat' galaxy was being 'pulled' together by a central force (magnetic, anti-gravity or something else) might it be possible for the constituent parts (of the galaxy) to form a complete disk? And even if this was just remotely possible could this therefore suggest how a flat as opposed to global earth was formed? Is there anything to dispel this for example?

[stack]

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

Thank you. Very interesting. Also interesting was the article in the link you provided. In particular the galactic disk M104. And a thought came to mind; If this 'flat' galaxy was being 'pulled' together by a central force (magnetic, anti-gravity or something else) might it be possible for the constituent parts (of the galaxy) to form a complete disk? And even if this was just remotely possible could this therefore suggest how a flat as opposed to global earth was formed? Is there anything to dispel this for example?

Not really a comprehensive, in depth explanation, but a good primer of what we think we know to date:

Why Are Galaxies Flat?

In Summary
- Galaxies are flat because of the conservation of angular momentum.
- Flat galaxies are usually spiral galaxies.
- Our solar system is also flat because of the conservation of angular momentum. Past Neptune, our solar system ceases to be flat.
- Elliptical galaxies are not flat and lean more towards a spherical shape.
- The Milky Way was probably flat at one time, but currently, it is warped because of some unknown force.

[sandokhan]

It's unfortunate that we're probably not going to be able to reconcile the science of Velikovskianism to FET.

The events ascribed by I. Velikovsky to have occurred some 3,500 years ago, actually took place a few hundreds of years ago.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938506#msg1938506 (six consecutive messages)

There is a question that no one, not even I. Velikovsky, could answer:

One other question, of a like nature. I think it is generally accepted that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was built before this close approach. The sides of the Great Pyramid are oriented—north, south, east, west—within, as I recall, about three minutes of arc, about the smallest angle one could expect the orientation to be if surveying was done with the naked eye. It seems a rather unusual coincidence that this north, south, east, west orientation could have come out of an Earth that had been thrown into such a chance disorientation by the close approach.

The almost perfect north-south orientation means that no tilt or change of poles has occurred since the Great Pyramid was constructed.

In the heliocentrical context, a massive pole shift must have taken place in the recent historical time; however, this fact is disproven by the north-south orientation of the Gizeh pyramid, not to mention its precise calendar of the solstices and of the equinoxes (the Gizeh pyramid was constructed, we are told, well before the time of the pole shift itself).

Moreover, the facts concerning the north-south orientation are even more startling.

"To understand why, we look at Livio Catullo Stecchini, who was a professor of ancient history at Paterson State Teachers College and wrote on the history of science, ancient weights and measures (metrology), and the history of cartography in antiquity.
Professor Stechhini is best known for his numerological theories about the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.

In the 1960’s Professor Stecchini wrote about the apparent inaccuracies detected in the north-south orientation of the Great Pyramid and how these were present with a purpose.

As Stecchini claimed, the alignment axis of the western side of the Great Pyramid was drawn first by its builders, then, the builders outlined the northern side so it could be perfectly perpendicular to the western side. The eastern side, however, was intentionally placed at a larger angle of 3 arcmins, resulting in a larger side.

In other words, the northeast corner should have been 90 ° 03 ’00 “, not 90 °. As for the southern side of the Great Pyramid, it was predicted to be half an arcminute larger than perpendicular, so that the southwest corner measured 90 ° 00 ’30.
However, Stecchini also studied a small line on the floor of the base of the Great Pyramid located near the center of the northern side. Some authors have assumed that this was the original north-south axis of the Great Pyramid.

The data shows that the axis line is located at 115.090 meters in the northwest corner, and 115.161 meters in the northeast corner, so it seems to be a bit off center. This variation was typically rejected as human error.

However, Professor Stecchini concluded that this was not a mistake. Rather, the north-south axis of the Great Pyramid was misaligned on purpose. Therefore, the apex was also misaligned on purpose by about 35.5 millimeters westward."

[Dual1ty]

I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?

I am saying that if magnetism creates the same effect as gravity, then magnetism would eventually cause the earth to collapse into a sphere...because that is the effect of gravity.  Any large enough mass will eventually collapse into a sphere due to their own gravity.

Nope. It would actually "collapse into" a flat plane (roughly... it wouldn't be completely flat).