Worlds in Collision is a controversial book in which Immanuel Velikovsky argues that myths and legends from the worlds ancient cultures, suggest that the Earth has been subjected to global planetary catastrophes. By comparing ancient texts, Velikovsky argues that many cultures described the same cosmic scenarios, for example, that dozens of traditions describe the planet Venus as having once looked like a comet.

Before publication, scientists threatened the original publisher, Macmillan, with a boycott, resulting in the books transfer to Doubleday. Other scientists criticized the book as being unscientific (it's a history book!), though many boasting that they had not read it, with the irony being lost.

In 1974, the AAAS organized a conference on Velikovsky's work, which was widely reported as successfully demolishing the theories. Proponents disagreed. For example, Dr. Robert Jastrow of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies wrote: "Professor [Carl] Sagan's calculations, in effect, ignore the law of gravity. Here, Dr. Velikovsky was the better astronomer."

Worlds in Collision tends to polarize people. Velikovsky certainly erred in some of his predictions, but others were surprisingly accurate, eg. (a) that the Earth has been subject to catastrophes (b) Venus would be found to be hot (c) Jupiter would be found to emit radio noise. While other prediction are apparently bunkum (eg. Venus was once a comet), it is interesting that NASA's Pioneer Venus Orbiter discovered that Venus has a tail (see New Scientist).

More details can be found at the Velikovsky Encyclopedia ( )

First published in 1950, this book posits that "two series of cosmic catastrophes took place in historical times, thirty-four and twenty-six centuries ago, and thus only a short time ago not peace but war reigned in the solar system." Velikovsky adduces geologic and archeological evidence, as well as testimony from a variety of ancient documents usually taken as metaphorical, including the Old Testament. The similarity of motifs and observations in these documents which come from all five continents at roughly the same time cannot be explained by chance, he asserts. Velikovsky bemoans the fact that "traditions about upheavals and catastrophes, found among all peoples, are generally discredited because of the shortsighted belief that no forces could have shaped the world in the past that are not at work also at the present time..." He proposes that "[p]rior to the last series of cataclysms ... the globe spun on an axis pointed in a different direction in space, with its poles at a different location, on a different orbit..." The cataclysms, he suggests, were caused by close encounters between the Earth and Venus and Mars, Venus having started its celestial life as a comet sprung from Jupiter. His theories may sound outragous, but it is worth reading his carefully researched evidence, both historical and geological, for these conclusions.

My husband has what I assume is the typical rationalist's reaction of dismissal for Velikovsky's theories, feeling that such a book isn't even worth reading to see what his arguments are because they could only be ridiculous. Unfortunately, this attitude is identical to that held by most scientists since Velikovsky's time (with the notable exception of Einstein).

On the contrary, I think his evidence - especially that of the physical variety - is overwhelming and should be considered. In any event, it is an exciting and thought-provoking book.

(JAF) ( )

A classic piece of what I call "speculative history." It might not be true, in fact, who the hell REALLY believes that Venus was a comet that got spit out of Jupiter? But it is necessary for science and history to be shaken up from time to time with unconventional theories competently written and researched. ( )

A classic piece of what I call "speculative history." It might not be true, in fact, who the hell REALLY believes that Venus was a comet that got spit out of Jupiter? But it is necessary for science and history to be shaken up from time to time with unconventional theories compotently written and researched. ( )

To be fair, this work was first published in 1950. In spite of the name-calling, we ARE still slightly mystified about the relationship between Hydrocarbon and Carbohydrate, if any. It does not help to accuse Dr V of "scientism".