Cosmology View

My views on Cosmology and Physics

site navigation menu
 

Posts

Review of Cosmos without Gravitation
 

from Today's Context

This is a review of the small book of that title, which was was published by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1946.

He wrote it while Worlds in Collision was being published.
 I printed an on-line copy from a web page, having 19 pages

Much has happened with the Electric Universe Cosmology during these decades.

I reviewed his observations and conclusions.

Many of his observations remain valid. The big bang cosmology is known to be flawed.

However, with advances in our understanding of various phenomena, some conclusions about denying gravity are not valid.

One example is the Sun.  He correctly observed the gaseous sun model fails to explain many observations. His correct conclusion is that gravity alone cannot explain the gaseous Sun.  The model is wrong.

One correct observation is that the faulty gaseous sun model with gravity cannot all cannot explain all the Sun's behaviors, including the fact that Sun is round, though it should be oval from rotation, by gravity.

His incorrect conclusion from this observation and others, described in my review, is that gravity is not relevant to cosmology, as directly  implied by the title of his 1946 book.

Gravity cannot be ignored in cosmology, just because he noted several anomalies.

Since 1946, Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen Crothers developed a new solar model replacing the gaseous sun model.

This new solar model is based on condesnsed matter in the form of metallic hydrogen. The core is solid metallic hydrogen, while the rest is liquid metallic hydrogen.

A large mass of liquid in space which is not subject to any external forces for distortion, and is held together by gravity, should form a perfect sphere. "Water always seeks a level."

The Sun being a perfect sphere actually confirms the importance of gravity in cosmology, in this case.

My review covers the entire book, and finds other cases where gravity remains as the correct mechanism in cosmology.

The reason why I reviewed this 1946 book from today's context, is to verify whether all its conclusions remain valid, so many years later.

There are some in the Electric Universe community claiming Newton's force of gravity is not relevant to EU cosmology.

When reading my review, a reader can decide whether to agree with my conclusion that Newton's gravity remains relevant, and important, to cosmology.

A possible problem arises when a theory is developed based on the premature acceptance of the conclusions in Cosmology without Gravitation, written in 1946.

When any of its conclusions are found to be false, then theories based on those mistakes lost their foundation.

Physics was derailed by the naive acceptance of Einstein's 2 papers in 1905. 1 of them was relativity.

One should beware a naive acceptance of this small book written in 1946, by an author whose primary expertise was psychiatry.

This review requires an understanding of basic physics. No math is presented.
https://www.cosmologyview.com/Books/RCwG/rcwg.html

date posted  04/20/2022