New evidence and interpretation at the intersection of astronomy and religion can help us better understand the history of the Ancient Near East and of the origins of Islam.
In recent years, the theory (based on ancient sources) of Immanuel Velikovsky that the planet Venus first entered the inner solar system as a comet with a bifurcated tail (the similarity to horns gave it the name the Bull of Heaven) shortly before 2500 B.C. (Velikovsky said 1500 B.C., but new evidence indicates 2500 B.C.) has found plentiful substantiation. Now we have a much better explanation of the origin of Venus (it was pulled into the inner solar system by Jupiter’s gravity and, via tidal heating, became a comet with a long tail—overcoming the leading objection to Velikovsky’s theory). We can roughly track its interaction with the Earth on a 52-year cycle during the Late Bronze Age, causing catastrophes worldwide and leading Earth to turn over four times, for which there is plenty of evidence. (Velikovsky had characterized the interaction as electromagnetic, but now we can see that at least as likely it was gravitational, or both.) And we now have a framework theory of the terrestrial planets into which these phenomena neatly fit and for which there is much telling evidence. For Comet Venus, there is also newly interpreted, compelling iconographic evidence.
So we can ask, with new-found confidence that the Ancients and Velikovsky were right about Venus, how can we use this to better decipher aspects of the culture of the Ancient Near East and of the background of Islam?
Continue reading »
A new theory of the origin of the terrestrial planets appears to solve longstanding scientific riddles.
Researchers have encountered repeated frustration in their efforts to agree on how Earth came to have a significant amount of water. Meanwhile, the giant impact theory of the origin of the Earth-Moon system requires an elaborate scenario that seems impossible to verify and is undermined by new evidence. And none of the scores of hypotheses of the cause of the mass extinctions of prehistory has gained acceptance. Yet the new theory of the origin of the terrestrial planets can solve all three problems, and minor ones as well. Continue reading »
Immanuel Velikovsky argued famously, based on his interpretation of ancient sources, that Venus had emerged from Jupiter as a comet, interacted with the Earth and Mars in the second and first millennia B.C., and then finally settled into a nearly circular orbit of the Sun.
Here are three new lines of reasoning that tend to support this theory:
1. Instead of the various unpersuasive suggestions that Velikovsky and others have made for how a cometary Venus could have emerged from Jupiter, we should consider the possible consequences of the immense gravitational field of Jupiter, which pulls into the giant planet a stream of asteroids and comets such as Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994. Continue reading »
The 420 meter-long Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is the world’s largest effigy monument. Archaeological investigations have yielded conflicting results about its initial construction date, and various theories regarding its meaning have failed to gain traction. But the theory that the planet Venus was originally a comet that approached the Earth and caused great devastation neatly matches key characteristics of the Great Serpent Mound.
Recently, this Venus theory has gained additional credibility
from a commonsensical explanation of how a comet-like Venus could have seemed to emerge from Jupiter as in ancient Hindu and Greek myths; and it has found powerful substantiation from a reinterpretation of the headdress of Queen Nefertari of Egypt, consort of Pharaoh Ramses II, in this image from Abu Simbel (Ramses II’s headdress appears to contain Mars with two moons and a tail, either borrowed from Venus in an encounter or from Martian dust stirred up by an encounter). Continue reading »