Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.75 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ Free Shipping
Worlds in Collion Paperback – 2009
All Books, All the Time
Read author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more at the Amazon Book Review. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Among general non-fiction, Worlds in Collision was being outsold by only one book - the Bible. The epicenter of a literary earthquake --N. Y. Times Book Review
It is more fascinating reading than anything to be found on any fiction table. It is absolutely original and convincing. --Pittsburgh Press
This book has literally shaken the thinking world to its foundations. Not since Darwin's Origin of Species has there been advanced an idea so original, controversial, and stupendous in its implications. --Miami Herald
From the Publisher
Worlds in Collision is a special, an extraordinary book - not only by its contents, but also by the response it has received.
It is one of the few scientific books of the past centuries that have a direct profound importance for humanity - individuals and society alike. In fact it is a book that puts our present view of the world on a whole new fundament - not in some abstract specialized disciplines remote from practical life, but in a broad range of areas like astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, paleontology, biology, history, archaeology, literature, ethnology, theology, mythology, psychology; and in addition it has an important influence on the way man sees himself individually and socially.
It is the first time in centuries that a scientist didn't choose the direct way to his specialized colleagues in order to make the results of his research known, but addressed himself to the general public in a simple and clear language and presentation - for which he was harshly punished by the scientific establishment.
It is exactly this reaction from representatives of the "objective" sciences - that even match some medieval practices - which shows that this book deeply shakes the foundations of our knowledge - and belief. Because of this book being so special, it has deeply penetrated the consciousness of many people. Others however have preferred to forget it - or at least would like to do so. Due to this purposeful oblivion a younger generation doesn't even know about it any more, although today - almost 60 years after its first publication - it hasn't become less of a subject. On the contrary due to new results of scientific research and recent geological and climatic developments its importance has even increased. This, too, is something special in the flood of today's short-lived literary and scientific `flash in the pans'.
It is important for everyone of us and for science at large to deal with this book. Therefore we are happy to take upon ourselves the responsible task of making the complete works of Immanuel Velikovsky - not just this book - available to the public again in its unchanged form. Publishing this book - and this unfortunately also is something special for non-fiction - has required a fair amount of courage, which we proudly and consciously muster up.
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Here are some of his obvious mistakes:
-He frequently says that Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of the moon and that Athena was the Greek goddess of Venus. Neither of these is true. Athena ddn't have a planet equal, and Aphrodite's planet was Venus.
-Says there was a period in time about 4,000 years ago when there was no oxygen on Earth. This would be impossible.
-Uses the terms carbohydrate and hydrocarbon interchangeably. Does the man not know the difference between sugar and petroleum? (at one point he claims the Jews of Exodus ate hyrdrocarbon...that's just comical)
-Says the length of Earth's orbit was different about 4,000 years ago, but coral beds, tree rings, Mayan calendars and Stonehendge all show a consistent length of day for the past tens of thousands of years.
-Claims Venus is a comet. Comets are basically big dity snowballs. They're ice cold. Venus is a giant rock that's molting hot.
-Claims water is explosive
-Ignorant to the theory that different people can perceive a singular event differntly, as pointed out by the famous psychologist Rorschach. Wouldn't a psychiatrist be familiar with this?
-Claims it rained hydrogen about 4,000 years ago. It would have to be very cold to rain hydrogen...
-Claims flies are of an alien nature. We know they aren't because we have analyzed their DNA.
-contradicts himself many times, one obvious time being that ancient people couldn't accurately estimate time on page 59, but later of page 323 said they were good...hmmm...
-claims that mountain were formed by a strange gravity phenomana that occured when Venus allegedly swung by Earth's orbit. Apparently Velikovsky wasn't familiar with plate tectonics.
Those are just a handful of some of Velikovsky's wild scientific errors, as the book is riddled with them. Velikovsky is dead, his books are out of print, and as we learn more about earth sciences and physics it becomes more clear that most of Velikovsky's claims were way off target.
The book is quite fanciful and mildly entertaining, showing some interesting ideas for mythological explanation, but in the end it fails in all attempts. Best left alone.
Henry Bauer summarized his detailed analysis of Worlds in Collision (in his book "Beyond Velikovsky") by writing "Velikovsky displays a lack of understanding of chemistry, physics, and astronomy... [He] is not only ignorant of the facts...his whole approach is not that of the scientist... he does not weigh his evidence ... he does not adduce independent tests of validity ..[his] ideas about natural science are not worth taking seriously." Yet "he discusses these subjects in a manner that would convey, to a layman, an apparent familiarity with these fields."
Although there are relatively few "predictions" in this book, much has been made of claims that Velikovsky anticipated many discoveries from the space age. Velikovsky was correct about the high surface temperature of Venus (although he never quantified his prediction, saying only that "Venus is hot"), but apparently for the wrong reasons, since there was no net energy excess and no decline in temperature over time. In the case of Jupiter's radio emissions, he correctly predicted a more important role for electromagnetic effects than was thought at the time, but the radio noise from Jupiter is unrelated to the hot, electrically charged atmosphere hypothesized by Velikovsky. On the chemistry of Venus, he was completely wrong, as he was also in his predictions for the Moon. Actually, the dead surface of the Moon, where geological activity virtually ceased more than 3 billion years ago, provides one of the strongest counter-arguments to his scenario of recent planetary encounters.
Probably the most definitive answer to Velikovsky came from terrestrial science. Rather than astronomers' arguments about what might have happened to Venus or the Moon, direct information has become available on our own planet's history. First were data from dendrochronology, the use of tree rings to determine past growing conditions (and hence climate), which were extended back more than 4000 years, into the period in which the Velikovskian global catastrophes were supposed to have happened. Then the early 1980s saw analysis of Greenland ice cores that provided annual values for global average temperature and volcanic dust and sulfuric acid going back tens of thousands of years. There was no evidence of any volcanic or impact or climatic catastrophes at or near the times proposed by Velikovsky from his interpretation of ancient myths. The fact is that many things that might have seemed plausible or at least possible when Velikovsky wrote them in 1950 have since been shown to be wrong.
For a detailed point-by-point discussion of Velikovsky's science errors, see my chapter in Donald Goldsmith (editor) "Scientists Confront Velikovsky" titled "Planetary Astronomy and Velikovsky's Catastrophism" and my article "Velikovsky at 50" in Skeptic 9, No. 1 (2001).
Most recent customer reviews
Immanuel Velikovsky studied natural sciences at the University of Edinburgh, history, law, and medicine (M.D.Read more