Broca's Brain - Carl Sagan [55]
There is one further point about scientific method that must be made. Not all scientific statements have equal weight. Newtonian dynamics and the laws of conservation of energy and angular momentum are on extremely firm footing. Literally millions of separate experiments have been performed on their validity—not just on Earth, but, using the observational techniques of modern astrophysics, elsewhere in the solar system, in other star systems, and even in other galaxies. On the other hand, questions on the nature of planetary surfaces, atmospheres and interiors are on much weaker footing, as the substantial debates on these matters by planetary scientists in recent years clearly indicate. A good example of this distinction is the appearance 1975 of Comet Kohoutek. This comet had first been observed at a great distance from the Sun. On the basis of the early observations, two predictions were made. The first concerned the orbit of Comet Kohoutek—where it would be found at future times, when it would be observable from the Earth before sunrise, when after sunset—predictions based on Newtonian dynamics. These predictions were correct to within a gnat’s eyelash. The second prediction concerned the brightness of the comet. This was based on the guessed rate of vaporization of cometary ices to make a large cometary tail which brightly reflects sunlight. This prediction was painfully in error, and the comet—far from rivaling Venus in brightness—could not be seen at all by most naked-eye observers. But vaporization rates depend on the detailed chemistry and geometrical form of the comet, which we know poorly at best. The same distinction between well-founded scientific arguments, and arguments based on a physics or chemistry that we do not fully understand, must be borne in mind in any analysis of Worlds in Collision. Arguments based on Newtonian dynamics or the conservation laws of physics must be given very great weight. Arguments based on planetary surface properties, for example, must have correspondingly lesser weights. We will find that Velikovsky’s arguments run into extremely grave difficulties on both these scores, but the one set of difficulties is far more damaging than the other.
PROBLEM I
THE EJECTION OF VENUS
BY JUPITER
VELIKOVSKY’S hypothesis begins with an event that has never been observed by astronomers and that is inconsistent with much that we know about planetary and cometary physics, namely, the ejection of an object of planetary dimensions from Jupiter, perhaps by its collision with some other giant planet. Such a propagation of catastrophes, Velikovsky promised, would be “the theme of the sequel to Worlds in Collision” (page 373). Thirty years later, no sequel of this description has appeared. From the fact that the aphelia (the greatest distances from the Sun) of the orbits of short-period comets have a statistical tendency to lie near Jupiter, Laplace and other early astronomers hypothesized that Jupiter was the source of such comets. This is an unnecessary hypothesis because we now know that long-period comets may be transferred to short-period trajectories by the perturbations of Jupiter; this view has not been advocated for a century or two except by the Soviet astronomer V. S. Vsekhsviatsky, who seems to believe that the moons of Jupiter eject comets out of giant volcanoes.
To escape from Jupiter, such a comet must have a kinetic energy of ½ mv.2, where m is the cometary mass and v. is the escape velocity from Jupiter, which is about 60 km/sec. Whatever the ejection event—volcanoes or collisions—some significant fraction, at least 10 percent, of this kinetic energy will go into heating the comet. The minimum kinetic