What do you think?
Rate this book
Mondes en collision
Pages are clean and binding is tight.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1950
196 people are currently reading
2000 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
December 3, 2014
Well, the fact that this book of pseudo-science has respectable ratings and fairly positive reviews here, it appalls me. It makes the the ignorance and mysticism in general populace very evident that they, after failing to understand Science and scientific methods, have embraced the fantasy of pseudo-science which gives them the grandeur and connection with the cosmos which every human seeks.
In this book, author claims an explanation of the biblical events of Exodus; which include the Earth standing still, parting of the Red sea, high tides, earthquakes, famine, swarm of vermins and elimination of Egyptian pharaohs; by a divine providence which had caused the ejection of Venus from Jupiter as a comet-like body and making a near-collision with Earth when Mars also happened to be around. He attributes all the catastrophies described in the ancient texts to this near-collision event of the three planets. He makes use of supposed concordance between myths of different cultures, taken from different timelines and blatantly ignores the prospect of diffusionist tendency of the myths to attribute for the similarity observed among stories of different cultures.
He, then ventures further to embark upon some more fantastic theses, such as manna(sugar) falling from a tail of Comet to provide the sustenance of 40 years for a hundred thousand Jews. An entirely unfeasible prospect, if we consider the desired mass of sugar for such a purpose and the percentage of carbohydrates observed in Comets, such a comet would have to be more massive than the Sun. He imagines electric and magnetic forces operating on cosmic scales, without considering the magnitude of the forces required would have obliterated any life on Earth. He also draws an analogy between the Solar system and an atom, talking of planets as electrons and their supposed collisions as change in their quantum state by absorption of a photon. He doesn't only ignore the difference between electric and gravitational forces, he also seems to be plainly ignorant of basic atomic structure, where diffused electron clouds are found instead of imagined discrete electrons.
He doesn't only take all the myths to be literally true at their face value, but also ignores the most sound scientific principles such as Newtonian mechanics. Many of the concordances among the various myths are included and considered by him, but I didn't see any mention of the discordances that might exist.
Ejection of Venus from Jupiter is taken from the Greek myth that goddess Athena was born from the head of Zeus, which he translates word to word in cosmological language. Escape velocity of Jupiter is much greater than the speed required for an object to escape the gravity of Sun at the orbital position of Jupiter. If a body is ejected from Jupiter, it would possess the velocity to flung itself into interstellar space, it can't come near Earth and make itself a planet like Venus. There are hundreds of inconsistencies in this book, it would take another book to describe and falsify them.
At best, it is a lame attempt to validate the ancient myths and fictions and establish them as true by making a supposedly scientific explanations for them. Despite the efforts of many scientists including Carl Sagan to describe this book as a whole lot of baloney and fantastical literature, it seems to be appreciated and embraced by those who have found their religious and mystical beliefs to be rendered false by application of Science. In an age where people seem to be retreating back to the dark ages because of uncertainties and turbulence brought forth by incompetent and malicious exploitation of technology, this book serves as a tool on which they could rely upon and ridicule the Science which they think to be the cause of their problems. However, this books claims to be Scientific in nature despite its blatant ignorance of Science and scientific methods, supporters of this book read it to validate and seek their mystical fantasies which Science so mercilessly falsifies. All the supporters of this book seem to confuse the term research with cherry-picking, when the theories which validate the ideas presented in the book are embraced and those are ignored or rejected which prove as counter-evidence of Velikovsky's hypotheses. This sort of double-standard is completely atypical of research culture and no effort should be spared to denounce such a propagation of ignorant pseudo-science with its false ideas.
If the topics described in the book raise your curiousity, I will suggest to read the exquisite description and critical analysis of this book by Carl Sagan in his book Broca's Brain: On Romance of Science. Do not read this book unless you have excessive free time and capability to spend no more than three hours for this book of 350+ pages.
In this book, author claims an explanation of the biblical events of Exodus; which include the Earth standing still, parting of the Red sea, high tides, earthquakes, famine, swarm of vermins and elimination of Egyptian pharaohs; by a divine providence which had caused the ejection of Venus from Jupiter as a comet-like body and making a near-collision with Earth when Mars also happened to be around. He attributes all the catastrophies described in the ancient texts to this near-collision event of the three planets. He makes use of supposed concordance between myths of different cultures, taken from different timelines and blatantly ignores the prospect of diffusionist tendency of the myths to attribute for the similarity observed among stories of different cultures.
He, then ventures further to embark upon some more fantastic theses, such as manna(sugar) falling from a tail of Comet to provide the sustenance of 40 years for a hundred thousand Jews. An entirely unfeasible prospect, if we consider the desired mass of sugar for such a purpose and the percentage of carbohydrates observed in Comets, such a comet would have to be more massive than the Sun. He imagines electric and magnetic forces operating on cosmic scales, without considering the magnitude of the forces required would have obliterated any life on Earth. He also draws an analogy between the Solar system and an atom, talking of planets as electrons and their supposed collisions as change in their quantum state by absorption of a photon. He doesn't only ignore the difference between electric and gravitational forces, he also seems to be plainly ignorant of basic atomic structure, where diffused electron clouds are found instead of imagined discrete electrons.
He doesn't only take all the myths to be literally true at their face value, but also ignores the most sound scientific principles such as Newtonian mechanics. Many of the concordances among the various myths are included and considered by him, but I didn't see any mention of the discordances that might exist.
Ejection of Venus from Jupiter is taken from the Greek myth that goddess Athena was born from the head of Zeus, which he translates word to word in cosmological language. Escape velocity of Jupiter is much greater than the speed required for an object to escape the gravity of Sun at the orbital position of Jupiter. If a body is ejected from Jupiter, it would possess the velocity to flung itself into interstellar space, it can't come near Earth and make itself a planet like Venus. There are hundreds of inconsistencies in this book, it would take another book to describe and falsify them.
At best, it is a lame attempt to validate the ancient myths and fictions and establish them as true by making a supposedly scientific explanations for them. Despite the efforts of many scientists including Carl Sagan to describe this book as a whole lot of baloney and fantastical literature, it seems to be appreciated and embraced by those who have found their religious and mystical beliefs to be rendered false by application of Science. In an age where people seem to be retreating back to the dark ages because of uncertainties and turbulence brought forth by incompetent and malicious exploitation of technology, this book serves as a tool on which they could rely upon and ridicule the Science which they think to be the cause of their problems. However, this books claims to be Scientific in nature despite its blatant ignorance of Science and scientific methods, supporters of this book read it to validate and seek their mystical fantasies which Science so mercilessly falsifies. All the supporters of this book seem to confuse the term research with cherry-picking, when the theories which validate the ideas presented in the book are embraced and those are ignored or rejected which prove as counter-evidence of Velikovsky's hypotheses. This sort of double-standard is completely atypical of research culture and no effort should be spared to denounce such a propagation of ignorant pseudo-science with its false ideas.
If the topics described in the book raise your curiousity, I will suggest to read the exquisite description and critical analysis of this book by Carl Sagan in his book Broca's Brain: On Romance of Science. Do not read this book unless you have excessive free time and capability to spend no more than three hours for this book of 350+ pages.
April 10, 2013
I was compelled to read Worlds in Collision as it is the single piece of work that has inspired the work of the electric universe group, something that I follow with much interest. While the members of this group don't completely agree with all of Velikovsky's ideas the premise served as a springboard to launch new investigations into the electric model of the universe and new interpretations of mythology and its roots in catastrophe.
As I write this review, I must also add that I read Earth in Upheaval as soon as I finished Worlds in Collision. WIC was so controversial when it was published back in 1950 that Velikovsky wrote Earth in Upheaval to document an entire volume of what he researched to be the physical proofs of his theory in response to the backlash from the scientific community that attempted to have the publication of Worlds in Collision thwarted. Velikovsky broke out onto the scene with his book backed by his own impressive credentials. He was a MD who practiced medicine, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis. He studied psychology under one of Freud's students. He was one of the founders of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was colleagues with Einstein who was also involved with the university. His researches into ancient texts left him with an understanding that many of these writings were not symbolic accounts, but records of people who had witnessed terrible devastation.
I will admit that it is a lot of information to absorb. It affects you intellectually and emotionally. The concept of Venus as a comet seems so preposterous until it is put into the context of the ancient writings and then further into Earth in Upheaval with the tremendous amount of geologic anomalies. It has also come to pass that in the many years that have passed since this book was published there have been findings that support at least part of Velikovsky's theory. Recently is was discovered that Venus appears to have a tail, and its rate of rotation is slowing down. Tantalizing clues to be sure.
I would recommend this book highly to anyone who is curious about the possibility that our ancestors survived global catastrophe after catastrophe. Anyone following the progress of the electric universe theory would likely find some benefit as well.
As I write this review, I must also add that I read Earth in Upheaval as soon as I finished Worlds in Collision. WIC was so controversial when it was published back in 1950 that Velikovsky wrote Earth in Upheaval to document an entire volume of what he researched to be the physical proofs of his theory in response to the backlash from the scientific community that attempted to have the publication of Worlds in Collision thwarted. Velikovsky broke out onto the scene with his book backed by his own impressive credentials. He was a MD who practiced medicine, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis. He studied psychology under one of Freud's students. He was one of the founders of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was colleagues with Einstein who was also involved with the university. His researches into ancient texts left him with an understanding that many of these writings were not symbolic accounts, but records of people who had witnessed terrible devastation.
I will admit that it is a lot of information to absorb. It affects you intellectually and emotionally. The concept of Venus as a comet seems so preposterous until it is put into the context of the ancient writings and then further into Earth in Upheaval with the tremendous amount of geologic anomalies. It has also come to pass that in the many years that have passed since this book was published there have been findings that support at least part of Velikovsky's theory. Recently is was discovered that Venus appears to have a tail, and its rate of rotation is slowing down. Tantalizing clues to be sure.
I would recommend this book highly to anyone who is curious about the possibility that our ancestors survived global catastrophe after catastrophe. Anyone following the progress of the electric universe theory would likely find some benefit as well.
June 24, 2012
I read some of the previous reviews before reading myself. And whilst most were positive, there were some negative comments left by readers. Some even suggested this was a work of science fiction. Well my reply to those reviews is as follows....
I thought this was an excellently researched book. And while some of his theories seem, at first difficult to grasp. The reader has to be clear that Velikovsky was using hundreds of ancient texts, to formulate his theory and put forward as evidence his thoughts. I am not saying they are correct to the letter. However, I do think we are able to deduce a theme from different texts across the world, from different , independent cultures. And realise there is something to what Velikovsky was saying in this work of his.
Those that either found it to be boring,or difficult to follow may do well to research more around the genre and texts quoted in his book. Those that think this is the stuff of science fiction , either have watched some very poor science fiction movies, or read some bad books. And have completely missed the point of this work!
To summarise, Velikovsky eloquently pieces together evidences from hundreds of ancient texts, including the bible. To show the reader how the Earths place in the Cosmos may not be the serene, peaceful place we think it is. And because we have lived through times of little cosmic turbulence, does not mean there is nothing of concern on the horizon. The term "quaerere et invenietis" is most apt.
I look forward to reading the rest of Mr. Velikovsky's other works. Highly recommended!
I thought this was an excellently researched book. And while some of his theories seem, at first difficult to grasp. The reader has to be clear that Velikovsky was using hundreds of ancient texts, to formulate his theory and put forward as evidence his thoughts. I am not saying they are correct to the letter. However, I do think we are able to deduce a theme from different texts across the world, from different , independent cultures. And realise there is something to what Velikovsky was saying in this work of his.
Those that either found it to be boring,or difficult to follow may do well to research more around the genre and texts quoted in his book. Those that think this is the stuff of science fiction , either have watched some very poor science fiction movies, or read some bad books. And have completely missed the point of this work!
To summarise, Velikovsky eloquently pieces together evidences from hundreds of ancient texts, including the bible. To show the reader how the Earths place in the Cosmos may not be the serene, peaceful place we think it is. And because we have lived through times of little cosmic turbulence, does not mean there is nothing of concern on the horizon. The term "quaerere et invenietis" is most apt.
I look forward to reading the rest of Mr. Velikovsky's other works. Highly recommended!
July 18, 2018
I was torn between 3 and 4 stars over this book. There is little chance that the scientific claims in this book will find anymore favor in the future than in the past...but it's a good read. You may think it's tripe or you may say wow there could be something to this (though the scientific community would disagree with you) but whatever you think you'll find this an interesting even fascinating read. Like Chariots of the Gods you agree or not but the read's okay.
The storm over this book was so great when it was first published that it brought about charges that the academic and scientific community were trying to suppress it and that Velikovsky was largely denied a forum to rebut the attacks. There was even a book about it The Velikovsky Affair (which I haven't been able to track down yet).
Still as I said, interesting read.
The storm over this book was so great when it was first published that it brought about charges that the academic and scientific community were trying to suppress it and that Velikovsky was largely denied a forum to rebut the attacks. There was even a book about it The Velikovsky Affair (which I haven't been able to track down yet).
Still as I said, interesting read.
June 19, 2013
The first time I read about this book in Vine Deloria's work, I was kind of skeptical about it. After all, our science is very dogmatic and treated like a religion and stuff is crammed into our heads all our lives as gospel that has no real research or truth behind it, but it's SCIENCE so it's supposedly true.
This book actually kind of blew my mind. Even if it is not accurate (and the evidence presented makes a really compelling argument in favor of its veracity), the errors in our "superior modern knowledge" that are made glaringly apparent by the book create enough questions to throw the cult of science into an even darker light than it has already put itself in with its arrogance, racism and other bullshit that has shaped our modern paradigm.
This book actually kind of blew my mind. Even if it is not accurate (and the evidence presented makes a really compelling argument in favor of its veracity), the errors in our "superior modern knowledge" that are made glaringly apparent by the book create enough questions to throw the cult of science into an even darker light than it has already put itself in with its arrogance, racism and other bullshit that has shaped our modern paradigm.
August 13, 2019
I have read many classics of Fortean literature that turned out to be anthropologically intriguing, entertainingly written or simply striking historical objects. This is not one of them and I regret bothering to pull it down from my shelf.
The scholarship is atrocious. Velikovsky rarely builds an argument by strict reason, preferring instead to state his interpretation then beat the reader in to submission with page upon page of quotes from historical sources that he feels support it. What constitutes evidence varies: sometimes a close apparent synchronicity in time and event, but more often than not a superficial similarity of incident or general closeness in era. Metaphorical texts may be read as literal and vice versa if it suits the author's purpose. The cataclysms proposed are justified by the interpretation of the examples, while the interpretation of the examples is made in the context of the same supposed cataclysms; and down the drain of circular reasoning the book goes for page after endless page. (Velikovsky only briefly discusses the scholarly merits of his interpretative approach around page 300. I imagine he did not want the reader to look at it too closely.)
The sources cited are seldom from within two decades of the book's publication which is a particular issue for Velikovsky's scientific arguments, which supposedly ground the whole endeavour. (One cannot make points about astronomy in 1950 based on the state of the science in 1800-1930.) The author casually treats planets and comets as similar entities (except where his argument requires them to be wholly distinct classes of objects) in a manner that suggests a disinterest in this side of his own case. The coup de grace comes in the desperate Epilogue, where Velikovsky argues that we must make way for a new astronomy on the basis of these historical cataclysms, although the idea that the cataclysms themselves occurred depends entirely on those selfsame astronomical ideas. This is a book that is constantly trying to lift itself up by its own bootstraps.
This was ostensibly a deeply controversial book in the 1970s (when my copy was printed and at which point most of its sources were four decades or more out of date). Its popular appeal had led me to assume it must at least have some drive or scholarly strength despite its ultimately wrongheaded conclusions. Instead it somehow manages to be as tedious as it is fatuous.
The scholarship is atrocious. Velikovsky rarely builds an argument by strict reason, preferring instead to state his interpretation then beat the reader in to submission with page upon page of quotes from historical sources that he feels support it. What constitutes evidence varies: sometimes a close apparent synchronicity in time and event, but more often than not a superficial similarity of incident or general closeness in era. Metaphorical texts may be read as literal and vice versa if it suits the author's purpose. The cataclysms proposed are justified by the interpretation of the examples, while the interpretation of the examples is made in the context of the same supposed cataclysms; and down the drain of circular reasoning the book goes for page after endless page. (Velikovsky only briefly discusses the scholarly merits of his interpretative approach around page 300. I imagine he did not want the reader to look at it too closely.)
The sources cited are seldom from within two decades of the book's publication which is a particular issue for Velikovsky's scientific arguments, which supposedly ground the whole endeavour. (One cannot make points about astronomy in 1950 based on the state of the science in 1800-1930.) The author casually treats planets and comets as similar entities (except where his argument requires them to be wholly distinct classes of objects) in a manner that suggests a disinterest in this side of his own case. The coup de grace comes in the desperate Epilogue, where Velikovsky argues that we must make way for a new astronomy on the basis of these historical cataclysms, although the idea that the cataclysms themselves occurred depends entirely on those selfsame astronomical ideas. This is a book that is constantly trying to lift itself up by its own bootstraps.
This was ostensibly a deeply controversial book in the 1970s (when my copy was printed and at which point most of its sources were four decades or more out of date). Its popular appeal had led me to assume it must at least have some drive or scholarly strength despite its ultimately wrongheaded conclusions. Instead it somehow manages to be as tedious as it is fatuous.
July 30, 2012
Worlds in Collison is an unusual and controversial book and has been since it was published in the 1950's, Velikovsky was one of the first to challenge mainstream scince with his controversal theories of Catastrophism- or the theory that the Earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. Before that the theory was one of Uniformitarianism. This view holds that the present is the key to the past, and that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
But Velikovsky didn't think so- and this book outlines his theory and evidence that the Earth was pummeled by changes in our own solar system in historic times. In short he claimed that both the planet Venus and the planet Mars intersected with Earth's orbit in the past, causing worked wide destruction- SEVERAL times- and that further Venus- then a wayward comet settled in to an uneasy orbit for centuries around our Sun.
Yes- it is a bit hard to swallow- and YET... as an artist i loved the imagery he invokes of ocean waves miles high sweeping across the continents, the extinguishing of vast amounts of animals species, the Earth spinning out of control into a new orbit and the subsequent devastation of a burning ruined planet. It's not imagery you can forget.
He also cross references his claims with finds in mythology, archaeology, geology and astronomy and to me anyway it makes interesting reading. What really happened? We will never know- but you will never feel at ease about the universe ever again when you read this book and you will wonder - just wonder - COULD it happen Again?
But Velikovsky didn't think so- and this book outlines his theory and evidence that the Earth was pummeled by changes in our own solar system in historic times. In short he claimed that both the planet Venus and the planet Mars intersected with Earth's orbit in the past, causing worked wide destruction- SEVERAL times- and that further Venus- then a wayward comet settled in to an uneasy orbit for centuries around our Sun.
Yes- it is a bit hard to swallow- and YET... as an artist i loved the imagery he invokes of ocean waves miles high sweeping across the continents, the extinguishing of vast amounts of animals species, the Earth spinning out of control into a new orbit and the subsequent devastation of a burning ruined planet. It's not imagery you can forget.
He also cross references his claims with finds in mythology, archaeology, geology and astronomy and to me anyway it makes interesting reading. What really happened? We will never know- but you will never feel at ease about the universe ever again when you read this book and you will wonder - just wonder - COULD it happen Again?
June 10, 2018
It seems amazing to me that this book is still controversial after over 65 years!
Is it all true? Probably not.
Does it have any merit? Probably yes.
This universe of ours is a place of wonder and, in this way, this book deserves a place.
The "true scientists" who object to its conjecture must realize that the only thing science can do is guess. There is no undisputed truth.
Einstein's theory of relativity does not scale from the macro to the micro so it is obviously flawed.
He claimed to have fixed that with his unified field theory but quickly rescinded it, as it would have invalidated multiple fields of science and thrown dogma out the door.
The red shift theory that most of our celestial theory is based on is also unsound.
And finally, the big bang "theory" is more accurately explained with electro-magnetic plasma theory which can be recreated in the lab. But you won't be hearing about that anytime soon from the mainstream career protectors.
As to the actual writing in this book, Mr. Velikovsky obviously feels the burden of proof to his radical propositions and feels compelled to burden the reader with lengthy quotes from ancient texts and myths. I do understand this, though I would have preferred a succinct book with lengthy footnotes.
I guess you're just going to have to read it for yourself!
Is it all true? Probably not.
Does it have any merit? Probably yes.
This universe of ours is a place of wonder and, in this way, this book deserves a place.
The "true scientists" who object to its conjecture must realize that the only thing science can do is guess. There is no undisputed truth.
Einstein's theory of relativity does not scale from the macro to the micro so it is obviously flawed.
He claimed to have fixed that with his unified field theory but quickly rescinded it, as it would have invalidated multiple fields of science and thrown dogma out the door.
The red shift theory that most of our celestial theory is based on is also unsound.
And finally, the big bang "theory" is more accurately explained with electro-magnetic plasma theory which can be recreated in the lab. But you won't be hearing about that anytime soon from the mainstream career protectors.
As to the actual writing in this book, Mr. Velikovsky obviously feels the burden of proof to his radical propositions and feels compelled to burden the reader with lengthy quotes from ancient texts and myths. I do understand this, though I would have preferred a succinct book with lengthy footnotes.
I guess you're just going to have to read it for yourself!
January 1, 2013
Velikovsky's first book demonstrates that neither Earth nor our solar system is permanently stable. Scientists of the 19th century found it reassuring to consider it so, and they overturned all then-current theories based on the evidence of upended geologic strata, impact craters and quick-frozen mammoths. Ancient descriptions of moving mountains were dismissed as exaggerations, and detailed astronomical records that don't match today's planetary movements were condemned as ignorant.
Today, of course, we have watched a comet slam into Jupiter, and measured the tilting of our own polar axis resulting from a tsunami. It is commonly said that "an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." We no longer block out the evidence of modern science and ancient historians. It was Velikovsky who compiled these things in a historical context. A fascinating presentation which was a bestseller in 1950, it deserves respect and acknowledgement.
ADDITION: This was my favorite read of the year, until October when I was lucky enough to beta-read a book by one of Velikovsky's followers, still unpublished and with only a working title. WORLDS IN COLLISION remains my favorite Nonfiction Reread of 2012, partly because it propelled me into an exciting sequence of reading about the ancient world.
Today, of course, we have watched a comet slam into Jupiter, and measured the tilting of our own polar axis resulting from a tsunami. It is commonly said that "an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." We no longer block out the evidence of modern science and ancient historians. It was Velikovsky who compiled these things in a historical context. A fascinating presentation which was a bestseller in 1950, it deserves respect and acknowledgement.
ADDITION: This was my favorite read of the year, until October when I was lucky enough to beta-read a book by one of Velikovsky's followers, still unpublished and with only a working title. WORLDS IN COLLISION remains my favorite Nonfiction Reread of 2012, partly because it propelled me into an exciting sequence of reading about the ancient world.
June 28, 2016
Mind=blown. Definitely not light reading, this is a potential game changer. I found it severely enlightening. Velikovsky presents us with the notion that, in aeons past, planets collided and came within the orbit of each other, which resulted in global catastrophes, metamorphoses, and phenomena, some of which we see the remnants of today. The information he highlights in this book he provides evidence for, by consistently verifying his points with biblical passages (now interpreted metaphorically) and simultaneous accounts from ancient scholars, texts and world mythologies. It doesn't surprise me that this book was shunned by the scientific community. Velikovsky puts biblical and mythological events, and even the great Homeric/classical poems, into serious perspective. I personally find his hypothesis highly plausible, and after how well he explained it, I can't help taking it seriously, if not factual.
If you're inclined towards religious studies, ancient civilisations, classical studies, astrology, astronomy, occultism, or science in general, then I recommend this book as it will most likely provide you with tremendous food for thought. I look forward to reading his other writings which expand on what he's written here.
If you're inclined towards religious studies, ancient civilisations, classical studies, astrology, astronomy, occultism, or science in general, then I recommend this book as it will most likely provide you with tremendous food for thought. I look forward to reading his other writings which expand on what he's written here.
March 28, 2014
This was an interesting read. The idea that there were major catastrophic events that lead to many of the world myths is extremely fascinating. A lot of science has occurred in the sixty five or so years since the book was first written. It is a shame that there was not much, if any, efforts by the academic community to explore more these concepts. The authors citation methods make it hard to corroborate his sources and the author refers to texts that are no longer extant. All of this tends to make one think think that his theory is built like a house of cards, with layer after layer of oblique passages of ancient writings that could be related or could refer to something entirely different.
February 16, 2018
This is one of the most under-rated books on here because out of 5 stars it deserves 50 stars. The last rating here by Vishal below declares it a "science fiction", and clearly shows the vehement cognitive dissonance among most people, just out of shear fear of facing truth. And yet this book explains things that "standard theory" cannot possibly explain. It ties together history, with electrical theory, proven Birkeland currents, and accurate global view of all recorded histories tying together humanities past, and future, and possibly could save humanity. This book ranks up there with Atlas Shrugged, only Atlas was fiction this is not. That is why this book was the subject of a ban from all the major Universities by boycotts to the publisher. That is why this book was banned.
If you value you truth, read this book. If you want to stay in the dark, I don't blame you, it is scary world out there... but don't pretend this book doesn't describe reality, it does.
Read for yourself if you dare.
If you value you truth, read this book. If you want to stay in the dark, I don't blame you, it is scary world out there... but don't pretend this book doesn't describe reality, it does.
Read for yourself if you dare.
July 26, 2008
I first read an excerpt of this book in the Colliers magazine in 1949. It haunted me. Then, when we took Mark to WSU, there was the book in the bookshop! I bought it! His three major books put new light/ideas onto space, earth and history, making sense of the clues left from all ages. He was the first (NOT Carl Sagan!!) to predict Venus to be hot, in the age when we still believed it to be similar to earth. He shows reasons, through the myths and legends of ancient peoples who also tried to make sense of what they saw, why he believed Venus was compared to the moon (we certainly do not think this today)in brightness and also why it is hot(a captured comet). He linked this to the stories of dragons in the skies and how the "war god" Mars was part of this frightening tale. The subjects he covers are too many to be brief about, but you get the idea.
August 2, 2009
the book is touted as nonfiction and it may have been written that way. But believe me, it's SF. First off, of course, the details of the book are just not true. There's no doubt that there have been planetary collisions in our solar system's history. That's how the solar system formed. But many of the more dramatic speculations are just wild. Still, the book is interesting and kind of a compelling read. It also, as I understand it, inspired the pretty good novels of "When Worlds Collide" and "After Worlds Colllide."
October 24, 2016
This is one of the best books I've ever read. Worlds in Collision has greatly changed (i.e., improved) the way I think about and understand biblical prophecy, biblical language, ancient history, mythology, and astronomy. It is an utterly fascinating, compelling, and powerful work of scholarship. Worlds in Collision presents an unforgettable and brilliant synthesis of ideas and data from widely diverse disciplines. Even if some details are incorrect, the overall message remains potent. I applaud this author's willingness to stick his neck out by asserting (and presenting impressive evidence) that ancient writings from around the world describe real events, and that these events can be understood scientifically, and that they aren't fictional or delusional stories generated by confused, ignorant, fantasy-prone idiots of antiquity (which is how many modern intellectuals and academics think of ancient man). Students of scripture will find this book especially enlightening.
July 28, 2018
Consciousness ahead of his time
What a book. Researching critics of this book and looking at the overwhelming amount of energy against this book is very disproportionate to the material and ideas brought forth. This leads me to believe that those who have negatively criticized this book possess fear of it leading me to believe that there is some considerable amount of truth supported by the research of the ancient world. I may not be in 100% agreement that venus was born from Jupiter, but I do subscribe that our solar system is part of a binary system which supports the Celestial catastrophes of the past, and possibly the future, as in the book of revelation.
What a book. Researching critics of this book and looking at the overwhelming amount of energy against this book is very disproportionate to the material and ideas brought forth. This leads me to believe that those who have negatively criticized this book possess fear of it leading me to believe that there is some considerable amount of truth supported by the research of the ancient world. I may not be in 100% agreement that venus was born from Jupiter, but I do subscribe that our solar system is part of a binary system which supports the Celestial catastrophes of the past, and possibly the future, as in the book of revelation.
September 5, 2011
Taking into account this was written in the 1940s and Velikovksy was right on so many things he predicted about the solar system this is a fascinating read about how Earth was created and nearly destroyed by the vast comet that eventually became Venus. He's got a background in psychology too and there is some insight to how mankind has dealt with this terrifying event. Highly recommneded read.
March 7, 2021
Cannot understand why Velikovsay is not mentioned after his theories have for the most part being proven.
July 4, 2021
Enjoyable and thought provoking. Serious schholarship and some simply weird ideas. There are things that are not explained well if at all in many fields - Velikovsky has examine many of these facts that don't fit in history and the sciences and come up with a very controversial theory which is discussed in detail in several books. Fun to have your mind stretched by these sometimes outlandish ideas - but it's also fascinating to learn about all the anomalies in various fields. Worth exploring his thoughts...
dnf
February 18, 2025Stodgy writing and I'm finding the book irritating.
I may come back to this book some other time, but probably not.
I may come back to this book some other time, but probably not.
March 14, 2021
As controversial today as it was when it was published, whether you agree or disagree with Velikovsky's conclusions his work is still an enthralling read and he supports his conclusions with evidence which while not always compelling is present.
If you're going to read Velikovsky go in with an open mind, he may not convince you of all, some or even any of his ideas but none the less he makes a good read. Which will at least make you think about the possibilities of what could be and that's what a good scientist should be open to not just what is known but questioning what could be.
Personally I don't agree with everything he proposes across his collection of books however there are elements that should be given better consideration by the scientific community just because the ideas don't agree with mainstream science doesn't mean they're wrong.
The first theory that proposed the idea of "Hot Jupiters" that large gas giant planets could exist closer to their sun than the orbit of earth was proposed several decades ago and was disregarded by mainstream science yet with the discovery of exo-planets in recent years this is exactly what we started finding.
Opponents often state Velikovsky disregards other theories e.g. common myths occurring across cultures by diffusion of ideas. Yet the appropriate answer to this is 'of course he does' after all his central idea is that these myths have a common origin in an actual even remembered by cultures across the world is at odds with this theory.
Given the distances and the belief of mainstream historians that many of the Earth's ancient civilisations didn't interact that the similarities exist because of an actual event remembered by cultures across the world shouldn't be such an unusual possibility that invokes such hostile response. It may be wrong but surely it isn't that surprising of an idea?
While Velikovsky has ideas about what actually drives planetary systems that may be incorrect many of his conclusions are not at odds with Newtonian physics, they may be incorrect but they are not impossible. Has Velikovsky disregarded evidence that contradicts his ideas, possibly but he'd hardly be alone in doing so over the history of science.
Over the years many scientific ideas have been proposed, considered, some proven, some disproved. Quantum mechanics now an established science was at it's inception considered nonsense by some contemporary scientists, it's the cause of one of Einstein's most famous quotes "God does not play dice with the universe" and he never accepted that the fundamental ideas of Quantum Mechanics were correct. Yet these ideas were debated considered and eventually accepted by science. We still haven't managed to reconcile them with Newtonian or Relativistic Physics to the satisfaction of science but we do accept them all as true and still look for the link or the next bit of knowledge that
Correct or Incorrect Velikovsky's ideas should have been treated similarly with rational reasonable debate yet saw once of the most unscientific reactions of the modern era, this alone almost makes reading them worth it just to see what the uproar was about.
If you're going to read Velikovsky go in with an open mind, he may not convince you of all, some or even any of his ideas but none the less he makes a good read. Which will at least make you think about the possibilities of what could be and that's what a good scientist should be open to not just what is known but questioning what could be.
Personally I don't agree with everything he proposes across his collection of books however there are elements that should be given better consideration by the scientific community just because the ideas don't agree with mainstream science doesn't mean they're wrong.
The first theory that proposed the idea of "Hot Jupiters" that large gas giant planets could exist closer to their sun than the orbit of earth was proposed several decades ago and was disregarded by mainstream science yet with the discovery of exo-planets in recent years this is exactly what we started finding.
Opponents often state Velikovsky disregards other theories e.g. common myths occurring across cultures by diffusion of ideas. Yet the appropriate answer to this is 'of course he does' after all his central idea is that these myths have a common origin in an actual even remembered by cultures across the world is at odds with this theory.
Given the distances and the belief of mainstream historians that many of the Earth's ancient civilisations didn't interact that the similarities exist because of an actual event remembered by cultures across the world shouldn't be such an unusual possibility that invokes such hostile response. It may be wrong but surely it isn't that surprising of an idea?
While Velikovsky has ideas about what actually drives planetary systems that may be incorrect many of his conclusions are not at odds with Newtonian physics, they may be incorrect but they are not impossible. Has Velikovsky disregarded evidence that contradicts his ideas, possibly but he'd hardly be alone in doing so over the history of science.
Over the years many scientific ideas have been proposed, considered, some proven, some disproved. Quantum mechanics now an established science was at it's inception considered nonsense by some contemporary scientists, it's the cause of one of Einstein's most famous quotes "God does not play dice with the universe" and he never accepted that the fundamental ideas of Quantum Mechanics were correct. Yet these ideas were debated considered and eventually accepted by science. We still haven't managed to reconcile them with Newtonian or Relativistic Physics to the satisfaction of science but we do accept them all as true and still look for the link or the next bit of knowledge that
Correct or Incorrect Velikovsky's ideas should have been treated similarly with rational reasonable debate yet saw once of the most unscientific reactions of the modern era, this alone almost makes reading them worth it just to see what the uproar was about.
April 10, 2025
After reading Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible, I had to take a look at this.
Synopsis:
Biblical miracles such as the sun standing still for a day in Joshua 10 and the plagues leading up to the exodus can be explained by catastrophic interactions with other planets.
And not just the Bible but ancient texts from the Aztecs, China and all over the world give evidence of the same occurrences.
The earth has flipped on its axis at least once and as many as four times.
In ancient times, Jupiter expelled a planet-sized mass which fell towards the sun as a comet. It grazed the Earth and settled into orbit as the planet Venus.
Considering the Joshua 10 story for a moment, I always kind of thought, it's a simple matter for the Creator of the universe to suppress the inertia on the Earth while it stops spinning for half a day or so, but Velikovsky's version where being grazed by Venus flips the planet and arrests its rotation that way is cooler in a lot of ways.
There are elements of the theory that don't exactly make sense to me. It seems like if Jupiter ejected a huge mass that then fell into a lower orbit, it would be highly improbable that it would come anywhere near Earth.
There is no math whatsoever. But Velikovsky does a pretty good job of correlating ancient records from all around the earth to support his theories.
It all strikes me as somewhat plausible although there are a lot of details to work out and it's hard to really be sure about stuff that happened so long ago.
Synopsis:
Biblical miracles such as the sun standing still for a day in Joshua 10 and the plagues leading up to the exodus can be explained by catastrophic interactions with other planets.
And not just the Bible but ancient texts from the Aztecs, China and all over the world give evidence of the same occurrences.
The earth has flipped on its axis at least once and as many as four times.
In ancient times, Jupiter expelled a planet-sized mass which fell towards the sun as a comet. It grazed the Earth and settled into orbit as the planet Venus.
Considering the Joshua 10 story for a moment, I always kind of thought, it's a simple matter for the Creator of the universe to suppress the inertia on the Earth while it stops spinning for half a day or so, but Velikovsky's version where being grazed by Venus flips the planet and arrests its rotation that way is cooler in a lot of ways.
There are elements of the theory that don't exactly make sense to me. It seems like if Jupiter ejected a huge mass that then fell into a lower orbit, it would be highly improbable that it would come anywhere near Earth.
There is no math whatsoever. But Velikovsky does a pretty good job of correlating ancient records from all around the earth to support his theories.
It all strikes me as somewhat plausible although there are a lot of details to work out and it's hard to really be sure about stuff that happened so long ago.
April 17, 2015
There is plenty of "awkward" historical evidence supporting Velikovskian ideas which routinely get swept under the rug. Ancient astronomer-priests recording erratic movements of planets? No way, they were primitive half-monkeys who didn't know how to count days or use a fixed point of reference, such as a TREE!
On the other hand, some of his other arguments are just embarrassing, particularly his reading of myths. Conflicts between imaginary characters are cited as evidence of planetary catastrophes. His literalism has unfortunately been adopted by recent movements in post-Velikovskian theory, which might otherwise be on the right track. For a psychiatrist his reading of myth had zero psychological depth.
On the other hand, some of his other arguments are just embarrassing, particularly his reading of myths. Conflicts between imaginary characters are cited as evidence of planetary catastrophes. His literalism has unfortunately been adopted by recent movements in post-Velikovskian theory, which might otherwise be on the right track. For a psychiatrist his reading of myth had zero psychological depth.
August 13, 2015
The concept is fascinating: What if all the similarities in ancient tales are derived from specific cosmological events? It's an intriguing hypothesis and Velikovsky amasses mountains of anecdotal evidence to support his position.
That being said, I'm not convinced. Among the ancient texts he used were the prophetic writing of the Old Testament (Isaiah, Amos, etc.). I'm familiar enough with these to be critical of his understanding and use of isolated passages. It makes me wonder if the other sources he cites actually support his position.
Also, this is not a page-turner. It is a slog from any but the most dedicated historian or antiquarianism, which I am not.
Glad I read it, but also glad I'm done.
That being said, I'm not convinced. Among the ancient texts he used were the prophetic writing of the Old Testament (Isaiah, Amos, etc.). I'm familiar enough with these to be critical of his understanding and use of isolated passages. It makes me wonder if the other sources he cites actually support his position.
Also, this is not a page-turner. It is a slog from any but the most dedicated historian or antiquarianism, which I am not.
Glad I read it, but also glad I'm done.
June 5, 2017
I remember reading this book in the 9th grade and not being able to put it down, I brought the book to school and read it between breaks in high school. It is an insightful book that helped me see the world's religions in an abstract manner. It made me see that there are more similarities opposed to differences between worldly religions. I read this book right after being George Carlin's number 1 fan (still am); I went from being a passionate atheist to a more understanding person as an agnostic. I've cherished this book greatly ever since I read it, and can't wait to pick it up again from my dad's library.
April 15, 2013
I read about this book in a copy of "Cosmos" magazine and thought "That title sounds familiar." on investigation I found it in my grandfather's bookcase. while the book at its release was surrounded by controversy, and presents a theory that is very hard to swallow, you have to respect the author for his creativity and sheer persistence. The hours that must have gone into researching and writing this book is astonishing. While the book is a bit of a slog to get through, I'm glad I read it, as it did give me a different perspective on mythology, religion and folklore. Maybe some of it may even be proven true in time.
November 20, 2013
Although I don't agree with everything Velikovsky wrote in this book, it is a real eye-opener in terms of awakening the world of science to some alternate possibilities for the way things might have happened. I found it engaging and very interesting. For those willing to consider a catastrophic approach to world history, rather than the very popular uniformitarian view, this book set the stage, and even though it was written many years ago, is well worth a read!
January 11, 2022
This is a mind-blowing theory and will open your thoughts to all kind of new possiblities. It kept my interest the whole way through. Many will say it's debunked but that's not true--you can follow the debate today but there's a lot to it and it's easy to get bogged down.
But true or not, everyone ought to at least consider ideas like this one. Because if it's true, it's a big deal.
But true or not, everyone ought to at least consider ideas like this one. Because if it's true, it's a big deal.
July 11, 2016
Very thought provoking. V was lambasted as a pseudo scientist when he published this after decades of being a respected scientist. Only years later was the Catastrophe theory used to explain the demise of the dinosaurs. His theory was justified and it would be interesting to know how much more of his ideas will be proven true in the future.
January 18, 2017
Interesting read, just to see why in 1950s and 60s it was such a controversy. Nice story but just that, even basic knowledge of history and science is enough to see lack of any serious scientific merit. Very dated as well but what to expect from a book published 70 years ago. With more literary treatment could work as sci-fi.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews