"The course of a short period of time, starting in 1978, gave the impression that the model of Velikovsky still has a chance for the future. The resourceful British scientist Peter Warlow has published an article in the respected scientific "Physical Journal" with a proposal for a new model for inversion of the Earth's magnetic field. Although the main theme of the article was the explanation of the geomagnetic anomalies resulting from the inversions - events of the distant past, when the magnetic poles changed places (see "Atlantis - lost and found again?" in the section "Missing Earth and Catastrophes") - it has several considerations favorable to the theory of Velikovsky.
According to the original theory of geomagnetic inversions proposed by Peter Warlow, the moment of Earth's rotation remains unchanged in relation to the surrounding space, but the planet itself can move in relation to the axis of rotation. In other words, having received a push of sufficient force, the Earth will not behave as a usual gyroscope in which the moment of rotation and axis of rotation are rigidly connected with each other.
Warlow argued that if the Earth was exposed to an external force, it would behave like a shapeshifter. The direction of rotation of the Earth, which creates geomagnetic fields, will remain unchanged, while its geographical axis will rotate 180 degrees. If the external force is large enough, the Earth will literally turn upside down. Therefore, Warlow believed that instead of "geomagnetic inversions" we should talk about the possibility of rotation of the planet itself around its axis of rotation.
The Warlow model explains the phenomenon of geomagnetic inversion without the assumption that the force of earthly magnetism is periodically exhausted and renewed. But, of course, it also has purely practical consequences. After the "revolution" it will seem to the observer on the Earth that the sun rises from the opposite side of the horizon: west and east will be exchanged places. Warlow followed Velikovsky's example in citing myths and folklore stories about unusual changes in the behavior of the sun.
All this looked quite attractive, but three years after the publication of the article Warlow in the "Physical Journal" appeared critical article astronomer Victor Slabinsky, which opened some serious flaws in the calculations of Warlow. Slabinsky demonstrated that the complete rotation of the Earth around its axis could not occur in one day as a result of the gravitational effects of the planet defeat with Venus. Actually weight of a wandering celestial body should exceed weight of the Earth in 417 times that exceeds even weight of Jupiter, the largest planet of Solar system. It turns out that it is a celestial body of colossal size, which would inevitably lead to a significant shift in Earth's orbit.
The impact of Warlow's theory was also painful for Velikovsky's theory. There was still no plausible mechanism to support his idea of a significant shift in the Earth's axis or change in the Earth's rotation in the 15th century BC. Most of the critical arrows aimed at him in the previous 30 years, for verification, really turned out to be unfounded allegations. As Archie Roy, a professor of astronomy at Glasgow University and one of the world's leading specialists in celestial mechanics, once remarked, only "unenlightened" people could insist that the orbits of the planets had remained unchanged since the formation of the solar system.
In the early 1980s, the model of Velikovsky finally collapsed, or rather quietly settled under the weight of new arguments. Venus is indeed an amazing planet in many ways, and different ancient myths about it sound quite strange. However, when the next generation of researchers analyzed the construction created by Velikovsky from myths and folklore stories, the very basis of his theory of catastrophic events was questioned. The connection between these events and the planet Venus has appeared extremely weak.
Approximately at the same time research of the British astronomers Victor Club and Bill Neuper has shown that in the Bronze Age the orbit of the Earth was crossed by at least one large comet. Gradually disintegrating into smaller fragments, this "supercomet" not only provided colorful spectacles in the sky, but also posed a threat to humans because of the meteor shower that hit the Earth at the time.
With the advent of this model, developed by professional astronomers, the model of Velikovsky lost its relevance. He collected a lot of information about prehistoric catastrophes, preserved in human memory and clothed with the form of ancient myths and legends. But all it has received much more satisfactory explanation within the limits of the theory of Club and the Neuper, not resorting to extravagant hypotheses like that Venus once was a huge comet.