History of Venus

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

I think Mark's penchant for fantasizing his ideas about Venus, demonstration of his stubbornness to avoid posting peer-reviewed work, and general inability to think coherently and rationally have been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread.

To be perfectly honest, that's why it was created. We all knew, from Mark's lunatic ravings regarding 9/11, that he was an absolute fruitcake. But I figured it would be easiest to highlight that insanity in a thread about Venus. Mission accomplished, I'd say.

So, with that said, I'm going to exit this thread since further proximity to Mark is running up my water bill from all the showers I have to take afterwards. This should stand as a testament to how future encounters with conspiracy nuts should be handled. Force their hand. Make them prove their assertions. When they can't, and they turn around and either ignore the requests, or try to blame you, the questioner, or the "establishment," instead of ponying up the evidence that supports their assertions, you know they've already lost in the arena of ideas.

Good luck to anyone else who wants to continue in this (one-way) "discussion" with Mark. But my time is too precious to spend it talking to a brick wall.

You've done great work on this thread.

gaffe will not and cannot appreciate it at all. He's too lost in his la-la land.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

gaffe, you don't get it.

It doesn't matter if it's Sagan who does the math - the math is the math. Run the numbers yourself.

Didja notice that the energy required to eject Venus from Jupiter would melt it even if was made of rock? You can't get around that. And the fact that the velocity required to escape Jupiter's gravity well is close to that required to escape the solar system entirely? Amazing how Venus knew that it needed 60 km s-1 but not 63 km s-1, eh?

Face it - Velikovsky is just plain wrong. No matter that Sagan is dead.

This is foolishness.

I stated clearly that many of Velikovsky's ideas were wrong. I made it clear that I do not pretend to defend wrong ideas.

Many great scientists espoused weird ideas. If you don't believe it - -check the history of science. This does not besmirch their real contributions.

You refused to read McCanney's comet paper -- and so -- like Orangeatheist -- do not understand the nature of the argument.

Jupiter never ejected Venus. Of course not. The large comet probably came from deep space -- as I have repeatedly indicated.

[mhgaffney]

Four accurate predictions made by Velikovsky

Velikovsky was often wrong. But I give him credit when he was right. Velikovsky...

1. predicted that Venus was very hot. He made this prediction in the early 1950s when astronomers -- in the absence of hard evidence -- generally believed that Venus' surface temperature was comparable to earth's. Velikovsky turned out to be correct.

2. He also predicted that Jupiter emits radio waves. A few years later this was confirmed. It was at this point that Einstein started using his personal influence -- urging scientists to seriously test Valikovsky's ideas.

3. And Velikovsky also predicted that the earth has a powerful magnetic field. At that time most geophysicists doubted this. Several years later, Van Allen discovered the magnetosphere.

4. Last but not least -- Velikovsky also predicted that Venus might spin in the reverse direction from other planets.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

This is foolishness.

I stated clearly that many of Velikovsky's ideas were wrong. I made it clear that I do not pretend to defend wrong ideas.

Which of Velikovsky's ideas are wrong? On what grounds?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You refused to read McCanney's comet paper -- and so -- like Orangeatheist -- do not understand the nature of the argument.

McCanney didn't write a "comet paper". He put stuff on the web.

I understand his argument. It's wrong.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Jupiter never ejected Venus. Of course not. The large comet probably came from deep space -- as I have repeatedly indicated.

We're back to the red mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes "argument" you like to make. You realize (amazingly) some fatal flaws with idea X, so then you propose idea Y, and when that one gets shot down, instead of rejecting it also, you go back to idea X.

It's always whack-a-mole with you.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by underrated29

So I never saw the initial argument but am I understanding this that gaffe is struggling to understand why the 2nd planet from the sun is really really hot? And therefore thinks it is a comet and not a planet because it is so hot?


Ps- gaffe, I'm no space scientist but I do now for a fact that we can never reach absolute zero and I know for dam sure that even in the empty Bowels of space billions of miles from any sun, black hole or gravitational heat source, it's still really hard to get to absolute zero. Sure close can occur, but anything in our solar system, seems just extremely far fetched. If we have items near absolute zero between the sun andnjupiter I would like to see those documentations.

You are not following my argument. The point is that the vulcanism of Venus is totally anomalous. It has never been adequately explained -- despite what W*gs says.

There are also other Venusian anomalies -- including the reverse rotation. Despite what W*gs says -- this points to a different origin.

There is also another body of evidence I have not mentioned. The written records from ancient cultures, including the Mayans, Sumerians and Chinese -- describe Venus in terms of a comet. They refer to its beard, tail and horns, which are typical of comets -- not planets.

Also -- ancient records state that Venus was as bright as the sun -- which could only have happened if it were a comet -- during a transit near the sun when huge amounts of electrical energy lit up Venus like a light bulb.

Ancient tables of the period of Venus also differ from the contemporary record.

These records amount to hard evidence -- yet clowns like Oraneatheist and W*gs simply dismiss it.

As it says in the book of Proverbs: "The fool returns to his folly -- like a dog returns to his vomit."

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Why size matters...

Everyone is running out of patience -- me included.

Orangeatheist and W*gs arrogantly refuse to read McCanney's paper which btw was published in Kronos journal, not self published.

Neither one is thus able to follow the argument.

Had they read the paper they would know why large comets are very different from small comets.

Size matters

For example, scientists at Cal Tech showed that the surface temperature Comet Ikeya-Seki heated up to 1200 degrees at its nearest approach to the sun -- but soon cooled to 700 degrees.

But Ikeye-Seki was a relatively small comet -- about 3 miles in diameter.

A planetary sized comet would discharge exponentially vaster amounts of solar electricity -- and because of its mass would also remain hot for a very long time -- especially if it was captured and if it made several passes by the sun within a few thousand years.

The larger mass of a planetary sized comet would also hold the dust and minerals swept up through the tail -- which would then be deposited on the surface of the nucleus. The comet would grow in size -- and this change in mass would alter its orbit.

Small comets do not have sufficient mass to retain the materials in the coma -- which are lost to space -- almost as soon as they are acquired.

This will probably be my last post on this thread.

Good riddance.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

1. predicted that Venus was very hot. He made this prediction in the early 1950s when astronomers -- in the absence of hard evidence -- generally believed that Venus' surface temperature was comparable to earth's. Velikovsky turned out to be correct.

His reasons were wrong.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

2. He also predicted that Jupiter emits radio waves. A few years later this was confirmed. It was at this point that Einstein started using his personal influence -- urging scientists to seriously test Valikovsky's ideas.

His reasons were wrong.

And Einstein has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

3. And Velikovsky also predicted that the earth has a powerful magnetic field. At that time most geophysicists doubted this. Several years later, Van Allen discovered the magnetosphere.

His reasons were wrong.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Why size matters...

That's what she said.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Orangeatheist and W*gs arrogantly refuse to read McCanney's paper which btw was published in Kronos journal, not self published.

Kronos? Haven't heard of it. Let's Google it...

Ahhh, here it is: Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis

What was it about?

Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis published articles on a wide range of subjects as diverse as ancient history, catastrophism and mythology. It ran 44 issues from the Spring of 1975 to the Spring of 1988. The title is an homage to the Greek name for the Roman god Saturn whose planetary namesake Velikovsky believed Earth once orbited as a satellite. The Journal was not only influenced by the work of Immanuel Velikovsky,[1] it was "founded, with no apologies, to deal with Velikovsky's work";[2]

Shocking! A "journal" dedicated to Velikovsky printed McCanney's nonsense.

I'm stunned.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Neither one is thus able to follow the argument.

One cannot base an allegedly scientific argument by abandoning science when it's convenient.

Did Hale-Bopp gain mass? If so, how was it not destroyed?

A simple question requiring only the most basic real science and math to answer, gaffe.

Please do so here. Show your work:

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are not following my argument. The point is that the vulcanism of Venus is totally anomalous.

Elaborate, please. What about Venus' vulcanism is "anomalous"? Relative to what average?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

There are also other Venusian anomalies -- including the reverse rotation. Despite what W*gs says -- this points to a different origin.

No, it does not. Given what we know of the history of impacts in the solar system (witness the surfaces of Mercury, the moon, Mars, and the satellites of the outer planets), it's entirely possible that Venus suffered one or more large impacts that resulted in its "reverse" and very slow rotation.

One need not posit exotic, dare I say, lunatic, ideas about Venus to account for its current state.

Occam's Razor in action, as it were.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

There is also another body of evidence I have not mentioned. The written records from ancient cultures, including the Mayans, Sumerians and Chinese -- describe Venus in terms of a comet. They refer to its beard, tail and horns, which are typical of comets -- not planets.

Pure Velikovsky.

Pure nonsense.

[mhgaffney]

Hellish Venus Atmosphere may have had cooling effect...

http://www.space.com/9155-hellish-ve...ng-effect.html

It may seem downright bizarre, but a new model of Venus' super-hot atmosphere suggests its greenhouse gases may actually be cooling the planet's interior.

These gases initially cause Venus' temperature to rise, but at a certain threshold, they can trigger dynamic processes ? which researchers call "mobilization" ? in the planet's crust that cool the mantle and overall surface temperature, researchers found.

[mhgaffney]

Venus Holds picture of baby earth

July 2001

Scientists have found a time machine that will take them back 2.5 billion years. They call it the planet Venus. It turns out conditions on Venus today are analogous to Earth's earliest times in the Archaean and early Proterozoic eras.

These eras are marked by the appearance of the first stable continents and the birth of bacteria. Because of this, Richard Ghail a research associate at the Imperial College in London, says that watching Venus is a way to better understand why and where certain materials formed on Earth, and how life began.

Geologic features such as Earth's oceans and volcanic activity have counterparts on Venus. Looking at Venus' features and studying their development will help pinpoint how and where certain elements are deposited on Earth.

"By understanding the 'early Earth,' we can predict where to find precious resources such as platinum and diamonds," Ghail said.

Venus could point to ET

Great upheaval is the hallmark of early Earth and today's Venus, with volcanic eruptions resurfacing large parts of each planet's terrain. The effect of these events on climate and on life were catastrophic on Earth, and also sparked conditions necessary for major evolutionary diversifications. So Ghail hopes that studying Venus' volcanoes will provide clues to the origins of life on Earth.

"We can also tell what aided life to appear on Earth, which will help us to seek evidence for life elsewhere," Ghail said.

A planet that reinvents itself

Much like Earth 2.5 billion years ago, today's Venus is in a quiet state most of the time, building-up heat underneath its tenuous surface. The heat eventually is unleashed during short periods of intense volcanic activity which entirely remake the planet's surface.

Tectonic forces work to bring about that similarity between Earth and Venus, with terrestrial plates being slowly pushed, not pulled.

Such plate activities, believes Ghail, explain the distribution of today's craters on Venus as well as the major bursts of continental growth on Earth in the late Archaean and early Proterozoic eras.

Low-lying plains at Venus provide another clue to Earth's earliest days, with the Aphrodite Terra plain on Venus resembling today's northern Atlantic Ocean basin. Such similarities may help scientists understand how oceans formed at Earth.

Ghail presented his research at the Earth Systems Processes Conference last week in Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by the Geological Society of America and the Geological Society of London.

www.space.com (http://www.space.com)

[W*GS]

That's an interesting result.

What does it do to support Velikovsky/McCanney?

Yes, Sagan is dead. So is Newton. Doesn't mean their ideas are wrong.

[W*GS]

Ball is in your court, gaffe.