PDA

View Full Version : retrograde Venus



damienpaul
2003-Dec-25, 09:17 AM
what are the theories behind Venus retrograde motion?

VanderL
2003-Dec-25, 11:23 AM
Good question, the same is true for Uranus (only it spins much faster) which is spinning with it's axis almost towards the Sun. The only one I know is the view of Venus and Uranus being a relatively recent addition to the solar system and through near-collisions found their current positions. Some claim that Venus is a very recent addition (within human memory, say within the last 10,000 years) and this accounts for it's violent role in ancient mythology.
Cheers.

damienpaul
2003-Dec-25, 06:46 PM
wow what an interesting theory, any links?

Littlemews
2003-Dec-25, 06:51 PM
Long term evolution of the spin of Venus - I. Theory. Alexandre
CM Correia, Jacques Laskar and Olivier N´eron de Surgy Astronomie ...
http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/...venus1.2002.pdf (http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf)

VanderL
2003-Dec-25, 06:58 PM
Oops, the Kronia Group website seems to be gone.. but here is Ev Cochrane's homepage
http://www.maverickscience.com/
There is a guy named David Talbott who is also involved in the Saturn theory, maybe some googling will help and there is also the Electric Universe page http://www.holoscience.com/ with stories linking to the role of Venus in ancient mythology.
Cheers.

damienpaul
2003-Dec-25, 07:01 PM
very interesting, admittedly, i never looked at it that way!

VanderL
2003-Dec-25, 07:06 PM
Thanks Littlemews,

I've scanned the article on the retrograde spin of Venus and I must admit I do not understand anything that is said in the article. To me it's gibberish and I don't know what they tried to prove, if they did prove anything, and if all this talk explains anything.
Anyone?

damienpaul
2003-Dec-25, 07:08 PM
could you summarise it in 50 words or less?

Littlemews
2003-Dec-25, 07:24 PM
:P I just found it by accident, and I am still reading it :lol:
Basicly its about the evolution of Venus's rotation...people using different equations to prove that the venus's rotation is related to the gravity :lol:

damienpaul
2003-Dec-26, 03:05 AM
is it related at all to Venus' very loooooooong day?

kashi
2003-Dec-28, 11:24 PM
Wouldn't it be unlikely that Venus is a recent addition to the solar system given its regular orbit?

VanderL
2003-Dec-29, 12:23 AM
In fact Venus has the most circular of orbits, but the reason why Venus could be a recent addition is it's young surface, it's heat; it hasn't reached equilibrium, radiating more heat than it receives, it's long "magnetotail" indicating a cometary past. If you think that orbits need a long time to become stable, there is evidence from Saturn's moons that even the moons in the same orbit don't collide.
Cheers.

kashi
2003-Dec-29, 12:32 AM
But it would be highly unlikely that Venus would have the same orbital plane wouldn't it?

VanderL
2003-Dec-30, 11:51 PM
Ehh,
What's the question??

kashi
2003-Dec-31, 12:00 AM
Well all the planets (Except pluto) orbit in almost exactly the same plane. It would be unlikely that if venus was a recent addition to solar system, that it too would orbit in this plane as well, as it was not part of the original protoplanetary disk.

VanderL
2003-Dec-31, 12:16 AM
That would be a real problem, but I think we don't know very much of how planetary systems form, we don't know much of how planets get their orbits and when we look at Venus, we see a very young planet. There's all kinds of possible explanations, but a very unlikely one would be that Venus has been sitting in this orbit forever. Suppose Venus was one of Jupiter's moons that was bumped out of it's orbit by some interloper? It could explain why it's orbit is in the same plane, but we don't know why it would end up in it's current highly regular orbit.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-02, 12:51 PM
interesting! is it possible that venus was captured recently? where would it have been captured from and how was its atmosphere formed?

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-05, 12:42 PM
Regarding Velikovsky and pseudoscience:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_...velikovsky.html (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html)

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/vlkovsky.htm

http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/fomenko/newtvelk.htm

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velstcol.html

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vdtopten.html

http://www.unmuseum.org/velikov.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/13...hatshepsut.html (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1326/hatshepsut.html)

Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-05, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Dec 31 2003, 12:16 AM
That would be a real problem, but I think we don't know very much of how planetary systems form, we don't know much of how planets get their orbits and when we look at Venus, we see a very young planet. There's all kinds of possible explanations, but a very unlikely one would be that Venus has been sitting in this orbit forever. Suppose Venus was one of Jupiter's moons that was bumped out of it's orbit by some interloper? It could explain why it's orbit is in the same plane, but we don't know why it would end up in it's current highly regular orbit.
What scientific evidence supports your contention that Venus is a very young planet?

http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa060803a.htm

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/bindsc01/node2.html

http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...ents%2F2755.pdf (http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planetary.brown. edu%2Fplanetary%2Fdocuments%2F2755.pdf)

http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...ts%2Fvenus.html (http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lpi.usra.edu%2Fp ublications%2Fslidesets%2Fvenus.html)

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2004-Jan-05, 02:51 PM
According to your first link:

The crater statistics tell us that although the planet is 4.6 billion years old, nothing on its surface is older than roughly 0.5 billion years. Almost all of Venus's history is a blank slate.
It seems the surface is extremely young, less than 500 million years. It doesn't mean that the planet formed at that time, only that it appears young. But it could also mean that the planet did not form 4.6 billion years ago, it could have formed anywhere between 4.6 billion years ago and early in human history (as mythology seems to tell us). It could even be much older, if Venus is a planet that was "captured". I must say that since we don't know how planets are captured, and we also don't exactly know how young Venus' surfeace really is, there is a lot of room for speculation.
Like for instance (speculating now), Venus was first a moon of one of our gas giants, a frozen ball, that was recently pushed out of it's orbit, bumping around our solar system like a pinball, and ended up where it is now, thoroughly scarred by the incident to look very young. We just don't know, but we could try to find as much evidence as we can without rejecting every option a priori.
Cheers.

Planetwatcher
2004-Jan-05, 03:22 PM
Suppose Venus was one of Jupiter's moons that was bumped out of it's orbit by some interloper?
That is not very likely considering the distance between the two and that no other moon is close to Venus in size. Note I did not say impossible, just not likely.

Now if someone said that about Mars, or the asteroid belt, it might be worth considering.
Both are close enough to Jupiter for that possibility.
Mars is not much bigger then Ganymede. In fact they are respecitvly the 8th and 9th largest objects in the Solar System.

The asteroids, if all combined into one object would also fall in the range of Jovian moons by size, and it is much closer then Mars to Jupiter.

VanderL
2004-Jan-05, 03:35 PM
Okay, Im saying it, Mars and Venus were both moons of Saturn and were bumped out of orbit together, leaving one planet hotter than hell and the other stripped of everything, including part of it's surface (the Northern hemisphere is significantly lower than the Southern hemisphere).
No, wait include Earth as well, we've been a snowball around Saturn until 500 million years ago when we ended up closer to the Sun and life could suddenly flourish. :D
Cheers.
By the way, which mythology had Venus being "born" from the head of Jupiter? Greek?

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-05, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Jan 5 2004, 02:51 PM
According to your first link:

The crater statistics tell us that although the planet is 4.6 billion years old, nothing on its surface is older than roughly 0.5 billion years. Almost all of Venus's history is a blank slate.
It seems the surface is extremely young, less than 500 million years. It doesn't mean that the planet formed at that time, only that it appears young. But it could also mean that the planet did not form 4.6 billion years ago, it could have formed anywhere between 4.6 billion years ago and early in human history (as mythology seems to tell us). It could even be much older, if Venus is a planet that was "captured". I must say that since we don't know how planets are captured, and we also don't exactly know how young Venus' surfeace really is, there is a lot of room for speculation.
Like for instance (speculating now), Venus was first a moon of one of our gas giants, a frozen ball, that was recently pushed out of it's orbit, bumping around our solar system like a pinball, and ended up where it is now, thoroughly scarred by the incident to look very young. We just don't know, but we could try to find as much evidence as we can without rejecting every option a priori.
Cheers.
Yes, the surface is relatively young - on the order of 500,000,000 years - because it is recycled. It's interesting but by no means surprising to me by now that you conveniently reject scientific evidence in favor of Velikovsky's selective and faulty interpretations of Biblical and other myths concerning Venus.

BTW, didn't Mr. V claim that Venus was ejected from Jupiter a mere 3500 years ago as a "comet" from the area that was to become, according to him, Jupiter's GRS?

Dave Mitsky

Planetwatcher
2004-Jan-05, 04:10 PM
I thought it was Jupiter not Saturn in question of having ejected moons to become planets.

VanderL
2004-Jan-05, 04:37 PM
Well that was Velikovsky's claim, but he was wrong, right?

damienpaul
2004-Jan-05, 11:47 PM
i like your theory VanderL, why not add in Mercury... is there any evidence to support this theory?

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-06, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Jan 5 2004, 11:47 PM
i like your theory VanderL, why not add in Mercury... is there any evidence to support this theory?
None whatsoever unless your're a fundamentalist Christian creationist in which case nothing more concrete than the Bible is necessary.

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2004-Jan-06, 10:43 AM
Well, if you look at Mercury, there's an enormous amount of cratering visible. These craters have the typical electrical signatures; double craters that are very close to each other but haven't disturbed each other, craters with smaller craters on their rims, sinuous rilles, craters with elevated centers and terracing and rayed craters. So Mercury definitely got some whacks from discharges, and it may have happened at the same time that the restof the planets and moons got zapped.
Cheers.

joetommasi
2004-Jan-06, 12:14 PM
People seem to be missing the most obvious explanation. It just so happen that when Venus was accreting, most of the rocks that made it up were falling in the opposite direction therefore the planet ended up spinning in the opposite direction.
Leave gods and one time events out of the picture.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-06, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Jan 6 2004, 10:43 AM
Well, if you look at Mercury, there's an enormous amount of cratering visible. These craters have the typical electrical signatures; double craters that are very close to each other but haven't disturbed each other, craters with smaller craters on their rims, sinuous rilles, craters with elevated centers and terracing and rayed craters. So Mercury definitely got some whacks from discharges, and it may have happened at the same time that the restof the planets and moons got zapped.
Cheers.
Big lightning bolts as the cause of cratering and not impacts has hardly been proven in the scientific arena.

Dave Mitsky

damienpaul
2004-Jan-06, 01:57 PM
please define this zapping that has been mentioned, and tell me what mechanism would cause venus's accretionary material to be retrograde...analoguous to the winds on the giant planets perhaps? i am not sure

VanderL
2004-Jan-06, 02:41 PM
Again I must refer you to the link I posted before: http://www.holoscience.com/news/wateronmars.html
The original idea that a lot of cratering and sinuous rilles could have an electrical origin is from people working with high-energy plasma and discharges. Ralph Juergens looked at the Moon's craters, Wal Thornhill included Mars' en Venus' geology. There is more evidence on his website, it will take you awhile to get through all the material, but it's where I get these ideas from. Basically what is hypothesized is that the Universe is electrical in nature, this means that evidence should be found everywhere. I can't sum it all up, I can only tell you where to find the pictures that could convince you.
Cheers

damienpaul
2004-Jan-06, 02:46 PM
thank you for that, i am becoming more convinced actually

Guest
2004-Jan-06, 04:18 PM
think of the formation of the solar system as a racetrack where the sun is at the center and the rocks that will form the planets are the cars running around the sun. As the rocks collide and stick to each other, the planets start forming. The collisions are not usually head on, they are glancing collisions which means that the nascent planet acquires a spin that's the sum total of all the glancing collisions that form it. Given this explanation, each planet has it's own spin dependent on which way the rocks fell in it. Mostly the planets would spin in the same direction as the plane of the solar system, but there's no reason why a planet should not be spinning in the opposite direction.

VanderL
2004-Jan-06, 06:16 PM
That would only be true for the really big impactors (like Mars colliding with Earth), the rest wouldn't have enough mass to change the spin. Chances are that those encounters will not yield planets, just a lot of debris. It is a point of interest that the accretion process needs "sticky" particles, otherwise there is only a lot of bouncing and no accretion. There is no evidence that these particles exist(ed).

Guest
2004-Jan-06, 06:28 PM
That's true for planets that are already formed. If you go back to when planets were just large rocks, any impacting rock would add to the rotation of the protoplanet increasing it if it fell in the same direction or detracting from it if it was in the opposite direction.
By the way there were plenty of "sticky" things around. There was ice which would behave as glue by melting and refreezing when impacted by a falling rock.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-07, 12:42 AM
and other materials like methane etc....

joetommasi
2004-Jan-07, 02:22 AM
these ices that helped form the planets actually explain why Mars has what appear to be dry river beds and yet Mars probably never had flowing water

VanderL
2004-Jan-07, 07:27 PM
I'm not convinced that ice works as glue, too much heat would evaporate the componenets, too little heat would not make them sticky. It seems to wrk only at just the right temperature/pressure which is unlikely in a chaotic process. Is it just assumed to work as glue, or is there evidence.
How would this process work?

joetommasi
2004-Jan-07, 07:55 PM
I have done no experiment to prove that ice would be the glue that holds the protoplanet together. My impression is that collisions between ices and rocks involved a variety of kinetic energy and with that many collisions, some if not most must have had the right amount of energy that could have been converted to the right pressure, temperature or any other variable. If that energy exceeded the ability of the ices to hold the protoplanet together and it was sufficient to crack the components, that's fine also since gravity would eventually bring those components back together again. ;)

VanderL
2004-Jan-07, 08:30 PM
That's wrong, I think; gravity of small particles is a very (extremely) inefficient way to bring matter together, the stronger force under such circumstances is electrical (there is always a plasma present) and maybe the need for ice-like or any other sticky components in not necessary. Any process that can bring enough matter in one place should not be random or accidental, it should work efficiently and under almost any circumstance. There is an effect , known as the Z-pinch effect that is very efficient in doing this. In plasma laboratories this effect is used to create high fusion temperatures. In space naturally occurring electric/magnetic fields work in the same way.
Cheers.

joetommasi
2004-Jan-08, 06:27 PM
Plasma is form of high energy matter. The solar system was a cold place when the planets first formed. I don't see or any plasma or electricity playing much, if any, part in the formation of the planets.

VanderL
2004-Jan-08, 06:54 PM
Plasma is not only high-energy matter, it is everywhere; 99+ percent of matter in the Universe is plasma!
for more info see http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

Littlemews
2004-Jan-08, 08:50 PM
So does the universe itself has Plasma?

VanderL
2004-Jan-08, 10:08 PM
The Universe IS plasma, 99,99% of all matter is in the plasma state, the only exceptions according to Alfvén, are the crusts of rocky planets and moons, and the rocks in space knowns as asteroids and comets.
Does this answer your question?

Joseph Tommasi
2004-Jan-09, 03:30 AM
My apology, the universe is mostly plasma, but that plasma is confined mostly to stars with the stellar wind playing a minor part.
The problem still remains, regardless of the amount available, plasma is unsuited for planetary formation. Plasma is degenerate matter and it would not "clump" to form planets

TheThorn
2004-Jan-09, 04:50 AM
Tell that to all that degenerate matter clumped together in neutron stars.

;)

But plasma really isn't degenerate matter at all. It's just another state of matter, solid, liquid, gas, plasma. Nothing degenerate about any of them.

Neutron stars, now they are degenerate.

VanderL
2004-Jan-09, 10:58 AM
Okay, I'll give it a try, I hope you can make some sense of it.
Plasma is made up of normal matter and ionized particles, sometimes more ionized particles than neutral. Plasma can be found in three states:
1. Dark Current mode, low electrical activity (our ionosphere)
2. Glow mode, significant electrical activity (Sun's corona, neon signs)
3. Arc mode, high current (arc welder, Sun's photosphere, Io's "volcanoes")
In space we have a low amount of matter, but still currents are possible as Birkeland Currents (Birkeland explained how aurorae are generated). These currents are mostly found in pairs and form corkscrew patterns, due to the magnetic field created by the current. This in turn can compress matter (ionized or neutral) between the currents, this is the "Z-pinch" effect. The accretion of matter is called the "Marklund convection".
This is how in space matter can clump, before gravity has a chance to work (single molecules do not gravitate very strongly). These Birkeland Currents can be huge (lightyears long) and power the stars and galaxies, according to the Electric Universe model (www.electric-cosmos.org).
Btw, neutron stars are a theoretical construct (same as black holes and dark matter/energy), we know "neutron stars" by how they behave, but it has never been demonstrated in a laboratory that the superdense matter exists.
Cheers.

Tinaa
2004-Jan-11, 11:51 PM
As to the question: What are the theories behind Venus' retrograde motion? I posed this question to Dr. David A. Wood, Jr., Ph.D. in planetary science, faculty SAC in San Antonio, TX. He was very kind in explaining this for us. His answer:

Nobody knows exactly why Venus spins slowly and retrograde. There are two schools of thought that might explain it:


(1) Venus has a dense atmosphere and tidal forces from the Sun (and Earth?????) acted to produce bulges in the planet’s atmosphere to slow down its rotation. Personally, I do not buy strongly into this being the major factor since the mass of the atmosphere is substantially less than the atmosphere of the planet. Also, it is not known how long Venus’ atmosphere has been this dense. If the atmosphere has only been this dense since the last global resurfacing event (~500 million years ago), there is no way that the dynamics of tidal forces can work.



(2) The more commonly accepted hypothesis is that Venus suffered a glancing blow by a Mars – Venus size object during its formation. We know that all of the planets suffered these large collisions in the first 100 million years of their formation. In fact, that’s how the Moon was formed. These early giant impacts also explain why Uranus is tipped 98 degrees on its axis. Large planet-planet encounters would have been the final stage of major accretion, reducing the solar system from two dozen or so planet-size objects on crossing orbits to the 8 slightly larger planets we have today. Planet-planet collisions appear to be the only events dynamically capable of producing such dramatic tilts of Venus, Earth, Saturn, and Uranus. The object that hit Venus could also have stolen a lot of Venus’ angular momentum in the same way we steal angular momentum from planets for spacecraft gravity assists. The large mass of the intruding object could account for the slow spin of Venus. If it slowed Venus’ rotation rate to near zero, then the tidal effects mentioned in hypothesis #1 might be able to finish the job and change the rotation from prograde to retrograde; or the encounter itself might have tipped Venus more than 90 degrees on its axis and solar torques eventually pulled the axis to its current 177 degree (nearly vertical) orientation.



Dr. Wood

damienpaul
2004-Jan-12, 12:47 AM
Thank you Tinaa and thank you dr. Wood! It seems that the second explanation paves the way for an explanation on many of the oddities in the solar system, particularly the ones mentioned, but may also explain others like Triton and Mercury.

VanderL
2004-Jan-12, 10:41 PM
But we haven't explained a lot of other problems in this way, there is no evidence that the collisions happened in the first 100 million years. We can't test such a hypothesis (computer models really give us only what we teel them). It is equally possible that the collisions happened more recently. Venus' surface is young, and the event that caused it could have been just such a collision. We don't know how the planets formed, so we should be careful to accept the accretion model as true. We need to explain all the oddities that we see. The accretion model is just a story like many others, and it's problem is that it is basically untestable. We need more data and in the meantime we should carefully look at the existing data. In my opinion the data are better explained by an expulsion mechanism, planets are ejected from their parent star (hence close-orbiting giant planets), the mechanism is explained in the Electric Star model (www.electric-cosmos.com).
Any commets?

Fraser
2004-Jan-12, 11:30 PM
You have an electric cosmos answer for everything VanderL.

TheThorn
2004-Jan-13, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by fraser@Jan 12 2004, 11:30 PM
You have an electric cosmos answer for everything VanderL.
Well, it wouldn't be much of a theory if there were very many things that it couldn't explain. Especially if they were things that competing theories could explain.

Oh. I'm not VanderL.

Never mind.

;)

Kethryn
2004-Jan-13, 01:57 AM
Retrograde motion (in general) is supposed to be because the planets orbit the sun at different speeds, and when we (Earth) pass one of the planets in orbit, that planet appears to make a backward (westward) loop in the sky, which is retrograde motion. I forget exactly, but I think it has to do with passing in front of the light of the sun or something of that sort.

This is a better 'theory' than Ptolemy's, his has lots of information dealing with geocentric solar systems and epicycles and other things, which tend to confuse people.

Kethryn

anewton
2004-Jan-13, 04:55 AM
But what if Mercury was one of Jupiter's moon's that went glancing off a Venus that was already there and zooming around the Sun like the rest of us? Suppose that happened 500 million years ago, and in so doing, slowed Venus and made the retro-grade? Think about a cue ball hitting that ol' #8. Any "plasma" surrounding Mercury could have fused with Venus, making a hotter, denser atmosphere. And Mercury could have then been pulled into it's dizzy orbit. What happened in Earth's history at that time? The poles shifted? The dinos died? A huge ice age? Was there anything to parallel that time here? Help me out please, I can't remember.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-13, 05:09 AM
What happened in Earth's history at that time? The poles shifted? The dinos died? A huge ice age? Was there anything to parallel that time here? Help me out please, I can't remember.

Lets see....

apparantly at 600 million years ago the earth was coming out of a deep freeze of global proportions. for 500 million years ago, thats too early for the Dinosaur (K-T) extinction or the permo-triassic extinction....

500 million years ago corresponds to the Ordovician era, there was a mass extinction - a particularly bad one apparantly 50 million years later:

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/ext...on/ordmass.html (http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/ordmass.html)

but this was glaciation event:

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/ext...n/ordcause.html (http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/ordcause.html)

But evidence shows that this maybe a result of a gamma ray burst:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030922/030922-7.html

Earlier than this was a Cambrian extinction, well 4 of them:

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/ext...on/cammass.html (http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/cammass.html)

once again caused by glaciation:

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/ext...n/camcause.html (http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/camcause.html)

but one on the boundary, around 500 million years ago, seem to have been partly the result of impacts and a rather large eruption on the Antrim Plateau.

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html

hopefully these help, but i'd certainly appreciate more information.

anewton
2004-Jan-13, 05:26 AM
Gamma Ray Bursts. Those are interesting. Just reading about them earlier at the PBS NOVA website, under Death Star (TV progragm). They finally saw the bright light and then it was gone....But, is the burst caused only by a star going nova or a black star exploding? No one truly knows. Maybe what happened in our solar system wasn't nearly so grand. Perhaps the "energy" or "heat" that hit Earth was from some light weight event as I described before, but was still more than enough to cause such changes here. Maybe gamma ray bursts are on a scale that is grander than we think.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-13, 09:00 AM
i think the outpouring of lava and the disturbance of when:

[QUOTE]but one on the boundary, around 500 million years ago, seem to have been partly the result of impacts and a rather large eruption on the Antrim Plateau.

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html[QUOTE]

may have been more of a culprit

creepy
2004-Jan-13, 11:26 AM
if i remember correctly emanuel velikovski had a good explanation for this

damienpaul
2004-Jan-13, 11:39 AM
if i remember correctly emanuel velikovski had a good explanation for this

What would this explanation be? Can you provide a link?

joetommasi
2004-Jan-13, 04:58 PM
Given that all the planets have different rotation rates and no pattern between them exists, why not say that the rotation of a planet is random and caused by whatever random event deposited its minute rotational effect while the planet was forming
Given that, any rotation is a possible while the prefered one is the one that's prevalent. I hate the idea of a mars sized object going anywhere near venus or the earth. It would have to cross too many orbits for too long a period of time to survive to planethood and affect venus and the earth at just the right time.
Venus just happen to have it's own particular rotation.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-13, 05:08 PM
Jtommasi, that is another possibilitiy for all to consider.

But maybe, just maybe that all of this goings on occurred much earlier in the solar system's history when everything was a bit chaotic and not to mention the possibility of a whole lot more protoplanets. It could be possible that all the oddities we see today - axial tilts, retrograde motion etc could have been set in place then.

Putting in place the
random event deposited its minute rotational effect while the planet was forming
as mentioned.

This is one big if, cause none of us were there to witness it, imagine in the future if we could witness it.

VanderL
2004-Jan-13, 06:32 PM
Yes Fraser,
There's indeed an electrical explanation for everything, I hope you don't mind if I repeatedly try to point this out. I hope you'll try the websites yourself sometime and see what it's all about.
Planets in an electric model can change orbit and get into a stable new orbit very fast. The planets are "pushed" into the electrically most stable orbit, the orbit where electrical interaction is lowest. Because of the electrical exchange, collisions are rare and capture of moons and planets is facilitated ( our Moon is most probably captured).
When we look at "extrasolar" systems we mostly see planets close to their stars, our system looks different and the reason could very well be some cosmic upheaval that threw our planets and moons out of their stable orbits. The results of the upheaval are very much visible, we see cratering everywhere on anything that consists of rock. We normally think of craters as impact craters, but actually most cratering is caused by electrical scarring. There are tell-tale signs of the electrical cause of craters and "canyons" or rilles on the Moon Mercury, Mars Venus, Earth and almost all moons and asteroids/comets (details at www.holoscience.com). If all this proves to be true, it could account for all the myths and stories about a cosmic battle between the planets (gods) within human memory.
Cheers.

Tinaa
2004-Jan-13, 07:11 PM
I contacted Dr. Lawrence Krauss and here are his comments re electric cosmos:

"We know the big bang happened, and the universe is expanding. Every
single piece of astronomical data is consistent with this, from the age of the
universe to the abundance of light elements. Moreover, every prediction
of the big bang picture agrees with observation. It is the only model
that is in agreement. Plasma ideas have been proposed to try and explain
certain things we see, like redshifts, etc.. but they simply do not
present a coherent picture that explains all the existing data."

LMK

Dr. Krauss was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chairman of the department of Physics at Case Western Reserve University. He is an internationally known theoretical physicist and author of several books and over 200 scientific publications.

Guest
2004-Jan-13, 07:37 PM
hey Tinna do u know this guy Hannes Alfven?
See : http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html

VanderL
2004-Jan-13, 07:38 PM
Am I allowed to disagree with Dr Krauss and put my money on Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, Dr Halton Arp, Dr Wallace Thornhill and Prof Don Scott?
Anyway, we'll learn the truth eventually (I just hope I'll be around to witness it)
Cheers.

Littlemews
2004-Jan-13, 07:43 PM
>< forget to login
I dont&#39; know about Hannes Alfven that much, but when I read his book, he got pretty good explanation about the early universe... :) reading....reading....

Tinaa
2004-Jan-14, 12:59 AM
Anyone is free to believe any ole crazy idea they want. :D Never heard Hannes Alfven. Hmm...

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-14, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Guest@Jan 13 2004, 07:37 PM
hey Tinna do u know this guy Hannes Alfven?
See : http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html
So was Alfven a Marxist?

Alfven may have been a leader in plasma physics but just what were his credentials as a cosmologist? William Shockley won a Nobel Prize in physics but does that mean we should accept his crackpot ideas on race?

Dave Mitsky

Littlemews
2004-Jan-14, 02:32 AM
As I said, I don&#39;t know him that much, just curious.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-14, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by creepy@Jan 13 2004, 11:26 AM
if i remember correctly emanuel velikovski had a good explanation for this
It seems to me that just how "good" an explanation Velikovsky offers depends mainly upon how gullible one is or perhaps how much a part creationism plays in one&#39;s outlook on the universe. Keep in mind that Velikovsky was a psychiatrist not an archeologist, physicist, or astronomer.

http://skepdic.com/velikov.html

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vdtopten.html

http://www.pibburns.com/smelaris.htm

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/velikovsky.htm

Dave Mitsky

Littlemews
2004-Jan-14, 02:48 AM
TOP TEN REASONS WHY VELIKOVSKY IS WRONG
ABOUT WORLDS IN COLLISIONhttp://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vdtopten.html
Hmm I like this one ^^

World&#39;s in Collision : http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunarplanet...-2000-00b3.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunarplanet-2000-00b3.html)

TheThorn
2004-Jan-14, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky+Jan 14 2004, 02:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dave Mitsky @ Jan 14 2004, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Guest@Jan 13 2004, 07:37 PM
hey Tinna do u know this guy Hannes Alfven?
See : http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html
So was Alfven a Marxist?

Alfven may have been a leader in plasma physics but just what were his credentials as a cosmologist? William Shockley won a Nobel Prize in physics but does that mean we should accept his crackpot ideas on race?

Dave Mitsky [/b][/quote]
Whether Alfven was a marxist or not (and I really don&#39;t know his politics) is totally irrelevant. Why would anyone bother to raise such a silly point anyway?

As for your other point, your comparison is not well founded. Shockley&#39;s Nobel prize in physics gives him no credibility in the totally unrelated matter of race. And Linus Pauling&#39;s two Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace don&#39;t stop him from being a quack in medical matters (vitamin C). But Alfven&#39;s Nobel prize in Physics was for his work in plasma physics. His cosmological work was an extension of the work that won that Nobel.

Certainly he could be wrong - even the best minds are wrong, even in their field of expertise. Einstein was wrong when he said "God doesn&#39;t play dice with the universe". But comparing Alfven with Shockley is totally misguided.

Always IMHO, of course.

On the other hand, I agree totally with your comments on Mr. Velikovsky. For all I know, he might have been a good psychiatrist, but his celestial mechanics was indefensible.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-14, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by TheThorn+Jan 14 2004, 03:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheThorn &#064; Jan 14 2004, 03:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Jan 14 2004, 02:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Guest@Jan 13 2004, 07:37 PM
hey Tinna do u know this guy Hannes Alfven?
See : http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html
So was Alfven a Marxist?

Alfven may have been a leader in plasma physics but just what were his credentials as a cosmologist? William Shockley won a Nobel Prize in physics but does that mean we should accept his crackpot ideas on race?

Dave Mitsky
Whether Alfven was a marxist or not (and I really don&#39;t know his politics) is totally irrelevant. Why would anyone bother to raise such a silly point anyway?

As for your other point, your comparison is not well founded. Shockley&#39;s Nobel prize in physics gives him no credibility in the totally unrelated matter of race. And Linus Pauling&#39;s two Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace don&#39;t stop him from being a quack in medical matters (vitamin C). But Alfven&#39;s Nobel prize in Physics was for his work in plasma physics. His cosmological work was an extension of the work that won that Nobel.

Certainly he could be wrong - even the best minds are wrong, even in their field of expertise. Einstein was wrong when he said "God doesn&#39;t play dice with the universe". But comparing Alfven with Shockley is totally misguided.

Always IMHO, of course.

On the other hand, I agree totally with your comments on Mr. Velikovsky. For all I know, he might have been a good psychiatrist, but his celestial mechanics was indefensible.[/b][/quote]
My first question was posed out of curiosity and is completely relevant and far from "silly" to me, thank you very much, despite your "humble" opinon.

I&#39;ve done some research on Alfven. He was a co-winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Physics for "for fundamental work and discoveries in magneto-hydrodynamics with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics". He did research on some aspects of physics that were related to astronomy (cosmic rays for example) but had no professional training in cosmology as far as I&#39;ve been able to determine.

My point in mentioning Shockley was the logical fallacy of arguing from authority.

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2004-Jan-14, 03:25 PM
Anyway, we&#39;re trying to explain why Venus has a retrograde spin etc.
The electric explanation can still be true, whether you like the fact that it happens to coincide with SOME of the things Velikovsky claimed, or not. Most people haven&#39;t heard of the alternative plasma model or better, the electric model, so I keep mentioning this in the hope to either find good arguments against this model, or become more confident about the truth in this model. I became interested when I read about the neutrino problem and found this theory that explained why we don&#39;t find the amount needed for nuclear fusion. At www.holoscience.org and at www.electric-cosmos.com you can find all the relevant information and links. It really is a model that will replace and surpass the Standard Model if it is true&#33; And if this model is really true, it will change the way we look at everything. To me it all made sense suddenly, but as with any theory, it can be wrong. Everytime we get new data we need to compare them with the models we have and in my opinion this model deserves our attention.

joetommasi
2004-Jan-14, 09:32 PM
You know what I find interesting in this forum? How quickly topics switch.
I have a friend who&#39;s into religion and I&#39;m into science.
In our silly little ways we both try to find the answer to the ultimate truth.
He looks for his answers in the "Book", while I look for mine in questioning.
Both of us have high priests. His are in a temple, mine are in universities.
We are both believers. He in god, me in knowledge.
The only difference is that he can&#39;t question his beliefs, I have to question mine.
So, to all of you who ask. Keep asking. That&#39;s how science works. Take no priest&#39;s word for it. Keep asking and digging. Just because something is repeated over and over in different books, websites or by different people, it doesn&#39;t make it true.
Don’t, however, substitute one deity for another. Gravity, time, electricity, quantum mechanics are not gods although the devil is in the details.
Above all, if anyone tells you he has the answer to all the problems, know that he has found his religion. ;)

Tiny
2004-Jan-14, 10:21 PM
LOL :huh: Thats totally off topic

joetommasi
2004-Jan-14, 11:34 PM
Not really. I found I&#39;ve been battling another question and answer topic (were did the moon come from) and I find everybody is giving me the same websites, the same quotes but my questions are not being directly answered. Some people are even getting upset with my questions and some come back to the same one-point answer. These people fail to understand that questions have to be asked and answered no matter how simple they appear to be, instead they rely on the books and expert opinion who parrot the same line without questioning it. That&#39;s what I call religion not science.

Tinaa
2004-Jan-15, 12:33 AM
Keep questioning. We just stay away from religion here because people just get ugly and discussions turn personal&#33; :)

TheThorn
2004-Jan-15, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky+Jan 14 2004, 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dave Mitsky @ Jan 14 2004, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by TheThorn@Jan 14 2004, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Jan 14 2004, 02:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Guest@Jan 13 2004, 07:37 PM
hey Tinna do u know this guy Hannes Alfven?
See : http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html
So was Alfven a Marxist?

Alfven may have been a leader in plasma physics but just what were his credentials as a cosmologist? William Shockley won a Nobel Prize in physics but does that mean we should accept his crackpot ideas on race?

Dave Mitsky
Whether Alfven was a marxist or not (and I really don&#39;t know his politics) is totally irrelevant. Why would anyone bother to raise such a silly point anyway?

As for your other point, your comparison is not well founded. Shockley&#39;s Nobel prize in physics gives him no credibility in the totally unrelated matter of race. And Linus Pauling&#39;s two Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace don&#39;t stop him from being a quack in medical matters (vitamin C). But Alfven&#39;s Nobel prize in Physics was for his work in plasma physics. His cosmological work was an extension of the work that won that Nobel.

Certainly he could be wrong - even the best minds are wrong, even in their field of expertise. Einstein was wrong when he said "God doesn&#39;t play dice with the universe". But comparing Alfven with Shockley is totally misguided.

Always IMHO, of course.

On the other hand, I agree totally with your comments on Mr. Velikovsky. For all I know, he might have been a good psychiatrist, but his celestial mechanics was indefensible.
My first question was posed out of curiosity and is completely relevant and far from "silly" to me, thank you very much, despite your "humble" opinon.

I&#39;ve done some research on Alfven. He was a co-winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Physics for "for fundamental work and discoveries in magneto-hydrodynamics with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics". He did research on some aspects of physics that were related to astronomy (cosmic rays for example) but had no professional training in cosmology as far as I&#39;ve been able to determine.

My point in mentioning Shockley was the logical fallacy of arguing from authority.

Dave Mitsky [/b][/quote]
Dave, let me apologize if my indelicate phrasing caused offense.

And sorry for the lengthy quote, but I left it in to try to illustrate my confusion.

You are absolutely correct about the fallacy of argument from authority. The only thing that really matters is the evidence that the universe itself provides.

Unfortunately, most of us don&#39;t have access to the equipment we&#39;d need to go get the evidence for ourselves, nor the education to necessarily understand it when we did get it, so we have to rely on aurhorities to some extent. If we&#39;re objective, we tend to judge our authorities on what we perceive as "credentials". If we&#39;re not objective, we tend to judge our authorities by how much we like their conclusions <G>. But the evidence has to take precedence over any authority.

This discussion had wandered away from the evidence, and to the qualifications of the authorities in the field - the people who jtommasi calls his "priests". If you look at the six posts previous to the one where you mentioned Shockley, you&#39;ll see that they are all about authorities.

I read your comments about Marxism and Shockley&#39;s racism in that context. And in that context, those comments looked like an ad hominem attack on the man, questioning his politics and comparing him to a terrible racist, rather than anything to do with his work or the evidence that supports or contradicts it. Sorry if I misunderstood.

OTOH, I find it confusing that you continue to question Alfen&#39;s credentials, even in the post where you point out the fallacy of argument from authority.

What was Einstein&#39;s Nobel prize for? The photo electric effect. What professional training in cosmology did he have? None. You&#39;re absolutely correct. The credentials of "authorities" can be totally misleading. Either direction. They can make you ignore Einstein, or listen to Shockley. The evidence itself is the only thing that differentiates between them.

As far as the evidence itself goes, most of the arguments against Alfven&#39;s theory that I&#39;ve been able to find (and I admit my reading is not comprehensive) amount to just that it is unnecessary. No one actually points out anything that contradicts Alfven&#39;s views, they just say that the current Big Bang cosmology can explain everything so there&#39;s no need to change it. But they seem to change it quite regularly, adding cosmological constants, or repulsive dark energy, or WIMPS or unseen dark matter or all of the above as necessary to explain stuff that might be more easily explained by taking plasma physics into account for all I know. These don&#39;t seem to me to be minor adjustments. They&#39;re fundamental.

OTOH, I&#39;ve visited a number of web sites recently that claim to be presenting Alfven&#39;s ideas, or extensions of them, that come across as "fringe" (and that&#39;s being generous).

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I&#39;m not an advocate for Alfven. I&#39;m just open minded at this point.

I ramble.

RUF
2004-Jan-15, 06:56 AM
Maybe Venus is rotating the right way, and the rst of the planets are wrong :P

I know Uranus rotates "end-over-end" because it is tilted on it&#39;s side, but is it retrograde? How does one know which pole is north, and which is south.

Now for a real brain taeser: does Venus rotate in the direction it revolves around the Sun? I mean, maybe the planet&#39;s rotation slowed until it stopped, then it got a "tug" to start in the opposite direstion from it&#39;s intertia as it traveled around the sun.

My guess is that a comet or asteroid hit the planet at a steep angle, causing it to spin the other way.

anewton
2004-Jan-15, 07:48 AM
My gripe with the Big Bang Theory is on 2 points. One, by definition alone the universe is infinite ( having no "edge"). Some even say that our universe may be expanding into other universes. By difinition, this too, is impossible. Maybe it&#39;s just semantics, but, get another word if you think something exists outside the all encompassing "Universe". Mankind is limiting their advancements by holding on to this idea of an "edge". Second point, one can not start with an unknown factor, work a mathamatical equation based on presumed ideas and come up with a fact or a truth. The best it will ever be, until we have more empirical evidence or data, is a Theory. It is the Big Bang Theory. Einstein, mostly had theories and we know now that a few of them were wrong. But, the dialogue needs to continue------ This is where true advancements are made-----By stretching one&#39;s imagination&#33;&#33;

VanderL
2004-Jan-15, 10:12 PM
There are some other strange features of Venus that are still unexplained, like where does all the lightning come from.
"The Venera spacecraft found ‘continuous lightning activity from 32km down to about 2km altitude, with discharges as frequent as an amazing 25 per second.’ [NASA News 79-12 (19.4.79), p. 1]"
And of course why is Venus so hot. The greenhouse effect that is commonly used as explanation doesn&#39;t hold, because Venus&#39; surface gets less energy from the Sun than Earth (only 5-10%), and one of the strongest greenhouse components is water vapour, but Earth isn&#39;t boiling hot. It is really the surface that is hot, and what heated Venus&#39; surface? We don&#39;t know, but it seems likely that something catastrophic happened to Venus and not too long ago either, the 500 million years mentioned in earlier posts was an upper limit and is based on cratering, which is of course an unreliable method. Could it be that all Venus&#39; features are connected and point to a recent capture of this planet?
Cheers.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-16, 06:31 AM
"What was Einstein&#39;s Nobel prize for? The photo electric effect. What professional training in cosmology did he have? None."

Well, that&#39;s perfectly understandable. Cosmology as a scientific discipline did not exist at that time. In fact, it was Einstein&#39;s General Theory of Relativity that gave cosmology its impetus.

Dave Mitsky

damienpaul
2004-Jan-16, 06:50 AM
Now for a real brain taeser: does Venus rotate in the direction it revolves around the Sun? I mean, maybe the planet&#39;s rotation slowed until it stopped, then it got a "tug" to start in the opposite direstion from it&#39;s intertia as it traveled around the sun.

What would the mechanism be for this slowing down?


My guess is that a comet or asteroid hit the planet at a steep angle, causing it to spin the other way

It would possibly not necessarily need to hit the planet outright but give the gravitational tug needed....my mind is boggling though :wacko:


but it seems likely that something catastrophic happened to Venus and not too long ago either,

This is becoming more and more apparant, i have read this is professsional literature also, causing the resurfacing mentioned.

VanderL
2004-Jan-16, 10:11 AM
OK, so resurfacing is the term, the timescale and the mechanism are unknown, but there is a whole "story" to be found in the world&#39;s mythologies that specifically tell us that something strange happened to Venus. Maybe we should look at those "myths" (as has already been done by some people) and try to piece together a real history. I know this is hard to swallow for a lot of people, but who knows what it can bring us.
Cheers.

Guest_Faulkner
2004-Jan-16, 06:49 PM
Not really. I found I&#39;ve been battling another question and answer topic (were did the moon come from) and I find everybody is giving me the same websites, the same quotes but my questions are not being directly answered. Some people are even getting upset with my questions and some come back to the same one-point answer. These people fail to understand that questions have to be asked and answered no matter how simple they appear to be, instead they rely on the books and expert opinion who parrot the same line without questioning it. That&#39;s what I call religion not science.

Damn straight, Jtomassi&#33;&#33;&#33; I couldn&#39;t agree more. And I think this forum is infested with this disease.


We just stay away from religion here because people just get ugly and discussions turn personal&#33;

Seems to me the only ones wanting to stay away from religion in this forum are those who are religious&#33; They seem to hate to have to justify their "blind faith".

With regards to Venus, it is interesting that there are ancient astronomically-aware cultures that have no record of Venus in their skies&#33;? According to their myths, Venus entered the skies as a fiery comet&#33;?

Tinaa
2004-Jan-16, 07:06 PM
Are you trying to tell me that a planet the size of Earth blazed into place within the last 5,000 -10,000 years? You&#39;ve got to be joking&#33; That is the craziest thing I&#39;ve heard lately. :lol: :lol: Just where did you read that? What cultures?

Guest_Faulkner
2004-Jan-16, 07:22 PM
I agree, sounds silly.

But the ancient Sumerians DID describe the planet Venus (=their goddess "Inanna") as a "fiery comet" in the sky, bringer of earthquakes & floods etc...

damienpaul
2004-Jan-17, 06:05 AM
Does not necesarily mean it was the planet Venus&#33; I still am struggtling with the whole concept of Venus being a new addition to the Solar System, RUF has made an interesting point about the retrograde motion, can we explore that idea?

VanderL
2004-Jan-18, 12:34 AM
You mean Venus getting hit at a steep angle that stopped it&#39;s rotation?I think the energy needed to stop a planet from spinning is tremendous; whatever the mechanism to make it stop spinning, my guess is it would destroy the planet (same problem as making the Sun stop in the sky as was mentioned in the Bible and Velikovsky&#39;s Worlds in Collision). Or maybe we could find a mechanism that would be able to take all that energy away without making direct contact?

Tinaa
2004-Jan-19, 01:54 AM
Ever heard of Tim Thompson? Check out this site (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/venus-young.html). He effectively debunks the idea that Venus is a new planet&#33;

VanderL
2004-Jan-19, 12:39 PM
Yes, Ive read his websites and I&#39;m not arguing that Venus is a young planet, only that something catastrophic happened to Venus in the recent past making it look young, which could possibly be explained by an electric encounter. Only pointing to possibilities and arguing the pros and cons.
Cheers.

Tim Thompson
2004-Jan-20, 02:00 AM
There are far more prosaic explanations available for the current state of Venus.

As to its retrograde spin, that could be the result of a collision early in the planet forming period (The reversal of the spin of Venus (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1987JBAA...98...23D&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f16951), J.R. Dormand & J. McCue, Journal of the British Astronomical Association 98(1) 23-25, December 1987). But it is more likely the result of equilibration between the solar tides, atmospheric torque, and the naturally chaotic obliquities of the planets (Long-term evolution of the spin of Venus II. numerical simulations (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003Icar..163...24C&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f17113), Correia & Laskar, Icarus 163(1): 24-45, May 2003; Long-term evolution of the spin of Venus I. theory (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003Icar..163....1C&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f17113), Correia, Laskar & deSurgy, Icarus 163(1): 1-24, May 2003). the retrograde spin of Venus is explained by the torque from its dense atmosphere, over a long time period, combined with other effects, as laid down in great detail in these two papers. A collision, while possible, is much less likely.

As for the young looking surface, it has long been understood that this is a result of a "turn-over" tectonic process. In such a process the entire lithosphere renews itself in one geologically short episode, rather than in more active plate subduction, as is the case for Earth. There is a great deal of lierature on this back to the early 1990&#39;s. But more recently: Lithospheric failure on Venus, A.C. Fowler & S.B.G. O&#39;Brien, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 459(2039): 2663-2704, November 8, 2003; Numerical models of magmatism in convecting mantle with temperature-dependent viscosity and their implications for Venus and Earth, M. Ogawa, Journal of Geophysical Research - Planets 105(E3): 6997-7012, March 25, 2000; Recent tectonic and lithospheric thermal evolution of Venus, C.D. Brown & R.E. Grimm, Icarus 139(1): 40-48, May 1999. These studies show that tectonic processes on Venus can well operate much differently than on Earth, resulting in recycling of large areas of surface over geologically short periods of time. So an external event is not necessary to explain the youthful appearance of the surface of Venus.

These studies show that there is no real problem here of sufficient weight to merit an extraordinary solution, such as an "electrical" event. This should be good news, since an electrical engagement between planets, as originally envisioned by Velikovsky (who also argued, by the way, that there is no such thing as gravity), would be extremely difficult either to describe, or to understand. One must remember that "like charges repel", so in order to pack enough charge into a small enough volume, to power the electrical event, there has to be some outside force applied. That force remains quite mysterious, even to those who, nevertheless, still believe it to be there.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-20, 03:28 AM
This is great news and great information, thank you veruy kindly for contributing this&#33;

So essentially, Venus just has a very unique tectonic regime - am I right in understanding taht it is a planet wide, or large scale at least recycling of the surface? Is there a time frame for this?

The atmospheric torque on Venus I suppose would also make it unique as well, admittedly, i never thought of that prospect, but it does make sense, a lot of sense - this may account for a possible &#39;slowing daown&#39; and &#39;reversing&#39; of the rotation suggested by another poster.

Thank you once again

Dave Mitsky
2004-Jan-20, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by VanderL@Jan 15 2004, 10:12 PM
There are some other strange features of Venus that are still unexplained, like where does all the lightning come from.
"The Venera spacecraft found ‘continuous lightning activity from 32km down to about 2km altitude, with discharges as frequent as an amazing 25 per second.’ [NASA News 79-12 (19.4.79), p. 1]"
And of course why is Venus so hot. The greenhouse effect that is commonly used as explanation doesn&#39;t hold, because Venus&#39; surface gets less energy from the Sun than Earth (only 5-10%), and one of the strongest greenhouse components is water vapour, but Earth isn&#39;t boiling hot. It is really the surface that is hot, and what heated Venus&#39; surface? We don&#39;t know, but it seems likely that something catastrophic happened to Venus and not too long ago either, the 500 million years mentioned in earlier posts was an upper limit and is based on cratering, which is of course an unreliable method. Could it be that all Venus&#39; features are connected and point to a recent capture of this planet?
Cheers.
Aren&#39;t you forgetting about CO2, the greenhouse gas that is most prominent in the atmospheres of both Earth and Venus?

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ven...atmosphere.html (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/venus/atmosphere.html)

http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2002...02/02_60AR.html (http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2002/02_60AR.html)

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/ve...greenhouse.html (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html)

Dave Mitsky