PDA

View Full Version : History of Venus


orangeatheist
02-01-2013, 10:18 AM
This thread is an opportunity for Mark Gaffney to enlighten the collective members of this forum on his ideas for the history of the planet Venus.

For a point of reference, here is a brief history of the formation of our solar system, including Venus as accepted by mainstream science:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yERX5pISaUQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A shorter history from Stephen Hawking:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Uhy1fucSRQI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here is a more specific look at the solar system's inner planets:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UA2dzghdYdQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And a brief video regarding planet formation:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G1f_grkp398?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
02-01-2013, 10:19 AM
Here's your chance to shine, gaffe. Impress us all with your science chops.

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 10:38 AM
Who cares! so he thinks its a comet.

mhgaffney
02-01-2013, 04:55 PM
OK but the origins of Venus is only part of it.

The thread needs to be about the present science paradigm, why it is inadequate, and why we need to move ASAP to the next paradigm.

The Big Bang and the associated ice comet model are the equivalent of the flat earth model of the 15th century -- just before Copernicus.

I start with this principle - the present model will not allow us to become sustainable on the planet. We will continue to destroy earth -- unless we change our economy and especially the way we use energy. We must become much more efficient.

The present Big Bang cosmological paradigm cannot provide for this. It is deficient because it does not incorporate electromagnetism. It is strictly based on gravity.

Yet many electromagnetic phenomenon -- including a range of discoveries made in only the last 20 years -- are crying out to be explained and accounted for.

But let us start with Venus. You need to understand how anomalous the planet is. 100% of the planet is volcanic. The surface temperatures are extreme -- and are the same at the poles and at the equator. How is this explained?

Why is Venus so hot? W*gs says its because of a runaway greenhouse effect -- but this is unproven. W*gs makes pronouncements -- but does this make it so? Hell no.

There is no way a greenhouse effect can cause vulcanism over 100% of a planet. No way. Venus is not that much closer to the sun than earth.

And when you rule this out -- you are left with a major unexplained phenomenon.

Discussion.

MHG

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 05:40 PM
I'd call 162 million miles pretty damn closer.

cutthemdown
02-01-2013, 05:41 PM
Sorry but just saying the theory is wrong doesn't cut it. They are discovering more and more about the universe every day. Black holes have different ways of behaving, some dormant, some sucking in so much energy they glow bright etc. Now they think every star probably has planets around it. You're wrong on the comets they have studied them enough to know if they are frozen and what the core is made of. You certainly don't think its a conspiracy right? You just think they are 100% wrong, like 99.99 % of all scientist in the field?

hard for me to buy that.

mhgaffney
02-01-2013, 06:23 PM
Sorry but just saying the theory is wrong doesn't cut it. They are discovering more and more about the universe every day. Black holes have different ways of behaving, some dormant, some sucking in so much energy they glow bright etc. Now they think every star probably has planets around it. You're wrong on the comets they have studied them enough to know if they are frozen and what the core is made of. You certainly don't think its a conspiracy right? You just think they are 100% wrong, like 99.99 % of all scientist in the field?

hard for me to buy that.

Answer the question. Why is Venus 100% volcanic -- even at the poles?

Greenhouse warming cannot explain it.

The cloud cover on Venus is so dense that the sunlight cannot even penetrate it -- so this alone precludes a greenhouse effect.

MHG

mhgaffney
02-01-2013, 06:25 PM
I'd call 162 million miles pretty damn closer.

Huh? Better recheck your numbers.

mhgaffney
02-01-2013, 06:46 PM
Science fails to explain lightning on Venus -- or earth...

Soviet space probes in the late 1960s and early 1970s found evidence of intense lightning bolts in the atmosphere of Venus.

US mainstream scientists refused to accept the evidence. Why? Because the atmosphere of Venus is totally calm. There is no wind -- not even a breeze.

The then current model of lightning for earth -- static charging -- could therefor not apply - so US scientists rejected the findings. They defended the static charging model -- and tossed out the hard evidence.

Today we know the Soviet probes were correct. Venus does have lightning. In fact, ALL the planets have lightning. Except maybe Mercury -- which is so close to the sun it has no atmosphere.

Yet in 2005 Dr Joseph Dwyer, a leading US scientist, acknowledged that the static charging model had collapsed. Static charging cannot explain the enormous energy in lightning bolts. Not even close.

Don't believe it? Here's the link:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-bolt-out-of-the-blue

In other words, the current science paradigm cannot explain a phenomenon we all know - lightning.

In his paper Dwyer said we are back to square one -- back to the time of Ben Franklin experimenting with kites in lightning storms.

We know lightning is electricity -- but where does it come from?

It's a major anomaly -- and it's related to the origins of Venus.

The answer is that the electricity in lightning comes from the sun. This is the next paradigm. Much of the sun's energy is electric -- not just visible light.
MHG

Fedaykin
02-01-2013, 06:59 PM
Did you know that, without an atmosphere, the average temperature on Earth would be around -5 degrees Fahrenheit (-15C) instead of +60 (+15C)?

Fedaykin
02-01-2013, 07:08 PM
/popcorn

mhgaffney
02-01-2013, 07:11 PM
/popcorn

Answer the question. Why is 100% of the surface of Venus volcanic -- even the poles.

Answer the question: where does the electricity in lightning come from?

(hint: from the sun)

MHG

Fedaykin
02-01-2013, 07:38 PM
I'd call 162 million miles pretty damn closer.

~41million miles actually, yet the sentiment is correct.


Average surface temperature of Earth if it had no atmosphere: -5F
Average surface temperature of Venus if it had no atmosphere: +150F

If you'd like to see the math, I'll show it.

And of course, that's average. Earth surface temperature temperature can vary by almost over 260F (coldest temp recorded: -128.6F in Antarctica, hottest: 134F in death valley).

The average surface temp of earth is actually ~60F, which tells you how much influence the greenhouse effect has.

frerottenextelway
02-01-2013, 07:41 PM
Answer the question. Why is Venus 100% volcanic -- even at poles?

Jewish bankers.

Fedaykin
02-01-2013, 07:56 PM
Answer the question. Why is 100% of the surface of Venus volcanic -- even the poles.


You always come up with some funny head scratchers. Why on Venus (ha!) are you stuck on volcanic activity at the poles?


Answer the question: where does the electricity in lightning come from?

(hint: from the sun)

MHG

No, it doesn't. The solar wind is not electrically charged. We've measured it, directly. The claim that it is simply does not fit the evidence.

W*GS
02-01-2013, 08:21 PM
But let us start with Venus. You need to understand how anomalous the planet is. 100% of the planet is volcanic.

What does that mean?

See also VOLCANISM AND TECTONICS ON VENUS (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.26.1.23)

The surface temperatures are extreme -- and are the same at the poles and at the equator. How is this explained?

See Venus’ climate I: How scientists know Venus’ surface is unusually hot (http://scholarsandrogues.com/2011/05/02/venus-climate-i-venus-surface-hot/), for starters.

The rest of your argument proceeds from two faulty premises. Read the above two references then rephrase, please.

Rascal
02-01-2013, 08:23 PM
I can't help but think that, if we were back in the middle ages, mhgaffney would be considered a witch and burned. Assuming the village didn't try the floating test instead.

Rohirrim
02-01-2013, 11:06 PM
~41million miles actually, yet the sentiment is correct.


Average surface temperature of Earth if it had no atmosphere: -5F
Average surface temperature of Venus if it had no atmosphere: +150F

If you'd like to see the math, I'll show it.

And of course, that's average. Earth surface temperature temperature can vary by almost over 260F (coldest temp recorded: -128.6F in Antarctica, hottest: 134F in death valley).

The average surface temp of earth is actually ~60F, which tells you how much influence the greenhouse effect has.

I read that, due to the elliptical orbits, Venus can be anywhere from 24 million miles, to 162 million miles from Earth. Since I'm not a scientist... ???

Fedaykin
02-01-2013, 11:28 PM
I read that, due to the elliptical orbits, Venus can be anywhere from 24 million miles, to 162 million miles from Earth. Since I'm not a scientist... ???

Oh sure, Earth and Venus could be 162m miles apart, when say they are on opposite sides of the sun, but as far as average distance from the sun, Earth is about 41 million km further from the sun.

Of course, the ****ing hilarious part is that gaff-o seems to think atmospheric temperature causes vulcanism.

Hilarious!

You can't just make that kind of idiotic **** up.

mhgaffney
02-02-2013, 04:39 PM
I read that, due to the elliptical orbits, Venus can be anywhere from 24 million miles, to 162 million miles from Earth. Since I'm not a scientist... ???

Yes but the key number is the relative distance from the sun. The two planets are not that different.

mhgaffney
02-02-2013, 04:41 PM
Oh sure, Earth and Venus could be 162m miles apart, when say they are on opposite sides of the sun, but as far as average distance from the sun, Earth is about 41 million km further from the sun.

Of course, the ****ing hilarious part is that gaff-o seems to think atmospheric temperature causes vulcanism.

Hilarious!

You can't just make that kind of idiotic **** up.

You are not paying attention. I never said greenhouse warming caused vulcanism. This is W*gs' view. I am attacking it.

mhgaffney
02-02-2013, 04:46 PM
You always come up with some funny head scratchers. Why on Venus (ha!) are you stuck on volcanic activity at the poles?



No, it doesn't. The solar wind is not electrically charged. We've measured it, directly. The claim that it is simply does not fit the evidence.

You are not hearing me. I never mentioned the solar wind.

What I'm saying is that electrical currents (electrons) can and do flow from the sun to the planets -- and that this is the source of the electricity in lightning.

In other words, much of the sun's output is electrical -- in addition to visible light, x-rays etc

With regard to earth -- the electricity collects in the ionosphere -- then some of it works its way down through the atmosphere by a process that is not yet understood. We see it in the form of lightning.

These electrical currents could be measured if you placed your equipment properly. In short -- the idea could be tested.

I'm still waiting for you or someone to explain the source of the electricity in lightning. Now that the static charging model is dead -- there is no model.

MHG

W*GS
02-02-2013, 05:01 PM
You are not paying attention. I never said greenhouse warming caused vulcanism. This is W*gs' view. I am attacking it.

I never said the GHG warming on Venus "caused" its volcanic activity. Show me where I did.

Also, you need to show that Venus is extraordinarily volcanic. You have not.

mhgaffney
02-02-2013, 06:33 PM
I never said the GHG warming on Venus "caused" its volcanic activity. Show me where I did.

Also, you need to show that Venus is extraordinarily volcanic. You have not.

So how do you explain the vulcanism over the entire surface of Venus?

W*GS
02-02-2013, 08:48 PM
So how do you explain the vulcanism over the entire surface of Venus?

Didja go to the link I provided regarding volcanoes and plate tectonics on Venus?

Of course not.

We review recent developments in the study of volcanism and tectonics on Venus. Venus's crust is basaltic, dry, and probably about 30 km thick. The mantle convects, giving rise to plumes, and has a similar composition and mean temperature (1300°C), but a higher viscosity (1020 Pa s), than that of the Earth. Inferred melt generation rates constrain the lithospheric thickness to between 80 and 200 km. The elastic thickness of the lithosphere is about 30 km on average. The present-day lack of plate tectonics may be due to strong faults and the high viscosity of the mantle. Most of the differences between Earth and Venus processes can be explained by the absence of water.
Venus underwent a global resurfacing event 300–600 Ma ago, the cause and nature of which remains uncertain. The present-day surface heat flux on Venus is about half the likely radiogenic heat generation rate, which suggests that Venus has been heating up since the resurfacing event.

You can't even get the science right, dork.

Fedaykin
02-02-2013, 11:05 PM
You are not hearing me. I never mentioned the solar wind.

What I'm saying is that electrical currents (electrons) can and do flow from the sun to the planets -- and that this is the source of the electricity in lightning.


You're full of ****. We both know you are talking about the "Electric Universe theory" which indeed does idiotically claim the solar wind is electrically charged.


In other words, much of the sun's output is electrical -- in addition to visible light, x-rays etc

With regard to earth -- the electricity collects in the ionosphere -- then some of it works its way down through the atmosphere by a process that is not yet understood. We see it in the form of lightning.

These electrical currents could be measured if you placed your equipment properly. In short -- the idea could be tested.

I'm still waiting for you or someone to explain the source of the electricity in lightning. Now that the static charging model is dead -- there is no model.

MHG

Lot's more bull****. Where's the evidence to back your position?

mhgaffney
02-03-2013, 09:56 PM
Didja go to the link I provided regarding volcanoes and plate tectonics on Venus?

Of course not.

You can't even get the science right, dork.

You did not answer my question. I asked you why after 4.5 billion years Venus is still hot like a young planet. Earth has cooled. Mars has cooled. But nearly the entire surface of Venus is vulcanic.

I asked you why? and you regurgitated something you saw on line about plate tectonics. But that explains nothing.

Again -- I'm asking you: why is Venus still so hot over the entire planet -- even the poles?

Clearly - you don't have a clue. Why not just admit it?

mhgaffney
02-03-2013, 09:59 PM
Feydakin

As I've shown -- the static charging model for lightning has collapsed. There is no current model to account for lightning.

In the absence of a model -- there is nothing to defend. So why are you so defensive?

In the absence of a model -- you should be openly curious to explore and test new ideas.

So how come you are so closed minded?

W*GS
02-04-2013, 06:56 AM
Again -- I'm asking you: why is Venus still so hot over the entire planet -- even the poles?

Runaway greenhouse effect.

If you're going to claim something else entirely, you need to present the evidence and data, and how it explains Venus' current state better than the accepted theory.

orinjkrush
02-04-2013, 07:25 AM
Feydakin

As I've shown -- the static charging model for lightning has collapsed. There is no current model to account for lightning.

In the absence of a model -- there is nothing to defend. So why are you so defensive?

In the absence of a model -- you should be openly curious to explore and test new ideas.

So how come you are so closed minded?

Is this what Tesla was tapping into? (Am willing to entertain new ideas.)

mhgaffney
02-04-2013, 03:20 PM
Runaway greenhouse effect.

If you're going to claim something else entirely, you need to present the evidence and data, and how it explains Venus' current state better than the accepted theory.

If you've been following this thread -- you will recall that a few posts back W*gs denied vociferously that he ever claimed that Vulcanism over nearly all of the Venusian planet was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect.

Now he states (above) that it is. Obviously he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

For the record -- there is no chance that a greenhouse phenomenon can heat up the core of a planet -- and cause vulcanism like what exists on Venus. No chance.

At least 60% of the sunlight reaching Venus is reflected away by the dense cloud cover -- so only 40% of the sunlight is available for the greenhouse effect.

MHG

orangeatheist
02-04-2013, 03:31 PM
OK but the origins of Venus is only part of it.

The thread needs to be about the present science paradigm, why it is inadequate, and why we need to move ASAP to the next paradigm.

The Big Bang and the associated ice comet model are the equivalent of the flat earth model of the 15th century -- just before Copernicus.

Woah, woah, woah there cowboy! Not so fast! You can't just go making unsupported assertions and think you can get away with it.

This thread IS about the history of Venus and I'd like you to stick to the topic. Isn't that why we had to remove ourselves from the 9/11 thread? You want to keep a thread on-topic, let's do just that. If you want to open a separate thread on the problem with "the present science paradigm," be my guest. But this is MY thread now and I make the rules. You should show the decency and integrity to follow them. Thank you.


I start with this principle - the present model will not allow us to become sustainable on the planet. We will continue to destroy earth -- unless we change our economy and especially the way we use energy. We must become much more efficient.

Not only an unsupported assertion, but also wholly irrelevant to the topic.


The present Big Bang cosmological paradigm cannot provide for this. It is deficient because it does not incorporate electromagnetism. It is strictly based on gravity.

Not only an unsupported assertion, but also wholly irrelevant to the topic.


Yet many electromagnetic phenomenon -- including a range of discoveries made in only the last 20 years -- are crying out to be explained and accounted for.

Off topic.


But let us start with Venus.

Which is what you should have done.


You need to understand how anomalous the planet is. 100% of the planet is volcanic. The surface temperatures are extreme -- and are the same at the poles and at the equator. How is this explained?

1.) Define what you mean by the phrase "Venus is 100% volcanic." Then, please provide the relevancy of this statement.
2.) Agreed that the surface temperatures are extreme. Please provide the relevancy of this statement.
3.) Agreed that Venus has a uniform temperature. Please provide the relevancy of this statement.
4.) If you don't know how these observations are explained, then say so. If you are using these questions as a trap, please restrain yourself. If you have some sort of observation about Venus which incorporates a substantiated observation that Venus is 100% volcanic (active? dormant?), that the surface temperatures are extreme and that the planet has uniform temperature, then please state it.


Why is Venus so hot?

That's the same question you asked above regarding surface temperature. Do you know the answer? Or are you genuinely puzzled and are looking for the most scientific answer?


W*gs says its because of a runaway greenhouse effect -- but this is unproven.

Doesn't matter what W*gs says. Do you have a theory you'd like to offer?


W*gs makes pronouncements -- but does this make it so? Hell no.

You ask questions with the pretense of having some sort of secret answer. Please provide your answer and, take your own advice: Don't merely pronounce it. Provide the provable evidence for your theory.


There is no way a greenhouse effect can cause vulcanism over 100% of a planet. No way. Venus is not that much closer to the sun than earth.

Is there a claim on the table that the greenhouse effect causes vulcanism? If so, I haven't seen it.


And when you rule this out -- you are left with a major unexplained phenomenon.

So, are YOU admitting you don't have an explanation, either?

mhgaffney
02-04-2013, 03:32 PM
Is this what Tesla was tapping into? (Am willing to entertain new ideas.)

Yes, I believe Tesla was trying to tap into the free electricity that originates with the sun -- the same electricity that works its way down through the atmosphere as lightning.

Here's the tower he built on Long Island to download electricity from the ionosphere. Notice the array is pointed straight up -- not parallel with the surface of the earth like microwave antennae. This tends to refute the claim he was trying to transmit electricity from place to place via the atmosphere.

Tesla was a fabulously successful independent scientist. He received a fortune i royalties from his patented inventions -- especially AC/DC. But he sunk every dime he owned into this Long Island project. He ran out of cash before he was able to perfect it.

According to the story - Tesla went to his banker JP Morgan for a loan -- but Morgan turned him down. Morgan apparently learned that electricity was about to become too cheap to meter -- and decided to pull the plug. Tesla went broke and ended up living in a cheap hotel room. He died penniless.

Here is a photo of the tower he built. It was later repossessed and torn down.

Had Tesla succeeded we would now be driving hydrogen powered cars. We would live in a very different world.
MHG

mhgaffney
02-04-2013, 03:36 PM
Orangeatheist,

You will have to be patient. I must first lay the groundwork for the Venus discussion -- which will follow.
MHG

orangeatheist
02-04-2013, 03:36 PM
If you're going to claim something else entirely, you need to present the evidence and data, and how it explains Venus' current state better than the accepted theory.

Pretty much sums it up.

Mark, I will ask that you refrain from discussions regarding Tesla here unless it is directly relevant to the history of Venus. If you wish to open a separate thread for a Tesla discussion you are free to do so. But restrain yourself here.

We are two pages in and you still have not offered your theory for the history of Venus. Please do so now.

orangeatheist
02-04-2013, 03:37 PM
Orangeatheist,

You will have to be patient. I must first lay the groundwork for the Venus discussion -- which will follow.
MHG

No, you can lay your "groundwork" as you present your theory. Please do so.

mhgaffney
02-04-2013, 03:44 PM
Why lightning produces x-rays...

This post is key for what will follow. It's vitally important to understand this.

One of the leading scientists who has been studying lightning is Joseph Dwyer. He works in Florida -- which has frequent lightning storms -- even in winter. Dwyer set up a really cool procedure.

He sends up small rockets into thunder storms. The rockets have a wire spool that unreels -- creating a lightning rod. The lightning travels back down the wire -- where he has instruments to study the lightning.

Some years back Dwyer discovered that lightning bolts generate x-rays.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101223-lightning-x-rays-camera-science-technology/

The mechanism is now well understood. This is not mhgaffney talking -- this is mainstream science.

It's very simple: As lightning moves from the sky to the earth it passes through increasingly dense air - -- which causes resistance. The lightning slows down slightly.

As this happens -- according to the law of conservation of energy -- the lightning must release energy -- which it does by releasing x-rays.

My next post will make the jump to the next paradigm.

MHG

W*GS
02-04-2013, 03:52 PM
If you've been following this thread -- you will recall that a few posts back W*gs denied vociferously that he ever claimed that Vulcanism over nearly all of the Venusian planet was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect.

Now he states (above) that it is. Obviously he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

For the record -- there is no chance that a greenhouse phenomenon can heat up the core of a planet -- and cause vulcanism like what exists on Venus. No chance.

At least 60% of the sunlight reaching Venus is reflected away by the dense cloud cover -- so only 40% of the sunlight is available for the greenhouse effect.

MHG

Wow. You are truly ****ing clueless.

The reason the surface of Venus is hot is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That temperature is still far below the temperature required to create active vulcanism.

The surface of Venus is also volcanic in nature - as opposed to Earth's surface, which is a combination of volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. That's because there is no liquid water on the surface of Venus. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be any plate tectonics on Venus - the heat generated by radioactive processes seems to continue to heat Venus' mantle until the crust disintegrates and the entire surface subducts and overturns, basically. Quite a different process than what occurs here on Earth.

BTW, the Venusian surface is ~300-600 million years old and there could be current volcanic activity.

For more information regarding the runaway greenhouse on Venus, read this article. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm) It will get you started.

mhgaffney
02-04-2013, 03:55 PM
No, you can lay your "groundwork" as you present your theory. Please do so.

introducing the plasma discharge comet model...

OK -- but if you want to understand my views about Venus you will have to do some reading. Are you ready for that?

This scientific paper dates to the early 1980s. The Plasma Discharge Comet Model has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950.

This new model is far superior because it accounts for electromagnetism -- and accurately predicts the shape of the cometary coma and tail as the comet approaches the sun. The snowball model cannot begin to do this.

The new cometary model is based on a new model of the solar system -- which also accounts for electromagnetism. It can explain the lightning we see on earth -- and which has been found on the other planets.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/ori1.html

mhgaffney
02-04-2013, 04:01 PM
Wow. You are truly ****ing clueless.

The reason the surface of Venus is hot is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That temperature is still far below the temperature required to create active vulcanism.

The surface of Venus is also volcanic in nature - as opposed to Earth's surface, which is a combination of volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. That's because there is no liquid water on the surface of Venus. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be any plate tectonics on Venus - the heat generated by radioactive processes seems to continue to heat Venus' mantle until the crust disintegrates and the entire surface subducts and overturns, basically. Quite a different process than what occurs here on Earth.

BTW, the Venusian surface is ~300-600 million years old and there could be current volcanic activity.

For more information regarding the runaway greenhouse on Venus, read this article. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm) It will get you started.

Well - at least we agree that a runaway greenhouse effect cannot cause vulcanism.

Where is the evidence that the surface of Venus is 300-600 million years old? This is the sort of thing W*gs does a lot. He makes a pronouncement -- and we are supposed to take it on faith.

No one has ever visited the surface of Venus. Nor do we have any rock samples. Therefor, there is not a scintilla of actual evidence for this claim. It is pure hokum -- something that Big Bang scientists are really good at.

MHG

W*GS
02-04-2013, 04:04 PM
Why lightning produces x-rays...

This post is key for what will follow. It's vitally important to understand this.

One of the leading scientists who has been studying lightning is Joseph Dwyer. He works in Florida -- which has frequent lightning storms -- even in winter. Dwyer set up a really cool procedure.

He sends up small rockets into thunder storms. The rockets have a wire spool that unreels -- creating a lightning rod. The lightning travels back down the wire -- where he has instruments to study the lightning.

Some years back Dwyer discovered that lightning bolts generate x-rays.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101223-lightning-x-rays-camera-science-technology/

The mechanism is now well understood. This is not mhgaffney talking -- this is mainstream science.

It's very simple: As lightning moves from the sky to the earth it passes through increasingly dense air - -- which causes resistance. The lightning slows down slightly.

As this happens -- according to the law of conservation of energy -- the lightning must release energy -- which it does by releasing x-rays.

My next post will make the jump to the next paradigm.

MHG

Off topic. Stick to the origins of Venus, please.

W*GS
02-04-2013, 04:13 PM
Well - at least we agree that a runaway greenhouse effect cannot cause vulcanism.

I didn't say it did. It does cause the surface of Venus to be very hot.

Where is the evidence that the surface of Venus is 300-600 million years old? This is the sort of thing W*gs does a lot. He makes a pronouncement -- and we are supposed to take it on faith.

No one has ever visited the surface of Venus. Nor do we have any rock samples. Therefor, there is not a scintilla of actual evidence for this claim. It is pure hokum -- something that Big Bang scientists are really good at.

Ever hear of impact crater analyses? I'll even help you out:

The Age of Planetary Surfaces: How Do We Discover It? (http://www.cas.usf.edu/~jryan/cratercounting.html)

Read up on them before you keep making an ass of yourself.

W*GS
02-04-2013, 04:32 PM
Not McCanney again...

James McCanney's Nonsense (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/index.html)

DDSS, folks.

orangeatheist
02-04-2013, 06:11 PM
OK -- but if you want to understand my views about Venus you will have to do some reading. Are you ready for that?

This scientific paper dates to the early 1980s. The Plasma Discharge Comet Model has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950.

This new model is far superior because it accounts for electromagnetism -- and accurately predicts the shape of the cometary coma and tail as the comet approaches the sun. The snowball model cannot begin to do this.

The new cometary model is based on a new model of the solar system -- which also accounts for electromagnetism. It can explain the lightning we see on earth -- and which has been found on the other planets.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/ori1.html

Thank you, Mark. But since this is an old paper which was produced between 1979-1981 (over 30 years ago), you must have links to peer reviewed journals which support this "new cometary model based on a new model of the solar system," right? Scientists can propose all sorts of "models" but if they don't stand up to peer review and the further analysis such review brings, they're not worth much. I mean, anyone can just come up with a model and write a book, have a few radio show chats and open a website, right? I mean, I run into fruitloops all the time who have crazy theories but just because these people have a theory doesn't mean the theory holds merit. People like Michael Behe, Walt Brown, David Rohl, Ron Wyatt have all floated out unconventional ideas but none of them have stuck, largely because they fail in the court of peer review. Other outlandish ideas, like Alfred Wegener's "Continental Drift" theory, have been proposed to a skeptical scientific community but the weight of the evidence behind the theory and its ability as a successful model to explain facts and withstand peer review have made them stand the test of time (and other scientists!).

W*gs has posted a link to a peer who has reviewed James McCanney's "new model" and it's not very favorable, to say the least. McCanney says he has an M.S. in Physics. The reviewer, Phil Plait, has a PhD in Astronomy and notes that McCanney says of his peers: "...NASA is lying to you, scientists are lying to you, I am lying to you. And, of course, only he knows The Truth." That sounds more like an ideologue than a serious scientist.

So, at any rate, you're off on a bad foot unless you can produce some peer reviewed material that supports McCanney's "new" model. Can I hope to see some forthcoming?

EDIT TO ADD: And does this "new model" somehow have something to do with the history of Venus? Could it be you are taking the long road to telling us that Venus is actually a comet? But first, we have to accept this new "paradigm" before you'll actually spit it out?

DenverBrit
02-04-2013, 06:17 PM
Debating Gaffney...............

http://circleclubcard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/040411-its-like-herding-cats.jpg

W*GS
02-04-2013, 06:24 PM
EDIT TO ADD: And does this "new model" somehow have something to do with the history of Venus? Could it be you are taking the long road to telling us that Venus is actually a comet? But first, we have to accept this new "paradigm" before you'll actually spit it out?

Yep. We gotta accept a whole lot of nonsense before we even get to Venus.

underrated29
02-04-2013, 10:12 PM
I love how gaffe always qualifies his history lessons with ---

"and then _____ found out that it was going to be cheaper, or clean energy, or cure cancer and stupidness , or whatever from happening so they stopped funding, or pulled the plug, or had him killed, or exiled, or turned into a Jew." ----- everytime. Without fail.

orangeatheist
02-05-2013, 09:15 AM
Yep. We gotta accept a whole lot of nonsense before we even get to Venus.

But here's my problem with this strategy: I do not have a PhD in Astronomy and cannot in good conscience pass judgement either way on these "new paradigms" that Mark is offering. That is why I need to see how peers in the appropriate scientific fields are receiving these new ideas. If the inventor of the idea (in this case, McCanney's "Plasma Discharge Comet Model") has simply made up his theory and by-passed peer-review and published independently (either in book form, over radio interviews or on a self-published website) then what hope does the non-specialist have of ascertaining the validity of the claim? In fact, by-passing peer-review is the hallmark of a person who fears failure with peer-review because they (secretly? unconsciously?) know their idea doesn't hold water.

So, that is why I need Mark to offer the scientific journals which have reviewed McCanney's "new model" over the past 30 years (and not merely a link to McCanney's own website) for sustainability.

W*GS
02-05-2013, 09:28 AM
I enjoyed Plait's takedown of McCanney's "comets gain mass" claim...

Imagine McCanney's scenario: an asteroid the size of the Moon is moving through the solar system. It gains mass, so much so that in roughly one year (the time Hale-Bopp spent in the inner solar system) it gains enough mass to equal the mass of Mercury. It does this by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material.

OK, so let's think about this. What happens when a particle hits the surface of that object? The particle is moving pretty fast, and that motion has energy (called kinetic energy). That energy has to go somehwere, and in a collision like this the energy is released as heat. Kinetic energy depends on the mass of the object and its velocity. The mass might be small for each particle, but there are a lot of particles; enough, according to McCanney, to more than quadruple the comet mass! Also, the velocities of collision are quite high. Near the Earth, such collisions are typically 40 or 50 kilometers per second. But let's be generous to McCanney, and say the velocities are much lower, say, 10 km/sec. You'll see why this is generous in just a minute.

The amount of energy released as heat is easy to calculate in this case; it's roughly 10<sup>38</sup> ergs. An erg is a small unit, but 10<sup>38</sup> is an awful lot of them. The total energy released by the Sun every second is only about 4 x 10<sup>33</sup> ergs, so the energy the comet "feels" from impact is more than 25,000 times the Sun's total energy output! Another way to think about it: a one megaton nuclear bomb (about 50 times the explosive energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki) releases about 4 x 10<sup>22</sup> ergs, so the amount of energy absorbed by the comet as it gains all that mass is the same as dropping 2,500,000,000,000,000 nuclear bombs on it. Since the mass is gained in less than a year, that's the same as exploding 80 million nuclear bombs per second on the comet.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking a comet wouldn't do so well under such treatment.

Obviously, that's so much energy that it would easily vaporize the comet. The amount of energy it takes to totally destroy an object can be calculated in a number of ways. One way is to use what's called its gravitational binding energy. I won't go into details, but I'll point out a terrific page that describes it (using the Death Star from Star Wars as an example!). It turns out that to vaporize a comet of the Moon's mass, it would take about 10<sup>36</sup> ergs, or one-hundredth the heat released by the impacts. So, ironically, the heat caused by McCanney's mass gain is actually enough to destroy the comet itself!

I'll note that a comet is not held together by just gravity, but also by molecular bonds and other forces. This means it would take more energy to vaporize one. It could conceivably be a much closer contest between the amount of energy holding the comet together, and the amount trying to tear it apart. However, this amount of heat generated is still enormous (enough to make the comet shine as brightly as 80 million nuclear bombs per second, remember), and I already showed comets are not hot, but cold. And of course, the solar wind is neutral, and comets lose mass. Don't forget those! So McCanney is wrong on all these counts.

Remember too I was generous with the collision velocity. The higher the velocity, the higher the kinetic energy, and the more heat generated per impact. In reality, the velocities are much higher, resulting in a heat energy more than ten times what I calculated! So that's what I meant by being generous. The numbers are even worse for McCanney's theory than I calculated, making him even more wrong. If that's possible.

Conclusion: if Hale-Bopp had gained mass the way McCanney claimed, the heat of this would have torn it apart. And if they were as big as he claims, we'd know it. McCanney is wrong.

BroncoLifer
02-05-2013, 11:53 AM
For a point of reference, here is a brief history of the formation of our solar system, including Venus as accepted by mainstream science:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yERX5pISaUQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




As an aside, Alex Fillipenko rocks. He's an excellent teacher who obviously loves what he does.I bought his Astronomy course from The Learning Company (96 lectures on 16 DVDs!) - excellent course and well worth the cost (when it's on sale, not the regular "retail" price).

W*GS
02-06-2013, 10:30 AM
It's gotten awfully quiet...

If we're lucky, gaffe is reading some real science.

I suspect not.

orangeatheist
02-06-2013, 12:02 PM
It's gotten awfully quiet...

If we're lucky, gaffe is reading some real science.

I suspect not.

Now, now. Let's play nice. I suspect Mark has taken my advice and is searching Google Scholar or conversing with his local library about obtaining those peer-reviewed journal articles substantiating McCanney's new comet model.

mhgaffney
02-06-2013, 08:03 PM
Thank you, Mark. But since this is an old paper which was produced between 1979-1981 (over 30 years ago), you must have links to peer reviewed journals which support this "new cometary model based on a new model of the solar system," right? Scientists can propose all sorts of "models" but if they don't stand up to peer review and the further analysis such review brings, they're not worth much. I mean, anyone can just come up with a model and write a book, have a few radio show chats and open a website, right? I mean, I run into fruitloops all the time who have crazy theories but just because these people have a theory doesn't mean the theory holds merit. People like Michael Behe, Walt Brown, David Rohl, Ron Wyatt have all floated out unconventional ideas but none of them have stuck, largely because they fail in the court of peer review. Other outlandish ideas, like Alfred Wegener's "Continental Drift" theory, have been proposed to a skeptical scientific community but the weight of the evidence behind the theory and its ability as a successful model to explain facts and withstand peer review have made them stand the test of time (and other scientists!).

W*gs has posted a link to a peer who has reviewed James McCanney's "new model" and it's not very favorable, to say the least. McCanney says he has an M.S. in Physics. The reviewer, Phil Plait, has a PhD in Astronomy and notes that McCanney says of his peers: "...NASA is lying to you, scientists are lying to you, I am lying to you. And, of course, only he knows The Truth." That sounds more like an ideologue than a serious scientist.

So, at any rate, you're off on a bad foot unless you can produce some peer reviewed material that supports McCanney's "new" model. Can I hope to see some forthcoming?

EDIT TO ADD: And does this "new model" somehow have something to do with the history of Venus? Could it be you are taking the long road to telling us that Venus is actually a comet? But first, we have to accept this new "paradigm" before you'll actually spit it out?

I sent Phil PLait an email awhile back - and asked him if he'd read McCanney's comet paper.

Plait never responded to my email -- so I think you must conclude that he never even read it.

I'm sure W*gs likewise never read it. This is the sort of nonsense we have come to expect from the likes of W*gs.

Just be aware you are trashing a science model that's never had a fair chance to be tested. Which of course is what separates the men from the boys.

The model deserves a test -- because McCanney predicted that comets would be found to produce x-rays. Mainstream astronomers were shocked when this was confirmed -- back around 1997 -- many years after McCanney introduced his comet model.

I've been on the road -- but I will be back soon.

MHG

W*GS
02-06-2013, 08:25 PM
I sent Phil PLait an email awhile back - and asked him if he'd read McCanney's comet paper.

Plait never responded to my email -- so I think you must conclude that he never even read it.

Scientists get quackery all the time.

The model deserves a test -- because McCanney predicted that comets would be found to produce x-rays. Mainstream astronomers were shocked when this was confirmed -- back around 1997 -- many years after McCanney introduced his comet model.

Show me that they were "shocked".

I've been on the road -- but I will be back soon.

Translation: I'm going off to sulk for a while, but I'll be back spewing the same nonsense, despite having it completely and utterly debunked.

Perhaps you can explain how Hale-Bopp managed to remain intact despite gaining mass on its pass through the inner solar system, as McCanney's theory claims it did. Did you work through the same math that Plait did? What did you come up with?

orangeatheist
02-07-2013, 02:53 PM
I sent Phil PLait an email awhile back - and asked him if he'd read McCanney's comet paper.

Plait never responded to my email -- so I think you must conclude that he never even read it.

Why conclude that? I sometimes send emails to various professionals in fields I have no expertise to ask them questions and I don't always hear back from them. I certainly don't conclude they haven't read the material. For instance, I've written to certain professors of Hebrew to ask them about the meanings of certain words in the Old Testament and I never heard back from them. I didn't conclude these men and women did not read the Bible. I simply concluded they were too busy to respond to every email they get from complete strangers or that my email hit a spam filter. Odd that your conclusion would fall into a conspiratorial cover-up. Why make such an unwarranted assumption? Plait is obviously familiar with McCanny's work as he has written about it.


I'm sure W*gs likewise never read it. This is the sort of nonsense we have come to expect from the likes of W*gs.

W*gs is totally irrelevant to this topic. Your taking a side route just to poke a snide comment in his direction is unbecoming. Makes you look petty.


Just be aware you are trashing a science model that's never had a fair chance to be tested. Which of course is what separates the men from the boys.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the list of scientific publications you gave where McCanney submitted his paper and was unfairly rejected. Might you point me to the post where you listed those journals and the documented evidence of unfairness?


The model deserves a test --

That's what publishing in scientific journals gets you: tests to verify your assertions. Again, to what journals did McCanney submit his paper and what were the results of those submissions?


because McCanney predicted that comets would be found to produce x-rays.

Had this not been thought of before? Is it crucial to McCanney's model? Does the fact comets produce x-rays confirm the entirety of McCanney's model?


Mainstream astronomers were shocked when this was confirmed -- back around 1997 -- many years after McCanney introduced his comet model.

So where is it documented that "mainstream astronomers were shocked" when it was discovered comets emit x-rays? How was it discovered that comets emit x-rays? Who made that discovery? Where was that discovery published?


I've been on the road -- but I will be back soon.


Drive safely.

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 01:10 PM
the sun = an electric capacitor

Science books tell us the sun is made up mostly of hydrogen. So far so good. What they often fail to mention is that the hydrogen is in a plasma state. What this means is that the protons and electrons are in a free state. The protons and electrons have separated due to the intense solar environment.

The outer surface of the sun is thus a seething ocean of free electrons. The protons are heavier and are found lower - below the outer layer.

But what is electricity? Free electrons!

The outer surface of the sun therefor holds an extremely powerful electrical charge!

How come they never told us about this in school? Good question. I suppose the answer is that the present Big Bang cosmological model is solely based on gravity. It does not account for electromagnetism -- and this is one of its main weaknesses. It's why we need a better model of how the solar system works.

Now let's see how comets and planets discharge the solar capacitor...

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 01:30 PM
The discovery of cometary x-rays

In 1996 scientists expressed surprise when they detected the first evidence that comets produce x-rays. They had no expectation that ice balls could do this. If you doubt the shock of this major discovery -- check out this report:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/hyakutake.html

It took NASA several years to explain the phenomenon. But James McCanney had already offered an explanation even before the discovery was made. Indeed -- McCanney had predicted the discovery -- based on his plasma discharge comet model. McCanney actually contacted NASA and urged them to turn on their instruments during the passage of comet Hyakutake. But of course -- they ignored him.

The discovery was made by accident.

In 2000 NASA announced that the x-rays were produced by ions from the sun - and indeed this may be a partial explanation.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_releases/press_072700.html

Notice -- the x-rays are produced on the sunward side of the comet --

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 01:40 PM
How comets discharge the solar capacitor

But did NASA get it right? Their explanation -- no surprise -- completely ignored the sun's intense electrical charge.

Imagine a backyard bug killer. We've all seen them. They are very simple and consist of two plates -- one of which holds an electrical charge. When the mosquito flies between the plates it discharges the field. An electrical current leaps out and fries the bug.

McCanney's plasma discharge comet model works in a similar way. When the comet enters the solar system it begins to discharge the solar capacitor. When it comes within a certain distance -- a strong electrical current leaps from the sun to the head of the comet.

Because the comet is moving at high speed -- the electrical current is forced to slow down as it meets the comet. By the law of conservation of energy -- it must therefor lose energy -- which it does by emitting x-rays.

Notice, the mechanism is exactly the same as the known case of lightning -- which I already discussed.

The electrical discharge from the sun also explains many other phenomena-- for example, why comets light up like fluorescent light bulbs. They are literally powered by solar electricity!

MHG

W*GS
02-08-2013, 01:49 PM
The discovery of cometary x-rays

Now, to the real science:

Comets emit X-rays, indicating they are not cold. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/misc.html#X-rays)

McCanney claims in that book (on page 1!) that he predicted that comets would give off X-rays, and also that the side of the comet facing the Sun would be the source of these X-rays. This has to do with his claim that comets are plasma balls, electrically coupled with the Sun. Amazingly, years later, it was found that not only do comets give off X-rays, but they comes from the sunward side! Could McCanney have been right?

Nope. Well, his prediction was correct, but for the wrong reason. For a prediction to be counted as a success, it has to be exclusive; that is, no other theory could account for it. The problem is, there are plenty of ways a comet could give off X-rays, even though it's cold. For one, comets get smacked by the high-energy particles from the Sun's solar wind. Ice, when hit like that, fluoresces; that is, gives off light. At those energies, the light given off is in the form of X-rays. So naturally, the part of the comet facing the Sun is where the X-rays come from.

McCanney is very derisive in his book about this. He says: "Let's get serious... x-rays coming from a docile little snow ball?" But think about it: when you go to the dentist, she isn't heating the X-ray machine to a million degrees to get it to give off X-rays! Those machines work by accelerating electrons to high speeds and slamming them into metals. When the electrons hit the metal, they slow down and emit X-rays in the process. So there are other processes which generate X-rays besides temperature, despite what he is saying there. Ironically, his own process is not thermal either, so why is he so derisive of cold comets giving off X-rays? Oh yeah: it's because he's wrong.

W*GS
02-08-2013, 01:52 PM
the sun = an electric capacitor

Again, to the real science.

McCanney Claim #2: The Sun's solar wind is not electrically neutral. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/solarwind.html)

(Emphasis in italics added)

He makes this claim because it sets up a later claim about comets gaining mass. We'll get to that in just a moment, but since that part depends on the solar wind not being neutral, let's get this out of the way first.

All normal matter is made up of three types of particles: electrons, which have a negative charge, protons, which have a positive charge, and neutrons, which are neutral.

The Sun is a big ball of gas. It emits a wind of particles from its surface, called, of course, the solar wind. According to McCanney, this wind has a net positive charge because "it continually ejects large composite streamers of primarily protons in the solar wind" (from his book "Planet X Comets & Earth Changes", page 54).

This is simply wrong. There are many experiments in space which directly measure the solar wind, and have found it to be ionized, but electrically neutral. In other words, the same number of positive and negative particles are emitted (see, for example, here, or here).If the Sun's wind were primarily positive particles, then the Sun would build up a vast negative charge on its surface. This would affect everything about the Sun, from its magnetic field to the way the surface features behave. We see no indications at all that the Sun has a huge negative charge.

For McCanney to make this claim is just bizarre, and completely contradictory to all evidence. But he's stuck with it, because it's basic to his other silly claims.

Conclusion: The solar wind is electrically neutral, not positively charged. McCanney is wrong.

W*GS
02-08-2013, 01:53 PM
gaffe, how you doing on that calculation of the energy involved if comets were gaining mass as they traveled through the solar system?

Got it done?

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 04:35 PM
Now, to the real science:

Comets emit X-rays, indicating they are not cold. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/misc.html#X-rays)

Your expert -- who is it - Plait? -- does not understand McCanney's model.

The x-rays are not produced because of high heat. I've explained this in simple language.

The x-rays on the sunward side of the cometary nucleus are produced because energy is conserved. When the electric current from the sun reaches the comet it must slow down because the comet is moving very fast -- not sure how fast but probably 20,000 miles an hour at least.

As the electric current slows down it must give up energy - which it does in the form of x-rays.

Incidentally, Dr Dwyer also discovered that lightning also produces gamma rays -- and for the same reason.

I would not be surprised if astronomers find that comets also produce gamma rays -- and by the same mechanism. Maybe they should look.

MHG

W*GS
02-08-2013, 04:45 PM
Your expert -- who is it - Plait? -- does not understand McCanney's model.

Uh, yes, he does.

The x-rays are not produced because of high heat. I've explained this in simple language.

The process by which comets produce x-rays isn't thermal. Duh.

The x-rays on the sunward side of the cometary nucleus are produced because energy is conserved. When the electric current from the sun reaches the comet it must slow down because the comet is moving very fast -- not sure how fast but probably 20,000 miles an hour at least.

You're making no sense whatsoever.

Got that calculation done yet?

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 06:14 PM
I never said it was thermal. Idiot. Go back and try again.

W*GS
02-08-2013, 06:44 PM
I never said it was thermal. Idiot. Go back and try again.

Sigh. Plait showed that McCanney's claims regarding x-rays are incorrect.

As for "Idiot", how's that calculation coming? Can you prove Plait wrong?

If you can, show your work:

PS - Since your case has already fallen apart, we're never going to get to Venus. Take a step back and drop the comet bull****, accept that Venus is a planet and always has been one, and never went ricocheting around the solar system. Accept reality.

mhgaffney
02-08-2013, 06:46 PM
Sigh. Plait showed that McCanney's claims regarding x-rays are incorrect.

As for "Idiot", how's that calculation coming? Can you prove Plait wrong?

If you can, show your work:

Plait never had an original thought in his entire life.

He's your kind of guy. Maybe you should ask him for a date.

underrated29
02-08-2013, 07:10 PM
Gaff stop deflecting and answer the question about Venus.


For someone so smart, so in the know and such a free thinker it is really taking you a long time to perform, what should be for you, such a simple task.

W*GS
02-09-2013, 08:52 AM
Plait never had an original thought in his entire life.

He's your kind of guy. Maybe you should ask him for a date.

All you got left is bitchy.

How's that calculation coming? Need some help?

mhgaffney
02-09-2013, 01:38 PM
Gaff stop deflecting and answer the question about Venus.


For someone so smart, so in the know and such a free thinker it is really taking you a long time to perform, what should be for you, such a simple task.

We are almost there.

Understanding the solar capacitor and the new comet model is preliminary -- and prerequisite.

Otherwise you won't know what I'm talking about.

W*GS
02-09-2013, 01:47 PM
Understanding the solar capacitor and the new comet model is preliminary -- and prerequisite.

There is no "solar capacitor" and the "new" comet model is wrong.

Start all over, gaffe.

What's Venus?

orangeatheist
02-09-2013, 03:14 PM
We are almost there.

Understanding the solar capacitor and the new comet model is preliminary -- and prerequisite.

Otherwise you won't know what I'm talking about.

But, Mark, you haven't established anything yet. You've presented a fringe idea that has not been verified by peer-review. I know for a fact I'm not an astronomer and I doubt you have any training in the field, either, so how can either of us decide the validity of the McCanney's claims? Desire to do so won't cut it. W*gs uncovered one PhD'd astronomer who has critiqued McCanney's model and found all sorts of holes in it. All you've done is poo-poo Plait's comments and level unfounded ad homs at him (e.g. "Plait never had an original thought in his entire life."). Do you realize how petty you look?

Again, ANYONE can come up with a fringe idea. Ideas need to be tested in order for them to gain any sort of purchase in the realm of intelligent discussion. You can spend this whole thread regurgitating someone else's fringe theory all you want, but it won't get you anywhere. So, I'll ask again: To which peer-reviewed journals did McCanney submit his theory and what were the results of those submissions? You can't just bark "conspiracy" unless you can back up that claim with some established facts. So, if McCanney was systematically blocked from submitting his ideas to journals, please produce the evidence that this occurred. It may be that what you interpret as "conspiracy" was simply rejection for an idea the peer-review editors felt did not meet their high-standards for publication. In other words, the qualified editors themselves found too many flaws in the idea to even publish the work. Exactly what they would do to me if I floated the idea into a higher journal of Egyptology that the pyramids are millennia older than what is currently accepted based upon their alignment with Jupiter, my theory of Atlanthian influence and a reading of the Akashic Records.

Do you get it now? You need to SUPPORT these assertions, not merely present them. You've put the horse far too out in front of the cart, I'm afraid.

mhgaffney
02-09-2013, 05:04 PM
But, Mark, you haven't established anything yet. You've presented a fringe idea that has not been verified by peer-review. I know for a fact I'm not an astronomer and I doubt you have any training in the field, either, so how can either of us decide the validity of the McCanney's claims? Desire to do so won't cut it. W*gs uncovered one PhD'd astronomer who has critiqued McCanney's model and found all sorts of holes in it. All you've done is poo-poo Plait's comments and level unfounded ad homs at him (e.g. "Plait never had an original thought in his entire life."). Do you realize how petty you look?

Again, ANYONE can come up with a fringe idea. Ideas need to be tested in order for them to gain any sort of purchase in the realm of intelligent discussion. You can spend this whole thread regurgitating someone else's fringe theory all you want, but it won't get you anywhere. So, I'll ask again: To which peer-reviewed journals did McCanney submit his theory and what were the results of those submissions? You can't just bark "conspiracy" unless you can back up that claim with some established facts. So, if McCanney was systematically blocked from submitting his ideas to journals, please produce the evidence that this occurred. It may be that what you interpret as "conspiracy" was simply rejection for an idea the peer-review editors felt did not meet their high-standards for publication. In other words, the qualified editors themselves found too many flaws in the idea to even publish the work. Exactly what they would do to me if I floated the idea into a higher journal of Egyptology that the pyramids are millennia older than what is currently accepted based upon their alignment with Jupiter, my theory of Atlanthian influence and a reading of the Akashic Records.

Do you get it now? You need to SUPPORT these assertions, not merely present them. You've put the horse far too out in front of the cart, I'm afraid.

I have presented strong supporting evidence. It is a fact that a comet's coma and tail change size and shape as a comet approaches and moves away from the sun.

The equations presented by McCanney in his plasma discharge comet model very accurately predict this behavior. In case you don't know, prediction is the essence of science.

The snowball comet model has no such predictive capacity.

Indeed, it's a joke -- and you are clowns to continue to support such nonsense. Comets are hard objects like asteroids. They can be any size -- even planetary size. The size issue is crucial in the case of Venus, as I will explain in my next couple of posts.

MHG

W*GS
02-09-2013, 05:26 PM
I have presented strong supporting evidence. It is a fact that a comet's coma and tail change size and shape as a comet approaches and moves away from the sun.

The equations presented by McCanney in his plasma discharge comet model very accurately predict this behavior. In case you don't know, prediction is the essence of science.

The snowball comet model has no such predictive capacity.

It most certainly does.

McCanney's model is fatally flawed. As I've illustrated. And Plait has shown.

Indeed, it's a joke -- and you are clowns to continue to support such nonsense. Comets are hard objects like asteroids. They can be any size -- even planetary size. The size issue is crucial in the case of Venus, as I will explain in my next couple of posts.

You need to address all of Plait's arguments against McCanney's model before you can move on.

You demand we accept McCanney's claims without skepticism or argument. That's not how science works - what you want is an act of faith, not reason.

Again, show us how Hale-Bopp, for a specific example, could have gained as much mass as McCanney claims it did, without being destroyed by the process.

You've completely ignored that one argument, because it devastates the entirety of McCanney's theory.

orangeatheist
02-09-2013, 07:37 PM
I have presented strong supporting evidence.

I beg to differ, Mark. You've posted one man's "model" which is without benefit of peer review. Neither you nor I have the expertise to affirm or deny McCanney's hypothesis. It therefore remains unsupported.


It is a fact that a comet's coma and tail change size and shape as a comet approaches and moves away from the sun.

Well, sure. And astronomers already know this:

As comets approach our Sun [within about 450 million kilometers (280 million miles)], they heat up and the ice begins to sublimate (change from a solid directly to a gas). The gas (water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and traces of other substances) and dust forms an “atmosphere” around the nucleus called a "coma." Material from the coma gets swept into the tail.

As comets move close to the Sun, they develop tails of dust and ionized gas. Comets have two main tails, a dust tail and a plasma tail. The dust tail appears whitish-yellow because it is made up of tiny particles — about the size of particles of smoke — that reflect sunlight. Dust tails are typically between 1 and 10 million kilometers (about 600,000 to 6 million miles) long. The plasma tail is often blue because it contains carbon monoxide ions. Solar ultraviolet light breaks down the gas molecules, causing them to glow. Plasma tails can stretch tens of millions of kilometers into space. Rarely, they are as long as 150 million kilometers (almost 100 million miles). A third tail of sodium has been observed on Comet Hale-Bopp. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/comets/background/


The equations presented by McCanney in his plasma discharge comet model very accurately predict this behavior. In case you don't know, prediction is the essence of science.

But there's already explanation of a comet's tail. What does McCanney's model provide that the standard model does not? And what sort of peer-review has McCanney's model received that lets us believe it should supplant the standard model?


The snowball comet model has no such predictive capacity.

Predict what? I did a quick search of "comet tail" on Google and came up with a lot of hits, including NASA. Seems we already know what causes comet tails.


Indeed, it's a joke -- and you are clowns to continue to support such nonsense.

Again, Mark, you continue to take away any potential for credibility by being abusive. There's absolutely no reason for the name-calling. However, may I also continue to point out that simply asserting the current scientific models are "nonsense" does not make them so; nor does a non-peer-reviewed fringe model without any peer-review support displace the current model on your say-so.


Comets are hard objects like asteroids.

An unsupported assertion.


They can be any size -- even planetary size.

Another unsupported assertion.


The size issue is crucial in the case of Venus, as I will explain in my next couple of posts.


You needn't bother because your "next couple of posts" will again be based upon unsupported assertions. Were science that easy, we'd all have flying cars and perpetual motion machines.

gyldenlove
02-09-2013, 08:01 PM
Your expert -- who is it - Plait? -- does not understand McCanney's model.

The x-rays are not produced because of high heat. I've explained this in simple language.

The x-rays on the sunward side of the cometary nucleus are produced because energy is conserved. When the electric current from the sun reaches the comet it must slow down because the comet is moving very fast -- not sure how fast but probably 20,000 miles an hour at least.

As the electric current slows down it must give up energy - which it does in the form of x-rays.

Incidentally, Dr Dwyer also discovered that lightning also produces gamma rays -- and for the same reason.

I would not be surprised if astronomers find that comets also produce gamma rays -- and by the same mechanism. Maybe they should look.

MHG

So your hypothesis it that x-rays are produced from brems-strahlung caused by the impact of solar electrons on the surface of the comet?

If that was the case everything in space should emit the same x-rays including unmanned probes and the moon.

FYI, the speed of the comet is irrelevant, solar electrons move at roughly 90-95% of the speed of light which is 300.000 km/s.

mhgaffney
02-09-2013, 09:33 PM
So your hypothesis it that x-rays are produced from brems-strahlung caused by the impact of solar electrons on the surface of the comet?

If that was the case everything in space should emit the same x-rays including unmanned probes and the moon.

FYI, the speed of the comet is irrelevant, solar electrons move at roughly 90-95% of the speed of light which is 300.000 km/s.

Yes and no.

Yes brem-strahlung -- but not because of impact on the surface of the comet.

If you check you will see that the area of x-ray production is not on the surface of the cometary head -- but in space some distance out in front of the comet.

The x-rays are produced because the electrical current (or lightning bolt) from the sun slows down slightly when it encounters the comet -- the same mechanism that causes lightning to produce x-rays in the earth's atmosphere.

The planets also discharge the solar capacitor and receive electricity from the sun -- the energy source of lightning. But in the case of planets the discharge is much less because planets revolve in a more nearly circular orbit. Comets usually move at a much steeper angle with respect to the sun.

W*GS
02-10-2013, 07:56 AM
gaffe, now you're just making up nonsense.

McCanney's theory is bunk. Drop it and move on.

mhgaffney
02-10-2013, 03:09 PM
A simple Google search showed that McCanney is not alone. Mainstream scientists raised doubts about the snowball comet model after studies of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which broke up after a close encounter with Jupiter in 1992. Two years later -- the remnants of SL-9, described as a string of pearls, crashed into Jupiter in spectacular fashion.

Check out this paper released by NASA scientists in 1994:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1994/94-161.txt

The title of their paper:
HUBBLE OBSERVATIONS SHED NEW LIGHT ON JUPITER COLLISION
Was it a comet or an asteroid?

Scientists were surprised that the fragments of SL-9 did not behave like an ice ball. Here is a verbatim quote from their report (my emphasis in bold):

PIERCING JUPITER'S MAGNETIC FIELD

About four days before impact, at a distance of 2.3 million
miles from Jupiter, nucleus "G" of comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 apparently
penetrated Jupiter's powerful magnetic field, the magnetosphere.
(Jupiter's magnetosphere is so vast, if visible from Earth, it would
be about the size of the full Moon.)

Hubble's Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) recorded dramatic
changes at the magnetosphere crossing that provided a rare opportunity
to gather more clues on the comet's true composition. During a two
minute period on July 14, HST detected strong emissions from ionized
magnesium (Mg II), an important component of both comet dust and
asteroids. However, if the nuclei were ice-laden -- as expected of a
comet nucleus -- astronomers expected to detect the hydroxyl radical
(OH). Hubble did not see OH, casting some doubt on the cometary
nature of comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9. Eighteen minutes after comet P/
Shoemaker- Levy 9 displayed the flare-up in Mg II emissions, there was
also a dramatic change in the light reflected from the dust particles
in the comet.

W*GS
02-10-2013, 03:45 PM
On the other hand...

Density of comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 deduced by modelling breakup of the parent 'rubble pile' (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v370/n6485/abs/370120a0.html)

For a week beginning 16 July 1994, fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 will collide with Jupiter each day. Although the fragments are probably smaller than originally estimated1, the impacts may nevertheless have observable consequences that will provide valuable insight into the properties of comets and the dynamics of planetary atmospheres. Interpretation of these observations will depend sensitively on parameters such as the mass, density and overall structure of the fragments. To deduce some of these parameters, we have simulated the event that created the fragments—the passage of the parent comet through the tidal field of Jupiter in 1992. Modelling the comet as a strengthless aggregate consisting of a large number of grains, we find that the tidally disrupted body condenses rapidly into clumps, driven by their selfgravity. Formation of a fragment chain resembling Shoemaker-Levy 9 occurs for a narrow range of the simulated comet's bulk density, 0.3–0.7 g cm −3. A chain of ~20 similar-sized fragments matching observations is obtained for a non-rotating parent comet of 1.5 km diameter and bulk density 0.5 g cm−3, suggesting that the clusters will each liberate ~10<sup>27</sup> erg on impact. A slightly larger initial density leads to significant mass variation among the clusters and the possibility of a few ~10<sup>28</sup> erg events.

See those densities, gaffe?

W*GS
02-10-2013, 03:48 PM
A simple Google search showed that McCanney is not alone. Mainstream scientists raised doubts about the snowball comet model after studies of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which broke up after a close encounter with Jupiter in 1992.

Sigh. That SL/9 wasn't a snowball (in the common meaning of the term, i.e., completely made up of ice) doesn't mean McCanney's claims about the composition of comets is correct.

orangeatheist
02-10-2013, 06:44 PM
A simple Google search showed that McCanney is not alone. Mainstream scientists raised doubts about the snowball comet model after studies of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which broke up after a close encounter with Jupiter in 1992.

But none of that says what you think it says. Where does the article say the "snowball comet model" was being called into question and that McCanney's model was showing promise? I mean, the article is from nearly 20 years ago but isn't the "snowball comet model" still the accepted one? What did this event on Jupiter do to advance McCanney's model? Where are the peer-reviewed journals which mention this Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 event as pivotal in moving mainstream science away from the standard "snowball comet model" to the McCanney "Plasma Discharge Comet Model." I mean, it was you who asserted McCanney's model "has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950" but you've shown absolutely no evidence of this assertion. Certainly this NASA article you point to states no such thing.

Mark, I think you're grasping at straws here, and jumping at shadows. I've seen nothing so far to substantiate your assertions and I still haven't seen your proposal for the history of Venus. Are we ever going to get to it?

mhgaffney
02-11-2013, 12:13 PM
But none of that says what you think it says. Where does the article say the "snowball comet model" was being called into question and that McCanney's model was showing promise? I mean, the article is from nearly 20 years ago but isn't the "snowball comet model" still the accepted one? What did this event on Jupiter do to advance McCanney's model? Where are the peer-reviewed journals which mention this Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 event as pivotal in moving mainstream science away from the standard "snowball comet model" to the McCanney "Plasma Discharge Comet Model." I mean, it was you who asserted McCanney's model "has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950" but you've shown absolutely no evidence of this assertion. Certainly this NASA article you point to states no such thing.

Mark, I think you're grasping at straws here, and jumping at shadows. I've seen nothing so far to substantiate your assertions and I still haven't seen your proposal for the history of Venus. Are we ever going to get to it?

You sound a lot like the brilliant idiots who continually dismiss Alton Arp's research. The man was a protege of Edwin Hubble who btw never endorsed the mainstream interpretation of the red shift as supporting the Big Bang.

A la his mentor, Arp spent a career documenting case after case challenging the standard view of the red shift.

How did Big Bang proponents react? They dismissed each example he produced as yet another special case. In the end they denied Arp access to Mt Palomar. The man had to move to Europe to continue doing astronomy.

This is the **** up world we live in.

BTW, science is not a popularity contest. In a crowd of flat earth proponents the solitary dissenter who believes in a heliocentric solar system will be proven right in the end. MHG

W*GS
02-11-2013, 12:25 PM
And another deflection from gaffe...

Halton Arp continues to maintain that there are anomalies in his observing of quasars and galaxies that serve as a refutation of the Big Bang. Arp has made observations of correlations between quasars and (relatively) nearby AGN claiming that clusters of quasars have been observed in alignment around AGN cores. Arp believes that quasars originate as very high redshift objects ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies and gradually lose their non-cosmological redshift component as they evolve into galaxies.[4] This stands in stark contradiction to the accepted models of galaxy formation.
The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations.[citation needed] In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist.[citation needed]
In addition, it is not clear what mechanism would be responsible for intrinsic redshifts or their gradual dissipation over time. It is also unclear how nearby quasars would explain some features in the spectrum of quasars which the standard model easily explains. In the standard cosmology, clouds of neutral hydrogen between the quasar and the earth create Lyman alpha absorption lines having different redshifts up to that of the quasar itself; this feature is called the Lyman-alpha forest. Moreover, in extreme quasars one can observe the absorption of neutral hydrogen which has not yet been reionized in a feature known as the Gunn–Peterson trough. Most cosmologists see this missing theoretical work as sufficient reason to explain the observations as either chance or error.[6]
Halton Arp has proposed an explanation for his observations by a Machian "variable mass hypothesis".[7] The variable-mass theory invokes constant matter creation from active galactic nuclei, which puts it into the class of steady-state theories.

mhgaffney
02-11-2013, 12:37 PM
W*gs only knows what he learned in a science class. His teacher only knew what he learned in a science class. Ad infinitum.

This is how the blind lead the blind.

Hubble based his views on firsthand observation. Arp continues this tradition.

mhgaffney
02-11-2013, 12:43 PM
But none of that says what you think it says. Where does the article say the "snowball comet model" was being called into question and that McCanney's model was showing promise? I mean, the article is from nearly 20 years ago but isn't the "snowball comet model" still the accepted one? What did this event on Jupiter do to advance McCanney's model? Where are the peer-reviewed journals which mention this Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 event as pivotal in moving mainstream science away from the standard "snowball comet model" to the McCanney "Plasma Discharge Comet Model." I mean, it was you who asserted McCanney's model "has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950" but you've shown absolutely no evidence of this assertion. Certainly this NASA article you point to states no such thing.

Mark, I think you're grasping at straws here, and jumping at shadows. I've seen nothing so far to substantiate your assertions and I still haven't seen your proposal for the history of Venus. Are we ever going to get to it?

You apparently believe that comets have been adequately explained and there's nothing left to find out. It's a done deal.

Not so. In fact -- comets have been notoriously unpredictable -- given the snowball model.

It was not only true of Shoemaker-Levy 9.

There is no shortage of cases. Take, for instance, the unexplained companion of Comet Hale-Bopp. Also, Hale-Bopp's strange sunward spike, unexplained to this day.

W*GS
02-11-2013, 01:15 PM
W*gs only knows what he learned in a science class. His teacher only knew what he learned in a science class. Ad infinitum.

This is how the blind lead the blind.

Wrong.

You're assuming that science is like religion - knowledge is merely passed on from generation to generation as revealed truth, exercises in rationalism.

Hubble based his views on firsthand observation. Arp continues this tradition.

And observations don't support Arp's theory.

Too bad for you.

W*GS
02-11-2013, 01:20 PM
Take, for instance, the unexplained companion of Comet Hale-Bopp.

What "companion"? According to whom? How was it verified?

Also, Hale-Bopp's strange sunward spike, unexplained to this day.

Wrong.

Antitail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comet Lulin antitail to the left, ion tail to right
An Antitail is a term used in astronomy to describe one of the three tails, all pointing in different directions, which may appear to emanate from a comet as it passes close to the Sun. The antitail appears, when viewed from Earth, as a spike projecting from the comet's coma towards the sun, and thus geometrically opposite to the other tails: the ion tail and the dust tail. The antitail is formed of larger dust particles, which are less affected by the sun's radiation pressure or solar wind, and tend to remain in the comet's orbital plane and eventually form a disc. As the earth passes through the comet's orbital plane, this disc is seen side on, and appears as the characteristic spike.[1] The other side of the disc can sometimes be seen, though it tends to be lost in the dust tail. The antitail is therefore normally visible for a brief interval only when the Earth passes through the comet's orbital plane.[2][3]
Most comets don't develop sufficiently for an antitail to become visible but notable comet that displayed anti-tails include Comet Arend-Roland in 1957 and Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997.

orangeatheist
02-11-2013, 01:48 PM
You sound a lot like the brilliant idiots...

There you go with the name-calling again. Mark, not only do you lack credibility with your unsupported assertions, but you invite derision when you resort to ad hominem attacks because you get frustrated having your feet held to the fire.

You are yet to 1.) produce any peer-reviewed journals supporting any (ANY) of the claims you've made and 2.) give your history of Venus.

And everyone's watching, Mark. This has been a major failure for you so far.

The Lone Bolt
02-11-2013, 04:51 PM
There you go with the name-calling again. Mark, not only do you lack credibility with your unsupported assertions, but you invite derision when you resort to ad hominem attacks because you get frustrated having your feet held to the fire.

You are yet to 1.) produce any peer-reviewed journals supporting any (ANY) of the claims you've made and 2.) give your history of Venus.

And everyone's watching, Mark. This has been a major failure for you so far.

Au contere. In Mark Gaffney's mind he has won this debate so far -- hands down. He'll be in here to tell you so any minute.

The Lone Bolt
02-11-2013, 09:47 PM
Au contere. In Mark Gaffney's mind he has won this debate so far -- hands down. He'll be in here to tell you so any minute.


Oops -- I meant "au contraire."

mhgaffney
02-12-2013, 07:08 PM
There you go with the name-calling again. Mark, not only do you lack credibility with your unsupported assertions, but you invite derision when you resort to ad hominem attacks because you get frustrated having your feet held to the fire.

You are yet to 1.) produce any peer-reviewed journals supporting any (ANY) of the claims you've made and 2.) give your history of Venus.

And everyone's watching, Mark. This has been a major failure for you so far.

I just posted a NASA paper authored by two astronomers who question the snowball comet model.

You dismissed them.

You also refuse to come to terms with the fact that the snowball comet model cannot make any predictions about cometary behavior -- which ought to tell you that the ice model is worthless.

In fact it's worse than worthless. If there was no comet model at all -- you might be more open to something new.

McCanney's plasma discharge comet model includes equations that predict the exact size and shape of the coma/tail. When I say "it predicts" I mean it is quantitative -- precise. Not just qualitative.

MHG

mhgaffney
02-12-2013, 07:21 PM
W*gs posted this from somewhere -- regarding Arp's work:

The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations.[citation needed] In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist.

It does not matter that Arp's sample size is small.

His research showing that some quasars are associated with galaxies known to be near -- throws into doubt all of the estimates about extreme distance.

And this in turn should make you doubt the Big Bang theory itself.

The fact of the matter is that astronomers have no idea how far away quasars are.

The extreme distance is nothing but a guess. It could be wrong by ten orders of magnitude -- or twenty.

W*GS
02-12-2013, 07:30 PM
You also refuse to come to terms with the fact that the snowball comet model cannot make any predictions about cometary behavior -- which ought to tell you that the ice model is worthless.

Actually, no, but don't let that fact interfere with your flights of fancy...

McCanney's plasma discharge comet model includes equations that predict the exact size and shape of the coma/tail. When I say "it predicts" I mean it is quantitative -- precise. Not just qualitative.

Have you finished that calculation that shows that Plait's analysis of McCanney's claim that comets gain mass is incorrect? If so, provide it here:

W*GS
02-12-2013, 07:33 PM
It does not matter that Arp's sample size is small.

Yes, it does. In fact, if Arp's claims cannot better explain what has been observed about quasars, then his small sample size reeks of cherry-picking.

His research showing that some quasars are associated with galaxies known to be near -- throws into doubt all of the estimates about extreme distance.

No, it does not.

What all this tangential **** has to do with Venus is your problem, gaffe.

Take the bull by the horns, son, instead of wandering all over the place with this ****ing irrelevant nonsense.

Focus.

orangeatheist
02-12-2013, 07:55 PM
I just posted a NASA paper authored by two astronomers who question the snowball comet model.

I must have missed the part where these two astronomers "question the snowball comet model." Please quote from the part of the paper where it specifically states the "snowball comet model" has come into question (not just that they weren't sure if it was a comet or an asteroid that plowed into Jupiter). In addition, point out where in the article McCanney's "Plasma Discharge Comet model" is being suggested to replace the previous paradigm.

Also, please note the date of the paper (1994). If these two astronomers have indeed "question[ed] the snowball comet model," what has occurred over the past 19 years which has advanced McCanney's model in place of the "snowball comet model"?


You dismissed them.

I didn't dismiss them whatsoever. I called into question your interpretation of the paper. But I've laid out what is required from you above to substantiate your assertion. It should be ridiculously easy if the paper is what I've requested from you: a peer-reviewed assessment of McCanney's "Plasma Discharge Comet Model" as a viable replacement for the "snowball comet model." Just quote the relevant sections which state the astronomers are rejecting the "snowball comet model" in favor of McCanney's model because McCanney's model more accurately describes and predicts observations. Piece of cake, right? (Problem is, I did a search in the paper for the words "McCanney" and "plasma" and "discharge" and none of them turn up. Might be me, though. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)


You also refuse to come to terms with the fact that the snowball comet model cannot make any predictions about cometary behavior -- which ought to tell you that the ice model is worthless.

I've refused no such thing. What I've refused is to take your say-so on the subject. You're not an astronomer. You have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to pass such judgement and neither do I. That's why I'm asking for a qualified arbitrator to settle the matter. It should be extraordinarily simple for you if what you claim is true. Just find the peer-reviewed journals which have examined McCanney's model up against the standard model and which substantiate your claim that the standard model does indeed fail to predict cometary behavior but that McCanney's model succeeds in such predictions. Just do it, Mark. Why are you stalling?


In fact it's worse than worthless.

Well, that's your uneducated opinion and you're welcome to it. But you could convince me you're right just by producing the peer-reviewed journals supporting your assertions. Hop to it!


If there was no comet model at all -- you might be more open to something new.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if there were no models of cometary behavior and someone advanced a hypothesis which was published in peer-reviewed journals and was making ripples and causing an excited buzz in the astrophysics community you might be right. But none of that can be said of McCanny's model, now can it? It was proposed back in 1979-80 and fell flat right out of the gate without (apparently) even sniffing peer-review. It exists solely on the creator's webpage. I'm sorry but I just am not impressed. I've told you before anyone can come up with an idea and self-publish it. In order for someone like me to get excited about a new idea, it's going to need to impress the experts first. That's something McCanney's model has failed to do.


McCanney's plasma discharge comet model includes equations that predict the exact size and shape of the coma/tail. When I say "it predicts" I mean it is quantitative -- precise. Not just qualitative.


So, where are the peer-reviewed journals substantiating this claim? Where can I read how other astronomers and astrophysicists have examined McCanney's model and drawn the same conclusion you assert above? I'm waiting.

orangeatheist
02-12-2013, 07:58 PM
What all this tangential **** has to do with Venus is your problem, gaffe.

Take the bull by the horns, son, instead of wandering all over the place with this ****ing irrelevant nonsense.

Focus.

I must agree with W*GS. 4 pages in and you still have not given your history of Venus. My expectations are beginning to dwindle significantly if what's been covered so far is any indication of what is to come. Unsupported assertions. Fringe models. No peer-review. Pretty sad.

Tombstone RJ
02-12-2013, 08:32 PM
Answer the question. Why is 100% of the surface of Venus volcanic -- even the poles.

Answer the question: where does the electricity in lightning come from?

(hint: from the sun)

MHG


Clearly, it's Children of the Sun, enjoy:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zb7QcJgjQqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

underrated29
02-12-2013, 08:41 PM
Summary of this thread so far:

OA- this is a dog :picture of a dog:
W*gs- yes, that is a dog. A nice puppy dog.

Gaffe- it is not a dog, you and everyone are wrong because I found a a cave drawing of an Inuit Native American who was tripping balls on peyote and licking frogs backs who clearly proves that it is not a dog, it's actually a snake with 4 legs.

OA- ???
WGs- what? Look at the fossil record. Is a dog.

Gaffe- no it's not. You are all wrong you spineless freaks. The cave drawings were colored in red. Proving, a unique idea is right and you are all wrong.

OA- what dies the color red have to do with this?
Gaffe- shut up! Just Shut Up! Look at this cave drawing in red from Cambodia where a follower of Buddha has a special etching of an elephant and once again red!


Gaffe- here is another link I am sure you but buddies will not read from a brilliant person.
:picture of kindergartners dinosaur colored in red:

WGs - what the hell?
OA - mark, how does this at all matter? Tell us why this is not a dog? You have shown nothing to the topic at hand. Furthermore your evidence is only slightly more reputable then predicting the weather through tea leaves. Please provide more input that can be verified or answer the Origninal Forkin Question.

Gaffe- god you guys are so dumb. I'm right, my cave drawings are right and clearly in the color red.

EVERYONE else reading this thread- holy Santa Claus **** gaffe has no clue how big the fail he is producing here is. Epic doesn't even come to mind. Maybe if someone typed it out how big a fool he is in red he would get the clue.

Tombstone RJ
02-12-2013, 08:43 PM
It's Children of the Sun.... Billy Thorpe knows. Man was waaaay ahead of his time.

orangeatheist
02-13-2013, 08:45 AM
Summary of this thread so far:


You forgot to add that if we disagree with Mark, or call into question his unsupported assertions, we're all stupid-American-brilliant-idiot-clowns.

W*GS
02-13-2013, 09:40 AM
I'll defer to Sagan to describe gaffe's takes:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

gyldenlove
02-13-2013, 10:37 AM
Yes and no.

Yes brem-strahlung -- but not because of impact on the surface of the comet.

If you check you will see that the area of x-ray production is not on the surface of the cometary head -- but in space some distance out in front of the comet.

The x-rays are produced because the electrical current (or lightning bolt) from the sun slows down slightly when it encounters the comet -- the same mechanism that causes lightning to produce x-rays in the earth's atmosphere.

The planets also discharge the solar capacitor and receive electricity from the sun -- the energy source of lightning. But in the case of planets the discharge is much less because planets revolve in a more nearly circular orbit. Comets usually move at a much steeper angle with respect to the sun.

X-rays are only produced from brems-strahlung when high energy electrons impact on dense materials. Brems-strahlung is for example not created in measurable amounts when a human undergoes radiotherapy with electrons.

X-rays are not produced in lighting when the bolt hits, but before or when it initiates - if the x-ray production in the halo is the same mechanism as that of atmospheric lightning then that means lightning must initiate on the comet and fire outwards, not the other way around.

mhgaffney
02-13-2013, 12:51 PM
X-rays are only produced from brems-strahlung when high energy electrons impact on dense materials. Brems-strahlung is for example not created in measurable amounts when a human undergoes radiotherapy with electrons.

X-rays are not produced in lighting when the bolt hits, but before or when it initiates - if the x-ray production in the halo is the same mechanism as that of atmospheric lightning then that means lightning must initiate on the comet and fire outwards, not the other way around.

Can you clarify this? It'd not clear what you mean.

mhgaffney
02-13-2013, 12:57 PM
You forgot to add that if we disagree with Mark, or call into question his unsupported assertions, we're all stupid-American-brilliant-idiot-clowns.

No I said you are stupid to put your faith in a weak model (snowball comet model). It's weak because it cannot predict comet behavior.

It's also weak because of the tremendous amount of evidence that comets are indistinguishable from asteroids.

The search for cometary ice has come up dry.

Why does mainstream science continue to support and advocate a dead model? Good question.

orangeatheist
02-13-2013, 01:07 PM
No I said you are stupid to put your faith in a weak model (snowball comet model).

Which is the same as disagreeing with you. Someone doesn't buy McCanney's model (the one you support unsupportedly) you call them "idiots," "clowns," "stupid." My point stands.


It's weak because it cannot predict comet behavior.

Unsupported assertion.


It's also weak because of the tremendous amount of evidence that comets are indistinguishable from asteroids.

Unsupported assertion. That one paper from NASA that you put up from 1994 did not make such a bold claim (i.e. "comets are indistinguishable from asteroids"). Here is what it did state:

...comets and asteroids have so much in common: they are small bodies; they are primordial, having formed 4.6 billion years ago along with the planets and their satellites; either type of object can be expected to be found in Jupiter's vicinity. The key difference is that comets are largely icy while the asteroids are virtually devoid of ice because they formed too close to the Sun.

That doesn't support your assertion that there is a "tremendous amount of evidence that comets are indistinguishable from asteroids," I'm afraid.


The search for cometary ice has come up dry.

Unsupported assertion.


Why does mainstream science continue to support and advocate a dead model? Good question.

That the current cometary model is "dead" is just another in a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long stream of unsupported assertions.

This is getting tiresome.

underrated29
02-13-2013, 04:46 PM
And still nothing about Venus yet. I think it's hilarious not tiresome. Seriously, any and all credibility this guy had is way down the tubes.

5 pages and he has not even tried scratching at the question.

mhgaffney
02-13-2013, 06:13 PM
I've been trying to bring you guys along one step at a time. But Lord knows, you can bring a horse to water -- but you can't make him drink.

I said from the start that Venus was only part of it -- that the real issue was much bigger -- and has to do with making the shift to the next paradigm.

I believe that the top tier of scientists today understand that the Big bang and the ice comet model are dead.

The problem is that these scientists - work for the federal government, or for large corporations, or they are dependent for their funding on the federal government. Many of them work on secret projects -- and all of them have signed security oaths not to talk about what they do -- or know.

These three categories cover almost all top scientists working today.

The remaining scientists -- second and third tier scientists -- are not privy to the leading edge of research in the black world -- and continue to promote obsolete science.

We need a new policy of glasnost - openness. The government must open up and share the advanced technologies and knowledge on the cutting edge.

I don't expect it to happen -- unless a tidal wave of indignant citizens demand it.

Now...on to Venus...

MHG

orangeatheist
02-13-2013, 07:53 PM
I've been trying to bring you guys along one step at a time. But Lord knows, you can bring a horse to water -- but you can't make him drink.

Unfortunately for you, you have been unable to establish that what you want us to drink really is water. Maybe it's just someone's runny diarrhea. I told you, bring some expert, independent witness to your assertions (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles regarding McCanney's model) then we can talk. Why don't you understand that simple request? Or, could it be that there IS no independent, peer-reviewed support of McCanney's model, you know this, and so just keep repeating the same mantra and laying the blame for your failure at our feet?


I said from the start that Venus was only part of it -- that the real issue was much bigger -- and has to do with making the shift to the next paradigm.

A shift you've been unable to substantiate with any independent support. Again, I ask you, why should anyone take McCanney's model as gospel just because he self-published his work on his website without any independently confirmed support over past 32 years since its invention?


I believe that the top tier of scientists today understand that the Big bang and the ice comet model are dead.

Doesn't matter what you "believe." Provide peer-reviewed support that McCanney's model is the correct one so that it lays the foundation for your further discussion regarding Venus. You can't even get your horse out of the gate much less into the first turn. This is really sad.


The problem is that these scientists - work for the federal government, or for large corporations, or they are dependent for their funding on the federal government. Many of them work on secret projects -- and all of them have signed security oaths not to talk about what they do -- or know.

Yes. When you can't substantiate your position, say it's because of a conspiracy. Creationists pushing for a 6,000 year old earth and intelligent design have been doing that for years. It's the tactic of losers in a debate who can't win in the competition of ideas. What it really means is your particular idea is a failure, not that everyone's against you.


These three categories cover almost all top scientists working today.

Non sequitur.


The remaining scientists -- second and third tier scientists -- are not privy to the leading edge of research in the black world -- and continue to promote obsolete science.

I feel the car quickly careening toward a steep cliff.


We need a new policy of glasnost - openness. The government must open up and share the advanced technologies and knowledge on the cutting edge.

I don't expect it to happen -- unless a tidal wave of indignant citizens demand it.

And there it goes.............


Now...on to Venus...


No; what you mean to say is, "Now...on to more unsupported assertions." Right? I hope not. Maybe you've learned your lesson, but I doubt it.

W*GS
02-14-2013, 02:21 AM
I believe that the top tier of scientists today understand that the Big bang and the ice comet model are dead.

The problem is that these scientists - work for the federal government, or for large corporations, or they are dependent for their funding on the federal government. Many of them work on secret projects -- and all of them have signed security oaths not to talk about what they do -- or know.

These three categories cover almost all top scientists working today.

The remaining scientists -- second and third tier scientists -- are not privy to the leading edge of research in the black world -- and continue to promote obsolete science.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Venus or much of anything else.

That is, unless you're claiming that Venus isn't a planet because the best scientists are corrupted by black funding.

There's a few trillion steps you're missing.

mhgaffney
02-14-2013, 06:19 PM
Why is Venus so hot?

This is the proper question to kick start the discussion of Venus. The entire planet is volcanic -- with surface temperatures at the poles equal to those at the equator. This is very very strange. Indeed, it's unique in the solar system.

Venus also rotates in the opposite direction of the other planets. Another major anomaly. Nor has this ever been explained. It certainly points to a different origin.

W*gs now says that earth's sister planet is hot because the nuclear fuels created at the origin of the solar system never cooled down. But he gives no explanation why or how this might be so. Indeed -- without a plausible explanation his claim is nonsense.

Earth has long since cooled. Mars has also cooled. Yet Venus gives every appearance of being a very young planet. Might this be because Venus truly is young...

Back around 1950 an Israeli psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky caused shock waves with his book Worlds in Collision, in which he argued that Biblical events like the parting of the Red sea by Moses lined up with actual events in the solar system.

Velikovsky argued that the planet Venus was originally a comet -- and caused catastrophes to earth and Mars while rampaging through the inner solar system -- but eventually was captured by the sun and became a planet.

Velikovsky's book ignited one of the greatest controversies in the history of science. It is said that Velikovsky's friend Albert Einstein was reading his book when he died in 1956. The two men evidently had long discussions about the book.

However, another astronomer, Carl Sagan, set out to discredit Velikovsky's ideas -- and by about 1975 he had succeeded in ruining Velikovsky's reputation. Sagan claimed that his campaign against Velikovsky was a fight against superstitious nonsense -- but at times it resembled a witch hunt.

Sagan succeeded so well that Velikovsky died a broken disillusioned man. The very name Velikovsky has come to be associated with pseudo science.

The question that needs to be considered, however, is whether Velikovsky was unfairly stigmatized.

I fully agree that most of Velikovsky's ideas about the Bible correlating with events in the heavens were wrong. Indeed, Velikovsky was wrong about just about everything. Nonetheless, he might have been right that Venus was a comet.

At the time - Velikovsky was unable to explain how the sun might have captured a comet the size of Venus. Celestial mechanics cannot account for such a capture. Celestial mechanics is based strictly on gravitational forces. It is assumed that electomagnetism plays no role in events at this scale.

But is this assumption valid?

This is why James McCanney's plasma discharge comet model- first proposed around 1982 -- is important. His model proposes a mechanism that could explain how a large comet could be captured by the sun. According to McCanney -- under certain circumstances -- electromagnetism does play an important role in celestial events.

Such a young planet would be extremely hot. Measurements of Comet Ikeya-Seki by scientists at Cal Tech showed that its surface temperature was 1200 degrees at its nearest approach to the sun --which was about 20 million miles.

This calls for discussion. However, first, Orangeatheist and the rest must do some homework. They must take the time to read McCanney's comet paper.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/ori1.html

This is prerequisite. In order to discuss a scientific theory -- one must first understand it. If Orange and the rest refuse -- this shows they are not serious. At that point , this becomes a failed thread -- and I will no longer waste my time here. MHG

orangeatheist
02-14-2013, 08:39 PM
Why is Venus so hot?

This is the proper question to kick start the discussion of Venus. The entire planet is volcanic -- with surface temperatures at the poles equal to those at the equator. This is very very strange. Indeed, it's unique in the solar system.

Uniqueness does not equal "strange." And, there's already an explanation for the uniform temperature of Venus. It's actually very simple:

...Venus has a much thicker atmosphere. If you could stand on the surface of Venus, you would experience 93 times the atmospheric pressure we experience here on Earth; you’d have to dive down 1 km beneath the surface of the ocean to experience that kind of pressure. Furthermore, that atmosphere is made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide. As you’ve probably heard, carbon dioxide makes an excellent greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Sun. The atmosphere of Venus allows the light from the Sun to pass through the clouds and down to the surface of the planet, which warms the rocks. But then the infrared heat from the warmed rocks is prevented from escaping by the clouds, and so the planet warmed up.

It’s believed that plate tectonics on Venus stopped billions of years ago. And without plate tectonics burying carbon deep inside the planet, it was able to build up in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide built up to the point that any oceans on Venus boiled away. And then the Sun’s solar wind carried the hydrogen atoms away from Venus, making it impossible to ever make liquid water again. The concentration of carbon dioxide just kept increasing until it was all in the atmosphere. (http://www.universetoday.com/47905/why-is-venus-so-hot/)

Venus is so hot because it is surrounded by a very thick atmosphere which is about 100 times more massive than our atmosphere here on Earth. As sunlight passes through the atmosphere it heats up the surface of Venus. Most of this heat cannot escape back into space because it is blocked by the very thick atmosphere of Venus. The heat becomes trapped and builds up to extremely high temperatures. This trapping of heat by the atmosphere is called the greenhouse effect because it is similar to how the glass in a greenhouse traps heat. (http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/venus_heat.shtml)

Venus' thick, toxic atmosphere traps heat in a runaway "greenhouse effect." (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus)

Venus' atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfuric acid droplets. Only trace amounts of water have been detected in the atmosphere. The thick atmosphere traps the sun's heat, resulting in surface temperatures higher than 880 degrees Fahrenheit (471 degrees Celsius). Probes that have landed on Venus survived only a few hours before being destroyed by the incredible temperatures. Sulfur compounds are abundant in Venus' clouds. The corrosive chemistry and dense, moving atmosphere cause significant surface weathering and erosion. (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus&Display=OverviewLong)

Don't see any controversy Venus's temperature is causing. Seems pretty simple to me. But it's a conspiracy of brilliant idiots, stupid Americans, clowns and paid off Tier One Scientists, right?


Venus also rotates in the opposite direction of the other planets. Another major anomaly. Nor has this ever been explained. It certainly points to a different origin.

So many unsupported assertions packed into such a tiny quote.

Venus does not rotate in the opposite direction of the other planets. Uranus has an axial tilt which is very near to 90, and can be considered to be rotating in a retrograde.

Venus's retrograde rotation has explanations:

"The standard answer to this question and things like Neptune's tilt is that there was a large collision early in the planetary formation process. The models of planetary and solar system formation have the angular momentums of the planets and their orbits in the same direction as the initial angular momentum of the gas cloud. You need something like a collision to get anything else." - Eric Christian

"Of the nine planets, a bare majority (Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune) rotate in a way we consider 'normal'. Mercury and Venus are slow, Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are retrograde, Uranus and Pluto are highly inclined. Mars' inclination varies chaotically over long (billion-year) time scales, so it is not always 'normal' either. It is only parochialism that makes us point and laugh at the zany antics of the other planets.

"How a planet rotates is related to how it was formed from the accretion of planetesimals. If more impacts occur on one side than the other, then it will tend to rotate accordingly. But the impacts are largely random. Tidal effects can also change the rotation." -David Palmer (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/981026a.html)

Granted, no one is absolutely certain of the cause:

....scientists are still puzzled by Venus's retrograde, or backward, rotation. Now a team of scientists from the French research institute Astronomie et Systemes Dynamiques have proposed a new explanation, published in this week's issue of Nature.

Current theory holds that Venus initially spun in the same direction as most other planets and, in a way, still does: it simply flipped its axis 180 degrees at some point. In other words, it spins in the same direction it always has, just upside down, so that looking at it from other planets makes the spin seem backward. Scientists have argued that the sun's gravitational pull on the planet's very dense atmosphere could have caused strong atmospheric tides. Such tides, combined with friction between Venus's mantle and core, could have caused the flip in the first place.

Now Alexandre Correira and Jacques Laskar suggest that Venus may not have flipped at all. They propose instead that its rotation slowed to a standstill and then reversed direction. Taking into account the factors mentioned above, as well as tidal effects from other planets, the team concluded that Venus's axis could have shifted to a variety of positions throughout the planet's evolution. Regardless of whether it flipped or not, it is bound to settle into one of four stable rotation statesżtwo in either direction. The researchers add that Venus would be more stable in one of the two retrograde rotational states. So in essence, it was just a question of time before Venus started spinning the wrong way. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-venus-spins-the-wrong)

Oooo! But lookie there! Ideas published in Nature and Scientific American! More than we can say for ol' McCanney's self-published work on his website, eh?


W*gs now says that earth's sister planet is hot because the nuclear fuels created at the origin of the solar system never cooled down. But he gives no explanation why or how this might be so. Indeed -- without a plausible explanation his claim is nonsense.

I don't recall W*GS saying that. My memory is that he attributed the temperatures on Venus to the runaway greenhouse affect as noted above. But it doesn't matter what W*GS says, just as it doesn't matter what you say. It only matters what consensus the experts in the appropriate field(s) reach based upon their research.


Earth has long since cooled. Mars has also cooled. Yet Venus gives every appearance of being a very young planet. Might this be because Venus truly is young...

Why do you say Venus has "every appearance of being a very young planet." What does that mean? That's not a conclusion anyone else has drawn. Venus is hot, and we already know why. There's absolutely no controversy about that.


Back around 1950 an Israeli psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky caused shock waves with his book Worlds in Collision, in which he argued that Biblical events like the parting of the Red sea by Moses lined up with actual events in the solar system.

Yes, another crackpot theory which actually took as fact the fictional story of Moses and the Red Sea.


Velikovsky argued that the planet Venus was originally a comet -- and caused catastrophes to earth and Mars while rampaging through the inner solar system -- but eventually was captured by the sun and became a planet.

Crackpot.


Velikovsky's book ignited one of the greatest controversies in the history of science.

Hyperbole much? The only controversy was why anyone would believe these crackpot ideas. No reputable scientist did.


It is said that Velikovsky's friend Albert Einstein was reading his book when he died in 1956. The two men evidently had long discussions about the book.

More conspiracy. Oh, Einstein was reading Velikovsky's book; means they were friends; probably means Einstein agreed with Velikovsky but he died before giving his old pal a full endorsement. Boy, howdy, if he had! Man, the modern scientific black-ops community would be on its head!


However, another astronomer, Carl Sagan,

Yeah. Just another astronomer like ol' Velikovski, eh?

[Sagan received] a bachelor of science in physics in 1955, and a master of science in physics in 1956 before earning a PhD in astronomy and astrophysics in 1960.[11][12][13] During his time as an honors program undergraduate, Sagan worked in the laboratory of the geneticist H. J. Muller and wrote a thesis on the origins of life with physical chemist H. C. Urey. He used the summer months of his graduate studies to work with planetary scientist Gerard Kuiper (thesis advisor), physicist George Gamow, and chemist Melvin Calvin. From 1960 to 1962 Sagan was a Miller Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley. From 1962 to 1968, he worked at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts. At the same time, he worked with geneticist Joshua Lederberg.

Sagan lectured and did research at Harvard University until 1968, when he moved to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York after being denied tenure at Harvard. He became a full Professor at Cornell in 1971, and he directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there. From 1972 to 1981, Sagan was the Associate Director of the Center for Radio Physics and Space Research at Cornell.

Sagan was associated with the U.S. space program from its inception. From the 1950s onward, he worked as an advisor to NASA, where one of his duties included briefing the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon. Sagan contributed to many of the robotic spacecraft missions that explored the solar system, arranging experiments on many of the expeditions. He conceived the idea of adding an unalterable and universal message on spacecraft destined to leave the solar system that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find it. Sagan assembled the first physical message that was sent into space: a gold- anodized plaque, attached to the space probe Pioneer 10, launched in 1972. Pioneer 11, also carrying another copy of the plaque, was launched the following year. He continued to refine his designs; the most elaborate message he helped to develop and assemble was the Voyager Golden Record that was sent out with the Voyager space probes in 1977. Sagan often challenged the decisions to fund the Space Shuttle and Space Station at the expense of further robotic missions.[14]

Sagan taught a course on critical thinking at Cornell University until he died in 1996 from pneumonia, a few months after finding that he was in remission of myelodysplastic syndrome. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Education_and_scientific_career)

But, yeah...just another astronomer, was Sagan.


[Just another astonomer, Sagan,] set out to discredit Velikovsky's ideas -- and by about 1975 he had succeeded in ruining Velikovsky's reputation. Sagan claimed that his campaign against Velikovsky was a fight against superstitious nonsense -- but at times it resembled a witch hunt.

When pseudo-scientific ideas threaten the real work science does to illuminate our world and advance human understanding of it, by all means hunt it out. If Velikovski's ideas were indeed more robust than anything Sagan or the rest of the scientific community could offer, they would have won out. Pseudo-science, however, can never win. Its popular only with the truly gullible.


Sagan succeeded so well that Velikovsky died a broken disillusioned man. The very name Velikovsky has come to be associated with pseudo science.

Deservedly so. As do the names Ron Wyatt, Von Däniken and Henry Morris.


The question that needs to be considered, however, is whether Velikovsky was unfairly stigmatized.

Think the court's adjourned on that question, Mark.


I fully agree that most of Velikovsky's ideas about the Bible correlating with events in the heavens were wrong. Indeed, Velikovsky was wrong about just about everything. Nonetheless, he might have been right that Venus was a comet.

You're correct that even if a person is wrong about everything else they assert, they could still be right about one thing. Blind squirrel, broken clock and all that. But he wasn't right about Venus being a comet. That's just another thing he got wrong.


At the time - Velikovsky was unable to explain how the sun might have captured a comet the size of Venus. Celestial mechanics cannot account for such a capture. Celestial mechanics is based strictly on gravitational forces. It is assumed that electomagnetism plays no role in events at this scale.

But is this assumption valid?

This is why James McCanney's plasma discharge comet model- first proposed around 1982

1979-81. Over 30 years ago. Read your own link.


-- is important. His model proposes a mechanism that could explain how a large comet could be captured by the sun. According to McCanney -- under certain circumstances -- electromagnetism does play an important role in celestial events.

Peer-review, please? Maybe he could get Hawking to read it; you know, as a "friend." And then Hawking will die before being able to make comment and you can begin to draw conclusions.


Such a young planet would be extremely hot.

So would an old one with an extremely thick, carbon dioxide atmosphere which traps in the sun's heat. First, prove the age of Venus.


Measurements of Comet Ikeya-Seki by scientists at Cal Tech showed that its surface temperature was 1200 degrees at its nearest approach to the sun --which was about 20 million miles.

Yes. And dropping to 700° F. at 45 million miles. But for some odd reason no scientist has decided those readings refute the current model regarding comets. Venus is 67 million miles from the sun.


This calls for discussion.

Among peer-review, sure.


However, first, Orangeatheist and the rest must do some homework. They must take the time to read McCanney's comet paper.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/ori1.html

This is prerequisite.

No. It needs peer-review. I'm not a peer.


In order to discuss a scientific theory -- one must first understand it.

Which neither you nor I do. That's why I want peer-review. Hop to it!


If Orange and the rest refuse -- this shows they are not serious.

If Mark refuses to post peer-review articles discussing McCanny's and Velikovski's "models," this shows he is not serious OR that there are no peer-reviewed articles about these "models" because they're pseudo-science.


At that point , this becomes a failed thread

It's a failed thread because you can't find any peer-review for McCanny's assertions.


-- and I will no longer waste my time here.

So you admit you are wasting time. That's the FIRST thing we can agree on.

W*GS
02-14-2013, 09:17 PM
gaffe, have you done the math that refutes the calculation regarding the impact of the energy experienced by Hale-Bopp and what would have happened had it actually gained mass as claimed by McCanney?

If so, show your work:

underrated29
02-14-2013, 09:34 PM
There is a word in my line of work for this. OWNAGE!



This is why I will never read or take anything gaffe says seriously, ever. He is a liar.

orangeatheist
02-15-2013, 09:25 AM
There is a word in my line of work for this. OWNAGE!

:thanku:


This is why I will never read or take anything gaffe says seriously, ever. He is a liar.

And he could shed that well-earned stigma by simply producing the peer-review that supports his assertions, but he doesn't. He just keeps on posting unsupported drivel as if the mere posting of it should be sufficient. Just like McCanney who thinks self-publishing his work on a webpage is sufficient support of his "plasma comet model." It isn't. Here....watch:

The pyramids were built with help by citizens of Atlantis because no other culture in the world at that time built any structures remotely similar to the pyramids at Giza. That is evidence of outside influence. The only culture advanced enough to supply the technology sufficient to build the pyramids either had to come from somewhere on this planet now vanished, or from outerspace. Because space-travel from even our nearest neighboring star is too far for spacecraft to reach earth in a reasonable time (since nothing can travel the speed of light), the only reasonable conclusion is that the technology had to come from right here on our planet. The only civilization advanced enough to supply such technology would have been the hitherto citizens of Atlantis which Plato (a real person) reported. Plato is not known for passing along fairy tales and he received his information about Atlantis from the Egyptians. Why the Egyptians? Because they still had a vague memory of the culture which helped them build the pyramids.

There. Published on the web. Now it's Mark's burden to prove all of that wrong. And when he says modern Egyptologists reject such a theory, I'll say it's because they're paid off to keep such ideas secret and then challenge him to prove me wrong.

Being a pseudo-science-conspiracy nut is easy. Doing real science is hard.

W*GS
02-15-2013, 09:36 AM
Being a pseudo-science-conspiracy nut is easy. Doing real science is hard.

Yep. gaffe is a lazy turd.

mhgaffney
02-15-2013, 03:29 PM
Not so fast...

Yes, it was Sagan who announced the runaway greenhouse theory as explaining why Venus is 700 F at the surface -- at the pole and equator.

Curious -- this was AFTER the Mariner probe confirmed Velikovsky's prediction that Venus was very hot.

In the 1950s astronomers believed that the temperature at the surface of Venus was rather cool -- comparable to earth. The first probes to Venus proved them wrong and Velikovsky right.

When Sagan made this pronouncement the vulcanism on Venus was not yet known. Which today makes Sagan look silly. No runaway greenhouse can cause vulcanism over 100% of a planetary surface.

FYI I was correct when I stated that Venus' retrograde rotation is indeed opposite the other planets. The assertion that this was caused by a collision is laughable. Face the fact -- it is an anomaly and has never been explained.

There is another unexplained anomaly as well regarding Venus' rotation: Venus is in resonance with the earth. Venus always shows the same face to earth at their nearest approach. Again - this has never been explained.

You mistake pronouncements and opinions as facts -- when the truth is they are unproven.

W*GS
02-15-2013, 04:19 PM
When Sagan made this pronouncement the vulcanism on Venus was not yet known. Which today makes Sagan look silly. No runaway greenhouse can cause vulcanism over 100% of a planetary surface.

No one claimed that the greenhouse effect *causes* Venus' vulcanism. That's a mistake you've made for ages now. It's a strawman.

FYI I was correct when I stated that Venus' retrograde rotation is indeed opposite the other planets. The assertion that this was caused by a collision is laughable. Face the fact -- it is an anomaly and has never been explained.

We don't have a known correct explanation, but a collision with a large protoplanet has the ability to result in Venus' spin axis being flipped N -> S and its very slow rate. That it doesn't satisfy you doesn't make it laughable.

There is another unexplained anomaly as well regarding Venus' rotation: Venus is in resonance with the earth. Venus always shows the same face to earth at their nearest approach. Again - this has never been explained.

Wrong.

See Nonresonance rotation of Venus (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/182975)

Abstract:
Radar observations accumulated over the past 14 yr are used to make a precise estimate of the spin vector of Venus. The results obtained show that the spin vector of Venus may be adequately described in the standard 1950.0 coordinate system by a period of 243.01 + or - 0.03 days (retrograde) and a north pole direction corresponding to alpha = 272.8 + or - 0.5 deg and delta = 67.2 + or - 0.3 deg; the quoted errors represent estimates of 70% confidence intervals. The angular separations between the spin vector and those vectors representing the unit normals to the invariable plane of the solar system and the orbital plane of Venus are found to be 0.5 deg and 2.6 deg, respectively. It is concluded that Venus is not rotating with a resonance spin period relative to the orbit of earth and that the spin of Venus may be in a generalized Cassini state.

orangeatheist
02-15-2013, 04:27 PM
Recent photo of Mark after this thread:

http://my1039phoenix.com/wp-content/uploads/burnt-toast.jpeg

mhgaffney
02-15-2013, 05:14 PM
A simple test could decide the matter...

After Velikovsky's early predictions were born out -- Einstein began to support scientific testing to try to prove/refute Velikovsky's ideas. This was in 1955 -- shortly before Einstein died.

I agree with Einstein. Let's put the matter to the test.

There is a simple way to decide the matter. Although simple in principle, the technology may not yet exist to perform the test.

The test would be to measure the temperature at various depths below the surface of Venus -- either by a direct probe or remote sensing via satellite.

If W*gs is correct -- the readings would show a rising temperature all the way to the core of the planet.

If, on the other hand, the readings show a decreasing temperature at greater depths -- this would prove that Venus originated as a comet.

The reasoning is simple: A comet would have spent eons in deep space and would therefor have cooled even at its core to near absolute zero Kelvin. Only the surface down to a certain depth would have been heated by a number of passages close to the sun.

A couple of quick searches suggests that the technology to perform such a test probably has not matured. But one day, hopefully soon...

Of course, jackals and hyenas who claim to know the mind of G-d won't be interested in testing.

It's so easy to hide behind the present paradigm. No courage or imagination is required.

Unfortunately, our planetary ecosystem will not survive the present paradigm. W*gs who pretends to believe in climate change ought to know this better than anyone.

The last time I visited the Bay Area -- last week -- the smog was the worst I've ever seen. Air quality is deteriorating -- and this tells us that we are destroying the earth.

Hence the urgent need for a paradigm shift to a more comprehensive understanding of how the solar system works -- so we can become much more efficient in how we use energy. Tesla was on the right track. Had he succeeded in perfecting his project on Long Island -- we would live in the very different world of limitless clean energy.

MHG

W*GS
02-15-2013, 06:43 PM
Oh brother.

We need to land a large drilling rig on Venus, that can withstand the tremendous pressure and heat, then drill down through its crust, mantle and into Venus' core, just to prove Velikovsky wrong?

Ain't gonna happen. It would cost a fortune. We haven't drilled into Earth's crust more than ~40,000 feet. Venus' crust is estimated to be 50 km (~164,000 feet) thick - and I suspect gaffe wouldn't be satisfied until the hole gets to Venus' center - another 19,855,643 feet. Ain't gonna happen. We already know that Velikovsky is wrong. We don't need to spend bejillions on a pointless experiment.

Have you done the calculation on the energy expended onto Hale-Bopp by its accumulation of mass as McCanney claims to have happened? Remember, if Hale-Bopp started with the mass of the moon (7.3477 × 10<sup>22</sup> kg) and it increased until it was about the mass of Mercury (3.3022×10<sup>23</sup> kg) it grew by more than a factor of four.

Einstein and Tesla are irrelevant tangents.

PS - You know that Velikovsky was a passionate Zionist, don't you?

W*GS
02-15-2013, 06:53 PM
A small summary of some of the material in "Broca's Brain" that devastates Velikovsky.

What Carl Sagan has to say about Velikovsky (http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/velikov.htm)

What Carl Sagan has to say about Velikovsky
Glenn Schuett
I thought those with firing synapses might like to hear what Carl Sagan has to say about Velikovsky. This comes from his book _Broca's Brain_, 1976, ISBN 0-345-33689-5.

This is incomplete (so much to debunk!), Sagan uses more than 50 pages destroying Velikovsky's hypothesis. Here are some of the highlights.

PROBLEM I - THE EJECTION OF VENUS BY JUPITER

Velikovsky says: Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet.

Sagan says: To escape from Jupiter, the comet must have a kinetic energy of 1/2mv^2, where m=cometary mass and v=escape velocity of Jupiter. This equals about 60 km/sec. At least 10% of this kinetic energy will go into heating the comet.

The minimum kinetic energy per unit mass is 1/2v^2 = 1.3 x 10^13 ergs per gram.

The heat portion of the kinetic energy is more than 2.5 x 10^12 erg/gram. Rock melts at about 4 x 10^9 erg/gram. Thus, any event that ejected a comet or planet from Jupiter would melt rock (or organic compounds or ices).

Another problem is the escape velocity from the Sun's gravity (at the distance of Jupiter it is about 20 km/sec). Thus, if a comet leaves Jupiter at velocities less than 60 km/sec it will fall back to Jupiter; if greater than about [(20)^2 + (60)^2]^1/2 = 63 km/sec it will escape from the solar system. There is only a narrow and therefore unlikely range of velocities consistent with V's hypothesis.

Further, the mass of Venus is more than 5 x 10^27 grams. The total kinetic energy required to propel Venus from Jupiter's escape velocity is about 10^41 ergs, which is equivalent to all the energy radiated by the Sun in one year and 100 million times more powerful than the largest solar flare ever observed. V wants us to believe that an ejection event occured on Jupiter that was vastly more powerful than anything on the Sun.

PROBLEM II - REPEATED COLLISIONS AMONG THE EARTH, VENUS AND MARS

Velikovsky says: "That a comet may strike our planet is not very probable, but the idea is not absurd" (page 40 English edition).

Sagan says: [Sagan devotes several pages in the appendix calculating orbits, gravitational attractions, velocities etc.; too long and too many Greek symbols to reproduce here]

In short - V says that the planets have collided a total of 5 or 6 times among themselves. The odds of this happening (ignoring other problems with his hypothesis) is almost 100 billion trillion to 1 for five collisions and about one trillion quadrillion to 1 for 6 collisions.

PROBLEM III - THE EARTH'S ROTATION

This concerns the story in Joshua about the earth standing still for a day. V is vague about the mechanism that is supposed to have breaked the Earth's rotation. Sagan acknowledges that the Earth could slow down over a 24 hour period without it melting or people flying off, but the temperature generated, especially near sea level, would be about 240 degrees Kelvin, well above the boiling point of water. He shows his math in Appendix 2.

V also fails to account for the Earth starting up it's rotation again, which it can't do itself due to the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Sagan also discusses tidal gravitational and magnetic forces that would be necessary to stop the Earth's rotation.

But wait! there's more!

This is but 3 of 10 "major scientific flaws in Velikovsky's agrument" that Sagan outlines. Plus he briefly goes into several more.

Go read the book. It's good.

mhgaffney
02-15-2013, 07:13 PM
What Sagan had to say about Velikovsky?

All of this is out of date (and irrelevant) in light of what we have learned about comets in recent years -- and about Venus.

Sagan has been dead for many years. But all W*gs knows how to do is vomit what he learned in a classroom.

MHG

W*GS
02-15-2013, 08:11 PM
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.

underrated29
02-15-2013, 08:34 PM
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.

orangeatheist
02-16-2013, 07:33 AM
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.

W*GS
02-16-2013, 10:20 AM
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
02-16-2013, 01:39 PM
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
02-16-2013, 01:44 PM
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
02-16-2013, 01:51 PM
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?

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.

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 <strike>red mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes</strike> "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
02-16-2013, 01:58 PM
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
02-16-2013, 02:21 PM
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
02-16-2013, 02:22 PM
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.

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.

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
02-16-2013, 02:31 PM
Why size matters...

That's what she said.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

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
02-16-2013, 02:37 PM
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?

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.

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
02-17-2013, 03:55 PM
Hellish Venus Atmosphere may have had cooling effect...

http://www.space.com/9155-hellish-venus-atmosphere-cooling-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
02-17-2013, 04:03 PM
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
02-17-2013, 04:09 PM
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
02-19-2013, 03:31 PM
Ball is in your court, gaffe.