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.
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