Originally Posted by underrated29
So I never saw the initial argument but am I understanding this that gaffe is struggling to understand why the 2nd planet from the sun is really really hot? And therefore thinks it is a comet and not a planet because it is so hot?
Ps- gaffe, I'm no space scientist but I do now for a fact that we can never reach absolute zero and I know for dam sure that even in the empty Bowels of space billions of miles from any sun, black hole or gravitational heat source, it's still really hard to get to absolute zero. Sure close can occur, but anything in our solar system, seems just extremely far fetched. If we have items near absolute zero between the sun andnjupiter I would like to see those documentations.
You are not following my argument. The point is that the vulcanism of Venus is totally anomalous. It has never been adequately explained -- despite what W*gs says.
There are also other Venusian anomalies -- including the reverse rotation. Despite what W*gs says -- this points to a different origin.
There is also another body of evidence I have not mentioned. The written records from ancient cultures, including the Mayans, Sumerians and Chinese -- describe Venus in terms of a comet. They refer to its beard, tail and horns, which are typical of comets -- not planets.
Also -- ancient records state that Venus was as bright as the sun -- which could only have happened if it were a comet -- during a transit near the sun when huge amounts of electrical energy lit up Venus like a light bulb.
Ancient tables of the period of Venus also differ from the contemporary record.
These records amount to hard evidence -- yet clowns like Oraneatheist and W*gs simply dismiss it.
As it says in the book of Proverbs: "The fool returns to his folly -- like a dog returns to his vomit."