The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2013, 09:18 AM   #1
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,135
Default History of Venus

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:



A shorter history from Stephen Hawking:



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



And a brief video regarding planet formation:

orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-01-2013, 09:19 AM   #2
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,662
Default

Here's your chance to shine, gaffe. Impress us all with your science chops.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 09:38 AM   #3
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,404
Default

Who cares! so he thinks its a comet.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 03:55 PM   #4
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

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

Last edited by mhgaffney; 02-01-2013 at 04:11 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 05:59 PM   #5
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Did you know that, without an atmosphere, the average temperature on Earth would be around -5 degrees Fahrenheit (-15C) instead of +60 (+15C)?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 07:21 PM   #6
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
The surface temperatures are extreme -- and are the same at the poles and at the equator. How is this explained?
See Venusí climate I: How scientists know Venusí surface is unusually hot, for starters.

The rest of your argument proceeds from two faulty premises. Read the above two references then rephrase, please.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 02:31 PM   #7
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
But let us start with Venus.
Which is what you should have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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?
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 04:40 PM   #8
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,661

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

I'd call 162 million miles pretty damn closer.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 05:25 PM   #9
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I'd call 162 million miles pretty damn closer.
Huh? Better recheck your numbers.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:38 PM   #10
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
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.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:06 PM   #11
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,661

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
~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...
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:28 PM   #12
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
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.



You can't just make that kind of idiotic **** up.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 03:41 PM   #13
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
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.



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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 03:39 PM   #14
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 04:41 PM   #15
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,404
Default

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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 05:23 PM   #16
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:41 PM   #17
frerottenextelway
█████
 
frerottenextelway's Avatar
 
█████

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: █████
Posts: 8,374

Adopt-a-Bronco:
██
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Answer the question. Why is Venus 100% volcanic -- even at poles?
Jewish bankers.
frerottenextelway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 05:46 PM   #18
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

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/a...ut-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
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:08 PM   #19
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

/popcorn
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:11 PM   #20
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
/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
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:56 PM   #21
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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?

Quote:
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.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 03:46 PM   #22
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
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

Last edited by mhgaffney; 02-02-2013 at 03:49 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:32 PM   #23
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 21,860

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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:

Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 07:23 PM   #24
Rascal
RIP
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,092

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Turf
Default

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.
Rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 08:59 PM   #25
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,897
Default

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?
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 AM.


Denver Broncos