History of Venus

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

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]

gaffe, now you're just making up nonsense.

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

[mhgaffney]

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]

On the other hand...

Density of comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 deduced by modelling breakup of the parent 'rubble pile'

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 ~10²⁷ erg on impact. A slightly larger initial density leads to significant mass variation among the clusters and the possibility of a few ~10²⁸ erg events.

See those densities, gaffe?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Take, for instance, the unexplained companion of Comet Hale-Bopp.

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

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

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]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

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]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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"?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.)

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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!

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by W*GS

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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:

[underrated29]

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]

It's Children of the Sun.... Billy Thorpe knows. Man was waaaay ahead of his time.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by underrated29

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.