History of Venus

[W*GS]

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

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]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It's weak because it cannot predict comet behavior.

Unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The search for cometary ice has come up dry.

Unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

These three categories cover almost all top scientists working today.

Non sequitur.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.............

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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/c...nus_heat.shtml)

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

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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/as...s/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 states¿two 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/ar...pins-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?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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!

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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_Sa...entific_career)

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

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

[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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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

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

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

-- 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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

This calls for discussion.

Among peer-review, sure.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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!

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

-- 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by underrated29

There is a word in my line of work for this. OWNAGE!

Originally Posted by underrated29

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]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

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

Yep. gaffe is a lazy turd.

[mhgaffney]

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]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

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

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]

Recent photo of Mark after this thread:

[mhgaffney]

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]

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 × 10²² kg) and it increased until it was about the mass of Mercury (3.3022×10²³ 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]

A small summary of some of the material in "Broca's Brain" that devastates Velikovsky.

What Carl Sagan has to say about Velikovsky

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.