Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Where did Venus come from?
Options
Comments
-
Read this:
Solar power is a renewable and practically inexhaustible energy source. However, the proportion of this energy that can be harnessed to generate electricity is limited by current technology and the UK's climate.
It is thought that in practice, taking various limitations into account, the UK could potentially generate a maximum of 140 billion kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year) from solar power. In 2009, the UK's total demand for electricity was around 379 billion kWh.
If you had solar panels on the moon; which is 400 times closer to the sun how much energy could you harness with panels a fraction of the size on the moon?0 -
Greenmachine wrote: »Religious forum that way ---->
I'm still referring to science....it's just that religion could be a little bit of inspiration to investigate a certain route....0 -
This Carl Sagan is talking about what if a comet hit the ground and people thought it was a nuclear explosion? Where is he getting these ideas from?
He's talking about the Normans as having recorded an event of a Comet? He refers to Giotto from the 12/13th century as having pictures of what looks like Comets in the 12/13th Century.
And having said all that he doesn't even mention ancient history of having experienced something much larger in the sky. Something that was recorded all over the world in different cultures...
And just to remind, he mentions nothing about Venus possibly hitting Mars....all he mentions is it going straight into it's own orbit; which he dismisses completely.
Sagan is a joke...0 -
-
Read this:
Solar power is a renewable and practically inexhaustible energy source. However, the proportion of this energy that can be harnessed to generate electricity is limited by current technology and the UK's climate.
It is thought that in practice, taking various limitations into account, the UK could potentially generate a maximum of 140 billion kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year) from solar power. In 2009, the UK's total demand for electricity was around 379 billion kWh.
If you had solar panels on the moon; which is 400 times closer to the sun how much energy could you harness with panels a fraction of the size on the moon?
I don't see what the Moon has to do with Venus, but since you bring it up: half the time the Moon is closer to the Sun than the Earth is, the other half the Moon is further away from the Sun than the Earth is. So, there would not be any net gain in energy. Setting up solar panels on the Moon is fine, but would (currently) only benefit any bases set up on the Moon. There have been no ways developed yet in which the amount of energy developed from that amount of solar panels could be wirelessly transmitted back to Earth for use here.This Carl Sagan is talking about what if a comet hit the ground and people thought it was a nuclear explosion? Where is he getting these ideas from?
The idea is from during the cold war when the US and Russia were extremely paranoid. A small comet hitting the Earth would simulate all the effects of a nuclear bomb detention, just without all the radiation. With the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) in place between the US and Russia, the comet impact could have triggered Nuclear war.And having said all that he doesn't even mention ancient history of having experienced something much larger in the sky. Something that was recorded all over the world in different cultures...
Actually in another episode he does, where he describes the Chinese and Native Americans having recorded a star exploding in Taurus in 1054AD, which is now the Crab Nebula.And just to remind, he mentions nothing about Venus possibly hitting Mars....all he mentions is it going straight into it's own orbit; which he dismisses completely.
He does say that it "made repeated close encounters with Mars, with the Earth-Moon system...", so he didn't say it went straight into orbit.
Also, there is no evidence that Mars and Venus ever collided.
It's all very well to come up with ideas about the origins of the planets, but you need evidence and theory to back up the argument to make these ideas true.0 -
Advertisement
-
Knifey Spoony wrote: »half the time the Moon is 400 times closer to the Sun than Earth, the other half it is 400 times further away since it orbits around the Earth.
:eek:
Which sun, moon and earth?!?0 -
-
The books of exodus from about 3500 years ago talks about a comet and a red planet having being hit by this comet. It also talks about blood everywhere which suggests that possibly the earth was heated up by this near miss and they were referring to lava.....then Moses apparently moved the sea to one side so they could cross (gravitational effect) - thus they became the chosen people. It's all documented in Ancient ways of writing on walls and statues etc. This events were recorded in various cultures around the world at the same time. Cultures whom would have never known about each other.
Does that mean about 1500 years before "christ" a large Comet hit Mars and knocked it out of orbit? What effects would the gravity of such an event affect the world and the moon?
Finally the God of all Gods was Jupiter, the mother god suggests that Venus was born from Jupiter. Perhaps it explains the 800 year storm and also that 800 years is actually an incorrect figure. If the earth is like Neptune then could we have come from Jupiter also?
I do not claim to be any expert on orbital mechanics but I would wager that an impact event sufficient to even slightly change (let alone move it from venus' orbit) the orbit of a planet such as mars would be violent enough to almost destroy and fragment the planet.
Such an event has quite clearly not happened.0 -
The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than what? The Earth? Do your maths again.
What's the point in talking about this - it's not even what the main subject is about.....anyway leaving aside my mistake what temperature is the moon?
It's xxtremely hot in some places. What temperature is Antartica compared to the Equator....does the moon have an atmosphere to block the suns energy, no?0 -
What's the point in talking about this - it's not even what the main subject is about.....anyway leaving aside my mistake what temperature is the moon?
It's xxtremely hot in some places. What temperature is Antartica compared to the Equator....does the moon have an atmosphere to block the suns energy, no?
And if you think about it there is no evidence that the sun or moon even exist. They could just be huge spotlights stuck to a rotating sphere above the Earth. Why do we believe these scientists and astronomer experts, you just have to go outside and see for yourself that they could just be stuck up there and not huge and far away at all. But why is nobody talking about this or taking it seriously?0 -
Advertisement
-
Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.0 -
What's the point in talking about this - it's not even what the main subject is about.....anyway leaving aside my mistake what temperature is the moon?
It's xxtremely hot in some places. What temperature is Antartica compared to the Equator....does the moon have an atmosphere to block the suns energy, no?
The point of it is that it shows that you've trying to debunk the accepted theories while at the same time displaying an astounding level of ignorance as to even the most basic things about astronomy.
What exactly is your query? Or are you just here to rant and rave?
And what would the moon having a significant atmosphere have to do with the temperature difference between equator and poles. That is due to a) declining solar irradiance (W/m2) with increasing latitude, b) greater slant depth of atmosphere for solar radiation to penetrate more is absorbed and c) the poles are physically further away from the sun due to the curvature of the earth (although this would be only a very very small factor)
I'd suggest you go to your local library and get a basic astronomy book for yourself. Perhaps one from the childrens section might be appropriate.0 -
Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.
A planet the size of Mars did hit Earth very early in it's life. The Earth is still here yet most of the planet that hit us is gone and theory has it helped form or magnet core and may have had a part to play in the formation of the Moon.
It would take something like a brown dwarf passing through to cast something out.0 -
Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.
Such a near miss could equally well destroy the planet due to the huge gravitational differences between the near and far sides. I suspect it might also possibly leave the "victim" planet in a highly elliptic orbit. Such things, collisions, may have happened in the formation of the SS.0 -
Knifey Spoony wrote: »I don't see what the Moon has to do with Venus, but since you bring it up: half the time the Moon is closer to the Sun than the Earth is, the other half the Moon is further away from the Sun than the Earth is. So, there would not be any net gain in energy. Setting up solar panels on the Moon is fine, but would (currently) only benefit any bases set up on the Moon. There have been no ways developed yet in which the amount of energy developed from that amount of solar panels could be wirelessly transmitted back to Earth for use here.
AFAIK, there is....for the last 30 years in fact there has been a solution. It would cost the net worth of the global energy industries to do. I'll try and find more information.
Also, remember again that the moon has no atmosphere when talking about distances from the sun.
The reason that I bring the moon up is because the world is looking for natural resources to exploit and this focus seems to be on Titan. Thus, they want to make more money. Who wants to make more money? The people that already have money.
It must be easy for everyone to agree that the world bankers and the top % with all the money in the world have us tied by the neck....and the energy industry not far away from same or maybe just as much, but not so close. So, if energy comes back from Titan who owns the monopoly? Maybe a few share it and go into direct competition - huh?Knifey Spoony wrote: »Actually in another episode he does, where he describes the Chinese and Native Americans having recorded a star exploding in Taurus in 1054AD, which is now the Crab Nebula.
He is selectively choosing things and leaving aside most. I challenge anyone to refute this.Knifey Spoony wrote: »He does say that it "made repeated close encounters with Mars, with the Earth-Moon system...", so he didn't say it went straight into orbit.
Also, there is no evidence that Mars and Venus ever collided.
Is there evidence of these close encounters?Knifey Spoony wrote: »It's all very well to come up with ideas about the origins of the planets, but you need evidence and theory to back up the argument to make these ideas true.
The only theory that the standard model has is proof of things which could and were proven....plus all the other unproven stuff which was arrived at by whom and using what methods? I suppose the authorities are always right so we should never even imagine deviating from what were told. Police state, facebook spying blah blah blahChemical Byrne wrote: »I do not claim to be any expert on orbital mechanics but I would wager that an impact event sufficient to even slightly change (let alone move it from venus' orbit) the orbit of a planet such as mars would be violent enough to almost destroy and fragment the planet.
Such an event has quite clearly not happened.
The suggestion is that Venus hit Mars and not the other way around.....I'm basing this suggestion using the same sort of logic as Carl Sagan with his evidence; which, if using Carl Sagans methods in a court of law to convict a murdererer would be quite convincing to a jury, to give him a large criminal sentence. Somebody drew a picture of the person commiting the murder so that's self evident!0 -
You mean to cast something out of the solar system? I just mean to cast something into a different orbitCaptain Chaos wrote: »It would take something like a brown dwarf passing through to cast something out.0 -
Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.
Given the scale of the system, the sizes of solar system objects, and the almost infinite number of positions relative to one another that they can occupy, it's far more likely that an interstellar interloper would pass through without having any significant influence whatsoever. As a related example, when our galaxy and Andromeda eventually merge, it is predicted that any collision between individual stars is extremely unlikely, given the scales involved. A slingshot effect, if it did occur, would be far more likely to eject a plant entirely from the system than to simply alter its orbital behaviour.
And for a body to be captured by gravity, a fairly unlikely set of circumstances would have to apply regarding angle of entry, relative velocity, relative mass, etc. Not to say it couldn't happen, or, given the scale of the universe, that it doesn't ever happen. Just that it is so far on the extreme edge of probability that it almost certainly didn't happen.0 -
Chemical Byrne wrote: »The point of it is that it shows that you've trying to debunk the accepted theories while at the same time displaying an astounding level of ignorance as to even the most basic things about astronomy.
What exactly is your query? Or are you just here to rant and rave?
And what would the moon having a significant atmosphere have to do with the temperature difference between equator and poles. That is due to a) declining solar irradiance (W/m2) with increasing latitude, b) greater slant depth of atmosphere for solar radiation to penetrate more is absorbed and c) the poles are physically further away from the sun due to the curvature of the earth (although this would be only a very very small factor)
I'd suggest you go to your local library and get a basic astronomy book for yourself. Perhaps one from the childrens section might be appropriate.
I think you need to get out of your bedroom and your head out of your textbooks....I also believe that you are some sort of bully who thinks is ok to attack somebody here on a forum, and then continue on to speak about alternatives yourself, like this whole thing is "your" great idea.
....if you want to just start your own thread, do so....your not going to make me feel as though I'm lacking understanding, by throwing the above information out about the moon. Believe me, if I wanted to learn about the moon the same way as you seem to say you currently do, I have the intellectual capacity.
In the meantime I suggest you go to the library and find a book for kids that teaches them about bullying.
Finally you have completely misinterpreted what I was saying with you came back with you technical answer (which you knew I would not understand)....so you are impulsive to have a dig at me? You also have something to prove by your above technical explanations, to who? Your relatively new on boards - have you yet to prove your worth?
If you want to understand what I was saying; then it was, that the suns light is not blocked to the surface of the moon due to clouds and the like. Very simple for anybody non-technical. And for the record I know that it's accepted the moon has an atmosphere now but it's hardly significant.0 -
-
Given the scale of the system, the sizes of solar system objects, and the almost infinite number of positions relative to one another that they can occupy, it's far more likely that an interstellar interloper would pass through without having any significant influence whatsoever. As a related example, when our galaxy and Andromeda eventually merge, it is predicted that any collision between individual stars is extremely unlikely, given the scales involved. A slingshot effect, if it did occur, would be far more likely to eject a plant entirely from the system than to simply alter its orbital behaviour.
And for a body to be captured by gravity, a fairly unlikely set of circumstances would have to apply regarding angle of entry, relative velocity, relative mass, etc. Not to say it couldn't happen, or, given the scale of the universe, that it doesn't ever happen. Just that it is so far on the extreme edge of probability that it almost certainly didn't happen.
Good old probability theory and some top scientists believe the universe may be infinite....
"
Gerald Weinberg’s book Secrets of Consulting is filled with great aphorisms. One of these he calls the Titanic Effect:The thought that disaster is impossible often leads to an unthinkable disaster.If your model says disaster is extremely unlikely, the weakest link may be your model.
"0 -
Advertisement
-
OK, I do apologise for my tone, I can accept that it was not helpful and unnecessarily hostile. Sorry.
I just got riled as some of your posting seemed to be very much in the "alternative interpretation" camp.
The presence or lack of any significant atmosphere on the moon would have no significant effect on the irradiance of any part of the earth and would only occur during eclipses or near eclipses in any case.
The theory that some major impact event disturbing planets from their orbits happened in the historic period is not credible. An event that magnitude, that recently would have left clear evidence on both Venus and Mars which are both well mapped at this point. Even if such an unlikely event as a collision sufficient to move a planet sized mass from an orbit inside Earth's to outside of it were to have occurred, Earth would not have escaped unscathed. Debris from such a cataclysmic event would likely have bombarded Earth.0 -
Don't many of the discoveries in the universe suggest that the extreme edge of probability is pregnant with possibilities?
Absolutely. If it can happen, it probably did and will. The probability is extremely low in the case of our solar system given it's age and the age of the local region of our galaxy. Not a lot goes on in this neck of the woods!0 -
Chemical Byrne wrote: »OK, I do apologise for my tone, I can accept that it was not helpful and unnecessarily hostile. Sorry.
I just got riled as some of your posting seemed to be very much in the "alternative interpretation" camp.
I'm sorry if I went to town on you. It's happened before in the thread and I'm putting a lot on the line in what I'm saying.
The presence or lack of any significant atmosphere on the moon would have no significant effect on the irradiance of any part of the earth and would only occur during eclipses or near eclipses in any case.
The theory that some major impact event disturbing planets from their orbits happened in the historic period is not credible. An event that magnitude, that recently would have left clear evidence on both Venus and Mars which are both well mapped at this point. Even if such an unlikely event as a collision sufficient to move a planet sized mass from an orbit inside Earth's to outside of it were to have occurred, Earth would not have escaped unscathed. Debris from such a cataclysmic event would likely have bombarded Earth.[/QUOTE]
If you want to go to probability theory again and believe the universe is possibility infinite, then what I'm saying about Venus hitting Mars, has actually happened and continues to happen over and over again.
Your happening right now in other planets except there you might call the planet Mars, the planet snickers. If something came along and had enough of force to send a planet off orbit, then things could have happened any way and do and again and again and all that.....probability theory goes out the window if the universe is infinite. That scares a lot of people, a lot of in the scientific community which could have a huge cost to them.
Planets could have spilled with lava creating a round planet again. Note: could have. So are scientists that believe the universe could be infinite different kind of scientists now...
Astronomy is just a natural science not like physics. Astronomers know nothing about space and planets, galaxies and the universe when it comes to the total amount of information attainable out there. Just a tiny miniscule of information predicted to be true. The theories which people take as gold and which are spoken with such authority are just ideas that have no real grounding and are all bull****, and also sometimes this bull**** is proven to not be bull****....which people like. I do too.
IMO, Astronomy should always be about other possibilities for explanations that could also be true, but it's not about that. Would you lose all credibility for NASA, if they said, they were looking into the possibility of Venus hitting Mars. It would be an exciting time.
Who pays for these missions and exploration of space - where does all that money come from? Is it an investment? Which is the most important to the world at the moment - energy resources or alien life. How currently has full control over the energy resources on planet earth, and do they ever want to give up that control? I don't think that's how humans work.0 -
I probably should make a point at this stage, that just like someone with dyslexia might need to point out; I have an unusual conversational style due to having mild autism.
I might be going off in different directions and annoying people, but, I just wanted to arrive at an agreement, of some sorts.
The big bang theory cannot be brought back in if we believe the universe could be infinite.0 -
Well sure, all these things are *possible* and who knows, it might be happening in some far flung corner of the universe as we speak but the thing is such an event is very unlikely. The universe is not a very dense place, significant collisions are rare like those you speak of are exceedingly rare. As someone pointed out even when massive structures like galaxies "collide" the chances of individual stars hitting each other is remote, I was surprised when I first heard of that too.
Certainly, I am not aware of any evidence or theories of the collision you suggest. Correct, there probably were many many collisions between the "ancestors" of our current planets during the formation of the solar system. These were known as protoplanets and through collisions and gravitational interference these and the resulting debris eventually coalesced over the eons into the "proper" planets we know today.
Have a look here and at the links on that page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanet
But what you are suggesting regarding recent (in astronomical timescales) collision of the present planets, that just did not happen. We would see the scars of such a recent event and as I said, such a huge impact would probably have largely destroyed the planet anyway.
Still, I am not sure exactly what you are hoping to achieve on here, you seem to be rambling to a degree. One minute it's planetary collisions, then solar panels on the moon, then giving out about mismanagement of budgets and energy policies. Where are you going with all this?
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. I didn't realise you were autistic.0 -
I just see space exploration as being funded from the richest people in the world....it has to be a "vested" interest, in financial terms.
America is in dept. and the financial system is debt. based. The banks give the money out; if they don't get it back, then they can't give it out to others. They want their money back.
I thought we couldn't trust the bankers?0 -
Velikovsky was a psychiatrist, not a physicist or astronomer. As a committed Zionist, his interest in Egyptology and the Exodus stemmed from wanting to disprove a barmy hypothesis of Freud's, that Mosaic religion was an Egyptian invention. He got side-tracked into mythical accounts of catastrophes, and ended up using comparative mythology to reconstruct a detailed history of the mechanics of the solar system. He proposed a bunch of physically impossible scenarios, inventing his own unorthodox physics as he went along to explain the discrepancies. Practically all scientists believe his techniques, let alone his conclusions, are devoid of scientific merit. Velikovsky's ideas gained attention because he wrote them up for lay people who wouldn't have the scientific background to refute them, and who might be tickled by the idea of the scientific underdog challenging orthodoxy.0
-
I can't verify the source of this but it's two paragraphs of the link posted beow....if you want me to look into any further detail for you on specific areas I will.
Velikovsky’s theory, when carefully considered, carries with it a number of logical eventualities or consequences that, if they were not all within the reach of scientists to prove or disprove experimentally in 1950, would surely become testable sometime in the near future. For example, a geologically-recent birth for Venus would require the planet to be intensely hot. Likewise, it would imply that Venus exhibit a seemingly unevolved set of geological formations. Furthermore, if Venus had roamed the solar system as a rogue astronomic body for centuries then we would expect to find certain anomalies in its orientation and rotation when compared to the other planets. Surely we would eventually be able to detect if either Mars of Venus had ever suffered a direct impact with a planet-sized body. If Venus and Mars had made close approaches to the Earth in ancient times, we should be able to identify chemical, geological or magnetic signatures associated with those events. Moreover, Velikovsky himself had provided a long list of his own “prognostications” – consequential observations that he felt must eventually show themselves to be true, if the facts were to uphold what he saw as the unmovable cornerstones of his theory.
Soon after publication of the book, certain of Velikovsky’s “prognostications” began to be affirmed, if not always for the precise reasons offered by Velikovsky. For example, the controversial outlook Velikovsky held on the role of electromagnetism in the interaction of planetary bodies – the one that had been at first opposed by Einstein – was upheld by the incidental discovery of radio emissions from Jupiter and acceptance based on work by Van Allen of the existence of a significant magnetic field surrounding the Earth. By the 1960’s, Velikovsky was considered a credible enough authority on questions of astronomy to be hired by a leading television network to consult and comment during NASA’s live Moon landings.
Full article here:
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/worlds-in-collision-will-the-controversial-theories-of-immanuel-velikovsky-be-proven-right0 -
Given Venus is very close in size & composition to Earth, does it not make it probable that the two planets formed very near each other in the solar accretion disc, harvesting similar minerals & materials to each other? The two climates differ wildly, but they may not always have done...with Venus being closer to the sun, a few catastrophic volcanic gas eruptions might have been enough to initiate an irreversible greenhouse effect.0
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement