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
-
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.
Or just two different planets that formed the same way.0 -
Probability theory doesn't go out the window -- you are getting yourself confused here. Suppose in a dozen horse races you back complete outsiders in an accumulator with odds of a trillion to one. Now lets suppose we run the horse races over and over again, so that eventually all possible combinations of outcomes occur. What are the chances that on the particular set of races you bet on, that your accumulator pays out? It's still a trillion to one. Just because someone, somewhere, would have won on your bet doesn't make an extremely improbable sequence of events any more probable in one particular instance. That's because the number of scenarios -- the number of reruns of all the races in my example -- increases without limit. All you are doing is switching from a statement of a priori odds to a selection from a very large number of actual events. Probabilistic calculations for a given instance work the same whether you are dealing with a priori odds or the law of large numbers.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.
Do you have any evidence for that?That scares a lot of people, a lot of in the scientific community which could have a huge cost to them.
Yes, but they would then wipe out all evidence of other ancient collisions which we see in the overlapped craters of solar system bodies.Planets could have spilled with lava creating a round planet again. Note: could have.
It's a fallacy to suggest that because there is "a lot of information attainable" that all of the information we do have can be discounted.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.
Are you saying the idea the moon is made of green cheese should be give equal consideration to the idea it's made of the rocks we've actually collected from its surface?IMO, Astronomy should always be about other possibilities for explanations that could also be true, but it's not about that.
What has any of that got to do with anything?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 -
-
Maximus Alexander wrote: »It's not though, NASA and ESA for example both operate on shoestring budgets.
Probably because the banks haven't got all the money paid they lent out to fix countries like ours. Wer'e paying the interest on those loans, the citizens. It's our loan repayments back to the bank that are going to be loaned to different countries that will finance the future of space exploration. This is how the banking system works and it's a piss poor system leaving a small minority of people in control over everyone else.
The USA is seriously in depted to the banks....they might have shoestring budgets but still those budgets are coming directly from the banks.
When we pay water charges we help pay those loans back = even more money for the banks forever, even when we have the loans paid off....hidden via the water tax as opposed to an out and out loan.
It's just another control they now have to keep the money going back to the bankers - without water we can't survive....and now the banks own the water. Our government has to used all our water taxes, to pay back the loans to banks that bailed us out; and this hidden tax is all europes idea!
Luke Ming Flanagan has no idea what he's up against over there.....0 -
Daddy Williams gave Mammy Williams a special hug- 40 weeks later Venus was born0
-
Advertisement
-
Imagine this scenario.....
A banker lays away at night wondering, who will he loan money to, that he will make him the most money back from?
He wakes up the next morning and decides he will lend it to NASA because if we find alien life then won't he be brilliant because he paid for it; even though he might lose all his money because of it. Upon finding alien life or not.
b) he lends it to NASA, so they can find energy resources which they can send back and make a massive amount of money.
The scientists are happy because they get to use a bit of the money, the people are excited about possible alien life....banker goes to sleep happy the next night. In the old days the banker would know he will get his money back, even on failure, due to the federal reserve fund.
Nixon changed the federal reserve and now with that amount of money involved, those banks could not be bailed out...what does that mean? Failure of the banking system and complete chaos.
Therefore, unorthodox views about alternative possibilities are met with closed doors against the institution that is science.0 -
Why would anybody be lending money to NASA? It's state funded.0
-
The US is in trillions of dept to the banks....the only way the banks will get that back is if the US can get out of dept.
How on earth could they possibly get that amount of money? Energy resources.....and not the solar panel renewable energy type.0 -
Without wanting to be unkind, that article -- like your general ramblings on this thread -- just contains too much nonsense for anyone to be bother refuting it point by point. Sometimes life is just too short. The best that can be done is to point out that people have all sorts of motivations for disseminating pseudo-scientific rubbish. If you like reading that sort of stuff, then by all means indulge yourself. You will end up being very misled, and learning nothing.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-right
The other alternative is to ask a few basic, critical questions. What sort of energies would be involved in the events Velikovsky describes? For instance, even forgetting about collisions, how could Venus "roam the solar system as a rogue astronomic body for centuries". Was gravity involved? Sixty seconds with a spreadsheet tells me that to move Venus from the orbit of Mars to its current orbit would involve the release of 100 megajoules of energy per kilogram of Venus -- easily enough to totally vaporise it. The only way to avoid this is if any loss in energy is offset by a corresponding gain in another body, i.e. by an energy-conserving gravitational interaction. If that had occurred in the last few millennia then neither of the bodies involved could have the very nearly circular orbits we see today, and we would be able to reconstruct the interactions.
As for the mumbo jumbo about the electromagnetic energy and Van Allen etc., the Van Allen radiation is perfectly well explained by a magnetic bottle effect, trapping solar particles between field lines of the earth's magnetic field. It is a very, very basic piece of physics.
As I said, nobody is going to invest the effort to critique all of these things one by one. You can either invest the time to learn the relevant science yourself, or be constantly led astray by the ravings of writers like Velikovsky and his disciples. (Btw, I have read Worlds in Collision and been singularly unimpressed -- it is a rambling morass of conjecture and wishful thinking).0 -
Why would anybody be lending money to NASA? It's state funded.
It comes from the United States federal budget....the USA doesn't have any of it's own money - it's all the bankers money and with no gold to back it up....aka printing more and more notes. In this case adding an extra 0 onto the computer accounts every now and again.0 -
Advertisement
-
So? Nobody lends directly to NASA as you stated. It simply doesn't happen.It comes from the United States federal budget....the USA doesn't have any of it's own money - it's all the bankers money and with no gold to back it up....aka printing more and more notes. In this case adding an extra 0 onto the computer accounts every now and again.
But you're not even talking about astronomy are you...0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90028
India went to Mars for less money than Disney lost on their Mars film John Carter.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.
It was also less money than Disney lost on Mars Needs Moms.0 -
So? Nobody lends directly to NASA as you stated. It simply doesn't happen.
But you're not even talking about astronomy are you...
Not now.....I would prefer to go back to astronomy and talk about alternative ways that things could have happened?
Like the fact that among ancient history everywhere around the world, similar events are documented, and all within a similar time frame, where objects in the sky caused similar effects; commonly among independent worldwide histories documented. Different cultures have different names for the planets of course...but Mars and Venus, as names, came from those periods.
So, could it happen that possibly things could have happened differently and is it worth inspection?0 -
The other alternative is to ask a few basic, critical questions. What sort of energies would be involved in the events Velikovsky describes? For instance, even forgetting about collisions, how could Venus "roam the solar system as a rogue astronomic body for centuries". Was gravity involved? Sixty seconds with a spreadsheet tells me that to move Venus from the orbit of Mars to its current orbit would involve the release of 100 megajoules of energy per kilogram of Venus -- easily enough to totally vaporise it. The only way to avoid this is if any loss in energy is offset by a corresponding gain in another body, i.e. by an energy-conserving gravitational interaction. If that had occurred in the last few millennia then neither of the bodies involved could have the very nearly circular orbits we see today, and we would be able to reconstruct the interactions.
There is still a lot of things in physics with which there is no explanation for. String theory and dark matter in particular.....so you cannot say it could be recreated, nor can you say anything you believe; when you talk abou,t what happens out there when it comes to energy forces; considering that we don't know what the essential building block of everything is - the atom. So, to sum it up this natural science is based on assumptions. Your basing what your saying on assumptions. It's also an assumption that doesn't take into account dark energy which is hugely powerful and it affects can be "seen".
If you didn't like that book, it's absolutely fine, if you didn't like the article fine. Has any orthodox scientist even read it, probably not, never mind disseminate it....given that your talking about something based on assumptions as if it's real physics that's up to you. Well.... physics doesn't have all the answers either and it knows it too.0 -
I have gone through this thread bow and arrow now.....I've been all on my own....I've just replied to a message about "all my ramblings" by someone who doesn't want to be "unkind".....Everything has been written off and nobody thinks my ideas have any merit.
Well.....that's just great. Thanks.0 -
At the moment there are bunch of people abroad on the Internet, talking about the end of the world heralded by the upcoming lunar eclipse on September 28th. They say that every time we have a tetrad of lunar eclipses, such as we've had in the last two years, significant world events occur. They reference the establishment of the Jewish state and the Six Day war. The problem is if you take any events nineteen years apart, you will find correspondences with the lunar cycle. And it turns out that the claimed correspondences are not very accurate anyway ... stuff that happens within ten days or ten months of an eclipse isn't all that impressive, given the frequency of these things.Not now.....I would prefer to go back to astronomy and talk about alternative ways that things could have happened?
Like the fact that among ancient history everywhere around the world, similar events are documented, and all within a similar time frame, where objects in the sky caused similar effects; commonly among independent worldwide histories documented. Different cultures have different names for the planets of course...but Mars and Venus, as names, came from those periods.
So, could it happen that possibly things could have happened differently and is it worth inspection?
Now you're asking us to consider events that may or may not have happened at all, spread over millennia, with only mythological sources as attestation.0 -
This is total obscurantism. There isn't the remotest suggestion by anybody, ever, that dark energy operates on scales that affect solar system mechanics. Of course we're making assumptions -- the same sort of assumptions that Toyota use when they make a car engine without considering dark energy, or we send Rosetta to a comet without considering dark energy. Invoking dark energy as a possible reason why Velikovsky might be right is basically an appeal to the miraculous. We can't say it's definitely wrong but we can say it's definitely not science.There is still a lot of things in physics with which there is no explanation for. String theory and dark matter in particular.....so you cannot say it could be recreated, nor can you say anything you believe; when you talk abou,t what happens out there when it comes to energy forces; considering that we don't know what the essential building block of everything is - the atom. So, to sum it up this natural science is based on assumptions. Your basing what your saying on assumptions. It's also an assumption that doesn't take into account dark energy which is hugely powerful and it affects can be "seen".
If you didn't like that book, it's absolutely fine, if you didn't like the article fine. Has any orthodox scientist even read it, probably not, never mind disseminate it....given that your talking about something based on assumptions as if it's real physics that's up to you. Well.... physics doesn't have all the answers either and it knows it too.
Science is a hierarchy of more and less securely established principles. Just because some are less secure is not a reason for suggesting that the whole lot could be completely overturned by a few ancient myths.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90028
And gravity is only a theory.Well.... physics doesn't have all the answers either and it knows it too.
You don't need dark energy to explain the mechanics of the solar system. Newtonian physics will do just fine unless you get so close to the sun that death and destruction are virtually certain.
That's the lovely thing about Science. One good counter example means theories have to be modified.Everything has been written off and nobody thinks my ideas have any merit.
Well.....that's just great. Thanks.
The trick is finding the good counter example. And wishful thinking doesn't count. And getting confused about the sun being 400 times further away than the moon isn't a good counter example.
Mars, Venus and Earth were all formed in similar ways 'cept of course for the Theia / Earth / Moon thing. Venus has an atmospheric pressure similar to an ocean a kilometre deep. But with a similar amount of nitrogen as ours in absolute terms. All because it lost Hydrogen to the solar wind. Mars is similar but colder so holds a bit of hydrogen.
Over the next 100 million years the sun will heat up the earth to the point where it starts to accelerate towards a Venus like greenhouse. Mars should be more habitable by then, but not for long as it will loose any gases liberated by warmth.0 -
At the moment there are bunch of people abroad on the Internet, talking about the end of the world heralded by the upcoming lunar eclipse on September 28th. They say that every time we have a tetrad of lunar eclipses, such as we've had in the last two years, significant world events occur. They reference the establishment of the Jewish state and the Six Day war. The problem is if you take any events nineteen years apart, you will find correspondences with the lunar cycle. And it turns out that the claimed correspondences are not very accurate anyway ... stuff that happens within ten days or ten months of an eclipse isn't all that impressive, given the frequency of these things.
Now you're asking us to consider events that may or may not have happened at all, spread over millennia, with only mythological sources as attestation.
I'm not talking about any such thing....what I am saying is that recorded all over the world was one similar event. Simple as.This is total obscurantism. There isn't the remotest suggestion by anybody, ever, that dark energy operates on scales that affect solar system mechanics. Of course we're making assumptions -- the same sort of assumptions that Toyota use when they make a car engine without considering dark energy, or we send Rosetta to a comet without considering dark energy. Invoking dark energy as a possible reason why Velikovsky might be right is basically an appeal to the miraculous. We can't say it's definitely wrong but we can say it's definitely not science.
I'm not trying to argue that Velikovsky might be right.
Even if those events did not happen.....forgetting about the theory of the big bang and darwin etc. also
Could a planet be formed a different way, given what we know now, about solar system mechanics?0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
Over the next 100 million years the sun will heat up the earth to the point where it starts to accelerate towards a Venus like greenhouse. Mars should be more habitable by then, but not for long as it will loose any gases liberated by warmth.
Is the moon moving away from earth?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Ok, let's entertain the idea. What similar event was recorded all over the world, by who, and when? Provide specific names and places, the specific event being described, and the sources you are using.I'm not talking about any such thing....what I am saying is that recorded all over the world was one similar event. Simple as.
I don't understand the question. Different to what? A planet could not be formed by a comet being shot out of Jupiter for instance, so yes, all planets formed differently to that.Could a planet be formed a different way, given what we know now, about solar system mechanics?0 -
-
I have gone through this thread bow and arrow now.....I've been all on my own....I've just replied to a message about "all my ramblings" by someone who doesn't want to be "unkind".....Everything has been written off and nobody thinks my ideas have any merit.
Well.....that's just great. Thanks.
Ideas always have merit. You do need to be prepared to have them countered/discounted, though. Your theories are poetic, but they don't correspond with anything we know with our still-relatively-limited scientific techniques. Telescopes are still just light buckets. We can send them a little higher than Galileo could, we can gather more information, and we can observe farther out each end of the EM spectrum, and farther back in time. We're better at understanding the maths and physics necessary to understand what it is we are seeing. We theorise based on what can potentially be verified. There's no point in theorising on anything that can't be.
Those aincent stories were just that. Stories. Cultures weren't aware of planets beyond Jupiter. They were only noted as 'not point sources of light that periodically appeared to go backwards'. It is amazing that so many were looking up at the same time, and noticing the same things. Nobody notes the many ancient cultures who made no measurements and kept no records. Astronomy was a common phenomenon, but by no means a universal one amongst ancient cultures.
You're pointing out patterns and correlations that don't exist. All we've been doing is pointing that out to you.0 -
Don't forget the awesomeness of spectroscopy through which we know the composition, temperature, relative motion, surface gravity and density of stars (as well as nebulae, planets and black hole accretion discs). Only 175 years ago philosopher of science Auguste Comte was telling us that we could never know what any of those things were made of. :pac:Telescopes are still just light buckets. We can send them a little higher than Galileo could, we can gather more information, and we can observe farther out each end of the EM spectrum, and farther back in time.0 -
Don't forget the awesomeness of spectroscopy through which we know the composition, temperature, relative motion, surface gravity and density of stars (as well as nebulae, planets and black hole accretion discs). Only 175 years ago philosopher of science Auguste Comte was telling us that we could never know what any of those things were made of. :pac:
Man I love science.0 -
Does anyone here think that planets could be formed by Jupiter or Saturn? If so, would it be possible to find ways to validate such a theory?0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90028
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.Anyways, I don't think the general population knows that theories are just sh*t*e talk, they assume because they are scientists, that the scientific authority must be right.
That's f*cked up.
Imagine coming up with theories about stuff, down in the pub on how something works; when you don't actually have a clue. Then, everyone in the pub believes it, because you're so good, practiced and experienced, in making people believe your s*ite.....that's sheep mentality, no?
Almost the same as religion....
Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
Science is very clear on this. If your theories don't make testable predictions then they aren't really Science and one good counter example means theories have to be modified.
But to save time nit picking the general rule is that the biggest claims need the greatest proof. Have a look at the work that's gone into proving Fermat's Last Theorem. And all because other work depends on it. Science is like that.
Peer review means anyone who proposes a theory in science has done so in the understanding that pretty much everyone else is duty bound to point out any holes.
Quantum physics pretty much happened in the first three decades of the last century. There's been incremental stuff since but nothing comparable to the changes then. Lasers and electronics and stuff have come about from quantum theory predictions. String theory not so much. Yes 11 dimensions but only in a big bang where energy levels are such that most everyday physics is irrelevant, might as well talk about the shape of ice cubes on the surface of the sun during a coronal mass ejection.
Even stuff like Geology got shook up when 1967 more or less confirmed tectonic plates and continental drift.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90028
That's not a theory.Does anyone here think that planets could be formed by Jupiter or Saturn? If so, would it be possible to find ways to validate such a theory?
It's not even a hypothesis.
Yes the planets were formed in roughly similar processes at similar times.
Yes the gravitational effects of the larger planets had an effect.
In these enlightened days of course, no one believes the planet Magrathea exists.0 -
Advertisement
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
Science is very clear on this. If your theories don't make testable predictions then they aren't really Science and one good counter example means theories have to be modified.
But to save time nit picking the general rule is that the biggest claims need the greatest proof. Have a look at the work that's gone into proving Fermat's Last Theorem. And all because other work depends on it. Science is like that.
Peer review means anyone who proposes a theory in science has done so in the understanding that pretty much everyone else is duty bound to point out any holes.
Quantum physics pretty much happened in the first three decades of the last century. There's been incremental stuff since but nothing comparable to the changes then. Lasers and electronics and stuff have come about from quantum theory predictions. String theory not so much. Yes 11 dimensions but only in a big bang where energy levels are such that most everyday physics is irrelevant, might as well talk about the shape of ice cubes on the surface of the sun during a coronal mass ejection.
Even stuff like Geology got shook up when 1967 more or less confirmed tectonic plates and continental drift.
Thanks.
The way I see it, is that the problem is actually the authority, with which the scientific community appear to have, and because of that, the power to influence.
I'm sure you know in economics it's very different, different because everyone can see it so clearly and understand how much of an inexact science it is; with the government a huge issue is transparency.
With the scientific community, they're protected by themselves and nobody outside the field, could dare to attack them. They would be ridiculed as they walked down the street. At the same time, this community of people are key figures of authority on certain issues which politicians, business etc. rely on.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there is a governing body, but if there was, the situation would be even worse. There comes a time when ultimately a select few have all the power and there the ones with the money, and they can do what they want with it, including paying off who they want with it.....everyman has his price so they say whether your talking about money or something else.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement