Did A Mega-collision Alter Venus?

Science Daily ^ | 2-27-2008 | Cardiff University

[Gondring]

The single most pertinent tidbit I was able to extract from Gondring's reply is that for someone who "likes to think outside the box", he certainly seems to be stuck in a global warming rut.

Please point out where in my reply I am in a "global warming rut."

Thank you.

[Fred Nerks]

What’s your point? How does your question answer mine?

the fact that you cannot see the connection makes it clear to me we are both wasting our time in this discussion. I'll offer this little story and then, for the second time, and this time I mean it, there will be no further contributions from me. One either has an open mind or one has not. It's useless for a speaker of inuit to attempt a discourse with a speaker of swahili. We're never going to meet in the middle whilst you continue to attempt a critique of works you have not read.

Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came into my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman. He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius. I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentiuoned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?"

Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explantion of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger.

In growing embarrassment I said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism".

"And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I enquired.

He answered: "Isaac Newton".

This is the position adopted by astronmers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slighest role.

[ForGod'sSake]

Please point out where in my reply I am in a "global warming rut."

FWIW, you can't seem to get away from the notion that Dr. Sayagain was COMPLETELY wrong in his global warming myth analysis. AFAIK, to this day we still don't know the mechanism that created Venus and its atmosphere. I'm not saying he's right about every word he ever uttered or wrote, but God forbid that V may have been on to something.

My take on it is this, Dr. Sagan hoped to cover his ignorance(self delusion?) about the temperature of Venus by cobbling together some steam engine gibberish for cover for his lack of insight. Another item you might make note of is he also thought Venus was "hot, dry and sandy". Two outta three ain't bad? Or is it one outta three???

[Gondring]

Yes, and Henry Ford didn't know about atomic power, but that doesn't mean you could power my car with a nuke without vaporizing it!

I've accepted electromagnetism as part of the solar system. I've also asked you to quantify how much of this energy in radio-wave form supposedly has acted upon the planets--and what effect it supposedly had. Mostly, how did it prevent the laws of physics from working as they do now.

We're never going to meet in the middle whilst you continue to attempt a critique of works you have not read.

I'm not looking to critique anything. I'm asking you to tell me what you believe...what's your hypothesis, regardless of what's in the works of Dr. Velikovsky.

And I will re-attempt his _Earth in Upheaval_, but no guarantees I can make it past the poor (ambiguous) writing...in skimming the preface, I already come upon an example: "It takes millions of years for a log to be turned into coal but only a single hour when burning."

What poor grammar...it's unclear what claim he is making. If he's intending it to be read as written, then he's claiming that burning a log turns it to coal. Is that what he's claiming?

[Gondring]

My take on it is this [...]

What a wonderful thing...to be able to just make a claim without actually looking at the evidence. Have you read Dr. Sagan's dissertation before making your claim that he covered up after the fact?

Another item you might make note of is he also thought Venus was "hot, dry and sandy". Two outta three ain't bad? Or is it one outta three???

Let's see...

• Hot...check!
• Dry...check!
• Sandy...check!

Well, okay, so Dr. Sagan got three out of three on that prediction...but note that his reason for "dry" was that he believed the water was all vaporized, not that there was little water vapor, so his "prediction" was right but for the wrong reason, just like Dr. Velikovsky's were.

Wind-blown sand on Venus (NASA)

Watch out.... Someone might read that it's a picture of Venus and they'll write down that it has hair and it looks like a comet-tail and...AIEE! Please note that it's an image of the SURFACE of Venus. ;-)

[Centurion2000]

bump

[ForGod'sSake]

Good grief Gondring, are you really that simple!!??

At the very best it's VOLCANIC ASH. SHEESH!

[UCANSEE2]

“As a geologist, I don’t have any problem with the earth either being ...”

If God made the Earth 6000 years ago, but made it look like it was 4.5 billion years old, could we even tell the difference?

[UCANSEE2]

“...this fact: Venus gives off heat...”

It’s not the meat (facts) of the issue, it’s the emotion.

[UCANSEE2]

“Here on Earth at that time the factions were trees, the Maples wanted more sunlight, but the Oaks ignored their pleas... ;-)”

Isn’t that the theme song of the DNC?

The Hatchets, Axes, and Saws are coming out as the campaign wears (and wears, and wears) on.

[Gondring]

It’s not the meat (facts) of the issue, it’s the emotion.

Yes...that's what I'm learning.

What's most interesting to me is that those who want to be so proud as to be non-conformists and "think outside the box" are those who are most zealous about refusing to address anything that doesn't fit their pet nonconformist hypotheses.

[ForGod'sSake]

What's most interesting to me is that those who want to be so proud as to be non-conformists and "think outside the box" are those who are most zealous about refusing to address anything that doesn't fit their pet nonconformist hypotheses.

Now now, that coming from someone trying to pass off volcanic ash as some sort of dust bowl is sortof hypocritical, don't you think? However, I can understand in the zeal to win a debate, there are times when one might be inclined to call a spade a club - or a heart - or a diamond even. JMO, but it doesn't reflect well upon your avocation. FWIW.

[UCANSEE2]

“What’s most interesting to me is that those who want to be so proud as to be non-conformists and “think outside the box” are those who are most zealous about refusing to address anything that doesn’t fit their pet nonconformist hypotheses.”

Just like back in high school. All the kids were ‘revolting’ against their parents lifestyle, and trying to be popular by being different.

Being different meant copying what everyone else was doing.

We live in a world where the grown-ups, aren’t grown up.

[Gondring]

Please...describe to me what you take “sandy” to mean.

[Gondring]

At the very best it's VOLCANIC ASH. SHEESH!

"at the very best"...?!?

First of all, keep in mind that these are radar images, not visible-light or near-visible. Therefore, they are showing radar reflectivity. As the pages says: In all of these radar images you should bear in mind that bright spots correspond to regions that reflect more radar waves than other regions. Thus, if you could actually see these regions with your eyes the patterns of brightness and darkness would probably not be the same as in these images. However, the basic features would still be the same."

Secondly, the feature in the image is a shield volcano. As NASA points out in the original image posting: "The comet-like tail trending northeast from this volcanic edifice is a relatively radar-bright deposit. The volcano . . . is a local topographic high that has slowed down northeast trending winds enough to cause deposition of this material. The streak is 35 kilometers long and 10 kilometers (about 6 miles) wide." Not exactly what one would expect as "volcanic ash."

And there are these remarks from UND's Volcano World: "The bright tail to the right of the shield is probably not volcanic. Rather, this tail marks a rare windstreak left by surface winds blowing around and over the volcanic shield."

Nice try.

BTW, did you catch "...average Venus surface age of 300 million to 500 million years..." on that page you sent?

[SunkenCiv]

---

join or quit view topics view or post blog bookmark post new topic subscribe

---