|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 0:57:58 GMT
>Ummm, Jupiter is one of the gas planets,
Philip
I am a bit slow sometimes but I think you have identified a key data point here
Venus is similar to Earth in size and distance from the sun therefore if they have the same origin they should have roughly similar atmospheres
But we discover that not only is the Venusian atmosphere largely CO2 but it is also that "The surface temperature and pressure on Venus are 740 K (467°C) and 93 bar"
Not only is it very hot but it also has an atmospheric pressure 93 times that of Earth
Now how could that have happened when Earth is in such a similar location?
What if Venus was formed from a "gas giant"? Would that mean that it had much more gas in its atmosphere than would be generated by the planetary processes typical of Earth?
Philip, I think you are on to something
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 0:59:35 GMT
Once we conquer this final barrier, then our race can propell itself to the heights that our Guardians require...... Mmmm...... Please tell us about these Guardians that you require
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 1:02:11 GMT
What if Venus was formed from a "gas giant"? Would that mean that it had much more gas in its atmosphere than would be generated by the planetary processes typical of Earth? Different not necessarily MORE. The atmospheric pressure of Venus relates to gravity, which one would presume would be less if the mass responsible was disproportionately gaseous.
|
|
|
Post by willied77 on Mar 2, 2008 1:08:05 GMT
Tamrin, I could tell you about the guardians, but my Doctors said not too Also, we seem to be discussing Planet density and composition.....well according to Modern Scientific thought.. What if that line of thought is wrong???
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 1:17:11 GMT
What if that line of thought is wrong??? And well it might be: We do the best with what we have.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 1:28:25 GMT
>The atmospheric pressure of Venus relates to gravity, which one would presume would be less if the mass responsible was disproportionately gaseous.
Surface gravity on Venus is about 91% of Earth's.
If I understand your argument Venus should have an atmospheric pressure of less than Earth's rather than 93 times
And all that CO2. How was that produced? It can't be from burning forests because there is too little oxygen for plants to survive
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 2, 2008 1:47:31 GMT
>The atmospheric pressure of Venus relates to gravity, which one would presume would be less if the mass responsible was disproportionately gaseous. Surface gravity on Venus is about 91% of Earth's. If I understand your argument Venus should have an atmospheric pressure of less than Earth's rather than 93 times And all that CO2. How was that produced? It can't be from burning forests because there is too little oxygen for plants to survive From the greenhouse effect on steroids. certainly not from jupiter, which I think is mostly methane and helium. If I'm wrong, someone will be sure to point it out.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 2:28:23 GMT
>which I think is mostly methane and helium.
Actually hydrogen and helium and Venus' gravity is too low to hold those. So if Venus was formed from a gas giant then it might have lots of gas but it would not retain the hydrogen and helium
So if Jupiter has lots of CO2 in its lower atmosphere (the hydrogen and helium are of course in the upper atmosphere) then that might support Velikovsky's proposition
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 2, 2008 2:39:36 GMT
Irregardless of atmospheric composition, which proves nothing other than what the atmosphere consists of, Venus was known to the Sumerians, considerably longer than 3500 years ago.
Which seems to disprove Mr. V's pet theory.
So...
If you buy in to Velikovsky...
You are disproving Sitchen, and Nibiru would be the 11th planet...
Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by willied77 on Mar 2, 2008 2:41:41 GMT
And if the Sumerians KNEW about VENUS, What methods allowed them to gain such knowledge?? Maybe WE aren't are as advanced as WE think
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 2, 2008 2:46:11 GMT
Er...
Willie...Venus is clearly visible to the naked eye.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 6:00:50 GMT
>but how exactly does a planet like Jupiter spit out a planet or its moons?
That question is also a problem for the Earth
"Today, the giant impact hypothesis for forming the Earth–Moon system is widely accepted by the scientific community. In this hypothesis, the impact of a Mars-sized body (Theia) on the proto-Earth is postulated to have put enough material into circumterrestrial orbit to form the Moon."
If that could work for the Moon then it might just work on a larger scale for Jupiter and Venus
For myself I doubt that explanation of the Moon for various reasons including the apparent greater age of Moon rocks and various geometric proportions and placements
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 6:39:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 8:34:34 GMT
I think if you move a tennis ball around a central point while showing the same face to the center that the tennis ball does actually rotate relative to an outside observer. Thus the moon rotates at the right speed (apart from wobbles) to show more or less the same face at all times >where did the english get the "mile' from anyways? I thought that it was well known that God is an Englishman For more detail read Civilisation One by our friend Christopher Knight en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_OneHe accidentally demonstrates that the furnishings of the traditional Masonic temple contain the instruments necessary for establishing accurate measures for time, weight, volume and distance anywhere on the planet
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Mar 2, 2008 10:01:10 GMT
"Today, the giant impact hypothesis for forming the Earth–Moon system is widely accepted by the scientific community. In this hypothesis, the impact of a Mars-sized body (Theia) on the proto-Earth is postulated to have put enough material into circumterrestrial orbit to form the Moon."
I'm with Bro Russell on this, I have extreme doubts about this hypothesis too..
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 10:27:11 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 10:36:01 GMT
Thus the moon rotates at the right speed (apart from wobbles) to show more or less the same face at all times The moon orbits the earth (which rotates): It does not itself rotate on an axis. Its lack of rotation suggests an asymmetry in the distribution of its mass (think, loaded dice).
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 11:25:03 GMT
>It does not itself rotate on an axis.
I think that is from the perspective of Earth rather than for an outside observer. See Reply 36
"The Earth’s moon rotates (spins on its axis), every 27.32166 Earth days. It revolves around the Earth in the exact same period - every 27.32166 Earth days. Because of the synchronization of revolutionary and rotational periods, the same portion of the moon’s surface is always directed toward the Earth. "
There is some argument that the Earth's tides cause a synchronisation of the Moon's rotational speed with the orbit period. I need to think about that a bit more
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2008 16:17:25 GMT
"The Earth’s moon rotates (spins on its axis), every 27.32166 Earth days. It revolves around the Earth in the exact same period - every 27.32166 Earth days. Because of the synchronization of revolutionary and rotational periods, the same portion of the moon’s surface is always directed toward the Earth. " Please provide your source (and look-up at the moon). The Moon revolves on its axis, rather than orbits the Earth, every 27.32166 days, the same way a mirror reverses rather than reflects (in which case, we would eventually see both sides of the Moon and images on a flat mirror would appear upside-down ). If the Moon spins on any axis, it is Earth's and that is how it would appear to an outside observer. BTW: According to your description, I think we ought to see the whole surface of the moon over a period of 2.72 years (the same period it takes between " Blue Moons").
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2008 22:17:23 GMT
www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae390.cfm>the same way a mirror reverses rather than reflects (in which case, we would eventually see both sides of the Moon and images on a flat mirror would appear upside-down ). Again your rationality leaves me defeated On the other hand you could try the experiment in Reply 36
|
|