It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Venus be the next Earth?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by radarloveguy
 


Demise of the Earth in my lifetime? NO but eventually yes. Eventually meaning millions of years from now unless humans continue to spew toxins into the Earths atmosphere like we do everyday.

You also said that there are 90,000 synthetic chemicals sterilizing this planet... do you have a list of these chemicals? Or is this a made up number you came up with? Just curious


Stari




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by radarloveguy
 


You posted while I was writing my reply to you. Yes, Venus is too close to the Sun right now to evacuate Earth to Venus. But like I have already posted in years to come, thousands maybe millions, maybe hundreds of years we will need to go there. This is something that scientist do need to consider, at least in my opinion.

Stari



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 


Are you kidding me? The future of humanity should never ever be left up to JUST scientists. If we did that then we humans and all life forms on this planet would certainly die off.

So are you trying to tell all of ATS that you never ever think what if before you do something that could potentially effect another life?

My thoughts are based on at least 17 years of research into many different forms of science. What are your thoughts based on?

Is that seriously what you think of when you think about God?

Stari



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by radarloveguy
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 


Venus is too close to the sun.
It has no breathable air.
Gravity is too strong there....

Gravity is not too strong.

It is about 90% Earth's gravity, therefore (ignoring the boiling heat and crushing air pressure for the moment) moving around on Venus would be very much like moving around on Earth, speaking strictly from the standpoint of gravity.

...and Venus may not be too close to the Sun "technically" to have a habitable temperature. There are other reasons that Venus is boiling hot besides being closer to the Sun than the Earth is -- i.e., its thick atmosphere traps in the solar radiation.

Venus is actually hotter than Mercury -- this is because of its atmosphere and not because of its position relative to the Sun.

There are places in Venus' upper atmosphere that have temperatures (and pressures) very similar to Earth.

[edit on 11/2/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

There are places in Venus' upper atmosphere that have temperatures (and pressures) very similar to Earth.


I have read this before as well. This is what brings me to believe the closer Venus gets to the Goldilocks Zone the more Venus will become more habitable. I could be wrong but it is my theory.

This is why I posted this here... in case I am wrong then ATS can help me figure this out.

Stari



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Not only that but Venus is a perfect example of global warming. It's atmosphere is full of greenhouse gasses which make the planet hotter than it would be if it had a thinner atmosphere. Venus is actually the hottest planet, more so than mercury because of it's atmosphere.


Venus is the hottest planet. Its average surface temperature is 464 degrees Celsius. Its atmosphere has thick, pale, yellow clouds of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Carbon dioxide traps heat and prevents it from escaping to space. The heating of the atmosphere produces strong winds of more than 300 kilometers per hour in the upper atmosphere. This is also due to the dense atmosphere


Source


On Mercury temperatures can get as hot as 430 degrees Celsius during the day and as cold as -180 degrees Celsius at night.


Source

Atmosphere plays a huge part in temperature.

If mars had a nice thick atmosphere (without too much pressure and the right make up) It would also be in the "Goldilocks" zone for supporting life.


[edit on 2-11-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
Thank you for your input. Can you please repost that link? It is not working.


Sure, here's a different link from the BBC


Astronomers have calculated that there is a tiny chance that Mars or Venus could collide with Earth - though it would not happen for at least a billion years.

Source


Here's another one from COSMOS with more info.


PARIS: A force known as orbital chaos may cause our Solar System to go haywire, leading to possible collision between Earth and Venus or Mars, says a study.

Source


From the theregister


A new study in the June 11 issue of Nature predicts there's a real, albeit slim possibility of a planetary smash-up inside the inner solar system, largely thanks to Mercury's distinctly lopsided orbit.


It seems the planetary orbits are finely balanced, if one goes out of whack then that could destabilize the whole solar system.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The Sun is what makes photosynthesis possible and we need this process to grow food. So with Mars being at a distance of 227.9 million km away from the Sun. It can no longer produce plant life. But since science has told us that all bodies in our Solar System is moving away from our Sun we know that in a few million years our planet will leave what scientists have called the Goldilocks Zone and Venus will be the next planet in line for the Goldilocks Zone. Perhaps by that time it will become a more sustainable planet for life to thrive on. Am I wrong in this line of thinking?

To Yizzel: Thank you for the workable links. I really enjoyed the video one. I wish I could find a real time simulation of our Solar System for a screen saver. I mean the actual images of our planets moving in the same orientation as ours is. But to get back to the topic at hand... This collision is predicted for billions of years from now... I am speaking millions of years from now. But great info thank you! It does though make me wonder now about that topic... how everything moving in our solar system effects our planet and all of our solar system. Thank you for sharinig!

Stari



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If you are really interested in the history of these planets then the book "Worlds in Collision" by Immaneul Velikovsky is a must read.

Over a year ago the controversial question, "Was the Planet Venus a Comet?" caught my eye. I thought that this was a ridiculous question but the responses were even more so, so I started doing some research on the planet Venus and comets. A friend of mine insisted I read Velikovsky's book which I finally did, I remember thinking I had no time for science fiction reading at that time. What I learned was remarkable and it has forever changed how I view astronomy and mythology.

Not only is the scientific explanation of comets totally incorrect so is our understanding of how the solar system was formed. The evidence that has been gathered from the last few decades shows that Venus is a new introduction to our solar system, and so are many periodic comets. Venus has no magnetic field yet its atmosphere is 90 times more dense. Periodic comets show the same problem, they don't have a magnetic field to protect them from the solar wind yet they are supposed to be billions of years old. They should have been stripped down to nothing along time ago along with Venus' atmosphere. This contradicts what we know about our solar system yet is just the tip of the ice berg.

Here is a link to some of the research I posted on ATS, "Was Venus A Comet?".



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
The Sun is what makes photosynthesis possible and we need this process to grow food. So with Mars being at a distance of 227.9 million km away from the Sun. It can no longer produce plant life. But since science has told us that all bodies in our Solar System is moving away from our Sun we know that in a few million years our planet will leave what scientists have called the Goldilocks Zone and Venus will be the next planet in line for the Goldilocks Zone. Perhaps by that time it will become a more sustainable planet for life to thrive on. Am I wrong in this line of thinking?


I think you are wrong in your thinking, what you are claiming might be correct but your thinking is very limited and is subjected to these claims being possibly false. The whole idea of the "Goldilocks Zone" is extremely limited and should be considered worthless. We have just begun to explore the solar system, man has only been as far as the Moon (spending only a few hours there) and since we have not found life concluded that it isn't there. We have so much yet to learn and limiting our ability is not productive in the least.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Found this, though the article is about 6 months old.


Probe hints at past Venus ocean



A European probe orbiting Venus has new data that indicates the planet may once had a lot of water on its surface and even had a system of plate tectonics.

The Venus Express craft has returned infrared maps that show heat variations among the surface rocks.

Source


I find Venus a fascinating planet. It's been said, Venus & Earth are twin worlds, makes you wonder why the conditions there are so different to Earth.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by yizzel]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Stari
 


Actually photosynthesis would be possible on mars. Its very cold there though.

You are wrong in the line of thinking that Venus will one day be habitable. Unfortunately even if Venus where to move where the earth is now it would still be impossible. The reason is because of all the heavy gasses that make up the atmosphere now are not going to have anywhere to go, therefore Venus will still have a sulfuric acid / CO2 atmosphere with crushing pressure. The average temperature now is 464 degrees c. If it where in earth's place it would still cook you, there would be no oxygen, the atmosphere alone is like dropping a car on your head (literally like diving to the bottom of the ocean with only a pair of swim trunks), and the air is a toxic acidic fume. Venus is not a good candidate for the next blue planet.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Yes, I could be all wrong with my thinking and that is why I am posting here to hear all of your opinions.

Thank you all!!!

Stari



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
OP, You may find theses old threads interesting:

The sun is pregnant!

Gas giant planets create moons and spit them out?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Stari
 


First off stop lieing. 17 years of research and you think the Sun produces planets like a factory line.

This thread is just pointless and not helping anything. 17 years research to make a thread on this website. Congratulations you've wasted your time.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Stari
 


I wasn't trying to shut you down, my post was an attempt to inspire. The fact remains that we know almost nothing about Venus. Most of the information that I found pertaining to the planet was from the only successful probe landings on the surface from the Russian Venera Missions.

I believe your thinking is wrong because you are basing your ideas on the limitations of what we have been told and this is incorrect. The idea that Venus' heat is due to greenhouse gas effects is nothing but speculation and wrong in my opinion. I have a few questions about Venus for those here that think they know what they're talking about.
Where did Venus get such a think atmosphere?
How come it is 90 times more dense than Earth's even though there is no magnetic field to protect it?
Did Venus ever have a magnetic field and if it did what happened to it?
Why does Venus have a tidal lock (same side faces Earth at inferior conjunction) with Earth and an orbital resonance (8:13)?
Why is Venus' surface so new even though there is no evidence of volcanic activity?
Why does Venus have a retrograde rotation (it spins clockwise)?

Those are questions off the top of my head and I think one could write a book on what we don't know about or closest neighbor. We don't know if there is life there or not, it could be in the upper atmosphere floating in the clouds. Remember with an atmosphere so think it would be like liquid on the surface, one could literally swim in it. Objects could easily float on the upper clouds.

Don't get me wrong about your ideas, I have a similar theory. It is hard to do research on Venus, or any other planet for that matter, when we know so little and the arrogance of science thinks they know it all. The accretion disk theory of solar system formation makes no sence. It is much more likely that planets were ejected out of large rotating bodies, like the Sun, due to high centrifugal forces.

Hope that this helps.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Many years ago I read an article published by Carl Sagan (if memory serves), on the proposed colonization of Venus using technology available then.

His proposal was in stages:
  1. Cool down:
    He argued that by using spacecraft (rockets at the time), we could manage to grab hold of asteroids in the asteroid belt or passing comets, tugging them into the Venusian atmosphere. The reasoning was that over a long period of such activity, the ice would absorb enough heat to cool the planet to some degree, as well as introducing water into the atmosphere.

  2. Removal of greenhouse gases:
    Once enough water had been added into the atmosphere to allow rain to form, hardy algae forms were to be introduced. Using the high CO2 levels, high heat, and the water introduced in Step 1, the algae would begin producing oxygen and removing CO2, in process reducing the greenhouse gases and leading to slowly cooling temperatures.

  3. Further conditioning of the atmosphere:
    Once the blue-green algae were in place and thriving, lowering the average temperature, additional plant life could be introduced, starting with the more hardy strains and eventually working down to the plant life that required more precise temperature/water conditions. This would bring the CO2 level and temperature to a level that would allow for the next step.

  4. Animal life:
    Once the CO2 level had been lowered sufficiently, insect life could be introduced, allowing the atmospheric conditions to stabilize into a more earth-like environment.

  5. Colonization:
    With the atmosphere bearing a closer resemblance to earth, he believed the planet would become a good place to colonize. The article admitted that the equatorial conditions would probably still be too hot for human habitation, but it was believed that the temperate areas would have a similar habitability levels as the tropics on earth and the polar regions would be more like northern/southern temperate regions.

I really wish I had kept that article, but today I do not really even remember where it was published. Perhaps someone else knows. I am not going to say I believe this would work; it seemed at the time as though it hadn't really been thought out as well as it should have. But I think it is interesting that the whole concept of colonizing Venus has been deemed too hard while colonization of Mars is still being seriously considered.

As someone who vastly prefers warm to cold temperatures, I think I would like Venus better.


TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



[edit on 11/3/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I grew up listening to Carl Sagan and I have always enjoyed his work, he is among the few cosmologists that have kept an open mind. I would like to point out some problems with his proposal though.

One problem with the Cool Down part of his idea has to do with what is causing all of the heat. The theory is that the massive amount of heat is because of a runaway greenhouse effect but this is just a guess and a poor one at that. I realize that carbon dioxide holds in some of the heat from the Sun but 900 *F is ridiculous and this doesn't explain what's driving the high winds in the atmosphere.

Following an Electric Universe model the high amount of energy has to do with Venus' rotation. Retrograde rotation in an electric field would cause friction and heat up whatever is spinning backwards, it would be like attempting to stop a motor by grabbing the rotating shaft.

There is sufficient evidence showing that Venus has not been there for 4.5 billion years and that it has physical connections with Earth (e.g. tidal lock and orbital resonance) not to mention the historical myths found around the world about that planet.

In the theory for solar mass ejection for the creation of planets the direction of orbit and rotation should match its parent star. This goes for planets as well because they also create moons in the same way. The fact that the rotation of Venus is different than all the other planets (except for Uranus which is a different part of the same story) suggests that it did not originate like the others.

Every ancient civilization on Earth all have myths that tell the story about the disturbed orbits of Venus, Mercury, Mars, Earth and our Moon. It has been the goal of science to dismiss all of this evidence as ignorant superstition ever since.

Another problem with the Cool Down idea has to do with the composition of asteroids and comets. They are not snowballs nor ice balls, in fact they contain almost no water in any form. The facts have repeatedly proven that science does not know what they are talking about when it comes to astronomy and cosmology and Venus is no exception.

Stari, if you have already put that much time into researching this and have not yet read anything by Velikovsky then I highly suggest spending a little more time and read at least "Worlds in Collision". If you enjoy alternative theories like I do then you will love this book.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Not only would you need to remove all the CO2 from the Venusian atmosphere but you would have to find a us lacks carbonaway to keep it from coming back. Venus lacks carbonates (CaCO3) which which is what stores the vast majority of CO2 on Earth.

And as far as ancient oceans......not likely. The crust on Venus is only about 500 Ma (millions of years old) which is ridiculously young when looking at planets outside of Earth. This was most likely cause by widespread volcanism (we're talking thousands of big volcanoes, maybe even hundreds of thousands).

And as for plate tectonics.......not likely. Venus probably lacks an asthenosphere, which is what lies between the lithosphere (crust) and mantle. This was evidenced after the Magellan mission mapped Venus.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Devino

Sagan always was able to explain cosmic phenomena in such a way as to be understandable by the masses. That, I believe, was his greatest attribute. There are minds which have an even firmer grasp of the intricacies of the Universe than his, to be sure, but they typically cannot communicate their knowledge as well as Mr. Sagan.

Of course his proposal won't work as described; if I gave the impression I was advocating we stop everything and go blindly with something I read in the late70s/early 80s, please forgive me. I do think he had some good ideas that could perhaps be incorporated into any attempt to terraform Venus, however. We simply know more about the Venusian and cometary/asteroid conditions today than we knew back then.

I do think it was amazing that such a detailed proposal was made that long ago, which was why I posted it.

Oh, on another note: you bring up "Worlds in Collision". I highly recommend that read to anyone interested in the history of our astronomical neighbors. Like Sagan's proposal on Venus, it is a little out of date, but still provides a lot of interesting information on what may have happened when the world was young.

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join