The Ancient Comet Goddess Venus

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
All the planets except Venus have the same direction of rotation. Only Venus' is different. The rotation is also unusually slow. Venus' surface anomalies remain unexplained, It has craters that appear the same size, indicating they all formed aboput the same time. The scientists explain that by a hypothesis that Venus periodically turns itself inside out and completely renews its surface. No such process is known to occur. -One could go on and on about Venus' anomalies that are unexplained, and it would be more convincing than "a comet cannot be that big."


Yes, but the theory about the surface of Venus that you are stating does not define a "Comet".

1) Rotational direction does NOT define a comet.

2) Rotational velocity does NOT define a comet.

3) Renewing of crustal surface from magma upwelling, again, does NOT define a comet.

The clockwise rotation of Venus is thought to be due to 2 different theories:


Venus may have formed from the solar nebula with a different rotation period and obliquity, reaching to its current state because of chaotic spin changes caused by planetary perturbations and tidal effects on its dense atmosphere, a change that would have occurred over the course of billions of years. The rotation period of Venus may represent an equilibrium state between tidal locking to the Sun's gravitation, which tends to slow rotation, and an atmospheric tide created by solar heating of the thick Venusian atmosphere.[65][66]


And the other popular theory involves a possible moon Venus may have had in the past:


Venus currently has no natural satellite,[69] though the asteroid 2002 VE68 presently maintains a quasi-orbital relationship with it.[70] In the 17th century Giovanni Cassini reported a moon orbiting Venus which was named Neith and there were numerous reported sightings over the following 200 years but it was ultimately determined that most were stars in the vicinity. Alex Alemi's and David Stevenson's 2006 study of models of the early Solar System at the California Institute of Technology shows that it is likely that billions of years ago Venus had at least one moon created by a huge impact event.[71][72] About 10 million years later, according to the study, another impact reversed the planet's spin direction and caused the Venusian moon gradually to spiral inward[73] until it collided and merged with Venus. If later impacts created moons these also were absorbed in the same way. An alternative explanation for the lack of satellites is the effect of strong solar tides, which can destabilize large satellites orbiting the inner terrestrial planets.[69]


Venus Orbit and Rotation

Venus is NOT the only planet in our solar system with "anomalies":

Mercury is a LOT more dense than most planetary models would have it be, and scientist are not sure why, all though theories exist to explain it, no one is quite sure just yet. Mercury also was thought to have no atmosphere, however Mariner 10 discovered it actually does have a super thin atmosphere. No one is sure why it keeps getting replenished.

The moons of Mars have not been fully explained. There are "capture" theories, "accretion" theories, and even "impact" theories. Each answer the question of where they came from, but for each theory, there are problems with each one too.

Saturn: has a hexagon shaped eyewall storm near it's north pole. There are a lot of theories as to why it looks this way, but it's still a big speculation as of today.

Uranus has a axial tilt of 97.77 deg: it rotates on it side. There are many theories as to how it ended up this way, but again, no one is quite sure (I like the impact theory myself).

Neptune: the planet's thermosphere is at an anomalously high temperature of about 750 K. There are some theories as to why, but again, no one is sure.

Even our very own planet has anomalies.........




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
That Venus' unique crater pattern "does not define a comet" is a valid point as far as it goes. However, we would be talking about a uniquely huge comet and should tailor our "comet" concepts accordingly. Cometary Venus could well have acquired its cratering pattern by passing through the asteroid belt on its way to its present orbit. -Scholars really need to revisit Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision." -It was thrown out at the time because it was shown that Velikovsky's chronolgy was wrong (ancient astronomical charts show Venus in its present orbit prior to the time frame Velikovsky assigned to the cometary Venus event). So they threw out his entire model with the voluminous evidence he'd amassed. An updated review of it could change ideas about it.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision." -It was thrown out at the time
Another reason why that book was tossed aside and ridiculed by mainstream scientists,archaeologists and historians,is because it greatly opposed a lot our enforced belief structures and theres no denying,that non-fiction book was ahead of its time when first published in 1950...
edit on 21-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
That Venus' unique crater pattern "does not define a comet" is a valid point as far as it goes. However, we would be talking about a uniquely huge comet and should tailor our "comet" concepts accordingly. Cometary Venus could well have acquired its cratering pattern by passing through the asteroid belt on its way to its present orbit. -Scholars really need to revisit Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision." -It was thrown out at the time because it was shown that Velikovsky's chronolgy was wrong (ancient astronomical charts show Venus in its present orbit prior to the time frame Velikovsky assigned to the cometary Venus event). So they threw out his entire model with the voluminous evidence he'd amassed. An updated review of it could change ideas about it.


No, the reason why the book was ridiculed was that he didn't have any evidence, he just had a lot of speculation that showed that he didn't understand astronomy. And that's why its still ridiculed.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
That Venus' unique crater pattern "does not define a comet" is a valid point as far as it goes. However, we would be talking about a uniquely huge comet and should tailor our "comet" concepts accordingly. Cometary Venus could well have acquired its cratering pattern by passing through the asteroid belt on its way to its present orbit. -Scholars really need to revisit Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision." -It was thrown out at the time because it was shown that Velikovsky's chronolgy was wrong (ancient astronomical charts show Venus in its present orbit prior to the time frame Velikovsky assigned to the cometary Venus event). So they threw out his entire model with the voluminous evidence he'd amassed. An updated review of it could change ideas about it.


If that is how you feel, then be proactive about it and contact the International Astronomical Union and state your case as to why you feel the term "Comet" should be revised:

International Astronomical Union

However, if your going to base your case on Venus passing through the asteroid belt, you are going to fail. The asteroids in the belt do not sit in a uniform pattern, nor is it dense enough to do what you are saying.

We know a LOT more about planetary evolution and formation now than we did in 1950. We also know a LOT more about Venus than we did in 1950.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
After some research, I am forced to withdraw my point about Venus's anomalous cratering pattern as being due to passage through the asteroid belt. However, I would only grant half an argumentative point to the scholarly consensus, because Venus' crater pattern is unique. highly anomalous, unexplained,and, together with other strange features in this Planet, SHOULD represent a clue pointing toward a very unusual past. -I'd further posit that we do not "know a lot more about Venus than we did in 1960 when Worlds in Collision was written, we only have more detailed observational data and more that needs to be explained, rather than "hypothesized away."



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by michaelanteski
That Venus' unique crater pattern "does not define a comet" is a valid point as far as it goes. However, we would be talking about a uniquely huge comet and should tailor our "comet" concepts accordingly. Cometary Venus could well have acquired its cratering pattern by passing through the asteroid belt on its way to its present orbit. -Scholars really need to revisit Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision." -It was thrown out at the time because it was shown that Velikovsky's chronolgy was wrong (ancient astronomical charts show Venus in its present orbit prior to the time frame Velikovsky assigned to the cometary Venus event). So they threw out his entire model with the voluminous evidence he'd amassed. An updated review of it could change ideas about it.


No, the reason why the book was ridiculed was that he didn't have any evidence, he just had a lot of speculation that showed that he didn't understand astronomy. And that's why its still ridiculed.
What real evidence do we have today,proving beyond all shadows of doubt,that Venus was not a Comet? Its as plain and simple as i cant really prove that Venus was a Comet and no one else can really prove that Venus was not a Comet and just because we probably have not yet detected massive sized Comets,doesnt mean they dont exist...

One thing is for sure,Venus contains and represents a lot of still unanswered mysteries and the information within the following links are mostly Theories...

The Comet Venus > www.redicecreations.com...

Venus Double Vortex Mystery Deepens > www.newscientist.com...

Why Does Venus Rotate Backwards From The Other Planets? > www.astronomycafe.net...

Planetary scientists still do not understand what causes the atmosphere of Venus to rotate 60 times faster than the planet itself.Mysterious Bright Spot Found On Venus > www.newscientist.com...
edit on 24-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The Greatest Mysteries Of Venus > www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
What real evidence do we have today,proving beyond all shadows of doubt,that Venus was not a Comet? Its as plain and simple as i cant really prove that Venus was a Comet and no one else can really prove that Venus was not a Comet and just because we probably have not yet detected massive sized Comets,doesnt mean they dont exist...

One thing is for sure,Venus contains and represents a lot of still unanswered mysteries and the information within the following links are mostly Theories...

The Comet Venus > www.redicecreations.com...

Venus Double Vortex Mystery Deepens > www.newscientist.com...

Why Does Venus Rotate Backwards From The Other Planets? > www.astronomycafe.net...

Planetary scientists still do not understand what causes the atmosphere of Venus to rotate 60 times faster than the planet itself.Mysterious Bright Spot Found On Venus > www.newscientist.com...
edit on 24-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


Read. Your. Sources. Your first one by the way is pure uninformed speculation. In fact its gibberish. Your other cites all raise the very real point that a) Venus is a planet and b) it's a planet that is far closer to the Sun than Earth is and as a result is a classic example of what happens when the greenhouse effect runs totally out of control.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
The Greatest Mysteries Of Venus > www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...


Which states that it's a planet. Congratulations! You just disproved your own argument!



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
After some research, I am forced to withdraw my point about Venus's anomalous cratering pattern as being due to passage through the asteroid belt. However, I would only grant half an argumentative point to the scholarly consensus, because Venus' crater pattern is unique. highly anomalous, unexplained,and, together with other strange features in this Planet, SHOULD represent a clue pointing toward a very unusual past. -I'd further posit that we do not "know a lot more about Venus than we did in 1960 when Worlds in Collision was written, we only have more detailed observational data and more that needs to be explained, rather than "hypothesized away."


I'll grant you that we need to learn more about Venus....if for no reason so our world doesn't end up like it!

However I would argue that yes, we DO know more about Venus than we did in 1960.

Knowledge is data. More data on Venus has been gathered, and as you noted, observed, and that increase of data means an increase in knowledge too.

As for having a unique past, I will not argue with you on that, since every planet in our solar system has it's very own, unique past. Many of the moons too for that mater.

Each planet was formed out of the same material surrounding our sun. However, due to where they formed, and the composition of the material where they formed, resulted in 8 unique planets. Each with their very own quirks.

But still, based upon the IAU definition of "Comet", Venus can not, nor ever has been a comet.
Even if right now, this very minute our telescopes were to show us a very large body, Venus sized, falling into our solar system, covered with ice, and as it get's close, that ice starts to heat up and sublimation occurs (a tail) from the solar wind pushing on it.....it STILL would NOT be called a "Comet".

All because it's too big.

Instead, it would be called a "Rogue Planet". "Planet" because of it's size. "Rogue" because it doesn't belong to our solar system and is moving through space, not anchored to another body.

Let's cut the size down. Let's say we have a body that is the same size as our moon. And better yet, let's say as we watch it, and yes, it has ice on it too that sublimates into a tail, but we also calculate it's orbit and it turns out to be a very long period orbit that takes it close to the sun, and then very far out again.

Guess what? It STILL would not be called a comet. It would most likely be called a Kuiper belt object, or a "Dwarf Planet".
Again, all because the IAU's definition of a comet is such that the name belongs to objects that are limited in size.

It is possible that if we ever did see an object like this, the IAU might make a new classification, and decide to call it a "Mega Comet", and that would be cool.

Now, if blocula here would like to suggest that Venus may have been a Kuiper Belt object or a Rogue Planet that fell into our system and was captured.......he might be taken more seriously. But only if he can provide sources other than a book published by one person.

Instead, it would be a good idea for him to actually sit down and calculate out the velocity and trajectory that would be needed and show either how or if it were possible. Assuming he knows enough about Orbital Mechanics.


Ah! But the good news is this: With computers that we have today, and the internet, it would actually be quite possible for him to both learn the subject AND use computers to do the calculations for him!



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Academic scholars always strictly adhere to the consensus overview, refusing to entertain the possibility it is overlooking important things. Velikovsky's 1950 book deserves an openminded updated review. -I think he had the wrong chronology for the cometary Venus event. He relied on ancient Hebrew folk legends heavily, and he believed the Venus event occurred at the time of the Exodus and the catastrophic event that occurred then, which scholars now agree occurred about 1500 BC. That was a regional cataclysm, severe enough in the eastern Mediterranean, where the Hebrews were (in Egypt). However, Hebrew legends also contain details that appear to relate to a more severe, world-scale-type cataclysm. I would posit that the Hebrew chroniclers gradually combined fold stories relating to two different events, and that Velikovsky picked the one in 1500 BC, which was wrong (ancient astronomical charts show Venus in its present orbit prior to that time.) A prior world scale catastrophe is entirely possible. Scholars continue to ignore the ancient evidence, and it looks like we will keep having this back-and-forth argument.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join