When was Venus first seen?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Although the transfer from Venus to Earth is marginal at best I did up the amount by a factor of 100 and I assumed that to happen each year even though that only happened twice in about 110 years. I'd have to say that allowing for over 5000 times the transfer is a good "safety factor".

If you check out the article you'll see that the reason that the transfer is as large as it is comes from the fact that the ions are affected by the magnetosphere. Anyways check through the math in the paper to make sure I didn't misread what's there.

Really? You are going to throw up a strawman argument? This is bad, bad form.

Here is what this is all about.

If we were to follow mainstream science's track record over the past 15 centuries I think some ancient myths might be considered more accurate.

Strawman argument? Not at all. This is a direct response to a statement. Is it wrong to try and elicit a response? It's likely with the limited exchange I am missing an important idea that the speaker has in mind. Maybe my examples have nothing at all to do with what the person is thinking?

Comets were supposed to be messages from the gods. They were unpredictable visual events that appear in the sky. And what? You ask me where that belief came from. Do you have a proposal?

Fallacies are ignorance. Use of them in debate speaks volumes to the position of the person using them.

Innuendos speak volumes to the position of the person using them. You did not point out a fallacy.

Originally posted by stereologist
To claim that ancient myths might be more accurate is simply wrong. Are you saying that the claim that the planets are gods is more accurate? Are you suggesting that the sun is actually a chariot is more accurate? Are you saying that comets are the harbingers of disaster is more accurate? I don't think that you believe any of these things to be more accurate.

You are correct, my comment was wrong but it was to bring up a point which I hope you got. Do not assume that something cannot happen simply because mainstream science says it's impossible. I do like the idea of the planets being gods but that is a different subject and not one of science.

1. Total global resurfacing with no evidence of current volcanic activity

We know 1 is false since recent volcanic flows have been recorded on the surface of Venus by the mapping satellites we sent there.

I don't think I could argue your source on this one but your statement is ambiguous.
"recent volcanic flows have been recorded on the surface of Venus"
Flows have not been recorded but evidence in favor has been found.
Thanks for the link though.
MIT News. Volcanic Venus.
I wonder how accurate their estimate is.

The scientists believe that the lava flows have such a high emissivity because they are fresh — no more than 250 years to 2.5 million years old. They determined this range by using Magellan data to estimate the volume of the lava flows in the hot spot regions. They then divided the estimated volume levels by various rates of resurfacing that support the estimated date of the planet’s most recent resurfacing event. The results provide an estimated age range for the lava flows.

Keep in mind the current assumption is that Venus is 4.6 billion years old, my point is that this could very well be wrong. They also are under the assumption that this global resurfacing is 500 million years old which, they claim in the article, is how they derived some of their estimates for volcanic activity. This may be wrong as well.

4. Retrograde rotation and tidal locks with Earth

Number 4 is false. The tidal locks are with the sun, which is a really good indication that Venus has been in a stable orbit for a long time.

No planet has a tidal lock with our Sun. The Moon has a tidal lock with Earth and Venus has a tidal lock with Earth.

Venus' tidal lock with Earth means the same side always faces Earth during close approaches. It is about 2.6 orbits for Venus between inferior conjunctions (to Earth's 1.6) and 2.4 retrograde rotations between the same. In other words at every close approach the same side of Venus faces Earth.

Here is an Applet demonstration.
It starts off fast so hit the medium speed tab on the lower bar.

The white dot is Venus and blue is Earth. Venus has a white line indicating the side that faces Earth at each close approach. I did the math on this some time ago and found that it does work out to within a very small margin of error.

5. Apparent orbital resonance with Earth (8:13 ratio)

Number 5 would indicate that the planet has been there a really, really long time.

Orbital resonance and tidal locks are evidence of a gravitational connection between these two planets, not evidence that they have been there a really long time. This evidence that I am showing here seems to indicate that Venus has not been there a long time, not anywhere close to 4.6 billion years, and that it has a complicated orbital connection with Earth.


[edit on 5/12/2010 by Devino]

Originally posted by stereologist
I don't believe anyone would have ever used a 30 day lunar month. In 6 lunar months you'd notice that the calendar was no longer working. By a year you'd be predicting a new moon and seeing a first quarter.

You bring up a very good point here but, believe it or not, the fact remains that calendars with 30 day Lunar months were used in antiquity. It is not hard to find a few articles written about these calendars of 360 day years and these calendars had 12 lunar months of 30 days each.

Your point here that a mistake is obvious was presented well by Velikovsky as this was his point also. The ancient astronomers knew their stuff. They had some amazingly accurate calendars, some even more accurate then ours today, and they build extremely precise megalithic structures that aligned with astronomical objects and times. To assume that this calendar they used was simply an error on their part is ludicrous. They would have noticed to say the least.


I was thinking about this post of yours and did the math myself arriving at more accurate numbers.

A tropical year is 365.24219 days.
A synodic Lunar month is 29.53059. (according to Wiki Sources)

So if we do the math and add in 3 more Lunar months over an 8 year period we come up with 99 Lunar months (12*8+3=99).

99 Lunar months equal 2923.5 days (29.53054*99=2923.52841)

8 tropical years equal 2921.9 days (365.24219*8=2921.93752)

Which is a difference of 1.59 days over 8 years. After 32 years this Lunar calendar would be off by almost a week. I just cannot assume that this was a simple oversight nor that this was the best they could do. I see this as potential evidence for a global event.

You wrote

WOW! The origin of our current system of measures for both time and Geo-coordinate space does not matter? I must be an exception to this then because I think it very much does matter.

My answer was
The 360 or so days in a year is driven by astronomy. So the numbers are not really the same. It's really a coincidence.

The coincidence I see is with the 8 year cycle for a 360 day Lunar calendar. Even with this it seems to point to another resonance with Venus in the 8:13 ratio.

From these quotes of yours below, with links, it is evident that the Earth's rotation does change and can therefore be changed. It is not only possible but it is proven.

Does anybody really know what time it is?
Basically the earth is slowing down in its rotation....

...tidal friction makes the Earth slow and the moon move away....
GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION AND THE MOON’S ORBIT

You have also presented a nice PDF article on the possibility of Venus depositing life onto Earth. I haven't had the time to go over that carefully but it seem they are showing evidence that it could happen under the right circumstances and conditions.

Here is an article on Venus which I am using as a reference for information on the tail.
On the possibility of microbiota transfer from Venus to Earth

So through strong tidal effects an object like the size of Venus could have altered the Earth's rotational speed and it could also have deposited a lot of material onto Earth including micro and maybe even macro organisms along with water, dirt, rocks and perhaps even hydrocarbons. This only shows that a scenario could be possible for a sudden change on Earth due to another celestial body such as Venus.

Subsequently there are myths found around the world that relate quite explicitly to all of the possible scenarios. Could there have been witnesses to such an event and is this what all of these myths around the world are describing? Well this is the summary of what Velikovsky presented in his book that I read.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by Devino]

reply to post by Devino

From these quotes of yours below, with links, it is evident that the Earth's ration does change and can therefore be changed. It is not only possible but it is proven.

We know that the rate changes, but it changes very, very slowly and is slowing down, not speeding up. That is why the atomic clocks require small adjustments from time to time. The time on the clocks is adjusted to match the motions of the Earth.

The ancients were observing stars. They would measure sidereal years.

I'll have to review the rest of your post later.

Originally posted by stereologist
We know that the rate changes, but it changes very, very slowly and is slowing down, not speeding up.

This is where I could use help in better understanding how these figures are arrived at and thus I thank you for your replies. Information from your link on Geological constraints on the Precambrian period looks at sedimentation and such to calculate rotational periods (I have yet to take the time to read all of that one). Modern equipment has also been used to calculate these slow progressing/digressing figures such as atomic clocks and the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.

ADD; Just to clear up my point, I am not claiming that the Earth's rotation is being altered and thus a slow change is occurring over time that differs from these estimates. My claim is that the length of Earth's year (orbit and/or rotational speed), has changed at least one time due to a celestial event.

Notice that the data from all of these sources is estimating a change in rotational periods over hundreds of millions of years. I assume all of the sediment samples were taken from layered depths that have been dated tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. Precise measurements by equipment like atomic clocks do find subtle changes and this corroborates other estimates by extrapolating these small changes from this very narrow field of information.

I don't think either of these manners of data collection focus on the last 10,000 years or, better yet, around the suspected 3000 BC. There has been enormous amounts of data collected for an event that happened 13,000 years ago which drastically changed the global climate, caused a mass extinction and dramatically altered much of the North American continent geologically. The evidence here is mind blowing, just do a Google for key words; 12,900 years ago, Clovis event, Younger dryas - black mat, etc...

The ancients were observing stars. They would measure sidereal years.

I have read information about the way ancient Egyptian astronomers measured time and it was both tropical and sidereal measures. The Egyptians built temples, Karnak is one I think, that enabled a person to take precise measurements of the rising Sun on the Vernal equinox and as such they measured Earth's precession. It was by observing what constellation was rising just before sunrise that determined what astrological age we were in (back then it was Taurus I believe). What is further interesting is that some of these huge temples were rebuilt several times over the centuries so that they could be realigned to the precessing stars. The measure of precession of the equinoxes is the difference between a tropical year and a sidereal year and the knowledge of this understanding is well established in the alignments/realignments of these temples. Realignment of these huge temples was no easy task BTW.

As far as I can tell these early calendar measurements use the Earth's tropical year. Even so I also did the calculations for Earth's Sidereal year (365.256 363 days) and anomalistic year (365.259 636) and still came to a difference over an 8 year period. The tropical year has a 1.59 day difference while a sidereal year is 1.477 and anomalistic year is 1.45 which is still a large enough error to notice in one persons lifetime.

After all of this I still don't think we have an answer to the original question about Venus. In my opinion there is plenty of good reason to take a close look at the possibility of a sudden change in the length of Earth's year in the last 10,000 years. Since there appears to have been written accounts for a sudden change we should look at the time period of these recordings.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by Devino]

Oh boy... where to start?

There's rock art showing Venus that is very ancient (the Mayan calendars aren't THAT ancient (a few thousand years) -- the Egyptian ones are older, of course. Those are simply records from civilizations that had the art of writing.

There are a few archaeoastronomy sites that suggest there was some sort of sky observation (some of them up to 10,000 years old) but I find much of the information to be somewhat "iffy."

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by stereologist
We know that the rate changes, but it changes very, very slowly and is slowing down, not speeding up.

Information from your link on Geological constraints on the Precambrian period looks at sedimentation and such to calculate rotational periods (I have yet to take the time to read all of that one)....

ADD; Just to clear up my point, I am not claiming that the Earth's rotation is being altered and thus a slow change is occurring over time that differs from these estimates.

But that is what the data actually says. The day is getting slightly longer every year and every dozen leap years or so, clocks on the Earth have to be adjusted slightly to take into account the longer day. Events like earthquakes (depending on where they are) also change the length of the day:
www.businessweek.com...

My claim is that the length of Earth's year (orbit and/or rotational speed), has changed at least one time due to a celestial event.

Yes, when the meteor that hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous landed, putting a final period to the Age of the Dinosaurs.

I don't think either of these manners of data collection focus on the last 10,000 years or, better yet, around the suspected 3000 BC.

They use a lot of different methods to measure data. 3000 BC is well within the time limit when there were a number of literate civilizations with their own scientists and historians and priests who were writing stuff down.

There has been enormous amounts of data collected for an event that happened 13,000 years ago which drastically changed the global climate, caused a mass extinction and dramatically altered much of the North American continent geologically. The evidence here is mind blowing, just do a Google for key words; 12,900 years ago, Clovis event, Younger dryas - black mat, etc...

The "impact event" is not proven and actually has a lot of weak data for it. For one thing, the extinctions occurred over thousands of years... not in a few years' time (the last of the mammoths died around 4,000 years ago.)

It was by observing what constellation was rising just before sunrise that determined what astrological age we were in (back then it was Taurus I believe).

They had no constellation of "Taurus."

The "observe the constellation that was rising to determine what astrological age we are in" idea is something from the late 19th and 20th centuries. Here's what they drew (and notice that you really can't figure out the constellations; they were very bad astronomers):
www.catchpenny.org...

What is further interesting is that some of these huge temples were rebuilt several times over the centuries so that they could be realigned to the precessing stars.

Alas, they were rebuilt (as it shows in their interiors) when pharaohs decided to appropriate their ancestors' temples and make them their own. The famous Ramses palimpest at Abydos is a good example of that.

The tropical year has a 1.59 day difference while a sidereal year is 1.477 and anomalistic year is 1.45 which is still a large enough error to notice in one persons lifetime.

Although Egypt used the solar calendar, they did have a problem with "drift." Julius Caesar used their method along with consultations from a Roman astronomer in his calendar reform of 46 BC; the basis of our modern calendar. It had to be adjusted, too (during the time of George Washington)
en.wikipedia.org...

After all of this I still don't think we have an answer to the original question about Venus.

The low eccentricity of the orbit indicates it's been there billions of years -- probably since the beginning of the solar system.

In my opinion there is plenty of good reason to take a close look at the possibility of a sudden change in the length of Earth's year in the last 10,000 years.

The data is against you there, unless you're talking about microsecond changes.

reply to post by Devino


The idea is shown here where it is possible to look at the growth of biological materials and count bands that show time frames.
Sclerochronology

So the data does not show rates over long periods of time, but rather short term rates that can be used to infer the slowing down of the earth. For example, a coral can be used to tell us that there were 380 days in a year. That is what the coral tells us.

If there were a sudden change in the number of days in a year it would be seen in corals and shells.

I have to agree that it would take a tremendous amount of energy to drastically change the number of days in a year such as a "killer impact" that happened close to the K-T boundary.

Originally posted by Byrd
There's rock art showing Venus that is very ancient...

There are a few archaeoastronomy sites that suggest there was some sort of sky observation (some of them up to 10,000 years old) but I find much of the information to be somewhat "iffy."

This would be some interesting and potentially useful information to this thread.

The "impact event" is not proven and actually has a lot of weak data for it.

I am not suggesting an "impact event" and I agree with you, there is lack of evidence for an impact. From what I have read about the samples taken from this "black mat" layer is that they are missing any shocked quartz which is an indicator of impacts. These samples, however, are full of nano-diamonds and nano-spheres of iron and carbon.

Electricity, such as lightning, can form diamonds and carbon spheres but something as large as the Clovis event that spread nano-diamonds all over North America must have been far greater than simple atmospheric lightning. There is other evidence of an electrical event in the phenomena known as "Carolina Bays" which can be found on the East coast in the Carolinas, Southern New Mexico, Argentina in South America and parts of Africa. It has been demonstrated that these 'bays' can be created, on a smaller scale, with electrical arcing.

They had no constellation of "Taurus."
The "observe the constellation that was rising to determine what astrological age we are in" idea is something from the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Interesting, I was using information pertaining to the Dendera Zodiac but reading about this on Wiki has shown a much earlier date for that relief and the origins of the zodiac depicted there is credited to Babylonia. As I look for information of the origins of the Zodiac I find a whole slew of claims with no real definitive answer.

Never-the-less the astrological age of Taurus was between the 2nd and 4th millennium BC. Presently we are nearing the end of the age of Pisces by measure of a heliacal rising during Vernal equinox.

Here's what they drew (and notice that you really can't figure out the constellations;
catchpenny.org

I've looked at this image before. Are the figures across the bottom representing the planets?
In the lower middle I see a figure (Horus?) 'sighting in' what looks like a bull. Does this animal figure represent a different constellation other than Taurus, like Ursa Major perhaps?

they were very bad astronomers):

I suppose that this means you don't subscribe to the theory that the ancients aligned their monuments to the stars.

Although Egypt used the solar calendar, they did have a problem with "drift."

What is your take on the 360 day calendars as per the debate in this thread?

The low eccentricity of the orbit indicates it's been there billions of years -- probably since the beginning of the solar system.

If low eccentricity is a way of aging celestial bodies then this makes Venus the oldest planet in our solar system. The orbit of Venus is almost circular while the rest of the planets are elliptical with Mercury being the greatest.
It would seem that a new planetary orbit would show a low eccentricity (nearly circular) that eventually becomes elliptical over time due to the tidal effects of the other planets?

Devino I don't think you meant to say tidal effects cause an orbit to be more eccentric, rather the gravitation effects of the other planets affect the eccentricity of the orbit. An amazing display of complexity from such a simple rule of gravity don't you think.

I suppose that this means you don't subscribe to the theory that the ancients aligned their monuments to the stars.

I don't think it is that hard to do this. Some things are hard. Lots of things are not. North-south alignment is easy. That can be done in one day to great accuracy. Aligning something to an event that happens once a year takes more time and alignment to less frequent events takes lots of time.

The clue in all of this is to see a pattern and figure out that the pattern is really a pattern.

Originally posted by stereologist
Devino I don't think you meant to say tidal effects cause an orbit to be more eccentric, rather the gravitation effects of the other planets affect the eccentricity of the orbit. An amazing display of complexity from such a simple rule of gravity don't you think.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking about "tidal lock" and made this mistake.

To elaborate on this thought, if a planet were to come into the solar system, get caught by the Sun's gravity and make a new orbit I would think it would be highly elliptical and also have a fast perihelion precession. In other words its orbital path would loop around the Sun changing its perihelion rather quickly over time (similar to Mercury's orbit).

If this planet were to expel the momentum in its velocity onto neighboring planets (Earth/Moon, Mars and Mercury) a stable orbit around the Sun could be obtained. This orbit therefore could have a low eccentricity (nearly circular) until the gravity of the other planets corrupt this over time.

My point is that I don't understand how an orbit of low eccentricity is evidence of an old orbit in a system with multiple bodies. I would think that either way the planet would gain an ellipse to its orbit over time and not become less eccentric (closer to e=0).

reply to post by Devino


I thik the funniest mistake I ever made was writing 'doe snot' instead of 'does not'. Other people had a field day with that mistake. I think every post was funnier than the one before.

But back to the main issue. I'm not sure how you could tel. My thinking is that if the orbits of other planets changed, then there would be evidence of orbital changes. The only planet we have in depth information on is right here. I'm not sure what evidence would suggest a change in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit.

Another avenue of research would be in orbital mechanics. Energy and momentum have to be conserved. This must set limits on what can happen.

Very interesting issue to say the least.

reply to post by stereologist

Originally posted by stereologist
My thinking is that if the orbits of other planets changed, then there would be evidence of orbital changes. The only planet we have in depth information on is right here. I'm not sure what evidence would suggest a change in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit.

This was the idea behind the change in ancient calendars but with the evidence you linked that seems unlikely.

I would like to point out that there are two different ways the number of days per year can physically change. 1) Increase the rotational speed of the Earth, or 2) increase the orbital distance around the Sun. It seemed more likely the first was the case due to a decrease in the observed time for Lunar orbits. The difference between a current Lunar orbit and a 30 day orbit is 0.47 days multiplied by 12 months =5.64 (margin of error of 0.032 days per month). I'll have to give these relative motions more thought.

Since I have been learning about the orbital motions of Venus compared with Earth my interests in astronomy, and especially the planet Venus, has changed. Venus has now become one of my favorite planets and I think about all of this every time I see it in the night sky.

Another avenue of research would be in orbital mechanics. Energy and momentum have to be conserved.

I would love to see an animation on the orbital motions of the planets that would show the beginning of a planetary orbit in such a way. If I knew how to do such a thing I would, just to see if it is possible and still maintain a conservation of energy. I do understand your point on this issue and I agree, it must follow within the limits of these laws. I believe that it is possible.

Why did this thread die? I learned all kinds of things. I NEED MORE.

yeah i learned a lot from this, it was a great one! I still wonder about the connection between the Mayan calendar starting at 3114 BC and newgrange being built around 3200 BC. Newgrange was built for Venus and the Mayan Calendar was heavily influenced by Venus.

Interesting stuff really. I guess I'll go google.

what kind of stuff are you looking for? We can continue the discussion. I still do not have a good answer on the "Birth of Venus" regarding the Mayans and the start of their calendar. Also if you consider that Newgrange, which was built to keep track of Venus, was built within 100 years of the start of the Mayan Calendar and you have one hell of a mystery.

Haven't thought about this subject for a long time. I was glad someone finally brought in Velikovski.

The Greeks/Romans have Venus being born out of the head of Jupiter. I recall ancient writings of the approach of Venus - ostensibly when something hit Jupiter and Venus was ejected.

I believe that the idea was that both Venus and Mars were on highly elliptical orbits earlier, and periodic "near misses" terrified the ancients.

Forgive me, I'm going from memory here.

I also note the "two steeds of Mars" reference long before the two moons of Mars were discovered. The only way to know that is if our forefathers got a close enough look.

Note too, that everyone's asking where the water of Mars went? Well, if it came close enough, did you take a shower this morning?

Then some event altered the orbits of earth, mars and venus, with earth going to a 365 day year from a previous 360-day year, Venus inside Earth's orbit, and Mars stabilized where it resides now.

That scar on Jupiter?

It's possible you can see it with a fairly good telescope or high powered binoculars.

All speculation, but certainly matches recorded events with what we see.

reply to post by FarArcher


That is interesting, i didn't know that Venus was born out of Jupiter's head, i will have to research that.

What i wonder is why are Venus and Earth locked into a certain pattern (pentagram), and Mercury and Earth are locked into a certain pattern (Hexagram)?

I really think we need to look more into this, this could really hold some clues.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


There are multiple Mayan calendars. The long count calendar is not heavily influenced by Venus. The long count calendar is the one associated with 2012.