When was Venus first seen?

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


Actually the planets are not locked into these patterns. The orbits of the planets can show certain close ratios, but they are in fact not in this ratio.

Coincidental 'near' ratios of mean motion

If you read this section you will see that the actual ratio is 0.61518624, which is close to 8:13 and also to 5:8. It is the 5 in the numerator of the latter fraction that gives rise to the pentagram.

reply to post by FarArcher


Velikovsky's ideas were shown to be wrong half a century ago. His notion that myth is history has been shown to be wrong because the physics does not work. All of these claims of odd orbital interactions violate fundamental physical laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

It was an interesting notion that myth might be history, but it turns out to be an incorrect idea when tested.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
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.

When you do, you'll find that the myth involves Athena, not Venus (Aphrodite.)

Harte

reply to post by stereologist

Actually the planets are not locked into these patterns. The orbits of the planets can show certain close ratios, but they are in fact not in this ratio.

Maybe saying they are, "locked into", is a poor choice of words but then again so is "coincidental" as found in your Wiki link.

Coincidental 'near' ratios of mean motion

The orbital resonance of Venus/Earth being merely 'coincidental' is pure speculation. Perhaps this is just a coincidence or perhaps there is a physical reason for this. Right now we don't know. The mismatch between Venus and Earth after one pentagram cycle (8 Earth years) is indeed 1.5° out of 360° which equates to 2.44 days (Earth time) out of 2921.937 days. I would say that this is an orbital resonance but not commensurate.

Looking closer into this we find that this 'mismatch' adds up over time causing this whole pentagram to precess clockwise in cycles of 243 years.
Here is an image of this I made that helps describe this motion.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5117afad3ff6.jpg[/atsimg]
It takes point number 3 on the pentagram 243 years to precess to where point 1 now is and this motion is the same for the lower node crossing (December node).

The periodicity is a reflection of the fact that the orbital periods of Earth and Venus are close to 8:13 and 243:395 resonances

Wikipedia
Think of this pentagram moving in a clockwise motion which changes Venus' solar transit times. It takes 243 years for one of the five points in this star to realign with the node crossing Which equates to @365.25 Venus days. In other words, another orbital resonance pattern. Or could we call this a tidal lock orbital resonance pattern?

So this 'mismatch' of 2.44 days actually is a part of another orbital resonance, or near resonance if you like. The thing is I do not see simple coincidences here but rather evidence of a possible physical link in the past.

What about this "243:395 resonance" listed in my previous link? In 243 Earth years, the time it takes for a conjunction/node realignment, is also 395 Venus years to a margin of error of 0.8° or a little over 1 day out of 88,753.852 days (which is pretty f'in amazing in my book) and is also 365.24219 Venus days. In other words not only are the orbits of Venus and Earth in near perfect resonance in more than just one way but so are the days (rotations) in resonance with each others years. This gets rather confusing but I think if you understand these motions you will find that it is unlikely to be a mere coincidence.

ADD. I should point out that a Venus day is ambiguous as to have a small margin of error. This margin of error could throw off these estimated times.

The pattern of 105.5, 8, 121.5 and 8 years is not the only pattern that is possible within the 243-year cycle,

en.wikipedia.org...

(105.5+8+121.5+8=243)
This means that this pentagram takes 1215 years to make one full circle. Here again is another orbital resonance pattern of 1215 years yet it too is off by a little bit, although I can't recall exactly how much right now. The transit times are related to these apparent motions.

A transit occurs when Venus reaches conjunction with the Sun at or near one of its nodes

When a conjunction point (one point of the pentagram) is at the same point as a node crossing a transit occurs. Since this pentagram precession moves away from the node crossings we have a separation of 243 years. Keep in mind that there are two nodes (incline and decline) so there are two locations of transits, one in December and one in July according to Earth's calendar.

reply to post by Devino


Thank you for that post, you summarized it beautifully. It is very complicated and all very amazing. One other "coincidence" i like is that in 8 earth years, venus travels around the sun 13 times and 5 times earth and venus are at their closest points (which are the 5 points to map out the pentagram). This is important because of the Fibonacci series, 5 8 and 13 are all a part of it. Devino were you aware about the Mercury hexagon?

reply to post by Devino

Maybe saying they are, "locked into", is a poor choice of words but then again so is "coincidental" as found in your Wiki link.

I disagree. The choice of the word coincidental is a propoer statement. In reading the text we see that in many years this supposed integer ratio does not exist. It is a coincidence that the ratio is close to some fraction with simple coefficients. The choice of 8/13 is better than 5/8.

The orbital resonance of Venus/Earth being merely 'coincidental' is pure speculation.

Not true at all. The orbital observations and understanding of the orbits is not speculation, but has been worked out for hundreds of years with constant refinements allowing values to be worked out to many digits of precision. Of course it is well known how the mechanics of the solar system work. That is why probes can be sent to multiple planets with well known bypasses.

Looking closer into this we find that this 'mismatch' adds up over time causing this whole pentagram to precess clockwise in cycles of 243 years.

You obviously understand that there is not a ratio. Even at 243 years there is a close match up again. But still the ratio is not a simple integer ratio.

Or could we call this a tidal lock orbital resonance pattern?

It is unclear if there is a tidal lock since that would be a secondary effect after the tidal lock with the sun.

What about this "243:395 resonance" listed in my previous link?

Here is just another integer ratio which is close.

Here again is another orbital resonance pattern of 1215 years yet it too is off by a little bit

Again you point to something that is a coincidence and label it an orbital resonance pattern.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


The 5/8 ratio you have mentioned is an approximation which is off. That is why the drawing is not a 5 pointed object. If you were to trace it out you'd really get something more akin to a spirograph drawing. Even if the pattern is traced for thousands of years it does not return to the starting point.

The fact that a few numbers may be a part of a particular mathematical series is again coincidence. There is no connection.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012

Yes, this was something that I noticed while working through the Earth/Venus synodic periods. Here is a little approximation of Mercury's synodic periods with Earth.

There are two triangles, one is the alignments of inferior conjunctions and the other is from superior conjunctions that make up the star of David.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c5487621e36.jpg[/atsimg]

I also noticed a pattern of a triple conjunction (Earth, Venus and Mercury) around every 40 years or so but I didn't get too far into that.

reply to post by stereologist

Originally posted by Devino
Maybe saying they are, "locked into", is a poor choice of words but then again so is "coincidental" as found in your Wiki link.

I disagree. The choice of the word coincidental is a propoer statement.

Coincidental denounces the possibility of there having been a strong physical connection which we do not know to be true. Since we don't know if there ever was a physical connection or not then this makes it an assumption which is therefore speculative. The fact of the matter is we have neither proven a physical connection nor have we dis-proven one, yet.

In reading the text we see that in many years this supposed integer ratio does not exist.
...
You obviously understand that there is not a ratio. Even at 243 years there is a close match up again. But still the ratio is not a simple integer ratio.

I feel like we are arguing semantics. These potential orbital resonance patterns are not perfect ratios but they are close. Is there such a thing as a perfect natural orbital resonance? If there isn't then that would make the term redundant. Perhaps I should say, "A possible orbital resonance", from now on.

I would think that even if there was a perfect orbital resonance between two planets they would deviate over time through a transference of momentum especially in a multi-body system.

Here is a quote from your Wiki link.

The presence of a near resonance may reflect that a perfect resonance existed in the past, or that the system is evolving towards one in the future.

It is unclear if there is a tidal lock since that would be a secondary effect after the tidal lock with the sun.

No planet in this solar system has a tidal lock with the Sun. It was once thought that Mercury did but this has since been proven false.

The odd thing I see here is not only does Venus have a possible orbital resonance with Earth in more than one way but its "potential" tidal lock plays in with these resonating patterns. This makes it look like there was a physical connection between these two planets some time in the past and that these resonating patterns have been degrading over time due to momentum transference.

The orbital resonance of Venus/Earth being merely 'coincidental' is pure speculation.

Not true at all. The orbital observations and understanding of the orbits is not speculation, but has been worked out for hundreds of years with constant refinements allowing values to be worked out to many digits of precision.

I really don't know what you mean here. I would like to say that there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system and how these bodies and their orbits were formed. The feeling that I got after looking at these orbital motions was that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

reply to post by stereologist

Velikovsky's ideas were shown to be wrong half a century ago.

If you meant Velikovsky's ideas were dismissed half a century ago I would agree with you. But shown to be wrong? Could you enlighten me on what was shown to be wrong half a century ago with Velikovsky's ideas? How about today. Can you show where Velikovsky's theory has been proven wrong today? Don't get me wrong, I find Velikovsky's theory to be fantastic yet I wouldn't go as far as saying it has been proven wrong.

His notion that myth is history has been shown to be wrong because the physics does not work.

History becomes myth as time progresses. The idea is that myths were originally based on an actual historical event. Velikovsky attempts to show a global correlation with certain myths and leaves it up to others to look for evidence that could prove his theory that was based on these myths.

Your comment on physics has to do with the conservation of momentum and its transference, as far as it not working is a matter of opinion. It is possible that Venus could have made such a trek into its present orbit while still keeping with the laws of physics, however unlikely it is still possible. As far as I am aware nothing here has been proven wrong. Keep in mind that the very idea that Venus is a new planet to our system upsets the accepted theory for the formation of our solar system. This idea therefore is resisted with prejudice.

All of these claims of odd orbital interactions violate fundamental physical laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

It appears that you are attempting to say that any possible trajectory that Venus might have taken is impossible. Such an event is possible and if it did happen then I think we could expect there to be evidence of a momentum transference in the surrounding planets by way of potential orbital resonances and possible tidal locks. We do see such "possible" evidence.

reply to post by Devino

Since we don't know if there ever was a physical connection or not then this makes it an assumption which is therefore speculative.

Your statements here simply support my position that this is a coincidence. You state that there is no evidence of anything here other than a coincidence. There is no known physical connection for this, therefore it is a coincidence.

Is there such a thing as a perfect natural orbital resonance?

This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of critical analysis of the data. Take the moon. It's rotation is exactly one orbit.

The fact, that the ratio was close to a simple integer ratio misled people like Brahe and Kepler about the structure of the solar system. No matter what Kepler did he could not make his notions of structure work.

No planet in this solar system has a tidal lock with the Sun. It was once thought that Mercury did but this has since been proven false.

Although there are no planets with a perfect tidal lock with the sun, both Mercury and Venus experience tidal effects with the sun that affect their rotations.

I have to agree with you on this one that I used a term quite incorrectly. I really should have stated that tidal drag was an issue.

I would like to say that there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system and how these bodies and their orbits were formed.

That is simply not true. We know the motions of the planets and other bodies in the solar system quite well. Can we reverse this to determine the positions of planets billions of years ago? No. That would require greater precision in the values and also a better understanding of events such as collisions.

reply to post by Devino

If you meant Velikovsky's ideas were dismissed half a century ago I would agree with you. But shown to be wrong? Could you enlighten me on what was shown to be wrong half a century ago with Velikovsky's ideas? How about today. Can you show where Velikovsky's theory has been proven wrong today? Don't get me wrong, I find Velikovsky's theory to be fantastic yet I wouldn't go as far as saying it has been proven wrong.

His proposals violate conservation of energy and momentum. That was recognized at the time he put out his so-called theories.

Velikovsky attempts to show a global correlation with certain myths and leaves it up to others to look for evidence that could prove his theory that was based on these myths.

We are in agreement here. V. proposes that myths are history. Physics shows that his ideas are wrong.

Your comment on physics has to do with the conservation of momentum and its transference, as far as it not working is a matter of opinion. It is possible that Venus could have made such a trek into its present orbit while still keeping with the laws of physics, however unlikely it is still possible.

Absolutely NO! There is no way that Venus can be ejected from Jupiter and conserve energy and momentum as described by V.

Keep in mind that the very idea that Venus is a new planet to our system upsets the accepted theory for the formation of our solar system. This idea therefore is resisted with prejudice.

Again wrong. It is not prejudice to show that is ideas violate physical laws in extravagant ways.

It appears that you are attempting to say that any possible trajectory that Venus might have taken is impossible. Such an event is possible and if it did happen then I think we could expect there to be evidence of a momentum transference in the surrounding planets by way of potential orbital resonances and possible tidal locks. We do see such "possible" evidence.

Tidal locks are evidence of stability and form over a long, long period of time.

Another ridiculous claim by V. is that the Earth stopped rotating and then began to rotate in the opposite direction. That is simply a ludicrous notion. This is one of the stupidest claims made by V. It is one of the most glaring issues that shoots down his proposal.

reply to post by stereologist

Take the moon. It's rotation is exactly one orbit.

This is a good example. The Moon has a tidal lock with Earth, one side always faces us. Or you could say its orbit around Earth is the same as its rotational period. This is evidence showing that the Moon could have originated from Earth and formed while it was being influenced by Earth's gravitational force. If our Moon originated from an impact with Earth it would also have conserved its original angular momentum, rotating around Earth's original axis, and therefore would have a tidal lock with its parent planet. This is what we would expect with the conservation of angular motion.

In this way I see tidal locks as evidence of an original gravitational connection between two bodies. We see this with Venus and Earth, a potential tidal lock. This is evidence in favor of, yet does not prove, a connection with Earth. I am using this same argument for Venus' possible orbital resonances, simply evidence in favor of.

The reason these orbital conjunction periods are not perfect could simply be from a transference of momentum. This is as far as I got considering I wouldn't know how to begin to deconstruct the orbital motions of the planets back in time to see if there could have been a near collision or some other cause for a connection between these two planets.

Originally posted by Devino
I would like to say that there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system and how these bodies and their orbits were formed.

That is simply not true. We know the motions of the planets and other bodies in the solar system quite well.

We can send probes to the planets and predict eclipses pretty well, I agree. But how about explaining Venus' retrograde rotation. Or Uranus' rotational motions (note that the moons around Uranus orbit the equator which is almost 90° to the solar ecliptic). The tidal locks with our Moon and that of the moons around Jupiter. The possible tidal lock Venus has with Earth. How did Saturn's rings form?

What happened to Venus' magnetic field? Why do the magnetic poles in our solar system flip? What formed the asteroid belt?... I hope you get my point here. If you were to ask me I would say that science has a poor understanding of our solar system. Or better yet, we have a lot to learn.

Absolutely NO! There is no way that Venus can be ejected from Jupiter and conserve energy and momentum as described by V.

Absolutely no possible way?
How did the moons around Jupiter form? Are you claiming that they were all rogue bodies captured by Jupiter and could not have been formed from Jupiter? What about our Moon? No possible way it could have been formed from our Earth and still maintain a stable orbit in this solar system? What about Uranus' moons?

Perhaps you don't like the idea of Venus being formed due to an impact. Too much energy, right? There is another possible way in which moons could be formed from a planet. It requires the gravity of two planets that pull one, or both, apart thus creating several smaller bodies. How much energy would need to be conserved after such an event?

Maybe you don't like the limited time given for these events to have occurred. How could Venus have gained such a low orbital eccentricity in a relatively small amount of time? This is a problem I don't have an answer to but I don't think it impossible.

Another ridiculous claim by V. is that the Earth stopped rotating and then began to rotate in the opposite direction.

This claim was not his alone but was based upon numerous recorded observations from around the world at that time (the bible for instance). However these records are now considered myth. In the same way our recorded historical facts may become as myth. Future generations could simply dismiss all of this as they might label us primitive superstitious pagan worshipers that don't have any real understanding of science.

Yes, yes...this is good.

reply to post by Devino

If our Moon originated from an impact with Earth it would also have conserved its original angular momentum, rotating around Earth's original axis, and therefore would have a tidal lock with its parent planet.

In this case the moon would not have a tidal lock with the source. In fact, there would be no source. The moon would be a free moving object that collides with the Earth. Tidal lock is attained through tidal drag.

There is no tidal lock or potential tidal lock between the Earth and Venus. At best we see an orbital time ratio that is close to a simple integer ratio. But it isn't really close. As has been pointed out by both of us there are much better ratios for the orbital times if larger integers are used.

But how about explaining Venus' retrograde rotation. Or Uranus' rotational motions (note that the moons around Uranus orbit the equator which is almost 90° to the solar ecliptic). The tidal locks with our Moon and that of the moons around Jupiter. The possible tidal lock Venus has with Earth. How did Saturn's rings form?

You are confusing knowing how the celestial objects move with the origin of these motions. The motions of the planets and other celestial objects in our solar system are known very well. Today we have amazingly accurate predictions of their movements. That does not mean we know how they came to have these conditions, but rather that we know quite well how they move today.

Absolutely no possible way?
How did the moons around Jupiter form? Are you claiming that they were all rogue bodies captured by Jupiter and could not have been formed from Jupiter? What about our Moon? No possible way it could have been formed from our Earth and still maintain a stable orbit in this solar system? What about Uranus' moons?

Nothing you posted has anything to do with the problem at hand. The physics of the situation were worked out half a century ago to show that V. was utterly wrong.

Perhaps you don't like the idea of Venus being formed due to an impact.

Where did this come from? Have you read V.?

Again, nothing you are posting has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that V.'s claims violate basic physical laws.

This claim was not his alone but was based upon numerous recorded observations from around the world at that time (the bible for instance). However these records are now considered myth. In the same way our recorded historical facts may become as myth. Future generations could simply dismiss all of this as they might label us primitive superstitious pagan worshipers that don't have any real understanding of science.

The books such as the bible are not scientific books. To claim that they were once and are no longer is false. I am aware that the bible makes this claim. V. sought to explain that claim since he considered the possibility that myth was history.

Think about this. The objects at the equator are moving at 1000 mph. If you stop the Earth from rotating then you are putting the breaks on the Earth, but the oceans would slosh up over the land in massive tsunamis. That didn't happen. Were the crust to slip over the mantle as suggested by V, then the crust would have melted. That was a calculation done by Asimov. Also, no planet passing by can stop the Earth's rotation.

The whole notion is laughable in many ways. You probably can think up other ways that this is a laughable claim.

Here are some more issues where V. is completely wrong.
1. He claims Venus was expelled from Jupiter. Check the chemistry of the atmospheres to see this is impossible.
2. He claims that celestial objects impacted the Earth. No myth reports anything more than the sun stopped in the sky. No myth reports seeing an immense object in the sky. Hard to overlook don't you think?
3. If there catastrophic events involving other planets why isn't there any evidence left in places where ice cores are taken.
4. V. thought that moon craters were volcanoes or lava bubbles affected by electricity.

Originally posted by stereologist
Here are some more issues where V. is completely wrong.
1. He claims Venus was expelled from Jupiter. Check the chemistry of the atmospheres to see this is impossible.
2. He claims that celestial objects impacted the Earth. No myth reports anything more than the sun stopped in the sky. No myth reports seeing an immense object in the sky. Hard to overlook don't you think?
3. If there catastrophic events involving other planets why isn't there any evidence left in places where ice cores are taken.
4. V. thought that moon craters were volcanoes or lava bubbles affected by electricity.

You forgot to mention that the amount of energy required to stop the Earth's rotation, let alone reverse it, would kill everything on Earth and liquify the entire planet.

Harte

Thanks Harte. I knew that picking things off the top of my head I'd miss some glaring obvious problems and you are excellent at pointing these issues out.

Originally posted by stereologist
Thanks Harte. I knew that picking things off the top of my head I'd miss some glaring obvious problems and you are excellent at pointing these issues out.

Sure.

Sort of renders the rest of this argument moot, doesn't it?

Harte

reply to post by stereologist

In this case the moon would not have a tidal lock with the source. In fact, there would be no source. The moon would be a free moving object that collides with the Earth. Tidal lock is attained through tidal drag.

I don't understand what you mean here. As the theory goes, a Mars sized object impacted the Earth along time ago. Much of the 'impactor' material fell into the Earth and stayed there. The rest, along with a lot of Earth material, was ejected outward. A large portion of this ejected material gained an orbital trajectory. This material maintained an Earth orbit as it reformed to create the Moon we see today.

The idea is that this material, Earth ejected material, conserved its original angular motion, rotation from the Earth, and formed in a gravitational orbit causing a heavy side to be created facing the Earth. It was in this manner, theoretically, that we see a tidal lock with Earth today. The Moon at no time rotated on its own axis while it was forming. If it did this then its center of gravity would be the Moon's center and this is not the case. The side facing Earth is more dense because it was formed while under the Earth's gravity, rotating around the Earth in a tidal lock just like we see today.

Here is a simple animation of a Moon impact theory.
I wish I had one explaining how Earth's original rotational motion is being conserved in the forming Moon.

There is no tidal lock or potential tidal lock between the Earth and Venus. At best we see an orbital time ratio that is close to a simple integer ratio. But it isn't really close.

I think maybe you are not following what I mean by tidal lock. Venus orbits the Sun in 224.7 days and the Earth in 365.24219 days. Because of these orbital times an inferior conjunction happens every 583.92 days, this is when the two planets align with the Sun. These orbital motions are anti-clockwise in direction. The Earth makes about 1.6 rotations to Venus' 2.6 as they come into alignment

Venus rotates on its axis once every 243.0185 days in a clockwise motion, or what we call a retrograde rotation. So if we do the math (Venus rotation being a negative value-i.e. -243.0185) and compare this with Earth conjunction times we will find that Venus rotates on its axis, clockwise, 2.4 times per inferior conjunction which means that the same side faces Earth during these periods of alignment.
Here is an animation that I have posted before showing this. Click this link and slow the animation down to "Medium" speed.
Venus Tidal Lock with Earth Applet animation.

Here is a Wiki quote on a possible Venus tidal lock with Earth.

Venus' 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to the Earth is almost exactly equal to 5 Venusian solar days (precisely, 5.001444 of these), making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with the Earth is unknown

Keep in mind that a solar day and rotation on Venus are not the same thing. However I originally did the math for a Venus retrograde rotation (-243.0185) to the observed synodic periods with Earth (583.92 days) and it worked out to within a close margin. Not exact but close. Venus makes 2.4 clockwise rotations within every synodic period with Earth. This is the negative value (-2.4 rotations) for the 2.6 orbits Venus makes in this same time period meaning they align.

You are confusing knowing how the celestial objects move with the origin of these motions.

The confusion is not on my part. Let's recap the original quote.

Originally posted by Devino
I would like to say that there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system and how these bodies and their orbits were formed.

And you replied with this quote.

Originally posted by stereologist
That is simply not true.

I was just attempting to make my point more clear and I stand by my original quote.

The physics of the situation were worked out half a century ago to show that V. was utterly wrong.

I think it would be more accurate to state that A physical situation may have been worked out that proved Velikovsky wrong. However I don't think any real situation involving physics has been worked out to try and prove Velikovsky correct. This is simple dismissal and not real science. The scientific community dismissed Velikovsky 50 some years ago and has never taken him seriously.

Again, nothing you are posting has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that V.'s claims violate basic physical laws.

You are the one claiming that the laws of physics were broken here, not me. I maintain that they were not broken and I am attempting to figure out how this possibly could have happened.

Originally posted by Devino
Perhaps you don't like the idea of Venus being formed due to an impact.

Where did this come from? Have you read V.?

I think I originally got this from Carl Sagan in an early documentary on this subject. Yes, I have read "Worlds in Collision".

Again, nothing you are posting has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that V.'s claims violate basic physical laws.

Of coarse not! That is because I am not looking for physical law violations but answers to these and many other questions. It would not be right to ask someone to try and prove that something did not happen. I think it better to try and prove what could have possibly happened.

The books such as the bible are not scientific books. To claim that they were once and are no longer is false

Maybe you believe that the bible and other historical records were all made up? That's OK. I believe that some of these texts were from actual astronomical observations. People recorded what they saw and therefore contains some possible scientific value. Of coarse we call all of this myth so it is dismissed as having any scientific value.

If you stop the Earth from rotating then you are putting the breaks on the Earth, but the oceans would slosh up over the land in massive tsunamis. That didn't happen.

I would like to focus on Venus and the orbital/rotational motions for now and not so much on Velikovsky. But since you brought this up, prove it. Prove that there was never a huge flood nor gigantic tsunamis. Try and prove that something never happened!

The whole notion is laughable in many ways. You probably can think up other ways that this is a laughable claim.

Oh I probably could, I mean Velikovsky was a funny looking guy and he talked real slow and weird but this has nothing to do with Venus now does it.

I don't find Velikovsky's claim, that Venus was once a comet, laughable. I find it intriguing! What I find laughable is the reaction from the scientific community. A lot of effort is being spent to try and prove what could not have possible happened. This is not science!