Electric Venus

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by seb » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:14 am

The Aten wrote:
seb wrote:At its current rate of deceleration, it will take about 1 million years before it begins to reverse direction. Also, while Venus is losing its atmosphere, it is doing so too slowly for it to be problem. Earth is losing its atmosphere too to the solar wind at the poles, which might be indicative of a signficant age difference if both planets started out with a very dense atmosphere. Some very big changes would have to happen to make Venus's rotation and atmosphere change significantly any time soon.
Based on the recent unexpected data, quite possible, but what if Venus' rate of deceleration increases? Perhaps the rapid cooling of Venus playing a part? We could also ask, did the recent finds occur gradually as per the assumption or did it happen more rapidly?
It is true that it is unknown when Venus slowed down and whether it did so gradually or in jumps. We haven't observed Earth or any other planet suddenly changing, and until we do we have to assume that Venus acts normally (otherwise anything goes). That Venus is slowing down was not unexpected (all of the planets are either known or believed to have changed rotation rates in the past and have fluctuating rates now); what was unexpected was the magnitude of the change, but that is partly because so few speed measurements have ever been made and they were taken in too short a space of time to calculate a trend. They didn't know what to expect, so any result was unexpected. Now they have made new measurements it would be fair to say that a big deviation from 6.5 minutes in the next 16 years would definitely be unexpected in the sense that it would go against expectations.

Some of the reasons why I don't think the rate of deceleration supports any theory either way are because (a) too little is known about Venus to have made any prediction in standard theory that could be falsified by the observations; (b) an anomaly for standard theory does not imply support for any alternative theory; (c) no-one knows what mechanism is responsible for the change of speed, nor whether it is constant or cyclical; (d) what, in the alternative theories, requires 6.5 minutes in 16 years? In the case of (d), I bet that if the anomaly had been an hour in 16 years, this thread would have been the same, or if Venus had spun even faster in a retrograde direction then that would have been cited as even greater evidence for Venus's young age or an imbalance in the solar system.

My concern (and I'm not being in any way personal here, I'm just talking generally) is that anomalies like this aren't used to back up alternative theories based on what the anomaly shows, they are used in support merely by their non-conformance to the consensus.

In other words, if the notion that Venus is new is made dependent upon a rapid deceleration of Venus, and 6.5 minutes in 16 years is considered rapid enough, then any reduction in the deceleration or any increase in rotational speed will falsify everything that Velikovsky said - not just about Venus, but also about Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Troy, Joshua, the Israelites, etc.. Is 6.5 minutes in 16 years sufficient evidence on which everything should be allowed to hinge? Any evidence used in support of a theory has to be carefully chosen to ensure that it really does support it, otherwise the credibility of the theory is put in unnecessary risk.
Either way, I would agree with MattEU, the 6 and a half minutes a year deceleration of Venus is "stunning news" and totally unexpected by mainstream planetary scientists. The article almost downplays the discovery.
seb wrote:The deceleration is a minor problem in the larger question of why its rotation is so strange to begin with.
A logical sequence of events?

Venus inherited its retrograde motion during 3,000 plus years encounters with earth in the not to distant past (historical times). We have two opposing cogs, earth prograde motion imparting energy and spinning up the newly birthed incandescent Venus retrograde. How fast? who knows. Queen Venus eventually beaks away off towards the Sun (with Mercury in tow). Venus is presently cooling down and its spin rate slowing down.
Why would Venus continue to slow down after the event? The events in the past could well have changed its spin considerably, but if it is slowing down now then it can only be doing so because something is acting on it now.
As above, it will eventually stop, and begin to spin the 'right' way.
The Earth too has cooled down and is slowing down. Why should Venus eventually stop and begin rotating the "right" way any more than the Earth should eventually stop and begin rotating the "wrong" way?
As Venus cools, its many thousands of volcanic vents (which are constantly replenishing the Venusian atmosphere) will all but cease. Having no intrinsic protective magnetic field, the solar wind will subsequently strip Venus of its atmosphere. Venus will then take on the appearance of a dead rocky planet. The only analogy I can think of here would be the once earth-like Mars (home). It is proposed by many that Mars lost its atmosphere and volatiles as a direct result of losing its magnetic field.
That sounds logical, unless Venus does indeed accelerate the "right" way and acquires a magnetic field before its atmosphere is lost. Then it might become the lush Jurassic Park that people once imagined. :)

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by tholden » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:04 am

As Venus cools, its many thousands of volcanic vents (which are constantly replenishing the Venusian atmosphere) will all but cease. Having no intrinsic protective magnetic field, the solar wind will subsequently strip Venus of its atmosphere. Venus will then take on the appearance of a dead rocky planet. The only analogy I can think of here would be the once earth-like Mars (home). It is proposed by many that Mars lost its atmosphere and volatiles as a direct result of losing its magnetic field.

If I had to bet it, my money would be on Al de Grazia's idea of a past atmosphere which was general to the antique (Saturn) system, and not individual atmospheres for the planets as we observe now.

cwhelton
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:11 am

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by cwhelton » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:12 am

Even though I date Venus appearing as a comet to around 1,000 BC (as evidenced by the NK comet crowns) the birth of Venus from Jupiter occurred around 3,100 BC. This would coincide with the birth of chaos, and the subsequent birth of civilisations here on earth as a few of our ancestors managed to migrate to earth from the once earth-like Mars (home). I would also add, if chronologists move the above dates (some proposing a radical shortening), I simply move with them.

Speaking of radical shortening, those familiar with the work of Gunnar Heinsohn know that he moves the NK well down into the 1st millennium BCE. Heinsohn has also supported the work of Heribert Illig, whose books identify the period of 600-900 CE (AD) as a phantom era filled with imaginary history (i.e. "Charlemagne" is not a genuine historical figure). Last spring Heinsohn expanded the proposed phantom era by three centuries (300-600), thereby eliminating Late Antiquity from the history books. In a number of papers published in "Zeitensprunge", Heinsohn says that the Roman Empire came to a sudden and disastrous end ca. 230 AD, smashed by a horrendous natural catastrophe (that included gigantic tsunamis) associated with the Comet of Justinian, an event that is conventionally dated 300 years later. Combined with a subsequent plague and famine, the disaster killed millions and -- with Roman power eliminated -- allowed both Christianity and Islam to rise to power simultaneously. Covering the ruins of Roman Europe is a thick layer of soil and/or mud known as "dark earth" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_earth). This layer is currently assigned different dates in different places. Heinsohn says it is the marker that identifies the end of Roman Empire and should therefore have one date, not many. What makes this relevant to a thread on Venus is the archaeological evidence of this 1st millennium catastrophe, which reminded me of the devastation that Velikovsky's Venus inflicted on the Earth. Heinsohn has not identified Venus as the agent of destruction in 230 AD. Within a few decades of this disaster, the Middle Ages began, which saw both Christianity and Islam building octagonal domes. The year 230 is the conventional AD date, but when Heinsohn's 300 imaginary years are removed from the chronology, and combined with Illig's 300 imaginary years, it means that about six centuries of unreal history have to be removed from the 1st millennium. In other words, the comet catastrophe that killed the Roman Empire in 230 really happened around 825 AD, or 1,187 years ago.

jim1967
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Huntington, West Virginia, USA

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by jim1967 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:08 am

The year 230 is the conventional AD date, but when Heinsohn's 300 imaginary years are removed from the chronology, and combined with Illig's 300 imaginary years, it means that about six centuries of unreal history have to be removed from the 1st millennium. In other words, the comet catastrophe that killed the Roman Empire in 230 really happened around 825 AD, or 1,187 years ago.
Some good points expressed in this post cwhelton. Just making sure I'm getting this right, are you saying that there is 600 years missing from the 1st millennium BC or AD? If AD, would not the fall of Rome occurred still in 230 AD, but shortening our timeline from then until now by 600 years, making this (2012) the year approx. 1412 AD or something like that? I guess it's all relative regardless. I rather enjoy alternative historians such as Heinsohn and think they are on to something. And this "dark earth" and the sudden collapse of the Roman empire lends support to their arguements.

cwhelton
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:11 am

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by cwhelton » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:27 am

Just making sure I'm getting this right, are you saying that there is 600 years missing from the 1st millennium BC or AD? If AD, would not the fall of Rome occurred still in 230 AD, but shortening our timeline from then until now by 600 years, making this (2012) the year approx. 1412 AD or something like that?

There are several ways to look at what year this is... If we simply call it 2012 AD, without tracing that number to any particular beginning, and if Heinsohn is right that the Roman Empire was smashed by a massive natural catastrophe 1187 years ago, then Rome ended ca. 825 AD. In this same time frame, the Hagia Sophia was built in 835 AD, the octagonal Dome of the Rock and the octagonal Church of the Nativity were both built ca. 840 AD and the era of other octagon construction began... the number 8 had long been sacred to Venus worship, btw. The birth of Jesus took place in 589 AD... the Battle of Actium in 565 AD... Death of Alexander the Great in 385 AD... Cyrus, King of Persia, 235 AD. However, if you keep standard AD dating, with the birth of Jesus ca. the year 1 and the fall of Rome in 230, then -- with the six phantom centuries removed -- we would indeed be living in ca. 1412.

jim1967
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Huntington, West Virginia, USA

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by jim1967 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:29 pm

There are several ways to look at what year this is... If we simply call it 2012 AD, without tracing that number to any particular beginning, and if Heinsohn is right that the Roman Empire was smashed by a massive natural catastrophe 1187 years ago, then Rome ended ca. 825 AD. In this same time frame, the Hagia Sophia was built in 835 AD, the octagonal Dome of the Rock and the octagonal Church of the Nativity were both built ca. 840 AD and the era of other octagon construction began... the number 8 had long been sacred to Venus worship, btw. The birth of Jesus took place in 589 AD... the Battle of Actium in 565 AD... Death of Alexander the Great in 385 AD... Cyrus, King of Persia, 235 AD. However, if you keep standard AD dating, with the birth of Jesus ca. the year 1 and the fall of Rome in 230, then -- with the six phantom centuries removed -- we would indeed be living in ca. 1412.
Yes, I see your logic in that and it makes sense. Good stuff, btw.
Wondering now, as we are looking at this timeline above from our western perspective, how does this mesh with the Jewish, Asian and Indian calendars? Are there any common references that help validate the Heinsohn timeline? I read a little about how Heinsohn (I think) did some reconciling with the Egyptian Kingdoms and the Hebrew OT based loosely on Velikovsky's work.
BTW, I have to give props to Velikovsky. The man was a pioneer and his writings brought me to the EU, the Thunderbolts team and whole revised world chronology concept. God bless him!

ElecGeekMom
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:01 am

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by ElecGeekMom » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:38 pm

I'm reading a book called "Moses in the Heiroglyphs" where the author mentions numerous times that the timeline for Egyptian history was corrupted by counting some dynasties once, where they actually have two names for one dynasty (or more?).

Because of that, he says, then other historic timelines are also corrupted. IIRC, the corruption is about 600 years' worth.

I believe he says that the difficulty originated in mis-translation of the heiroglyphs, where the translators essentially made up things. Even so, at the time, their work was accepted as the authoritative one.

If the author's account is true, then that "mistake" reminds me a lot of the current AGW brouhaha. :roll:

Forrest Bishop
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by Forrest Bishop » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:32 am

Planetary resonances between (Earth) years and (Venus) days

Another tidbit for consideration. I haven’t seen this mentioned before, either by mainstream, Velekovski catastrophists, or EU: there appears to be a dynamical link between Venus and Earth. A slowing of the Venusian day by the alleged 390sec brings Venus closer to a perfect 2:3 spin-orbit resonance with one Earth year.

I haven’t been able to find any information on spin-orbit planetary resonances online. The most obvious example is the Moon’s spin in a 1:1 resonance with its orbit about Earth. Mercury is in a 2:3 spin-orbit resonance about the Sun. But there are also many near-resonances between the rotation rates of one Solar System body with the orbital period of a different body…something I read about many years ago. Although any one of these near-resonances could be chalked up to coincidence, the multiplicity of such coincidences is an improbable coincidence. One example is the near resonance of the Venus day with the year of Earth. (!) One Venus (sidereal) day = nearly 2/3rds of an Earth (sidereal) year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance omits many orbit-rotation (analogous to spin-orbit coupling) resonances scattered throughout the Solar System. “Venus' accepted rate of rotation was established by NASA's Magellan mission in the 1990s, when a day on Venus (or one rotation) was clocked at being equal in duration to 243.0185 Earth days.” http://www.gizmag.com/venus-rotation-slows/21453 One Earth year = 365.25636363004 Solar days. (Wiki)
243.0185dy/365.2536dy = 0.66534
One Venus sidereal day is .66534 of an Earth year. 0.6534/0.6666… = 0.99801… One Venus sidereal day is 99.8% of 2/3rds of an earth year. It is (currently) only 0.2% shorter than 2/3rds of our year.

Notes-
Venus rotates retrograde to its orbit. The Sun rise in the West and sets in the East. It completes an orbit every 224.65 days. A 224.65 Venus day would be face locked to the Sun, completing one rotation with each orbit, like the Moon does in its orbit about the Earth.

A slowing of a prograde rotation moves a planet or moon closer to being face locked, one side always facing the primary, the “day” would be everlasting. There is an energy minimum there which would presumably prevent further slowing to retrograde- another fishy thing about Venus. A slowing of an already retrograde rotation moves the planet further from the face locked condition.

Wiki states one Venus year equals 224.70069 (Solar?) Earth days. Assuming they mean a Solar day of 24hr, 224.70069dy * 24hr/dy * 60min/hr = 323,568.99min ~ 323,569min. 224.65dy * 24hr/dy * 60min/hr = 323,496min.
323569 – 323496min = 73min difference between these two figures. Huge difference, can’t account for it. A sidereal Earth day is about 4min shorter than a Solar day. 4min * 224 = 896min difference so that can’t account for this discrepancy. What is the real length of a Venus year?? This has to be known to great accuracy, so why the different figures?

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by nick c » Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:04 pm

Forrest Bishop wrote:Another tidbit for consideration. I haven’t seen this mentioned before, either by mainstream, Velekovski catastrophists, or EU: there appears to be a dynamical link between Venus and Earth. A slowing of the Venusian day by the alleged 390sec brings Venus closer to a perfect 2:3 spin-orbit resonance with one Earth year.
Yes it has been mentioned several times. One article in particular comes to mind:
The Rotational Resonances of Mercury and Venus, by Lynn E. Rose, Kronos II #1, (1976)
but I believe Earth-Venus resonances were discussed previous to that, in Pensee.
The conclusion of the article is that though the resonances are compatible with Velikovsky's scenario, they are not in themselves, evidence of close encounters between the two planets, nor are they evidence against.
The resonances may show that planets can influence each other over vast distances in ways that have not always been appreciated and that are even now not fully understood, but that should be the extent of what is inferred from the resonance.

Benevolent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:24 am

Re: Electric Venus

Unread post by Benevolent » Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:45 pm


celeste
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Venus Slowing Down?

Unread post by celeste » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:51 pm

Anyone find it interesting that (Venus change of spin rate per year/actual spin rate) is well within an order of magnitude of (change in earth precessional rate per year/earth's actual rate of precession.) That is, earth's rate of precession is changing at a percentage rate similar to the change in Venus spin rate. Since we can (and will) prove that precession is due to electromagnetic forces and not "gravitational tugs on an oblate earth", would'nt this make it more likely that Venus spin rate is also controlled by the same e-m forces in the vicinty of our solar system?

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Aphrodite Comatheo in the news!

Unread post by mharratsc » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:55 am

Explosions on Venus

This article contains some of the worst forced ignorance of actual physics that I've seen yet... and I've only had Physics in high school!

This stuff is just abhorrent. :P

Interesting video though! ;)

Edit: I was re-reading through the article when this one paragraph popped out at me:
Collinson looked for a pattern of magnetic change that would indicate the spacecraft traveled through one of these gigantic explosions. Envision what a bullet might experience if shot through a hot air balloon – a moment of heat in an otherwise fairly temperature-consistent journey. In this case, the heat comes with other characteristics as well:The boundaries show an abrupt change in the magnetic fields,and the inside is less dense than the outside. Given a set of instruments that were not specifically designed to find this signature, the search turned up quite a long list of potential, but not conclusive, events.
Could that be due to the solar wind being made up of protons, and these 'anomalies' being made up of much-less-massive electrons heading back towards the Sun in the fashion of a negative lightning return stroke?
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

hertz
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 12:29 pm

Re: Electric Venus

Unread post by hertz » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:58 am

Benevolent, i'm sort of surprised your link didn't generate any comment....may want to start a separate thread, as i'm sure folks would be interested to know about a real mechanism that could conceivably account for some of earth's more anomolous "weathering"
A recent study, appearing online in the Journal of Geophysical Research on February 29, 2012, has found clear evidence on Venus for a type of space weather outburst quite common at Earth, called a hot flow anomaly. These anomalies, also known as HFAs, cause a temporary reversal of the solar wind that normally moves past a planet...Hot flow anomalies average one a day near Earth...But at Venus, since there's no protective magnetic field, the explosion happens right above the surface of the planet...These plasma particles are trapped in place...They make a big puddle that gets bigger and bigger, sending out its own shock waves...These eruptions create global disturbances far beyond the mere local disruption of a hot plasma explosion

StalkingGoogle
Guest

"hot flow anomalies"

Unread post by StalkingGoogle » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:09 pm

Citing evidence from a study that recently appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research at the end of February, Ms. Fox reveals that scientists have discovered evidence of hot flow anomalies on Venus. Hot flow anomalies, also known as HFAs, are responsible for the temporary blow back of solar wind, said David Sibeck, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and co-author of the study, according to NASA.
Read more: http://www.newsnet.com.ng/2012/03/hot-f ... te-column/

It'd be interesting (if a bit redundant) to see this "anomaly" explained in a TPoD.
Last edited by nick c on Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: dead link removed, correct link added

StalkingGoogle
Guest

Re: "hot flow anomalies" - failed solar wind analogies

Unread post by StalkingGoogle » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:14 pm

Solar winds travel at extremely high speeds, some reach as high as 900 km/s. In order to “temporarily reverse solar winds,” HFAs have to release huge amounts of energy.
It's always disappointing to read this sort of conclusion. While it's probably generally true that a large amount of energy is represented by these "HFA's", it's probably not the insanely huge amounts assumed based on fluid dynamics or whatever it is these astronogers use to predict how plasmas in space will behave. It would seem they think this is simply some sort of "explosion" that "knocks back" the "solar wind".

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests