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
Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Shape-Shifting Southern Vortex Of Venus

Unread post by Sparky » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:05 am

Let's see if there is any evidence at all of electrical activity... 8-)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_S ... s_999.html
by Staff Writers
Paris, France (ESA) Apr 11, 2011
New analysis of images taken by ESA's Venus Express orbiter has revealed surprising details about the remarkable, shape-shifting collar of clouds that swirls around the planet's South Pole. This fast-moving feature is all the more surprising since its centre of rotation is typically offset from the geographical pole. The results of this study are published online in Science Express.

Several planets in the Solar System, including Earth, have been found to possess hurricane-like polar vortices, where clouds and winds rotate rapidly around the poles. Some of these take on strange shapes, such as the hexagonal structure on Saturn, but none of them are as variable or unstable as the southern polar vortex on Venus.

Scientists have known about the presence of swirling clouds around the poles of Venus since they were first imaged by Mariner 10 in 1974. At the same time, it was discovered that Venus' upper winds sweep westwards around the planet in only four days, 60 times faster than the rotation of the solid surface of the planet - a phenomenon known as superrotation.

Thermal infrared imagery from the Pioneer Venus spacecraft subsequently revealed an enormous depression in the cloud blanket at the North Pole. This relatively warm polar 'hole' was thought to be caused by downward movement of gases, rather like water flowing down a drain. However, detailed examination of the thick clouds and dense atmosphere over the South Pole had to wait until the arrival of Venus Express in April 2006.

During its first orbit around the planet, multi-wavelength observations confirmed for the first time the presence of a huge 'double-eye' atmospheric vortex at the planet's South Pole. Some 2000 km across, it was comparable to the structure that had previously been detected at the North Pole.

Since then, high-resolution infrared measurements obtained by the Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS) instrument on Venus Express have revealed that the southern vortex is far more complex than previously believed. The VIRTIS images, taken at wavelengths of 3.8 and 5.0 microns, are ideal for tracking polar features on both the day and night sides of the planet, probing the polar cloud layer at an altitude of about 65 km.

The new observations, reported this week in the journal Science on the Science Express website, show that the vortex has a highly variable shape and internal structure. Images show that its morphology is constantly changing on timescales of less than 24 hours, as a result of differential rotation.

"The southern vortex is very dynamic compared with a hurricane on Earth, which remains stable for several days," said Hakan Svedhem, ESA's Venus Express Project Scientist. "It can take almost any shape, so although it often looks like an 'S' or figure 8, it may become completely irregular, even chaotic, in appearance."

The rapid shape changes indicate complex weather patterns, which are strongly influenced by the fact that the centre of the vortex does not coincide with the geographical pole.

The VIRTIS images show that the speeds of the zonal (east-west) winds change rapidly with latitude, revealing that the vortex is continually being pulled and stretched by wind shear. Although the mean zonal wind is retrograde (blowing from east to west) and approximately uniform equatorward of 84 degrees S, its speed decreases toward the pole and becomes prograde (blowing from west to east) close to 87 degrees S. A slightly slower wind is detected at 75 degrees S, coinciding with the poleward edge of the cloud collar which coincides with a region of colder air surrounding the centre of the vortex.

The apparent reversal of the zonal wind close to the pole is a consequence of the non-alignment of the centre of rotation of the vortex with the planet's rotational axis. This causes an apparent inversion of the wind direction between the pole and the centre of rotation.

The new analysis also reveals that the centre of rotation of the vortex drifts right around the pole over a period of 5-10 Earth days. Its average displacement from the geographical South Pole is about three degrees of latitude, or several hundred kilometres. The data show no evidence of any link between the positions of these 'centroids' and local solar times, as might result from a solar tide-related forcing of the superrotation.

"Our results highlight the importance of the polar region in the global dynamics of the Venus atmosphere," said David Luz of the Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Lisbon, Portugal, the lead author of the Science paper. "They provide new insights into the complex processes that shape the polar vortices and their role in the atmosphere's superrotation."

The Venus Express mission is currently funded until 2014, offering further opportunities for in-depth studies of the super-rotating atmosphere and the shape-shifting southern polar vortex. However, its highly elliptical orbit means that Venus Express flies too close to the planet's North Pole for detailed imaging studies of its other polar vortex.

"It seems likely that the northern polar vortex has a similar structure and behaves in a similar way," noted Svedhem. "However, the spacecraft flies very close to the North Pole, so it can only see a small region. Confirmation of the behaviour of the northern vortex will have to wait until future missions."

"Results such as these show how interesting Venus is to study and how important it is to study other worlds," Svedhem added. "They enable us to compare the processes that take place on Venus, a planet with a thick atmosphere, with those on our Earth."
Nope, could find no evidence of electrical activity... 8-)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

JW Doogie
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:41 pm

Re: Shape-Shifting Southern Vortex Of Venus

Unread post by JW Doogie » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:28 pm

What I'm always struck by in these explanations promulgated by arrogant idiot know-it-alls masquerading as scientists, is that they always ascribe the "cause" of some observed phenomenon as the phenomenon itself.

For instance this highly unstable Venus polar vortex, a weather pattern anomaly - what is it's cause according to these geniuses? - "unstable weather patterns"

Oh that's priceless. How much annual salary does that UK Science "Team" pull down in order to produce that informative gem?

I remember the first time I encountered Plate Tectonics theory in High School. Let's see, we have Lava shooting out of Volcanoes because big tectonic plates are subducting under the Continent. And those plates move why? - because Lava in the oceanic raft zones is forcing them to move. Oh I see! Lava causes Lava, that's priceless.

The same moronic pattern of "phenomenon causes itself" infects all the sciences.

Thank God for the Thunderbolts forum, one of the few places on earth where you can get some actual unvarnished true facts. And Thank You to the host of science-minded people here, humble enough to be willing to argue over what constitutes "true facts" for a particular subject without it eventually devolving into an argument over the "size" of their diplomas.

-- from a 53 yr old "lunchbucket sap" non-scientist who is nonetheless fascinated by how the universe works

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

Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by tholden » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:03 pm


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

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by nick c » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:40 pm

The greenhouse explanation for the heat of Venus was a desperate scam perpetuated on the scientific world by Carl Sagan, for the sole purpose of providing an alternative to Velikovsky. The discovery of the unexpected high temperatures for the planet in the 1960's led many of the world's intelligentsia to scratch their heads with the realization that the space probes were in effect verifying a central tenet of Velikovsky's proposal - that Venus is a new planet, whose birth was witnessed by our ancestors. And therefore should be hot, its' heat being the result of a recent and tumultuous birth.
As would follow from this, one would expect that at some point in the near future, measurements of Venus' temperature should show that the planet is slowly cooling.

In a strange intellectual twist, the wrong headed Venus greenhouse theory led to the application of the same logic to the Earth and gave impetus to the human induced global warming movement.

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

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by tholden » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:09 pm

nick c wrote:The greenhouse explanation for the heat of Venus was a desperate scam perpetuated on the scientific world by Carl Sagan, for the sole purpose of providing an alternative to Velikovsky. The discovery of the unexpected high temperatures for the planet in the 1960's led many of the world's intelligentsia to scratch their heads with the realization that the space probes were in effect verifying a central tenet of Velikovsky's proposal - that Venus is a new planet, whose birth was witnessed by our ancestors. And therefore should be hot, its' heat being the result of a recent and tumultuous birth.
As would follow from this, one would expect that at some point in the near future, measurements of Venus' temperature should show that the planet is slowly cooling.

In a strange intellectual twist, the wrong headed Venus greenhouse theory led to the application of the same logic to the Earth and gave impetus to the human induced global warming movement.

The Venus greenhouse theory has long since been debunked if you apply basic logic to the PV data as per my own web page on the topic, but this guy is saying it doesn't even pass a basic sniff test on first principles.

Anaconda
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by Anaconda » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:13 am

nick c wrote:...Venus is a new planet, whose birth was witnessed by our ancestors. And therefore should be hot, its' heat being the result of a recent and tumultuous birth.
There is an alternative hypothesis which also is consistent with Electric Universe theory, but does not rely on "a recent and tumultuous birth" of Venus.

The alternative hypothesis is that Venus was involved with substantial electromagnetic interactions and effects within the solar system, even to the point of altering its orbit and/or rotation. These "substantial electromagnetic interactions", possibility including cosmic thunderbolts, but likely causing an energized magneto tail that periodically interacted with Earth's magnetosphere, resulted in Venus' atmospheric temperature to increase.

An energized magneto tail consisting of electrified plasma emanating from Venus and periodically striking Earth's magnetosphere would likely cause spectacular physical effects in Earth's atmosphere and near space witnessed by Man.

The "periodical" striking of the Earth's magnetosphere by Venus' magneto tail could cause such regularly occurring electromagnetic effects that Man would be induced to track and predict Venus' orbit to know when these electrical effects were likely to happen.

Anthony Peratt provides substantial evidence that Earth's magnetosphere was highly charged for a period of time around 10,000 B. C. causing many plasma effects visible to Man. This is in line with Rens van der Sluijs' hypothesis that there was an axis mondi (also cosmic axis, world axis, world pillar, columna cerului, center of the world).
Peratt surmised that a surge of power in the currents driving the auroras had set off the sequence of instabilities. The entire pre-historical sky around the globe would have appeared to come alive with a shimmering, shining "enhanced aurora" that stretched from pole to pole. It would have featured exactly those abstract figures and stick men and strange animal-like shapes that appear only in rock art and in high-energy plasma discharges. He contends that the ancient artists were witnesses to this "enhanced aurora" and that they recorded what they saw on the most durable "recording device" available -- rock surfaces.
These electric effects on Earth would be simultaneous with Venus' increased electrical activity and would be caused by the same source: Increased electromagnetic activity of the Sun.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:49 pm

I think we need to know the structure of Venus before any calculations can be made about
the E/M properties. They think there is an iron core similar to Earth, and a rocky crust.
Ferromagnetic spheres rotating in and travelling through a magnetic field are going to have
surface charging, and possible cancellation of magnetic fields. Venus has no magnetic field,
which is probably why it has no satellites. All satellites are held by E/M and not gravity.
Mars has an unorganised magnetic field too, and only 2 tiny satellites. The most moons are
where there are the strongest magnetic fields.

This is a good site, and includes lectures and notes on spheres in magnetic fields.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/
Anthony Peratt provides substantial evidence that Earth's magnetosphere was highly charged for a period of time around 10,000 B. C. causing many plasma effects visible to Man.
That's how I see it. An increase in the Suns activity would cause an increase in surface
charging of the planets, their ionospheres might emit at visible wavelengths making them
seem far larger (or closer), and many structures not presently visible may also begin to
glow, the rainbow serpents, spirals, etc. The planets would tilt, and perhaps (just from
my mental picture) all move their orbits inwards to some degree.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

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

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by nick c » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:41 pm

Anaconda wrote: There is an alternative hypothesis which also is consistent with Electric Universe theory, but does not rely on "a recent and tumultuous birth" of Venus.

The alternative hypothesis is that Venus was involved with substantial electromagnetic interactions and effects within the solar system, even to the point of altering its orbit and/or rotation. These "substantial electromagnetic interactions", possibility including cosmic thunderbolts, but likely causing an energized magneto tail that periodically interacted with Earth's magnetosphere, resulted in Venus' atmospheric temperature to increase.

An energized magneto tail consisting of electrified plasma emanating from Venus and periodically striking Earth's magnetosphere would likely cause spectacular physical effects in Earth's atmosphere and near space witnessed by Man.

The "periodical" striking of the Earth's magnetosphere by Venus' magneto tail could cause such regularly occurring electromagnetic effects that Man would be induced to track and predict Venus' orbit to know when these electrical effects were likely to happen.

Anthony Peratt provides substantial evidence that Earth's magnetosphere was highly charged for a period of time around 10,000 B. C. causing many plasma effects visible to Man. This is in line with Rens van der Sluijs' hypothesis that there was an axis mondi (also cosmic axis, world axis, world pillar, columna cerului, center of the world).
[...]

These electric effects on Earth would be simultaneous with Venus' increased electrical activity and would be caused by the same source: Increased electromagnetic activity of the Sun.
Yes, I am familiar with each of those (Peratt, van der Sluijs) proposals, and they certainly deserve serious consideration.
Perhaps the jury is still out on exactly what occurred.
Let us keep in mind that a highly charged magnetosphere and axis mundi as well as other visible plasma effects would be expected under almost all of the proposed scenarios (Velikovsky, the Saturn hypothesis, Clube and Napier, etc etc).

The reason that I favor the recent birth (or at least recent appearance) of Venus hypothesis is because - if there was an ancient increase of electrical activity of the Sun as the source of Venus' high temperature then the other planets should have suffered similar effects (as Venus). For instance Venus, at almost 900 degrees F (480 deg C), is hotter than Mercury (around 420 deg C) which is much closer to the Sun. And it would seem to me that the Earth (mean surface temperature at only around 14 degrees C) would have had suffered more, though to a lesser extent than Venus due to it's distance. The point being that Venus stands out like a sore thumb when compared to it's neighbors, furthermore an increase in solar activity does not account for much of the ancient record which describes the agents of catastrophes as planetary. (Though I am not saying that the Sun has not shown variability in the past, of course degrees of variability over time, would be expected from any star in the EU.)

The EU proposes that planets are born through a fissioning process of stars, brown dwarfs/gas giants. Comparison of ancient testimony with the present state of the solar system, should give serious consideration to the hypothesis that Venus is a new planet.
see:
Venus isn't our twin
Thornhill wrote:The emerging sciences of plasma cosmology and the electric universe provide the mechanism by which rocky planets like Venus are born from the core of a dwarf star or gas giant undergoing electrical and/or dynamical stress. When a planet is born, it discharges fiercely to its parent in its new electrical environment. Venus is a newborn planet with a heavy atmosphere still shedding its natal heat. It also suffered electric crustal heating in encounters with the plasmaspheres of other planets and in exchange for orbital energy in the Sun's electric field.


As a side note, the latin word by which we name the planet translates as "to come" or "to arrive" as in the familiar latin saying:
"veni, vidi, vici"
translation:
"I arrived, I viewed, I conquered."
By it's very name, Venus could be interpreted as "she who arrived" or as newcomer.

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

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by nick c » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:44 am

Well whatever the cause of Venus' heat, the evidence shows that it is not due to a greenhouse effect.

A greenhouse works because sunlight (solar energy) easily passes through the cover (glass of the greenhouse) hits the interior surface, is converted to thermal energy. Due to the change of frequency, the thermal energy can not easily pass back through the greenhouse cover, resulting in heating of the interior.
The problem concerning Venus, as I see it, is that the greenhouse explanation never gets to first base. How much solar radiation actually penetrates Venus' atmosphere and strikes the surface? The fact is that due to the high reflectivity (albedo) of the top surface of the cloud layer more than 60% of the sunlight is reflected away from the start and never gets a chance to penetrate the atmosphere. In fact, the Earth despite it's greater distance, gets more sunlight at the surface than does Venus.
Consequently, Venus' surface receives only one-sixth the sunlight Earth receives.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/GREENHOU.htm
After the bulk of the sunlight is reflected away, the remaining sunlight has to penetrate what is basically an incredibly dense and opaque venusian atmosphere.
Venus' rotation period (day) is very slow...243 Earth days in length. It would stand to reason that if the source of Venus' heat were solar radiation then the side of Venus facing the sun would be much warmer than the night side. This is not the case.
The Earth with a 24 hour rotation period experiences this, the night side is cooler than the day side. Not so with Venus, despite a 243 day rotation period, the night side is the same temperature as the day side. Furthermore, there is no temperature differential between the equator and the poles.
The principle probably also holds for the hot atmosphere
of Venus which is essentially isothermal
http://sirius.bu.edu/withers/pppp/pdf/mepgrl2001.pdf
Imagine a situation, where the N pole of the Earth during it's 6 month night was the same temperature as Ecuador at mid day!
The logical explanation is that Venus' heat is being radiated from the interior of the planet.
The greenhouse explanation for Venus' heat is a non starter.

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

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by ElecGeekMom » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:52 pm

Woh! That's a great explanation!

So, did a similar situation ever take place on Earth?

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Venus Greenhouse Repudiated

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:41 pm

Nick said: In a strange intellectual twist, the wrong headed Venus greenhouse theory led to the application of the same logic to the Earth and gave impetus to the human induced global warming movement.
* I've stated, possibly on one of the Global Warming threads, that Margaret Mead, who was president of the AAAS in 1974, the year the AAAS tried Velikovsky in its Kangaroo Court, was instrumental in helping to promote global warming herself at a conference in 1975, I believe. So it seems very likely that discrediting Velikovsky's theories was deemed by her and her confederates as necessary to promote global warming, which got much assistance from the Venus greenhouse theory. Velikovsky's theory of the recent birth of Venus was likely seen by them as a direct threat to their mission re CO2 caused global warming propaganda. Oliver Manuel, former principal NASA investigator for the Apollo program, says the global warming movement was actually planned at the 1967 Bilderberg conference.

newalexandria
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:12 am

Re: Electric Venus

Unread post by newalexandria » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:30 am

Did anyone see this plasma flare that just came off venus?

Pardon the new-age-ish video, I'll try to find the source
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRdrfGO ... ture=share

as I search more, I find this discussion of a 2010 'flare' to convincingly show a lens artifact
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/artifacts/a ... ions.shtml

However, the video in the first link shows a flare that is not clean and symmetrical. I'm Still open to the possibility of electrically-induced ejecta.


Thoughts?

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Electric Venus

Unread post by seasmith » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:16 pm

However, the video in the first link shows a flare that is not clean and symmetrical. I'm Still open to the possibility of electrically-induced ejecta.
Hi newalexandria,

No data provided for a comment on "ejecta", but the images do raise questions of an EM-Optical nature, as they would hardly try to construct an optically reflective tube?
Interestingly, their "for a more detailed explanation" link:
http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/index.php ... h89#ghosts
is currently unresponsive.

s

A Wonderful New Year to All

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

Re: Electric Venus

Unread post by mharratsc » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:04 am

Regarding the two theories of Venus prevalent in EU/PC thinking- why not both? Perhaps Venus was 'born' shortly before we were captured by Sol, which then induced the EM interactions documented by our ancestors that resulted in the orbital dynamics of today?

This would make both hypothesis valid. :)
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

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

Re: Electric Venus

Unread post by nick c » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:32 pm

NASA has stated that this apparation emerging from Venus is the result of an internal reflection in the telescope optics.
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/artifacts/a ... ions.shtml

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests