Why water on Earth and not Venus?

  • 38 Replies
  • 21256 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« on: 05/05/2003 00:33:38 »
What do we have to thank for the presence of water on earth which has stopped our planet going the same way as venus? (believe it or not, but venus once had water...)

There are a number of answers i'm looking for and  i'll post them in a few days.
Good Luck.

Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem...
« Last Edit: 07/07/2004 01:54:27 by Exodus »

*

Offline cuso4

  • Angel Delight
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 422
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #1 on: 05/05/2003 08:08:52 »
I'm not good at astronomy, but I'll try. The earth gets heat up by the Sun, and dosen't the water cools the surface temperature of the earth's crust to stop the temperature getting too high? hence stopping it becoming the second Venus.

Other thing is that the greenhouse effect stops the earth getting too cold and becoming the second Mars.

I think (only an opinion) that a long time ago, Venus was once like earth and that Mars will eventually becomes like earth after a very long time.

AG
Angel

*

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #2 on: 05/05/2003 11:02:39 »
This is more geological/biological rather than astronomical. You are kind of on the right track by bringing the sun into the answer, and the greenhouse effect is important to the answer too, well done. Water doesn't cool the earths crust as our crust is comparitively cool.

I'll give you a clue. You need to focus on the water in the air, the sun, and the greenhouse affect.

Have another go ;o)

Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem...

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #3 on: 05/05/2003 14:45:45 »
We don't have nearly so much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, so the sun's light can escape more easily, and doesn't warm up the water so much that it stays permanently in clouds like in venus.

The above answer proably sounds stupid because I have no idea if venus actually does have clouds or has an atmosphere of lots of carbon dioxide but the above is just a guess at part of the answer :p
 

*

Offline cuso4

  • Angel Delight
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 422
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #4 on: 05/05/2003 23:02:00 »
Greenhouse effect works like this: Organisms on earth absorb some radiations like UV from the sun and radiates them as infrared. Because infrared has longer wavelength so doesn't get through the atmosphere easily, heat is trapped to stop earth getting too cold.

Now the next bit might be completely wrong so please correct me.

The water in the atmosphere doesn't get heat up easily because its hydrogen bonding. therefore water absorbs some the heat energy that is trapped inside the earth to stop it from getting too cold.

Angel
Angel

*

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #5 on: 06/05/2003 14:50:33 »
ok, i'll give you the answer...

The hydrothermal systems at the mid-ocean ridges add water into the new oceanic crust. This plays an important part in the melting process of magma, the formation of volcanoes and the formation of continents. Venus did once have water, similar to earth, yet a key difference separated them. Although both planets devoloped an atmosphere and thus were subject to a greenhouse effect, unfortunately for venus, a what is known as a "runaway greenhouse" occurred in that temperature continued to rise. This resulted in high water evaporation from the surface of venus into the atmosphere. The high levels of H2O in the atmosphere were then bombarded with the suns UV rays and photolysis occured (the H2O was split). The light hydrogen was lost to space leaving oxygen (and the heavier isotope of hydrogen, dueterium) in the atmosphere and eventually a dry planet.

The earth is different, it has what is known as "coldtrap". This is a cold area ~-60 degrees mid way through the atmosphere. You will notice when flying in a plane, outside will be -60 degrees centigrade. You will also see that clouds form a blanket like appearance outside the plane window, this is where water vapour is hitting the cold trap and condensing to form clouds. Interestingly, above this layer,the temperature begins to increase again!

Due to the cold trap, very little water makes it into the upper atmosphere and thus is lost to space through photolysis.

We are losing some water to space, and deep into the mantle, but with rates as they are, we have a good few billion years left yet till we might look like venus... AND with the cyclicity of catastrophic events, the liklihood is that we will have been hit by a comet/meteorite or been wiped out by a supervolcano such as yellowstone before then. [xx(]  



Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem...
« Last Edit: 06/05/2003 14:55:02 by Exodus »

*

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 5424
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #6 on: 06/05/2003 18:06:10 »
Good to see that Exodus is back on home territory, at least almost, after his world tour recently which took in, amongst other places, the sandwich islands, Turkmenistan, Hong Kong and the Christmas Islands !

One thing that I have never understood properly are the seasons. I understand that planet's axis changes, altering the attitude of the earth to the sun and hence placing some locations further from the sun at certain times of the year, but how does this come about ?

Chris
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx

*

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #7 on: 06/05/2003 20:32:43 »
An interesting question.

It is thought that towards the end of earths formation as it was eventually starting to cool, it was struck by a huge meteorite, in fact, it is believed that it was actually another planet (about the size of mars). This impact would have remelted the earth and sent huge amounts of rock up to surround the earth.

I'll address one thing at a time...

Firstly this impact billions of years ago could well have been responsible for both the rotation of the earth AND its apparent tilt (which leads to our seasons) both of which are probably important in making our planet habitable.
 - i am however uncertain why the earth's tilt changes over its orbit... possibly due to gravity interactions with other planets or the sun).

Secondly, remember the rock ejection i refered to? well this didn't fall back to earth, but actually went on to combine to form our moon. The moon is a principal part of our tides on earth and is also a key factor to many flora/fauna with their reproductive cycle e.g. marine algae such as foraminifera or corals.

The earths temperatures are affected on a much broader scale which is influenced by its non circular orbit around the sun. This means that at some periods in its history it has been further from the sun and has experienced colder conditions and ice ages on a cyclic level. These are known as Milankovitch Cycles, after the scientist Milankovitch. Feel free to look up articles on his work, its quite interesting.

So from catastrophe comes a planet fit for life...

Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem...
« Last Edit: 06/05/2003 20:44:07 by Exodus »

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #8 on: 06/05/2003 23:26:34 »
Well, what happens with seasons is:

The earth is tilted 23 degrees All The Time! So when it is on one side of its orbit, the south is tilted toward and the north away, and when it is on the other side, the south is tilted away, and the north tilted towards, Because The Sun Is Now On The Other Side !

Ball your fist and hold it in the air. This is the sun. hold your other hand pointing up then tilt it. move it around your other hand without changing the tilt at all. You can see that on one side the south is pointing towards the sun, it's summer in the southern hemisphere. On the other side of the orbit, it's summer in the northern hemisphere!!
 

*

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 5424
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #9 on: 07/05/2003 01:22:45 »
Sorry - I can't see it myself. If we assume for the sake of argument that the earth follows a circular orbit around the sun, and then we assume that it is permanently tilted, as you say, then as it orbits it's attitude to the sun will remain the same throughout the year, though obviously with day / night superimposed as the planet spins.

It's the same problem that I have understanding why we can only ever see one face of the moon ?

Chris
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx

*

Offline cuso4

  • Angel Delight
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 422
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #10 on: 07/05/2003 17:15:46 »
What Quantumcat said also applies to how much day light a country get. If it's a country near the pole, like UK, then the day is much longer in summer and very short in winter. However if it's near the equator, like Taiwan where I used to live, you get about same amount of daylight in summer and winter.

Angel
Angel

*

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 5424
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #11 on: 07/05/2003 19:50:22 »
Yeeess, true, but still does not explain how the earth 'tilts' on its axis so that it makes one pole close to the sun in summer and further away in winter.

Please will someone clear this one up for me...

Chris
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx

*

Offline Donnah

  • Ma-Donnah
  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1756
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #12 on: 08/05/2003 01:22:00 »
Chris,
You may find the answer at http://www.hawking.org.uk/  If you can't find the answer, you can contact Professor Stephen Hawking through the website (he went to Cambridge).
"Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of each of your arms." - Audrey Hepburn

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #13 on: 08/05/2003 05:09:30 »
chris - as to the "why does it tilt" I think it's just going to have to be a "just because it does" answer, unless someone can think of a reason. I don't know if people have measured that the tilt is changing, if it isn't, then I guess that's just how the earth was when it was formed. (and has been ever since) the average of the bottom-most part became all icy, because it was the coldest average bit (furthest from the sun on average) of the bottom half, and the north pole became icy because it is where the coldest average bit is. If the earth was tilted a little more or a little less the poles would have formed in different places.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2003 05:21:12 by Quantumcat »
 

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #14 on: 08/05/2003 05:17:21 »
Oops I forgot to mention:

You can see only one side of the moon all the time because, the moon does one revolution per orbit (its day is the same length as its year) so as it goes around the earth, it faces it all the time. It's hard to describe, you need to be able to picture it in your mind. I would make a diagram for you out of characters, but unfortunately you can't do more than one space at a time, so it would turn all screwy when I posted this message.
 

*

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 5424
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #15 on: 08/05/2003 09:21:57 »
That now makes sense. I did not realise that the day was the same length as the year. That is a bizarre scenario - I wonder how that came about - anyone know ?

As Exodus pointed out earlier, the moon is supposed to have formed following the collision of the earth with a mars-sized planet, ejecting huge amounts of crust material into orbit around the earth. This material coalesced to form the moon, hence explaining why the moon is composed predominantly of 'crust' with very little 'core', and is also so huge relative to the earth.

Still haven't got to grips with the 'tilt' of the earth conundrum yet though.

Chris

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx

*

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 894
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #16 on: 08/05/2003 23:18:43 »
Again, unless someone can tell us otherwise, it's just the way the earth happened to be formed ^_^
 

*

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #17 on: 07/07/2004 02:10:43 »
BTT

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #18 on: 24/03/2005 12:59:19 »
"That now makes sense. I did not realise that the day was the same length as the year. That is a bizarre scenario - I wonder how that came about - anyone know ?"

It is called tidal locking... because the moon is near the earth the part closest to us is being pulled harder than the part further away (inverse square law) this will tend to pull the moon into an ovoid shape and is the same reason we have tides on the earth. Now when it was formed the moon was spinning far faster than it is now, this bulge would always point towards the earth, so if you sat on the surface you would move up and down a couple of metres every revolution.

Now squashing a fair sized moon every day uses up a lot of energy, and it must come from somewhere,  and if you think about the direction of the forces (I really need a diagram) it will come from the rotation of the moon. So the rotation will slow down gently until it isn't moving (there are a couple of extra effects due to solidification that will acually stop it rotating).

In Jupiter's moons this can generate so much heat that even a small moon like Io has enough energy to have active volcanism on it's surface.

In a similar way the tides are slowing down the rotation of the earth, but much more slowly as the earth has more angular momentum, and the moon's gravity is weaker. It is however a noticible effect, and there are 200 million year old corals that lay down a layer of growth a day, that have 400 day rings a year.

  Dave

ps The tilt conundrum could be to do with the formation of the earth and moon, which was supposed to have been when something the size of mars hit the earth, throwing off lots of debris into orbit to form the moon. If it hit slightly off centre you could quite easily end up with a tilt.

The tilt does change a bit with time in one of the Milankovitch cycles (http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm), but not very much 21-24.5 degrees.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #19 on: 15/04/2005 17:49:47 »
Exodus

And Here is another answer

The Proceedings of The Gravity Of Life

mass = gravity = mass.

In pure space, beyond the influence of planets, "if at all possible",
objects exist unaffected by the restriction of friction and unaffected by
motion.
The atomic particles and their components have a pushing /repelling and
pulling/attracting force, which maintains the components in an orbit,
preventing them from becoming a solid mass.

As is the case with magnets, the atomic particles should therefore always
link together at opposite polarities.
If two particles met in space at exactly the same force, they should link
together and become one. Not so! The two become one but remain separate
items. They link together and cancel out the pushing force, yet retain the
pulling force and in doing so marginally increase the pulling force.
However, the statement that the pushing force is cancelled is incorrect,
more the effects of motion in the pushing force are cancelled by the
opposing force. Resulting in no net movement of the two particles, which
remain in orbit around each other due to the weak forces involved.
Because the pulling force of the two atomic particles has been increased by
the addition of 1, more particles are attracted, each time a particle joins
the group, it adds its own forces to the pulling force and the pushing
force, resulting in no net movement. However, there is nothing to stop
particles entering the group at an angle. = Net result, rotation. As
rotation increases it becomes more likely that more particles will hit the
target at an angle. Therefore increasing the rotation of the group in one
direction, adding centrifugal forces to the group, which counter the
attraction of the group around the equatorial line, a bit like a spinning
wet ball repels water at the centre and like the observed ring around
Saturn.
Eventually, the group's collective pushing force will add sufficient weight
to the mass and cause the particles to form a rotating solid. This would
then be the birth of a planet.
As the mass increases at an ever accelerating rate, all be it a painfully
slow process, it draws in more particles until its combined attractive force
is such that it is able to attract bigger particles further accelerating its
inevitable growth.
The alignment of all of the particles becomes affected by the centrifugal
force, adding collective order to its forces and favourably affecting its
continued rotation.
The surface of the ever-expanding mass would be stable, as little to no
disturbance would be present, as is the case on smaller planets that are
unaffected to any degree by larger planets. I mentioned this so that you
avoid comparing orbiting moons that are stripped of their material by larger
planets.
When critical mass is achieved, the collective gravitational effect begins
to convert joining particles into material, which can exist under the
influence of the magnitude of mass.  This conversion may be proved to be
responsible for Aurora Borealis.
At some point in mass the gravitational pull of the planet must convert
particles into hydrogen and oxygen, as we know it, also adding the
components of airborne particles to the mass.
Eventually the gravitational pull of the planet becomes such that it must
convert the airborne particles of hydrogen and oxygen into water. It should
therefore be possible to calculate the size of a planet and the existence of
water. Ironically, NASA should be really looking to visit a planet of
comparable mass to that of the Earth in order to find waters.
Remember, the pushing force cannot be cancelled out and the net result of
all of this pushing is friction, "amplified" by the pressure and properties
of the relatively new planets developing oceans as more and more Hydrogen
and oxygen is converted into water and falls as rain.
Water always finds the lowest part and the weight of the water concentrates
the pressure, ensuring that any depression in the planets surface is
exploited. This collective weight of the water presses the surface of the
planet down and the oceans inevitably become deeper. Try throwing some water
on dry sand.
It is worth while considering where airborne material will fall on a
centrifuged object, this explains why snow is stored at the North and South
poles on Earth.
The pressure from the ever expanding water, forces the land up, exactly like
a truck wheel forces mud up either side of the pressure point.
But there is a serious price to pay for friction at the centre of the
planet. Rock begins to melt and magma forms, insulated by the planet crust,
until it erupts from the surface-giving rise to the development of
volcanoes.
The magma, being less dense than the compressed material at the core of the
planet, is ejected. A simple flow and return system. The development of
volcanoes and the activity of volcanoes on Earth will therefore continue to
become more apparent as the planet continues to grow. Which should be a big
concern for cities built in defective areas!
Evidence for the expanding planet is obvious by the shifting plates and
separating continents.
Furthermore, if you want to retrieve history, you usually find yourself
digging for fossils and artefacts.
So the bigger the planet the hotter it becomes. The centrifugal force
increases around the equatorial line preventing debris from entering around
its belt, leaving a visible ring as observed with Saturn. It should
therefore be observed to affect more volcanic activity close to the equator.
However, the Sun and the Moon bring about additional forces to the planets
surface and when a total eclipse occurs close to the equator, the collective
combined pull of the two planets eases the Earth's surface pressure and
causes it to distort.
(I actually predicted the earthquake activity which followed the last
Eclipse, and have witnesses! But no one ever listens do they?)
The additional disturbance at the core, caused by the external forces of the
eclipse, continues to generate additional friction and the likelihood of
volcanoes and earthquakes increase in the wake of the eclipse.
The rotation of the Earth, together with the energy from the Sun, causes the
oceans to circulate.
A simple flow and return system is also responsible for this
Brilliant Film, produced by a genius: After The Warming, presented By James
Burke. Maryland Public Television and Film Australia. 1990.

In 1989 research had been undertaken into the way the ocean currents work.
The group of scientists had discovered that the Gulf Stream is driven by a
combination of evaporation, salt concentration and gravitational pull.
The Gulf Stream, flowing on the surface, warming up as it comes through the
tropics, North up the Atlantic. Around Iceland The winds evaporate a lot of
the water so the water gets saltier. Now salty waters heavier so it sinks.
Five billion gallons a second, down to the bottom of the Atlantic. Then it
flows South an under water river 20 times bigger than all the rivers in the
world. Then East and then North up the Pacific, where it hits the continents
and comes back up to the surface, eventually coming back down through the
tropics, heating up as it goes, to become the warm Gulf Stream again. The
North Atlantic , where evaporation makes the water so salty that it sinks,
is what drives the whole thing, by using gravity in order to propel the
solutions. No tubes yet a clear indication of the magnitude of power
generated from a simple none living force.
But say that salty water didn't sink. There'd be no more warm Gulf Stream
pulled up to fill the gap, caused by the downward flowing, heavy salt water.
And with no more warm Gulf Stream, the temperature in the north would
plummet, so the ice caps would expand, with world wide consequences. Just
like it did 10,000 odd years ago. But for the Gulf Stream not to sink it
would have had to become less salty, and what on earth could do something on
that kind of scale?
A giant prehistoric lake in Canada, Lake Agassiz, B.730 BC. Held back by an
ice wall that melted as the planet warmed up after the ice age. Billions of
tons of fresh lake water suddenly flowed down the Saint Lawrence River into
the Atlantic, making thousands of square miles of ocean-surface Gulf Stream
water too fresh to sink, stopping the entire ocean circulation. Which in
turn prevented the Warm Gulf Stream from coming North, so a massive drop in
temperature and expansion of the polar caps world-wide. That was the key to
everything. Change the saltiness of the Atlantic and you change the world's
weather.
All of the additional matter thrown into the atmosphere from volcanoes,
provides the planets surface with new and alien materials and these combine
with water to generate independent flow and return circulation, giving rise
to the animation of once lifeless material, but that's another avenue we
should avoid. It is not relevant to your questions and would complicate this
thread beyond belief, and forms part of my unpublished book, titled "The
Gravity Of Life". I must avoid complications for the time being and hope you
will excuse me.
The whole of life on Earth pales into insignificance, when it is realised
that we are on a one way ticket to Armageddon! It hit me like a tonne of
bricks.
The Earth must keep growing for it is the order and nature of every planet
to either evolve into a sun or become part of a planet which evolves into a
sun. My best guess at when this will happen is that the oceans will
eventually meet with the magma and the reaction would be an almighty
ignition of everything we know. Evidence for this is the sheer volume of
stars on a clear night and the variety of states of each and every planet in
our solar system.
Context taken from: The Gravity of Life. by Andrew K Fletcher, Devon, United
Kingdom


Death is natures way of telling us to slow down.
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #20 on: 19/04/2005 10:54:58 »
quote:
Originally posted by chris

That now makes sense. I did not realise that the day was the same length as the year. That is a bizarre scenario - I wonder how that came about - anyone know ?

As Exodus pointed out earlier, the moon is supposed to have formed following the collision of the earth with a mars-sized planet, ejecting huge amounts of crust material into orbit around the earth. This material coalesced to form the moon, hence explaining why the moon is composed predominantly of 'crust' with very little 'core', and is also so huge relative to the earth.

Still haven't got to grips with the 'tilt' of the earth conundrum yet though.

Chris





the tilt would not have anything to do with the Earth being more oval as opposed to a complete circle would it?

*

Offline niko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #21 on: 25/10/2005 20:00:55 »
the reason that there is no water on venus is it is closer to the sun and to think if you where to put water in a pot and turn your burners all the way up the water won't be able to stay in the pot for long it evaporates now think the pot is venus and the water is the waterand the heat from the the burners is the sun. if there was water on venus it would be there for long and the only way water could get on venus is if billions of gallons where dumped on to the planet. there is your answer :)
 

*

Offline niko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #22 on: 25/10/2005 20:08:03 »
you wanted to know why the earth tilt's the earth is all ways spining now if we were to take a pool ball and spin it, it will show that the ball dosn't tilt in fact it tilts alot and because it's spining we can't control it. the only way we would be able to stop the tilt is to stop the world from spining
 

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #23 on: 29/09/2007 07:36:36 »
Venus never belonged to this solar system. It was captured from outside space.
Therefore it has some different properties.
I expect it will have radically different soil compositions as well.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #24 on: 01/10/2007 12:02:53 »
Venus never belonged to this solar system.
Can you provide even a scintilla of evidence to suppor this bizarre claim?
It was captured from outside space.
From outside space? Hmm. That must be quite far away I imagine. [::)]
Therefore it has some different properties.
Strange then, that its properties are in line with what we would expect if Venus formed from the assemblage of largely chondritic material in the accretion disc of the proto-sun.
I expect it will have radically different soil compositions as well.
It seems highly unlike it has any soil. Soil contains a significant number of living organisms and an amount of decomposing organic matter. I rather doubt there is such on the surface Venus. It will have regolith. We have seen and sampled this. No surprises there then.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #25 on: 01/10/2007 13:46:23 »
since it was captured by sun the properties of surface
has changed due to closeness. the surface temperature is close to 400 degrees.
Its surface is NOT made of chodritic material ..The surface is quite smooth.I do not claim living things.
If you try to simulate the creation of Sun and associated planets you will find that Venus couldnt have formed.
Venus look very similar to earth.. and was once covered with ICE. Its surface has water.
This is my prediction.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #26 on: 01/10/2007 13:54:49 »
Its surface is said to be covered with clouds of H2So4
which I think formed from H2O and SO2 .. therefore atleast once there was water...
I think it was covered with ICe and then it went thorugh this SUN only to find its new defintion.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #27 on: 01/10/2007 15:22:15 »
the surface temperature is close to 400 degrees. .......
Its surface has water.
This is my prediction.
You don't think there is a slight contradiction here?
Its surface is NOT made of chodritic material ..The surface is quite smooth.
I suspect that the best plan would be to totally ignore the rubbish you are spouting. Do you know what chondritic material is? The entire planet is largely made of chondritic material. This (bar the volatiles) is a close approximation to solar composition and constitutes the bulk of the solid material which condensed in the inner solar system in the accretion disc. Both rough and smooth terrains are possible. Guess what? When we examine the surface of Venus with radar, or with surface landers, we find that it is often rough. Are you just making stuff up to amuse yourself?

I see you have added a further post. More nonsense - you are actually claiming Venus went through the sun. At least Velikovsky produced evidence to support his weird contentions. Why would you pollute a science forum with such nonsense?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #28 on: 01/10/2007 15:44:15 »
I have right to speech and expression and I will not
bow down to such non sensical theories which are being ciruclated in this forum... tommorow the kids are goind to read and their minds will spoiled by this hopelessly mad theories.

Anyways no matter Velikovsky claimed is his personal claimed.. this is my claim... and contraditction which you see is blinded by your racial superstitions...
you people are not worth a piece of logic.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #29 on: 01/10/2007 16:09:56 »
I have right to speech and expression
Actually, you don't. You have only such rights as the administrators and moderators of this forum choose to give you. And they may take away any or all of these rights, at any time, for any reason.
Until they do you certainly have the opportunity to spout unsubstantiated, disconnected, infantile nonsense. I see you are taking full advantage of this opportunity. Equally I have the opportunity (not the right) to point out how unscientific your methodology and your claims are.
I will not
bow down to such non sensical theories which are being circulated in this forum... tomorrow the kids are going to read and their minds will spoiled by this hopelessly mad theories.
So your baseless, ephemeral speculations are superior to the properly researched, well validated, peer reviewed concepts explained by many of the posters on this forum. A theory of planetary formation that represents hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation, speculation, hypothesising, testing, and validating is inferior to your verbal diarrhoea on the same topic? I have doubts about that.I am hopeful that even an uneducated kid would recognise your waffle as pure nonsense.
Anyways no matter Velikovsky claimed is his personal claimed.. this is my claim... and contraditction which you see is blinded by your racial superstitions...
you people are not worth a piece of logic.
Which racial superstition are you referring to?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline atomball

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #30 on: 02/10/2007 01:45:21 »
Well, what happens with seasons is:

The earth is tilted 23 degrees All The Time! So when it is on one side of its orbit, the south is tilted toward and the north away, and when it is on the other side, the south is tilted away, and the north tilted towards, Because The Sun Is Now On The Other Side !

Ball your fist and hold it in the air. This is the sun. hold your other hand pointing up then tilt it. move it around your other hand without changing the tilt at all. You can see that on one side the south is pointing towards the sun, it's summer in the southern hemisphere. On the other side of the orbit, it's summer in the northern hemisphere!!

Actually the earth doesn't tilt at 23 degrees All The Time. I believe the Earth's tilt varies between 21.5 & 24.5 degrees in a cycle of approximately 42 000 years. When the tilt increases summers are hotter and winters are colder, when the tilt decreases the affects of the seasons are moderated. The orbit also stretches and wobbles every 95 000 and 21 000 years respectively.

That doesn't answer the question of course (sorry) but I'm new here and have to start somewhere.

*

Offline Bass

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1340
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #31 on: 02/10/2007 02:08:25 »
Welcome to the forums Atomball!

and nice job spinning this discussion towards a new axis...
Old enough to have a grandson
Slow enough to study rocks
Thirsty enough to find a pub

*

Offline atomball

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #32 on: 02/10/2007 04:25:10 »
Thank you for the welcome

I thought it was time for a new angle

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #33 on: 02/10/2007 14:33:18 »
Hello Atomball and welcome to Naked Scientists
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #34 on: 02/10/2007 14:54:36 »
Ophiolite

There is no such thing as well validated peer reviewed concepts. A theory of planetary formation that represents hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation, speculation, hypothesising, testing, and validating does not mean the theorising is correct, it just means that a lot of people have agreed with someone else's interpretation of the evidence. You cannot test theories about planetary formation in our timescale. You mentioned in another post satellite measurements. These count for absolutely nothing in the timescale of planetary development, all they represent is the best guesswork available at a given point in time, nothing more and nothing less. The same goes for accepted literature on planets and the universe. The best guesswork can also be totally off target and many advances in science have been brought about by people going in totally the opposite direction to the majority of unquestioning followers of science.

It may be prudent of you to refrain from attacking the person. In order to get your point across as this might intimidate some people. Personally I find your ill-mannered outbursts amusing, but others may feel you are trying to bully them into agreeing with your own beliefs.


Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #35 on: 02/10/2007 17:08:11 »
I have right to speech and expression and I will not
bow down to such non sensical theories which are being ciruclated in this forum... tommorow the kids are goind to read and their minds will spoiled by this hopelessly mad theories.

You have a right to free speech to the extent that you allow the same to others, and respect other's ideas and visions as you would wish your own to be respected.

Where you start your own threads on topics, we shall give you a lot of latitude to go your own way within those threads, but I must ask you not to abuse threads other people have started, and most of all, don't abuse other people's ideas, as they may believe them as much as you believe yours.

The ideas circulated on this forum are for the most part (although we allow a fair amount of latitude in the matter) what is generally accepted as the best current theory there is.  Some of it may no doubt be shown to be incorrect in time (although saying that something is incorrect is not to say that your replacement theory, untested as it is, is the correct one); but it is the starting point that most people will want to start with - some no doubt will go on in their careers to challenge some of those ideas, but they will want to start doing so by first having a good grounding in what it is they are about to challenge.  I would ask you to allow them at least the courtesy to understand what is the existing set of beliefs, however much you may personally disagree with the established beliefs.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #36 on: 05/10/2007 16:06:41 »
There is no such thing as well validated peer reviewed concepts.
Peer reviewed concepts are a cornerstone of the modern scientific method. When several researchers, approaching a problem from a variety of angles, produce results and hypotheses that mutually support each other we rightly say these are well validated.
To claim that these do no exist is equivalent to saying that modern science is invalid. That seems an odd attitude to bring to a science forum, don't you think?
A theory of planetary formation that represents hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation, speculation, hypothesising, testing, and validating does not mean the theorising is correct, it just means that a lot of people have agreed with someone else's interpretation of the evidence.
Absolutely true. But when the agreement is as extensive as it is in the case of planetary formation, then the probability is high that the core of the theory is valid. This certainly the case for the accretion theory of planetary formation.
You mentioned in another post satellite measurements. These count for absolutely nothing in the timescale of planetary development,
They were introduced to counter your incorrect statement that Venus was smooth. I notice you never responded to this refutation of your claim. Indeed, that seems to part of your modus operandi: make a bizarre claim, then ignore anyone who demonstrates you were incorrect, or esle make an even more bizarre, unrelated claim.
The best guesswork can also be totally off target and many advances in science have been brought about by people going in totally the opposite direction to the majority of unquestioning followers of science.
But this typically only works when they fully understand the current theory. You have offered ample evidence that this is not the case for yourself.
It may be prudent of you to refrain from attacking the person.
I have not attacked you. You are probably a thoroughly decent chap, a pillar of the community, a stalwart family member etc. Rather, I have attacked the mindless drivel you have been posting. I trust you see the distinction..
Personally I find your ill-mannered outbursts amusing, but others may feel you are trying to bully them into agreeing with your own beliefs.
I am delighted you have taken them in a light hearted fashion. I would like to clarify one point. Using the word outburst implies a significant emotional content in the communication. When I describe your notions as "verbal diarrhoea" I am, I believe, being quite objective. The only emotion present is a passionate commitment to accuracy in communications about science.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #37 on: 05/10/2007 16:49:53 »
I have looked for Venus is smooth on this thread? can you show me where I said it so I can see the context it was written in? I may have been referring to all planets beginning smooth with little reaction to change the planetary surface. If so I still hold this to being true.

You did insult me personally! But I am thick skinned. I was referring to you applying the same terse remarks to others in the forum.

Just because a lot of people are agreeing with a particular theory does nothing repeat absolutely nothing towards validating it! Peer review is great for preventing challengers to old theories. The new peer review system however is much better. Now we can at least nominate our own Peer Reviewers. But I suspect if controversy rears it's ugly head the peer review advocators will again insist on supplying their peer reviewers for the final word. "Not invented here syndrome"

Let me give you a for instance. Only a few years ago people believed in the bible's account of the age of the planet. Now the general consensus is that the Earth is much older, meaning the vast majority of well meaning people were evidently wrong. Following this, the World was believed to be flat by the vast majority. Did this make these wild assumptions right? No it did not, again the majority of intelligent people were wrong. One of the most intelligent people of out time confirmed that the Universe and the sun could not revolve around the Earth.

For a good account of verbal diarrhoea we need not look further than the Big Bang hypothesis and the Black Hole hypothesis!

I think the problem with everyone looking into space to form a new theory is that itís too difficult for him or her to challenge existing theories here on Earth. Treading on the toes of academia will undoubtedly be frowned upon and punished accordingly.

The sheer arrogance of people that believe they understand everything and nothing should be questioned never ceases to amaze me. How in the hell are we expected to advance science if doubting the existing structure is not allowed?

I placed a reply in the other thread adding evidence to the growth of the planet & incoming particles, further supporting it with evidence of huge swathes of dust observed by European Astrologers thought to be the building blocks of planets and everything in and around them. Precisely the point I was making when you accused me of being mentally unstable, and of poor education and low intelligence if memory serves me right.

As time progresses much of todayís science will of course be rendered invalid.  Believe it or not but this is considered as progress.

Andrew       



Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why water on Earth and not Venus?
« Reply #38 on: 06/10/2007 18:43:53 »
Andrew,
1. I confused your own unusual views with the equally unusual views of dkv. It was he that referred to Venus as being smooth. I regret the confusion.
2. You made this observation "Just because a lot of people are agreeing with a particular theory does nothing repeat absolutely nothing towards validating it!"
You are mistaken. The simple act of agreement is by itself meaningless. However, when many experts in a field agree with a hypothesis because they have reviewed the evidence, or duplicated the experiments, then this does validate the hypothesis. This is how science works. You may believe this is not how it should work - that is your right. It does not alter the fact that this is the scientific method.
3. Your ready discounting of the peer review process has echoes of Thomas Khun. However, Khun would have readily admitted both the value and the appropriateness of the process for most science. Khun's arguments for rejection of old concepts and their revolutionary replacement - paradigm shifts, in his terminology - were restricted to situations where there were many more questions than answers, and the few answers were ambiguous, or in some other way unsatisfactory.
4. You further observe:
"The sheer arrogance of people that believe they understand everything and nothing should be questioned never ceases to amaze me. How in the hell are we expected to advance science if doubting the existing structure is not allowed?"
I am equally amazed by such arrogance. It is however comparatively rare within science. Anyone holding such viewpoints is generally ridiculed by the scientific community and sooner or later is left behind as imaginative and progressive researchers move their field forward.

The bulk of scientific research is pretty mundane stuff, boring to most outside the field. It involves dotting the i's and crossing the t's of fundamental concepts. This work does not require and does not benefit from "doubting the existing structure" as you call it. Such doubting must be based upon a thorough understanding of that structure. Any cavalier dismissal of that carefully researched and validated structure without evidence of that understanding will justifiably be viewed as pseudoscience, and rightly ignored.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.