• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Venus, Velikovsky & Miscellaneous Speculations

Ghostisfort said:
Geocentricity originates from religious roots and has transferred to evolutionary dogma.
The psychology of scientific consensus always rattles cages. :D

How so? Are you saying that scientists don't believe that there is life anywhere outside our planet?
 
Evolution itself says nothing about the chances of finding life outside the Earth; quite the opposite, in fact, as it suggests that life could evolve to survive or even thrive in a variety of environments that are unlike those on our planet.

The question of abiogenesis, that is to say, the emergence of life on our planet and elsewhere, is quite separate from evolution, and these subjects should not be conflated.
 
eburacum said:
Evolution itself says nothing about the chances of finding life outside the Earth; quite the opposite, in fact, as it suggests that life could evolve to survive or even thrive in a variety of environments that are unlike those on our planet.

The question of abiogenesis, that is to say, the emergence of life on our planet and elsewhere, is quite separate from evolution, and these subjects should not be conflated.

Interesting - do we have an abiogenesis thread?
There is a very good reason why the genesis of life is separate from it's evolution, but that would be off topic.
Evolution is driven by the is-ought problem that David Hume thought he had disposed of in 1739:
that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
For ought's and ought not's and should be's and must be's, one needs to go to the Talk Origins forum.

At the following link is an animation of Venus polar super-rotation. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/cosmos51.htm

What makes it even more interesting to me, is that it supports my own theory, that Venus is simply convecting heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where it cools and descends at the poles like water down a bath plughole.
The lower animation shows the deep hole that suggests deep circulation and deep mixing of atmospheric gasses.

In this picture it's possible to see the rising heat in an arrow shape:
http://astrophys-assist.com/educate/rob ... clouds.jpg
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Geocentricity originates from religious roots and has transferred to evolutionary dogma.
The psychology of scientific consensus always rattles cages. :D

How so? Are you saying that scientists don't believe that there is life anywhere outside our planet?
Yes.
You probably won't understand this: but, consensus opinion is slanted to debunk any such suggestion by default. This is applauded and seen as the thing to do - 'scepticism is what science is all about'.
But if the opposite tack was taken, the obvious, that life is ubiquitous throughout the universe, then completely different results emerge. You start actually looking for life.
This is an example of sciences' abandonment of logic.
 
Ghostisfort said:
What makes it even more interesting to me, is that it supports my own theory, that Venus is simply convecting heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where it cools and descends at the poles like water down a bath plughole.
The lower animation shows the deep hole that suggests deep circulation and deep mixing of atmospheric gasses.

In this picture it's possible to see the rising heat in an arrow shape:
http://astrophys-assist.com/educate/rob ... clouds.jpg
The website you refer to, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/cosmos51.htm, states "This relatively warm polar 'hole' was..." {emphasis mine} . This statement from your link contradicts your theory that the cooler atmosphere descends at the poles, as the pole is a place of relative warmth, not relative coolness.

Given that you state that this site supports your theory, I am left to wonder.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Yes. You probably won't understand this: but, consensus opinion is slanted to debunk any such suggestion by default. This is applauded and seen as the thing to do - 'scepticism is what science is all about'.
But if the opposite tack was taken, the obvious, that life is ubiquitous throughout the universe, then completely different results emerge. You start actually looking for life.
This is an example of sciences' abandonment of logic.

:roll: I don't really appreciate the patronising tone.

Can you actually prove such statements - and please do not quote sites that merely reflect opinions that share your own. You need to demonstrate that this is the official line as stated in scientific journals, papers, etc.. You also have to explain various test carried out by, say, exploratory missions to Mars, ideas about Europa, etc.
 
kamalktk
Everything on Venus is warm/hot, it's relative. If you look at the coloured (red) animation, you can see the hotter material cooling.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Yes. You probably won't understand this: but, consensus opinion is slanted to debunk any such suggestion by default. This is applauded and seen as the thing to do - 'scepticism is what science is all about'.
But if the opposite tack was taken, the obvious, that life is ubiquitous throughout the universe, then completely different results emerge. You start actually looking for life.
This is an example of sciences' abandonment of logic.

:roll: I don't really appreciate the patronising tone.

Can you actually prove such statements - and please do not quote sites that merely reflect opinions that share your own. You need to demonstrate that this is the official line as stated in scientific journals, papers, etc.. You also have to explain various test carried out by, say, exploratory missions to Mars, ideas about Europa, etc.

It was not intended to appear patronising, you really don't appear to understand that "looking for something sceptically", is not looking at all.

Further, no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers.
 
There are two circulation systems in Venus' atmosphere; from the equator to the poles, and from the sunward side to the dark side. These circulations occur at different levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venus_circulation.jpg
Additional to this circulation one has to superinpose the superrotation, which smears the circulation of the clouds into the distinctive V-shaped patterns seen from space.

A final bizarre touch is the formation of an opaque haze over the night side, which is difficult to observe but can be seen because it occults the stars near the horizon.
 
Ghostisfort said:
It was not intended to appear patronising, you really don't appear to understand that "looking for something sceptically", is not looking at all.

Further, no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers.

Again with the patronising tone :roll: It seems that this is really just another speculative opinion from you.

First of all, "looking for something sceptically" is probably the lesser of two evils, given that any signs of life might be difficult to verify from the outset. This is alot different from assuming that scientists don't look and aren't looking. As I said, the search on Mars dispproves it for starters. Scientists have not been averse to the idea that Europa may possibly harbour some sort of life. Even SETI shows that the idea of thinking about and searching for such things is not some sort of no-no within science.

But, of course, if you can actually prove that 'no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers', please demonstrate where you have discerned this outlook and opnion from scientific literature, etc. (but not other opinionated websites please).
 
kamalktk said:
Ghostisfort said:
What makes it even more interesting to me, is that it supports my own theory, that Venus is simply convecting heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where it cools and descends at the poles like water down a bath plughole.
The lower animation shows the deep hole that suggests deep circulation and deep mixing of atmospheric gasses.

In this picture it's possible to see the rising heat in an arrow shape:
http://astrophys-assist.com/educate/rob ... clouds.jpg
The website you refer to, http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/cosmos51.htm, states "This relatively warm polar 'hole' was..." {emphasis mine} . This statement from your link contradicts your theory that the cooler atmosphere descends at the poles, as the pole is a place of relative warmth, not relative coolness.

Given that you state that this site supports your theory, I am left to wonder.

Ghostisfort said:
kamalktk
Everything on Venus is warm/hot, it's relative. If you look at the coloured (red) animation, you can see the hotter material cooling.

Yes, indeed you can see that I repeatedly said relative in my post. Again, your site indicates the pole is a place of relative warmth. That would not be the case if, as you describe, the pole is where cooler air descends. If it was where the cooler air descends in order to get warmed back up, it would be relatively cool.
 
eburacum said:
There are two circulation systems in Venus' atmosphere; from the equator to the poles, and from the sunward side to the dark side. These circulations occur at different levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venus_circulation.jpg
Additional to this circulation one has to superinpose the superrotation, which smears the circulation of the clouds into the distinctive V-shaped patterns seen from space.

A final bizarre touch is the formation of an opaque haze over the night side, which is difficult to observe but can be seen because it occults the stars near the horizon.
As I already said, the circulation of the Venus model atmosphere is theoretical with very little instrument/observational verification. There is no evidence that the V-shape is not due to upwelling of hot gasses from surface heating. There is also no evidence that the superrotation is not as a result of the release of heat due to simple hot gas rising and returning to the surface, via the poles at reduced temperature as in any convection system. This is simple, logical Occam's razor science, just like water boiling in a pan.

Regarding the colour animation:
The assumption is that when the gasses get to the poles, they are already cooled (but still relatively hot). The red animation shows yellow and white (I presume hotter) gasses becoming red, cooling.
 
Jerry_B said:
Again with the patronising tone :roll: It seems that this is really just another speculative opinion from you.

First of all, "looking for something sceptically" is probably the lesser of two evils, given that any signs of life might be difficult to verify from the outset. This is alot different from assuming that scientists don't look and aren't looking. As I said, the search on Mars dispproves it for starters. Scientists have not been averse to the idea that Europa may possibly harbour some sort of life. Even SETI shows that the idea of thinking about and searching for such things is not some sort of no-no within science.

But, of course, if you can actually prove that 'no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers', please demonstrate where you have discerned this outlook and opnion from scientific literature, etc. (but not other opinionated websites please).
"Opinionated websites" is what I do. I uphold the right of everyone to have an opinion, regardless of scientific or religious dogma.

Science doesn't like new ideas and alien life fits nicely into the category of extraordinary phenomena, which according to science requires extraordinary evidence. But the goal post of extraordinary evidence retreats with every goal scored.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
The history of the search for life on Mars is a dogs dinner of instrument failure, obfuscation and controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_me ... ce_of_life
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3653/ ... meteorite-

The pie in the sky search for life on Europa depends on technology that does not exist.

SETI is crazy - dependent on the premise that advanced civilisations use snail radio to traverse the galaxy. A further assumption is that scientists of an advanced race will think just like the scientists of Earth.
Logical reasoning: The fact that they certainly don't think that way being the very reason that they became an advanced civilisation.

A Sceptical Search.
The word sceptical means doubtful or disbelieving.
The word search means explore.
To disbelievingly and doubtfully explore is an oxymoron.
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/oxymoron
Scepticism has become a kind of denial rather than the old 'not being naive'. And so, Professor Richard Wiseman's Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, has become Committee for Denial of things not sanctioned by academic science.
I unpatronisingly uphold the right of everyone to have an opinion, regardless of scientific or religious dogma.
 
So you can't actually prove that 'no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers'. I suspected as much.

Alien life does not fit into the catagory of extraordinary phenomena. If it did, it would not be part of the Mars missions - especially if we take your reasoning about how science works into account. The various other examples I mentioned also show that the idea about alien life is not at all taboo within science. Sure, searching for it thus far may be a bit wanting in terms of results, but that's a whole ot different from trying to make out that as a subject is it is a no-no within science. Whatever Wiseman is doing has nothing to do with this, so to mention him is absolutely pointless.

WRT to opinionated sites, my point there was that I would rather you demonstrate what sceientists are saying - or ordering silence on - about the possibilities of alien life, rather than the opinions of people who share your views. It would be great if you could prove assertions such as 'no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers' - but thus far you have been unable to do so. So it seems, yet again, you continue to assert things which you cannot prove.
 
eburacum said:
Evolution itself says nothing about the chances of finding life outside the Earth; quite the opposite, in fact, as it suggests that life could evolve to survive or even thrive in a variety of environments that are unlike those on our planet.

The question of abiogenesis, that is to say, the emergence of life on our planet and elsewhere, is quite separate from evolution, and these subjects should not be conflated.

I don't see how a random evolution can make any predictions, here or cosmically? The very phrase "random mutation" presupposes unpredictability.

The separation of evolution from abiogenesis leads to the inevitable conclusion that evolution has no start point. This highlights one of the most daunting problems in evo-biology: That there is no way that the most basic life form, with genetics for just feeding and reproduction, can evolve. Any genetic modification must lead to the death of the organism.

I'm sure this should be discussed elsewhere?
 
Jerry_B said:
So you can't actually prove that 'no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers'. I suspected as much.

Alien life does not fit into the catagory of extraordinary phenomena. If it did, it would not be part of the Mars missions - especially if we take your reasoning about how science works into account. The various other examples I mentioned also show that the idea about alien life is not at all taboo within science. Sure, searching for it thus far may be a bit wanting in terms of results, but that's a whole ot different from trying to make out that as a subject is it is a no-no within science. Whatever Wiseman is doing has nothing to do with this, so to mention him is absolutely pointless.

WRT to opinionated sites, my point there was that I would rather you demonstrate what sceientists are saying - or ordering silence on - about the possibilities of alien life, rather than the opinions of people who share your views. It would be great if you could prove assertions such as 'no scientist is going to be the first to announce the discovery of alien life because of the flack from his/her peers' - but thus far you have been unable to do so. So it seems, yet again, you continue to assert things which you cannot prove.
As soon as I find a link, you will be the first to know.
 
Ghostisfort said:
eburacum said:
Evolution itself says nothing about the chances of finding life outside the Earth; quite the opposite, in fact, as it suggests that life could evolve to survive or even thrive in a variety of environments that are unlike those on our planet.

I don't see how a random evolution can make any predictions, here or cosmically? The very phrase "random mutation" presupposes unpredictability.
Evolution has produced a wide variety of organisms which can thrive in a wide variety of environments; some of those environments (such as the oxygen atmosphere itself) did not exist when life first emerged on this planet, so it is reasonable to assume that life could evolve to survive in a range of environments that do not exist on our world. The existence of extremophiles seems to demonstrate this fact very well.

Note that all extremophiles so far discovered on Earth have genetic markers in common with the other organisms on our planet, so it is reasonable to assume that they are all descended from a common ancestor, via evolution.
 
eburacum
I have a problem with the word evolution and its endless meanings - all things to all men.
For example: on another forum, I was told that 'whatever it is that brought the biosphere to what it is today, that is evolution'. It would be a page saver if I knew just what you actually mean by the word?

For some unexplained reason, I am being diverted from the topic of this thread? :D
 
I don't think that discussion of the evolution of possible life in Venus' atmosphere is off-topic. Here for instance is a short interview with David Grinspoon, who thinks it is reasonably possible (as do I)
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA09/venus297.php
"It's possible that Venus could have tiny microbes in its cloud particles, or that some form of Venusian life could have developed by using ultraviolet light much like Earth's plants use sunlight to make food. There could even be a non-carbon-based equivalent to lichens atop Venus' five-mile-high volcanoes, perhaps feeding on sulfur gases," he said.

Evolution may follow radically different rules on another world. If epigenetic effects and horizontal gene transfer manifest themselves more strongly than chromosomal genetics, it is possible that something like Lamarckism might prevail elsewhere. Perhaps some, or many alien worlds have genetic evolution that resembles that on Earth; but others may differ considerably.
 
Ghostisfort said:
And so, it is not random?
Evolution is not random - it always tends to favour those most fitted for a given environment. And if the environment changes, species change too.

As Darwin explained, many years ago.

(It's such a simple and obvious idea, it's baffling why some people still don't get it!)
 
Lamarckian evolution was vigorously resisted by the mainstream until recently and I suppose it's a step away form the usual extreme conservatism.

Mutations are Random
The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation...
...Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear1.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ndom.shtml

Many of the things that are called evolution are not. Living things seem to have latent abilities that only appear under certain conditions or, as above, for seemingly no reason.

Another problem with evolution, whatever it may be, is the appearance of us humans, from ancestors who are clearly apes, in only a few tens of thousands of years. Huge changes take place that would be allotted millions of years for any other species.

I've already given my take on the geological time-scale and how it cannot support the stratigraphic record.

My friend Lloyd Pye prefers some kind of intervention and I must say that I cannot fault his logic.
The fittest survive.
What is meant by the fittest?
Not the strongest; not the cleverest —
Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.
There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.
"Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival."
Darwinism:
That survivors survive.


Charles Fort The Book of The Damned Ch. 3
 
Living things seem to have latent abilities that only appear under certain conditions or, as above, for seemingly no reason.
This is somewhat off-topic when talking about Venus, but your statement does seem to be correct in many ways. The most interesting example to me is the so-called Sapient Paradox, identified by Colin Renfrew; humans have existed in their current form for upwards of 60,000 years, but the trappings of advanced civilisation (city-dwelling, written literature, large-scale agriculture, metal-working, scientific endeavour, spaceflight and so on) have only emerged in the last ten thousand years or so.

The suggestion is that humans 60,000 years ago could have become mathematicians, astronauts, racing drivers, interior designers and so on, if they were transplanted to the current day; the ability to do all these things seems to exist in the human phenotype as a potential, which has not been expressed until recently. Closely related species such as chimps do not have similar potential- they would not make particularly good stunt pilots, speed typists, computer programmers, etcetera.

That is the sapient paradox, and I don't think it implies *intervention* by an outside agency, but it does suggest that humans somehow evolved latent abilities long before they became useful.
 
eburacum said:
That is the sapient paradox, and I don't think it implies *intervention* by an outside agency, but it does suggest that humans somehow evolved latent abilities long before they became useful.
This is over-intellectualising the situation. Evolution has given us a wide range of abilities, which can become more specialised as circumstances permit. With the growth of human population and communication skills, and the ever-increasing development of technology, new niches to exploit open up in society.

Nobody has an innate potential to be a computer programmer (and it would be pretty useless in a world without computers!), but most of us have certain skills in communication and numeracy which can be developed by training so that we can learn to program, now we have computers to use.

Much the same applies to all the other skills mentioned.
 
I think Renfrew's point is 'what possible use is the ability to do mental arithmatic, or read, or speedtext before mathematics, writing or SMS have been invented'? There are a great many skills which a human can learn which no other animal can learn - what did that remarkable ability to learn skills evolve for originally?
 
eburacum said:
I think Renfrew's point is 'what possible use is the ability to do mental arithmatic, or read, or speedtext before mathematics, writing or SMS have been invented'? There are a great many skills which a human can learn which no other animal can learn - what did that remarkable ability to learn skills evolve for originally?
But all these 'advanced' skills only build on abilities already evolved - the ability to count your tribe/cattle, etc, recognize shapes, and so on. Natural selection did most of the hard work - civilisation's refinements (developed over millenia) are just a thin veneer on top of our natural abilities.
 
And our 'advanced' skills now don't always allow us to figure out how certain skills were carried out in the past.
 
rynner2 said:
eburacum said:
I think Renfrew's point is 'what possible use is the ability to do mental arithmatic, or read, or speedtext before mathematics, writing or SMS have been invented'? There are a great many skills which a human can learn which no other animal can learn - what did that remarkable ability to learn skills evolve for originally?
But all these 'advanced' skills only build on abilities already evolved - the ability to count your tribe/cattle, etc, recognize shapes, and so on. Natural selection did most of the hard work - civilisation's refinements (developed over millenia) are just a thin veneer on top of our natural abilities.
You make it sound so obvious.
I would be interested to know just how an ability to do math' is selected for a hunter gatherer?
Or maybe evolution works faster for us humans, just like it did when Cro Magnon appeared after the apelike ancestors?
What happened to the millions of years required?
I'm afraid Lloyd Pye is right.
Intervention is more logical. :hello:
 
Back
Top