Venus, Velikovsky & Miscellaneous Speculations

[Jerry_B]

Nonsense. This thread started as a rant against science disguised as something about Venus, with a pro-Velikovskian angle. See the first post to see what I mean. After that, it's been more about Velikovsky than Venus - and we already have a thread about him.

It would actually be nice if the thread was actual new science stuff about Venus, but it isn't. It seems to be another thread trying to pursue a particular point of view, excluding any contrary views.

 

[Ghostisfort]

This is the History that the sceptics object to!

I think you're referring to Harry Hess of Princeton, not Einstein.

Thank you for the additional information

On the Recent Discoveries Concerning Jupiter and Venus is a letter published in Science magazine (December 21 , 1962, Vol. 138, pp. 1350-52) from Princeton University Prof. Valentine Bargmann and Columbia University astronomer Lloyd Motz concerning two of Velikovsky's predictions, one on radio noises from Jupiter, the other on the heat of Venus.

The letter appears in full on the Science magazine web site here, and is reproduced below:

"In the light of recent discoveries of radio waves from Jupiter and of the high surface temperature of Venus, we think it proper and just to make the following statement.

On 14 October 1953, Immanuel Velikovsky, addressing the Forum of the Graduate College of Princeton University in a lecture entitled "Worlds in Collision in the Light of Recent Finds in Archaeology, Geology and Astronomy: Refuted or Verified?," concluded the lecture as follows: "The planet Jupiter is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and the stars. I suggest that this be investigated."

Soon after that date, the text of the lecture was deposited with each of us [it is printed as supplement to Velikovsky's Earth in Upheaval (Doubleday, 1955)]. Eight months later, in June 1954, Velikovsky, in a letter, requested Albert Einstein to use his influence to have Jupiter surveyed for radio emission. The letter, with Einstein's marginal notes commenting on this proposal, is before us. Ten more months passed, and on 5 April 1955 B. F. Burke and K. L. Franklin of the Carnegie Institution announced the chance detection of strong radio signals emanating from Jupiter. They recorded the signals for several weeks before they correctly identified the source.

This discovery came as something of a surprise because radio astronomers had never expected a body as cold as Jupiter to emit radio waves (1).

On 5 December 1956, through the kind services of H. H. Hess, chairman of the department of geology of Princeton University, Velikovsky submitted a memorandum to the U. S. National Committee for the (planned) IGY in which he suggested the existence of a terrestrial magnetosphere reaching the moon. Receipt of the memorandum was acknowledged by E. O. Hulburt for the Committee. The magnetosphere was discovered in 1958 by Van Allen.

In the last chapter of his Worlds in Collision (1950), Velikovsky stated that the surface of Venus must be very hot, even though in 1950 the temperature of the cloud surface of Venus was known to be -25°C on the day and night sides alike..."

 

[eburacum]

Here's Velikovsky's blatantly pseudoscientific hypothesis that led to the 'prediction' that Jupiter would emit in the radio spectrum.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
There is not a single quantitative calculation in the whole essay; if he managed to predict anything using this hypothesis, it is purely by chance.

Note that Newtonian gravity and relativity together have been entirely adequate to allow numerous deep-space probes to navigate to every planet in the Solar System, with no hint of any substantial electric or magnetic deflection. Velikovsky's maths-free hypothesis was wrong.
(there is a very small and interesting anomaly, the Pioneer anomaly, but it only seems to kick in far away from any 'charged bodies').

But perhaps we should look at this from a different angle. Velikovsky's idea of catastrophism does have a great deal of relevance, even though his science was wrong. There have almost certainly been numerous devastating catastrophes in the Earth's geological past:

during the eary history of the Solar System Uranus and Neptune exchanged places
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_model

and planets in other planetary systems appear to collide at a rate that can be observed
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28928
(these collisions give off lots of dust, unlike the absurd Velikovskian billiards-game)

We must now accept that violent events can and will happen sometimes on a planetary scale. Can it be said that Velikovsky influenced the modern tendency to accept catastrophism?

It appears not. Consider this quote from Walter Alvarez, the originator of the Dino-killer asteroid theory.

[Velikovsky did not influence science] in any positive ways. I considered him part of the problem we faced in getting a hearing for the KT impact hypothesis, because his ideas, which were incompatible with the laws of physics, had confirmed many geologists in their view that people working on extraterrestrial causes for events in Earth history were not doing good science.

 

[Ghostisfort]

First, the use of the word pseudoscientific is based on the assumption that only academics of the appropriate disciplines are 'scientific' and worthy to comment or theorise on a particular subject.
I would dispute this on the basis of my own research, where I find that qualified scientists tend to contribute less new ideas than the average layman.(see my web site)
The ideas, more often than not being originally the work of amateurs or even scientists of a completely different discipline.

I admit that Velikovsky's approach to astronomy is novel, but it's symptomatic of a scientific education that any other method of working or thinking is ridiculous.
How do you suppose mankind survived before the 'scientific method' and what is it? My advice on this dilemma is to look for example, at how many discoveries were made by Alchemists and then claimed by academics as their own work. Start with Newton, you may be surprised to find there are other ways.

Cosmos Without Gravitation dates back to 1946, well before the publication of WIC and is not generally known or used other than by debunkers.

The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles – and after a bit of foot-shuffling and throat-clearing, the discussion will be moved on to safer topics. But look, they’re out there. They probably do play a role in galaxy evolution, if not galaxy formation – and are certainly a feature of the interstellar medium and the intergalactic medium.
http://www.physorg.com/print223562554.html

Even today cosmic electrical fields have surprised NASA and yet astronomers are loathe to discuss their true nature which is obviously electrical:
"

The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras." http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/

Newtonian gravity and relativity are not used "together" for space navigation. Probes are engineering endeavours with science also running. Think back to the early Moon shots and how gravity was the most troublesome item?

Velikovsky never claimed that there was a collision between planets. On the contrary, he said that the like-electrical-charge of a planet would repel the other. So no dust.
When have planets in other systems been observed to collide?

The blackmail of a publisher and the sacking of at least one astronomer who gave credence to Velikovsky's ideas, the writing of countless books and articles by scientists and others, tells me that he did have a considerable and undeniable effect.

 

[eburacum]

Think back to the early Moon shots and how gravity was the most troublesome item?

You've lost me again. Gravity is certainly the tricky part in getting to the moon, and magnetism and electric fields have little effect on the trajectory of any spacecraft (something that was yet to be confirmed when WIC was published, as no spacecraft had yet left the Earth).

Perhaps you are thinking of the uneven gravity field of the Moon, caused by so-called mass concentrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_conce ... (astronomy)
These unexpected phenomena are part of the reason exploring the universe is so interesting, compared with Velikovsky's approach of sitting at home thinking about things and dreaming up fantasies about them.

 

[eburacum]

When have planets in other systems been observed to collide?

The collisions are inferred because of the presence of dust in a mature system, which should have cleared or shepherded most of this dust into invisibility long ago.

Perhaps there are other explanations, though- a dust field could be the signature of a half-built Dyson swarm, or the debris from a devastating interplanetary war...

 

[kamalktk]

(there is a very small and interesting anomaly, the Pioneer anomaly, but it only seems to kick in far away from any 'charged bodies').

Off topic, but they figured that out. Heat from the plutonium aboard was the cause.

laymans terms.
http://news.discovery.com/space/oh-pioneer-mysterious-anomaly-may-finally-be-solved-110414.html

fully detailed proof if you wanted to pay
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477009d.html

 

[eburacum]

An anomaly which hasn't been figured out yet is the Flyby anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

note that when they tried to measure it accurately over the last few years, with MESSENGER and Rosetta (twice), it failed to occur...

 

[rynner2]

Velikovsky never claimed that there was a collision between planets.

But he wrote a book called 'Worlds in Collision' - misleading, or what?!

 

[Mythopoeika]

Velikovsky never claimed that there was a collision between planets.

But he wrote a book called 'Worlds in Collision' - misleading, or what?!

Well, I guess that the alternative title, 'Worlds That Come Close to Each Other' doesn't have the same 'impact' as 'Worlds in Collision'.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Think back to the early Moon shots and how gravity was the most troublesome item?

You've lost me again. Gravity is certainly the tricky part in getting to the moon, and magnetism and electric fields have little effect on the trajectory of any spacecraft (something that was yet to be confirmed when WIC was published, as no spacecraft had yet left the Earth).

Perhaps you are thinking of the uneven gravity field of the Moon, caused by so-called mass concentrations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_conce ... (astronomy)
These unexpected phenomena are part of the reason exploring the universe is so interesting, compared with Velikovsky's approach of sitting at home thinking about things and dreaming up fantasies about them.

Mascons' were used as a get-out-of-jail-card for a multitude of misdemeanours, it's difficult to Blame it on the Moonlight when you're on the way to the Moon.
The first Moon shots got to the Moon and so no problem with the rocket engineering. The problems arose when trying to land or orbit; a long series of disasters - crash landings and flying off into space. This was the scientific part of the missions, gravity, about which science claims to know, but in fact is groping in the dark having abandoned clues that lead to an electromagnetic solution. The gravity problem was even evident with the later manned landings (blamed on computers), for those who are not blinded by the light of science.

As I recall, it was a NASA scientist who started the conspiracy theory that the Moon was hollow as part of the plan to explain the constant gravitational failures? It is against such a background that we must consider scientific information about Venus.

Had the scientists sat at home and done some thinking, rather than engage in a charade of theoretical gobbledygook and sham intellectualism, we would be enjoying the fruits of real science today.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Velikovsky never claimed that there was a collision between planets.

But he wrote a book called 'Worlds in Collision' - misleading, or what?!

Well, I guess that the alternative title, 'Worlds That Come Close to Each Other' doesn't have the same 'impact' as 'Worlds in Collision'.

I like it.
It was probably his publisher who pointed this out?
Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, Earth In Upheaval, Mankind in Amnesia
He also liked to have IN, in the title.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Comment:
I cannot let this glib reference to the supposed Venusian ‘greenhouse effect’ pass without comment. The very high surface temperature of Venus of 750°K or 900°F is usually explained by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or even the ‘runaway greenhouse effect,’ first suggested by Fred Hoyle in 1955 and worked out in detail in the late 1960s by Ingersoll and Pollack of Caltech. Such explanations assume that both Venus and Earth have had largely parallel development (so-called twins) and that therefore something went seriously wrong with the atmospheric evolution on Venus. However, there is not a shred of evidence for the ‘twin planets’ theory.

As for the greenhouse effect, it is a desperate model clutched at by theorists who have no alternative ideas. Yet the astronomer Firsoff noted: “Earth's seas are not boiling hot, despite the total greenhouse effect of water and average sunlight stronger than at the ground level of Venus. Nor is it at all clear how such a condition could have become established.”

Venus receives 1.9 times more solar radiation than Earth but its clouds reflect about 80% of that sunlight, so that Venus actually absorbs less solar energy than the Earth. Solar radiation measured at the surface is 10-20W/m2 (compare this with 340W/m2 at the Earth's surface in the tropics). Even with the maximum greenhouse effect, the effective surface temperature of Venus should be low enough to freeze water. What is being asked of the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ is equivalent to expecting a well-insulated oven to reach a temperature sufficient to melt lead by having only the pilot light switched on!

The humorous but sadly apt inversion, ‘I’ll see it when I believe it,’ seems to apply to the interpretation of results relayed to Earth from all four Pioneer lander probes as their radiometers began to give anomalous results as they descended through the atmosphere.

“Taken at face value, the anomalies suggest that parts of the atmosphere are transmitting about twice the energy upwards that is available from solar radiation at the same level.” [Pioneer Venus, NASA Report SP-461, p. 127].

Despite the obvious interpretation that the laws of thermodynamics are not being violated and that, put simply, Venus is intrinsically damned hot and still cooling, the investigators are able to blandly state in the same paragraph:

“In spite of these difficulties in interpreting some of the observations, the greenhouse effect, coupled with global dynamics, is now well established as the basic explanation of the high surface temperature.”

This is merely consensus ignorance, not science.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=jej1t3c2

 

[eburacum]

“Taken at face value, the anomalies suggest that parts of the atmosphere are transmitting about twice the energy upwards that is available from solar radiation at the same level.” [Pioneer Venus, NASA Report SP-461, p. 127].

Despite the obvious interpretation that the laws of thermodynamics are not being violated and that, put simply, Venus is intrinsically damned hot and still cooling, the investigators are able to blandly state in the same paragraph:

“In spite of these difficulties in interpreting some of the observations, the greenhouse effect, coupled with global dynamics, is now well established as the basic explanation of the high surface temperature.”

The only difficulty here is the appalling and presumably deliberate ignorance displayed by the writer. The NASA report clearly states that there is an excess of heat in parts of the atmosphere; that is how the greenhouse effect works. Only the very top of Venus' atmosphere is transparent to heat, and only there can heat escape; that is the only level that will be have an equal amount of energy input and output.

Lower down the effect of increasing pressure will also increase the temperature; heat radiation tries to escape but fails.

Remember that at every level (apart from the very top) energy is not only coming from the Sun, but also from the surrounding atmosphere. No wonder there is more energy radiating in all directions (not only upwards) at certain levels than comes from the Sun.

 

[Ghostisfort]

The system of meritocracy in which we live demands that we respect "the qualified". However, I personally know of some, with doctorates, who have trouble finding their own arse. And so you will forgive me and the writer of the previous article for only giving respect to those who deserve it?

Velikovsky's predictions, at the time of publication of WIC were far superior to those of the astronomers of the day and they were further confirmed by the subsequent space program.

The answer of the astronomers and other science community members, was not to build on the acquired knowledge, but to prove that he was wrong. I'm surprised that no one told them that this is not science.

A large proportion of the non scientific public knows this and cries of foul from scientists and those such as yourself only reinforces the doubt.
In other words: you are doing exactly what the debunked astronomers did in 1950 - "appalling and presumably deliberate ignorance displayed", being typical of the pure hubris displayed.

The NASA report clearly states that there is an excess of heat in parts of the atmosphere; that is how the greenhouse effect works.

I'm not at all certain what this means, can you please clarify?

Only the very top of Venus' atmosphere is transparent to heat, and only there can heat escape; that is the only level that will be have an equal amount of energy input and output.

Of the pictures I've seen of the movements of Venus' clouds, it seems to me that there is a planet wide up welling of hot atmosphere that unfolds at the surface (releasing heat) and then sinks down at the presumably cooler poles.

The excess of heat over and above that received by insolation (the Sun) is not explained.

Probably the most damning for the greenhouse theory is the data from all of the US and Russian probes showing that the thermal gradient of the atmosphere is from base to cloud tops, i.e. the heat source is at the bottom, not outside. In short, the claims that have been made publicly notwithstanding, the planet is not in thermal equilibrium. According to the probe data, the emitted surface infrared flux is 40 times more than enters as sunlight. About 2 percent of the heat at the surface can be attributed to solar input. Overall, Venus emits 15 percent more energy than it receives from the sun, implying a heat output 10,000 times greater than Earth's. Although Venus rotates 243 times more slowly than Earth (58-day dark period), nightside temperatures are slightly higher than on the day side--contradicting the notion that the sun is the heat source. Rigorous mathematical modelling by the thermodynamicist George R. Talbott showed that given an incandescent state 3,500 years ago as the recent-origin theory proposes, the cooling curve over that period yields a temperature today exactly as observed.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/041498.shtml

It seems that all of this data has been jettisoned, replaced by a theory based (with no instrument back-up) computer model, for the purpose of a face saving exercise.
Can this be the reason?

In spite of these difficulties in interpreting some of the observations, the greenhouse effect, coupled with global dynamics, is now well established as the basic explanation of the high surface temperature. (Your quote)

It is necessary to maintain the Venus greenhouse effect in order to support a terrestrial greenhouse effect. Science needs to work on its credibility with honesty.

 

[Timble2]

...The first Moon shots got to the Moon and so no problem with the rocket engineering. The problems arose when trying to land or orbit; a long series of disasters - crash landings and flying off into space. This was the scientific part of the missions, gravity, about which science claims to know, but in fact is groping in the dark having abandoned clues that lead to an electromagnetic solution. The gravity problem was even evident with the later manned landings (blamed on computers), for those who are not blinded by the light of science.

....

Even a bit of perfunctory checking would have shown you that majority of early lunar probes failed and they failed during launch, or due to technical problems leading to failure of mid course corrections to enable the probes to enter lunar orbit. Engineering failures the lot of them....

 

[kamalktk]

Probably the most damning for the greenhouse theory is the data from all of the US and Russian probes showing that the thermal gradient of the atmosphere is from base to cloud tops, i.e. the heat source is at the bottom, not outside. In short, the claims that have been made publicly notwithstanding, the planet is not in thermal equilibrium. According to the probe data, the emitted surface infrared flux is 40 times more than enters as sunlight. About 2 percent of the heat at the surface can be attributed to solar input. Overall, Venus emits 15 percent more energy than it receives from the sun, implying a heat output 10,000 times greater than Earth's. Although Venus rotates 243 times more slowly than Earth (58-day dark period), nightside temperatures are slightly higher than on the day side--contradicting the notion that the sun is the heat source. Rigorous mathematical modelling by the thermodynamicist George R. Talbott showed that given an incandescent state 3,500 years ago as the recent-origin theory proposes, the cooling curve over that period yields a temperature today exactly as observed.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/041498.shtml

I have already provided you with a correct citation in this thread. I am not sure why you continue to cite pages that do not exist.

 

[Ghostisfort]

...The first Moon shots got to the Moon and so no problem with the rocket engineering. The problems arose when trying to land or orbit; a long series of disasters - crash landings and flying off into space. This was the scientific part of the missions, gravity, about which science claims to know, but in fact is groping in the dark having abandoned clues that lead to an electromagnetic solution. The gravity problem was even evident with the later manned landings (blamed on computers), for those who are not blinded by the light of science.

....

Even a bit of perfunctory checking would have shown you that majority of early lunar probes failed and they failed during launch, or due to technical problems leading to failure of mid course corrections to enable the probes to enter lunar orbit. Engineering failures the lot of them....

Your assessment is somewhat misleading.
All moon craft up to Luna E-6 No.520 April 1964 were flybys or impactors and so gravity effects were minimal and most failed to launch as you point out.
Luna 5, 20 April 1964 got to the Moon and that was the start of the gravity problems.

Landers.
Luna 5 to Luna 8 all crashed only Luna 9 managed to land with a cushioned egg-shaped container. I'm not going to list all the rest.

Apollo 11, the most interesting (dangerous?)landing?

Abstract
The Apollo 11 mission succeeded in landing on the moon despite two computer- related problems that affected the Lunar Module during the powered descent. An uncorrected problem in the rendezvous radar interface stole approximately 13% of the computer's duty cycle, resulting in five program alarms and software restarts. In a less well-known problem, caused by erroneous data, the thrust of the LM's descent engine fluctuated wildly because the throttle control algorithm was only marginally stable. The explanation of these problems provides an opportunity to describe the operating system of the Apollo flight computers and the lunar landing guidance software. http://klabs.org/history/apollo_11_alarms/console/

I've been looking at CNC numerical control which was well developed by this time and fully capable of controlling a moon lander. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_ ... NC_arrives
I can say from personal experience that these computers were very reliable and not prone to program alarms unless dodgy information was entered.
I strongly suspect that this came from the radar/altimeter or whatever it was that gave height measurement.
As an engineering problem solver myself, lets try a scenario: That the gravity reading did not agree with the height reading and Ta-dah 'program alarms', we have an answer.

The other problem gravity-wise is the gravity neutral point between Earth and Moon. I'm told that every book written on the subject gives a different distance?

 

[rynner2]

The other problem gravity-wise is the gravity neutral point between Earth and Moon. I'm told that every book written on the subject gives a different distance?

Why would they? Whoever told you that wants his arse kicking. The calculation for the position of the L1 Lagrange point needs only simple algebra to solve. If the right input data is used, the same result will occur everytime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_points

(Qualification: as the Moon's orbit is not circular, its distance from Earth, and hence that of L1, will vary, depending on where the Moon is in its orbit.)

 

[eburacum]

Probably the most damning for the greenhouse theory is the data from all of the US and Russian probes showing that the thermal gradient of the atmosphere is from base to cloud tops,

This statement s true;

i.e. the heat source is at the bottom, not outside.

This statement is nonsense. Even on Earth the lapse rate causes the bottom of the atmosphere to be warmer than higher up; that is why snow forms on mountains. Are you saying that our planet is mostly warmed from within as well?

 

[Ghostisfort]

The neutral point referred to is the point at which a space traveller to the Moon stops going uphill away from Earth and starts going downhill to the Moon. Some astronauts have reported a jolt.
I'm aware of elliptical orbits, but the differences are apparently outside of these parameters.

I was reading exchanges on a forum some time ago about this very subject that went to considerable lengths. A couple of posters were saying that it was the gravity element that was wrong.
The final poster concluded with an answer just like yours.

In 1960, before the Apollo missions, Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon. A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface. Yet after the Apollo missions, Time magazine July 25, 1969 said "At a point of 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant" In 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, gave a new neutral point distance of 39,000 miles. The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%. A moon with 64% of Earth's gravity would require way more fuel and power than was supposedly available in the Apollo missions. http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003u.htm

 

[Ghostisfort]

Probably the most damning for the greenhouse theory is the data from all of the US and Russian probes showing that the thermal gradient of the atmosphere is from base to cloud tops,

This statement s true;

i.e. the heat source is at the bottom, not outside.

This statement is nonsense. Even on Earth the lapse rate causes the bottom of the atmosphere to be warmer than higher up; that is why snow forms on mountains. Are you saying that our planet is mostly warmed from within as well?

No. I think what is being said is that the Earth cannot be compared with Venus, because Venus surface gets no direct sunlight.

 

[rynner2]

The neutral point referred to is the point at which a space traveller to the Moon stops going uphill away from Earth and starts going downhill to the Moon. Some astronauts have reported a jolt.

In fact, for the whole journey from Earth to Moon the traveller is going uphill from Earth and downhill to the moon! The spacecraft is responding to the combined gravity of both bodies all the time.

I suspect the 'neutral point' you refer to is where the force towards the Moon is equal to that of the force towards Earth. Strictly speaking, this is not a point, but a curved surface in space, which the travellers will pass in their journey. The exact point at which they cross it will depend on their trajectory and speed.

As for a 'jolt', no. Any spacecraft (provided its rocket motors aren't firing) is in freefall, and everything inside it is 'weightless'. An astronaut would no more notice the 'neutral point' than any other point on the journey - as I just said "The spacecraft is responding to the combined gravity of both bodies all the time".

I was reading exchanges on a forum some time ago about this very subject that went to considerable lengths. A couple of posters were saying that it was the gravity element that was wrong.
The final poster concluded with an answer just like yours.

In 1960, before the Apollo missions, Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon. A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface. Yet after the Apollo missions, Time magazine July 25, 1969 said "At a point of 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant" In 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, gave a new neutral point distance of 39,000 miles. The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%. A moon with 64% of Earth's gravity would require way more fuel and power than was supposedly available in the Apollo missions. http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003u.htm

I suggest you take that up with the forum concerned, and Encyclopedia Britannica!! I can't be responsible for all the misunderstandings and general fuckwittery that pass for 'facts' on the internet.

But the simplest case of a neutral point on the Earth-Moon line is even easier to calculate than Lagrange Points - just use Newton's equation for gravitational force of Earth and Moon. No need to consider radial or angular velocities.

 

[eburacum]

...the Earth cannot be compared with Venus, because Venus surface gets no direct sunlight.

Not entirely true, otherwise the Venera probes would have been unable to take those photos. The sky is as dark as a very overcast day on Earth; but atmospheric mixing (which is considerable) and re-radiation ensures that the cloudtops are not the hottest part of the planet. Every part of the atmosphere radiates heat fiercely because of this, but only at the top can the heat escape. At every other level of the atmosphere infra-red is rapidly absorbed and re-radiated both upwards and downwards.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Venusian Cloud Colonies

The existence of carbonyl sulfide is another potential indicator of life. On Earth, trees and microorganisms produce carbonyl sulfide. But again, volcanoes also emit this gas.

Since hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, and carbonyl sulfide all can be produced by volcanic activity, it would seem that volcanism is the most likely explanation. But Grinspoon says volcanism on Venus would have to be very active for it to be the culprit, and Venus is considered less volcanically active than Earth.

And, stresses Schulze-Makuch, for hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide to form, both reactions need catalysts. Such catalysts can be other chemicals or metals, but it is unknown which specific catalysts are present and active in the Venusian environment. He points out that on Earth, the most efficient catalysts are microbes.

Perhaps the deciding clue rests on the lack of carbon monoxide in the Venusian atmosphere. Schulze-Makuch says solar radiation and lightning should be producing large quantities of carbon monoxide, yet that gas is scarce. The missing carbon monoxide, he suggests, could be due to organisms that use the gas in their metabolisms...

...But Grinspoon also thinks that life is another possible explanation for the missing carbon monoxide. Schulze-Makuch suggests that if microbes are living in the Venusian clouds, they could be combining the sulfur dioxide with carbon monoxide and possibly hydrogen. This could lead to the production of either hydrogen sulfide or carbonyl sulfide in a metabolism similar to that of some early Earth microbes. http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/311/v ... d-colonies

There seems to be no other known process for producing carbonyl sulfide than living organisms.
Note: Velikovsky also predicted life in the clouds of Venus.

Norman Lockyer Observatory News 01/1997
The article describes a peculiar sequence of air-borne/rain-water-borne yeast-like bacterial attacks on astronomical photographic plate emulsions at a British observatory from 1932 to 1963. An underlying periodicity of these events appears to have had a significant positive correlation with the occurrences of inferior conjunctions of Venus with respect to Earth.
Barber titled his original 1963 article Invasion by Washing Water (1). In it he said:
"An American suggestion that the virus responsible for endemic influenza emanated from the planet Venus, led to a fresh examination of the 1937/1948 Sidmouth data, and also to a search among the large collection of spectrograms obtained at Sidmouth prior to 1937 for earlier evidence of bacterial attack. As a result of the latter, two earlier outbreaks--one probable event in 1930, and a second well-determined occasion in 1932--were discovered."
It was found that the onsets of six confirmed Lockyer major microbial invasions occurred, on average, 55 days following inferior conjunctions of Venus, when accompanied by strong geomagnetic storms. (The shortest interval between conjunction and outbreak was 35 days and the longest was 67 days.) Seasonal effects also appeared to play an auxiliary role also as to whether or not an invasion occurred..

Barber came to the speculation that the bacteria responsible for the repeated photographic damage events were transported from the upper atmosphere of Venus by solar wind to earth's polar regions and, in Lockyer's case, from the Northern polar region to Southwestern England by northerly winds, reaching the ground in rain-water.

Fred Hoyle
The lethal wave of influenza in 1918-19... was first detected on the same day in Boston and Bombay. Yet in spreading within the United States it took three weeks to go from Boston to New York. — Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918.htm

I'm willing to lay odds that none of this was included in the atmospheric computer simulation speculation supporting the greenhouse effect?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Light Beneath the Clouds
Due to the thick Cytherean atmosphere and its misty makeup, it was expected to be quite dark on the Venusian surface. In 1976 Keldysh wrote:

“Another mystery in the Venera 9 pictures is the apparent shadows cast by the rocks. Avduevsky points out that as the lander descended, it took continual measurements of the illumination from all sides. It recorded the sort of diffuse light expected under a cloud cover. ‘Then it landed, and all of a sudden these shadows.’ If they are shadows, they would indicate a directed light source in the Venus atmosphere, possible a rift in the clouds or something more exotic.”

Another article in 1975 also questioned the Venera 9 photographs:

“An important question is why the surprisingly sharp rocks also seem to have surprisingly sharp shadows. If the Venusian atmosphere diffuses incoming sunlight as broadly as has been expected, why are not the shadows either faint or multidirectional if not completely absent.”


A further study of the night side of Venus suggests that there is some sort of light/heat coming from beneath the clouds on the night side of the planet. In 1984 two Australian scientists, D. Allen and J. Crawford reported in “Nature”:
“Observations of the dark side of the planet Venus at infrared wavelengths . . . have shown it to be anomalously bright in portions of this waveband.”

The images produced by Allen and Crawford do not show any reduction in the intensity of lighting far away from the Venusian terminator. The intensity of infrared radiation at the terminator is the same as that far away from the terminator towards the midnight sector. Could this indicate that the light is coming from another direction? From the surface of the polar regions? I say this because the six images presented in their paper always have the infrared radiation occurring in bands which lie parallel to the equator. Even when there is little infrared radiation, the “clouds” giving off this radiation stretch all the way to the midnight sector. In fact, the scientists admitted that “the nature of the cloud structure is far from certain.” Could this mean that the light which produces the phenomenon comes from the North and South Poles of the planet thereby lighting up the cloud in broad bands at the same latitude? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierr ... eca_8g.htm

 

[kamalktk]

Venusian Cloud Colonies

The existence of carbonyl sulfide is another potential indicator of life. On Earth, trees and microorganisms produce carbonyl sulfide. But again, volcanoes also emit this gas.http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/311/venusian-cloud-colonies

There seems to be no other known process for producing carbonyl sulfide than living organisms.

I've bolded where the article you quote to support yourself directly contradicts your statement.

 

[eburacum]

The discovery of life on Venus would be brilliant. As some have pointed out elsewhere, the 50km level in the atmosphere is one of the most Earth-like environments in the solar system. But such life would be hampered by the lack of water and solid substrate; it seems very likely to be extremely exotic, if by any small chance it exists.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Venusian Cloud Colonies

The existence of carbonyl sulfide is another potential indicator of life. On Earth, trees and microorganisms produce carbonyl sulfide. But again, volcanoes also emit this gas.http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/311/venusian-cloud-colonies

There seems to be no other known process for producing carbonyl sulfide than living organisms.

I've bolded where the article you quote to support yourself directly contradicts your statement.

Yes, there seems to be uncertainty about this. I looked at several other links about carbonyl sulfide and it appears not to have been lab' synthesised.
Although present in volcanic gasses on Earth, it could possibly be the result of synthesis by subterranean microbes (biogenic). No one seems to know. Maybe others can shed some light?

 

[Ghostisfort]

The discovery of life on Venus would be brilliant. As some have pointed out elsewhere, the 50km level in the atmosphere is one of the most Earth-like environments in the solar system. But such life would be hampered by the lack of water and solid substrate; it seems very likely to be extremely exotic, if by any small chance it exists.

One of the things I find impossible to accept is the idea that life has only evolved on Earth. Examples of exotic biota turn up regularly.
I've always thought the temperate zones of Jupiter's atmosphere to be an ideal location for life.
Geocentricity originates from religious roots and has transferred to evolutionary dogma.
The psychology of scientific consensus always rattles cages.