Where did Venus come from?

euser1984

Thanks.

g0g

euser1984 wrote: »

Thanks.

Uranus?

euser1984

g0g wrote: »

Uranus?

The question wasn't the point of my thread. My angle is that it's assumed that the solar system just developed, and that it's been like that since the beginning of the solar system....the solar system changes just like everything else and how old is the solar system? Orthodox science refuse to acknowledge that changes could have occurred and in fact have not even investigated it AFAIK.

So were all the new planets on our solar system formed at the same time? Or would something large have come after earth (in regards to time frame) for example. Venus is a similar planet to the earth. If Venus came after the earth, then there lies no answers to the following two questions. 1) did it hit something directly? & 2) affected the gravity off other planets via close misses....

If Venus was born afterwards then it would still have more energy vs. other planets; and more heat, even after taking into account the difference there would be because of the planets distance to the sun. Well the heat of Venus is up to about 4 times hotter than earth. What would either of those questions set out in the last paragraph say if there was an impact on earth or a gravitational effect from another newer planet on earth? What effect would it have on the moon?

nokia69

euser1984 wrote: »

Orthodox science refuse to acknowledge that changes could have occurred and in fact have not even investigated it AFAIK.

thats not true, while most people do agree on how the planets were formed most also agree the system is not static and can change

for example in the past many thought that the asteroid belt was formed by the destruction of a small planet but as more evidence came to light the theory changed

science has no problem changing theories as better evidence arrives

also the heat of Venus is due to a runaway greenhouse effect, Venus was different in the past as were many planets

euser1984

The books of exodus from about 3500 years ago talks about a comet and a red planet having being hit by this comet. It also talks about blood everywhere which suggests that possibly the earth was heated up by this near miss and they were referring to lava.....then Moses apparently moved the sea to one side so they could cross (gravitational effect) - thus they became the chosen people. It's all documented in Ancient ways of writing on walls and statues etc. This events were recorded in various cultures around the world at the same time. Cultures whom would have never known about each other.

Does that mean about 1500 years before "christ" a large Comet hit Mars and knocked it out of orbit? What effects would the gravity of such an event affect the world and the moon?

Finally the God of all Gods was Jupiter, the mother god suggests that Venus was born from Jupiter. Perhaps it explains the 800 year storm and also that 800 years is actually an incorrect figure. If the earth is like Neptune then could we have come from Jupiter also?

greedygoblin

A reasonably short but interesting article on how Jupiter (and Saturn) may have affected the formation of the innermost planets of our solar system: linky.

happyoutscan

euser1984 wrote: »

It's all documented in Ancient ways of writing on walls and statues etc. This is recorded in various cultures around the world at the same time. Cultures whom would have never known about each other.

Care to elaborate on this?

euser1984

Check out this guy:
http://www.velikovsky.info/Main_Page

endacl

euser1984 wrote: »

The books of exodus from about 3500 years ago talks about a comet and a red planet having being hit by this comet. It also talks about blood everywhere which suggests that possibly the earth was heated up by this near miss and they were referring to lava.....then Moses apparently moved the sea to one side so they could cross (gravitational effect) - thus they became the chosen people. It's all documented in Ancient ways of writing on walls and statues etc. This events were recorded in various cultures around the world at the same time. Cultures whom would have never known about each other.

Does that mean about 1500 years before "christ" a large Comet hit Mars and knocked it out of orbit? What effects would the gravity of such an event affect the world and the moon?

Finally the God of all Gods was Jupiter, the mother god suggests that Venus was born from Jupiter. Perhaps it explains the 800 year storm and also that 800 years is actually an incorrect figure. If the earth is like Neptune then could we have come from Jupiter also?

And I'm out...

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

And I'm out...

What I meant was that Orthodox science refuses to acknowledge that these ancient recordings could be in any way related to such a thing.

Not even worth an investigation. You want to leave all the fairy stuff behind? I can do that and still offer further type of investigations possible that would be more suited to scientists. Like unexplained natural resources such as petroleum being found in unexpected places.

For the record Einstein was convinced enough that he warranted more investigation in the sense of doing it himself...he never got to do it though.

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

And I'm out...

Who are you talking to anyway? Let people make up their own mind.

nokia69

euser1984 wrote: »

The books of exodus from about 3500 years ago talks about a comet and a red planet having being hit by this comet. It also talks about blood everywhere which suggests that possibly the earth was heated up by this near miss and they were referring to lava.....then Moses apparently moved the sea to one side so they could cross (gravitational effect) - thus they became the chosen people. It's all documented in Ancient ways of writing on walls and statues etc. This events were recorded in various cultures around the world at the same time. Cultures whom would have never known about each other.

Does that mean about 1500 years before "christ" a large Comet hit Mars and knocked it out of orbit? What effects would the gravity of such an event affect the world and the moon?

there are plenty of astrological events recorded by different ancient cultures but it can be had to figure out exactly what they really observed

something happening on Mars will have almost no gravitational effect on the earth or the Moon, also I don't think there has ever been a comet large enough to knock Mars or any other planet off its orbit

euser1984 wrote: »

Finally the God of all Gods was Jupiter, the mother god suggests that Venus was born from Jupiter. Perhaps it explains the 800 year storm and also that 800 years is actually an incorrect figure. If the earth is like Neptune then could we have come from Jupiter also?

thats just Roman or maybe Greek religion/mythology, its not science

you should read some Zecharia Sitchin or Erich Von Danikin but keep in mind that its not science

euser1984

nokia69 wrote: »

there are plenty of astrological events recorded by different ancient cultures but it can be had to figure out exactly what they really observed

something happening on Mars will have almost no gravitational effect on the earth or the Moon, also I don't think there has ever been a comet large enough to knock Mars or any other planet off its orbit



thats just Roman or maybe Greek religion/mythology, its not science

you should read some Zecharia Sitchin or Erich Von Danikin but keep in mind that its not science

I know it's not science but predictions were made that turned out to be true from this....in fact I think it was 6 out of 7 that came to be true.....surely that would warrant a look into for possible evidence. Scientists talk about all the planets differently as if they are 100% sure. Einstein was convinced of it's Merit to be worthwhile to look at further but he did say it wasn't science too. I'm beginning to think I don't understand the scientific field.

Are they that 100% sure about what they say about the planets, to give them the authority to speak like they do? Is it a case that only what they are saying now is what has been proven and other possibilities could exist?

It's not Roman or Greek originally, it comes from all the ancient civilizations such as the Mayans and chinese, indians etc. They all have record of these things that happened and all around the same time, yet they were all at different parts of the world.

Well, what if Venus was initially a comet? Venus spins differently to other planets and this offers an explanation.

endacl

Yep. Still out.

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

Yep. Still out.

Why?

euser1984

Scientists say that comets are leftovers after the creation of the solar system....says who?

endacl

euser1984 wrote: »

Scientists say that comets are leftovers after the creation of the solar system....says who?

OK. Back in for the craic.

Which scientists? Not biologists.

Planetary scientists do. They build on an existing body of evidence, hypothesise, test those hypotheses, and evaluate their results. Which can't be done with the examples you put forward.

Tl;dr: people who know an awful lot about the solar system.

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

OK. Back in for the craic.

Which scientists? Not biologists.

Planetary scientists do. They build on an existing body of evidence, hypothesise, test those hypotheses, and evaluate their results. Which can't be done with the examples you put forward.

Tl;dr: people who know an awful lot about the solar system.

Why do we have to believe the scientists? I'm sure you have experienced that when it comes to food for example. There is compelling evidence for what I'm saying - I urge you to investigate it further simply because the're not always right and it is a possibility. Your interested in space, right?

What other authorities can we not trust that we would have before?

euser1984

I can give you a link to a documentary aired in 1972 on the bbc. After the documentary was aired the bbc people involved in letting it air were fired.

endacl

euser1984 wrote: »

Why do we have to believe the scientists? I'm sure you have experienced that when it comes to food for example. There is compelling evidence for what I'm saying - I urge you to investigate it further simply because the're not always right and it is a possibility. Your interested in space, right?

I am indeed. I've been a keen amateur observational astronomer since my early teens. I'm not interested in fluffy thinking, though. To the best of my knowledge, nothing you have put forward potentially answers any question that has been asked by anybody.

Perhaps a different forum? Astronomy, perhaps even more than many other sciences, depends almost exclusively on what can be observed, and what can be measured. A speculation that can't be verified or dismissed by observation and/or measurement can't become a hypothesis, and therefore can't be discussed in scientific terms.

euser1984

A planet is made from the same components a comet is made from. There is no reason to believe that Venus was made at the start of the solar system and there couldn't be any scientific evidence, so that's out the window straight away if you want to have a discussion in scientific terms. If it was then why does it go backwards to every other planet?

euser1984

Continuing on - given that Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants they also would have the ability to create a planet. If they got hit by something fast enough it could spit out a comet. One which would be so different to earth that carbon dioxide is a main feature of the atmosphere....accounting for the greenhouse effect on Venus.

euser1984

Here we go: This is what orthodox science has on the subject of Comets.

"Comets are regular members of the solar system family, gravitationally bound to the Sun. They are generally believed to be made of material, originally in the outer part of the solar system, that didn't get incorporated into the planets -- leftover debris, if you will. It is the very fact that they are thought to be composed of such unchanged primitive material that makes them extremely interesting to scientists who wish to learn about conditions during the earliest period of the solar system."

Generally believed?

So, believe in everything orthodox science has to say if you want. They could very well be right; but there is just as much a chance that orthodox science could be wrong...and I think the odds stack in the unorthodox view.

How much will string theory change everything we think we know? Well our scientists think and convince everyone else with authority that they know what there talking about already. Nobody ever could have imagined everything being made of strings though. Vibrating strings. Vibrating to what?

How quickly will orthodox science get something believable together that they can all agree on - that will be a tough one for them, an if they do manage it will be hyperbole more than likely. Astronomy is not a hard science like Physics; we don't have answers to some physics questions yet like an equation for describing everything. This string theory is even turning Physics on it's head.

How can you say that this is what happened in the universe, when we don't even know how the physics of the universe work, to understand it right now, at this given time....who knows what's going on in the universe with the string theory idea of 11 dimensions and the head scratching regarding dark matter.

nokia69

euser1984 wrote: »

I know it's not science but predictions were made that turned out to be true from this....in fact I think it was 6 out of 7 that came to be true.....surely that would warrant a look into for possible evidence. Scientists talk about all the planets differently as if they are 100% sure. Einstein was convinced of it's Merit to be worthwhile to look at further but he did say it wasn't science too. I'm beginning to think I don't understand the scientific field.

what are you saying about Einstein ?

he was right about a lot of things but no one thinks he was right about everything

euser1984 wrote: »

Are they that 100% sure about what they say about the planets, to give them the authority to speak like they do? Is it a case that only what they are saying now is what has been proven and other possibilities could exist?

the other possibilities need evidence, right now the model fits the theory

euser1984 wrote: »

It's not Roman or Greek originally, it comes from all the ancient civilizations such as the Mayans and chinese, indians etc. They all have record of these things that happened and all around the same time, yet they were all at different parts of the world.

yes but they don't record the thing you are talking about

euser1984 wrote: »

Well, what if Venus was initially a comet? Venus spins differently to other planets and this offers an explanation.

Venus was never a comet, we can be sure of that much

Maximus Alexander

euser1984 wrote: »

I'm beginning to think I don't understand the scientific field.

On this, at least, we can all agree.

euser1984

Leaving aside the scientific field entirely then....

Ancient civilizations do record the things I'm talking about, and it was they, that had the names for the planets long before the scientific fields came along.....that's where I'm coming from, leaving aside the scientific field entirely. I'm not sure why nobody is even curious by this that they wouldn't try and imagine other ways that things may have developed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjEC1vOIuxY

Knifey Spoony

euser1984 wrote: »

Continuing on - given that Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants they also would have the ability to create a planet. If they got hit by something fast enough it could spit out a comet. One which would be so different to earth that carbon dioxide is a main feature of the atmosphere....accounting for the greenhouse effect on Venus.

This is Immanuel Velikovsky's argument which Carl Sagan dealt with in an episode of Cosmos:

Direct link to when he starts talking about Velikovsky's argument: https://youtu.be/xGV1GvHa6Nw?t=1787

But, he's arguments are all based on science and observation, so since you are leaving them behind....

animaal

The thing is, we can all come up with our own explanations for the natural phenomena we see. In a lot of cases, these explanations will sound reasonable. But all it takes is a more knowledgeable person to say "how does your explanation account for this..." to knock the explanation.

When we knew less about the universe around us, it seemed reasonable to assume that the stars were little holes in the sky, letting in the light from behind. That explanation fitted the facts as were known at the time. Now we know more, and a better explanation fits the facts. Ultimately, that's what science does. It weighs up all the competing explanations, and favours the one that best fits the observed facts. It also gains currency when it makes predictions that prove to be true.

I'm far from an expert, but I'd bet our current understanding of physics would rule out this Venus proposal. In order for it to be true, we'd need the rules of physics as we know them to be changed. It's just far more likely that Venus was created in the way commonly understood. The accepted theory may change in the future, but it will be in response to newly observed facts, and the theory will have to take account of those facts.

euser1984

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

Direct link to when he starts talking about Velikovsky's argument: https://youtu.be/xGV1GvHa6Nw?t=1787

But, he's arguments are all based on science and observation, so since you are leaving them behind....

He leaves out the part of Velikovsky's argument where he suggested Venus hit Mars.....doesn't mention it at all. That's a huge part of his argument!

Maybe science can't explain it but they didn't even look for any clues. 6 out of 7 of Velikovsky's predictions were accurate...In the 50's (by mistake) they found there was loads of electromagnetic energy waves coming from Jupiter (as Velikovsky predicted) suggesting something big happened. That's what convinced Einstein because the hard evidence was there....something did happen with Jupiter - full stop.

Also, Carl Sagan talks about clouds in Venus and says the only thing that forms clouds is water....that's not correct. It's completely false in fact. The clouds on Venus are actually made of Sulphur dioxide. As he continues on in the talk, that's changed (he talks about the sulphur dioxide) but not as clearly as he originally stated that clouds are only made of water. Like an apology in a newspaper always being small and almost hidden. Odd.

In ancient history pictures, Venus is not in any of the images in the sky....we can agree on that - as scientific proof in the sense that it's either on the history or not....whether right or not.

euser1984

It's also hard science that the moon is moving away (and fast)....slowing down the speed of earths rotation. That accounts for huge weather changes....whether carbon levels are higher or not. Can people agree with that and realize that it's affecting the climate changes...

Greenmachine

Religious forum that way ---->

euser1984

Read this:
Solar power is a renewable and practically inexhaustible energy source. However, the proportion of this energy that can be harnessed to generate electricity is limited by current technology and the UK's climate.

It is thought that in practice, taking various limitations into account, the UK could potentially generate a maximum of 140 billion kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year) from solar power. In 2009, the UK's total demand for electricity was around 379 billion kWh.


If you had solar panels on the moon; which is 400 times closer to the sun how much energy could you harness with panels a fraction of the size on the moon?

euser1984

Greenmachine wrote: »

Religious forum that way ---->

I'm still referring to science....it's just that religion could be a little bit of inspiration to investigate a certain route....

euser1984

This Carl Sagan is talking about what if a comet hit the ground and people thought it was a nuclear explosion? Where is he getting these ideas from?

He's talking about the Normans as having recorded an event of a Comet? He refers to Giotto from the 12/13th century as having pictures of what looks like Comets in the 12/13th Century.

And having said all that he doesn't even mention ancient history of having experienced something much larger in the sky. Something that was recorded all over the world in different cultures...

And just to remind, he mentions nothing about Venus possibly hitting Mars....all he mentions is it going straight into it's own orbit; which he dismisses completely.

Sagan is a joke...

2 stroke

euser1984 wrote: »

If you had solar panels on the moon; which is 400 times closer to the sun how much energy could you harness with panels a fraction of the size on the moon?

The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than what? The Earth? Do your maths again.

Knifey Spoony

euser1984 wrote: »

Read this:
Solar power is a renewable and practically inexhaustible energy source. However, the proportion of this energy that can be harnessed to generate electricity is limited by current technology and the UK's climate.

It is thought that in practice, taking various limitations into account, the UK could potentially generate a maximum of 140 billion kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year) from solar power. In 2009, the UK's total demand for electricity was around 379 billion kWh.


If you had solar panels on the moon; which is 400 times closer to the sun how much energy could you harness with panels a fraction of the size on the moon?

I don't see what the Moon has to do with Venus, but since you bring it up: half the time the Moon is closer to the Sun than the Earth is, the other half the Moon is further away from the Sun than the Earth is. So, there would not be any net gain in energy. Setting up solar panels on the Moon is fine, but would (currently) only benefit any bases set up on the Moon. There have been no ways developed yet in which the amount of energy developed from that amount of solar panels could be wirelessly transmitted back to Earth for use here.

This Carl Sagan is talking about what if a comet hit the ground and people thought it was a nuclear explosion? Where is he getting these ideas from?

The idea is from during the cold war when the US and Russia were extremely paranoid. A small comet hitting the Earth would simulate all the effects of a nuclear bomb detention, just without all the radiation. With the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) in place between the US and Russia, the comet impact could have triggered Nuclear war.

And having said all that he doesn't even mention ancient history of having experienced something much larger in the sky. Something that was recorded all over the world in different cultures...

Actually in another episode he does, where he describes the Chinese and Native Americans having recorded a star exploding in Taurus in 1054AD, which is now the Crab Nebula.

And just to remind, he mentions nothing about Venus possibly hitting Mars....all he mentions is it going straight into it's own orbit; which he dismisses completely.

He does say that it "made repeated close encounters with Mars, with the Earth-Moon system...", so he didn't say it went straight into orbit.

Also, there is no evidence that Mars and Venus ever collided.

It's all very well to come up with ideas about the origins of the planets, but you need evidence and theory to back up the argument to make these ideas true.

endacl

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

half the time the Moon is 400 times closer to the Sun than Earth, the other half it is 400 times further away since it orbits around the Earth.

:eek:

Which sun, moon and earth?!?

Knifey Spoony

endacl wrote: »

:eek:

Which sun, moon and earth?!?

I should really read things through before I post them.

That statement really made no sense. I edited the post so hopefully it is clearer now.

Chemical Byrne

euser1984 wrote: »

The books of exodus from about 3500 years ago talks about a comet and a red planet having being hit by this comet. It also talks about blood everywhere which suggests that possibly the earth was heated up by this near miss and they were referring to lava.....then Moses apparently moved the sea to one side so they could cross (gravitational effect) - thus they became the chosen people. It's all documented in Ancient ways of writing on walls and statues etc. This events were recorded in various cultures around the world at the same time. Cultures whom would have never known about each other.

Does that mean about 1500 years before "christ" a large Comet hit Mars and knocked it out of orbit? What effects would the gravity of such an event affect the world and the moon?

Finally the God of all Gods was Jupiter, the mother god suggests that Venus was born from Jupiter. Perhaps it explains the 800 year storm and also that 800 years is actually an incorrect figure. If the earth is like Neptune then could we have come from Jupiter also?

I do not claim to be any expert on orbital mechanics but I would wager that an impact event sufficient to even slightly change (let alone move it from venus' orbit) the orbit of a planet such as mars would be violent enough to almost destroy and fragment the planet.

Such an event has quite clearly not happened.

euser1984

2 stroke wrote: »

The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than what? The Earth? Do your maths again.

What's the point in talking about this - it's not even what the main subject is about.....anyway leaving aside my mistake what temperature is the moon?

It's xxtremely hot in some places. What temperature is Antartica compared to the Equator....does the moon have an atmosphere to block the suns energy, no?

Maximus Alexander

euser1984 wrote: »

What's the point in talking about this - it's not even what the main subject is about.....anyway leaving aside my mistake what temperature is the moon?

It's xxtremely hot in some places. What temperature is Antartica compared to the Equator....does the moon have an atmosphere to block the suns energy, no?

And if you think about it there is no evidence that the sun or moon even exist. They could just be huge spotlights stuck to a rotating sphere above the Earth. Why do we believe these scientists and astronomer experts, you just have to go outside and see for yourself that they could just be stuck up there and not huge and far away at all. But why is nobody talking about this or taking it seriously?

2 stroke

Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.

Chemical Byrne

euser1984 wrote: »

What's the point in talking about this - it's not even what the main subject is about.....anyway leaving aside my mistake what temperature is the moon?

It's xxtremely hot in some places. What temperature is Antartica compared to the Equator....does the moon have an atmosphere to block the suns energy, no?

The point of it is that it shows that you've trying to debunk the accepted theories while at the same time displaying an astounding level of ignorance as to even the most basic things about astronomy.

What exactly is your query? Or are you just here to rant and rave?

And what would the moon having a significant atmosphere have to do with the temperature difference between equator and poles. That is due to a) declining solar irradiance (W/m2) with increasing latitude, b) greater slant depth of atmosphere for solar radiation to penetrate more is absorbed and c) the poles are physically further away from the sun due to the curvature of the earth (although this would be only a very very small factor)

I'd suggest you go to your local library and get a basic astronomy book for yourself. Perhaps one from the childrens section might be appropriate.

Captain Chaos

2 stroke wrote: »

Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.

A planet the size of Mars did hit Earth very early in it's life. The Earth is still here yet most of the planet that hit us is gone and theory has it helped form or magnet core and may have had a part to play in the formation of the Moon.

It would take something like a brown dwarf passing through to cast something out.

Chemical Byrne

2 stroke wrote: »

Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.

Such a near miss could equally well destroy the planet due to the huge gravitational differences between the near and far sides. I suspect it might also possibly leave the "victim" planet in a highly elliptic orbit. Such things, collisions, may have happened in the formation of the SS.

euser1984

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

I don't see what the Moon has to do with Venus, but since you bring it up: half the time the Moon is closer to the Sun than the Earth is, the other half the Moon is further away from the Sun than the Earth is. So, there would not be any net gain in energy. Setting up solar panels on the Moon is fine, but would (currently) only benefit any bases set up on the Moon. There have been no ways developed yet in which the amount of energy developed from that amount of solar panels could be wirelessly transmitted back to Earth for use here.

AFAIK, there is....for the last 30 years in fact there has been a solution. It would cost the net worth of the global energy industries to do. I'll try and find more information.

Also, remember again that the moon has no atmosphere when talking about distances from the sun.

The reason that I bring the moon up is because the world is looking for natural resources to exploit and this focus seems to be on Titan. Thus, they want to make more money. Who wants to make more money? The people that already have money.

It must be easy for everyone to agree that the world bankers and the top % with all the money in the world have us tied by the neck....and the energy industry not far away from same or maybe just as much, but not so close. So, if energy comes back from Titan who owns the monopoly? Maybe a few share it and go into direct competition - huh?

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

Actually in another episode he does, where he describes the Chinese and Native Americans having recorded a star exploding in Taurus in 1054AD, which is now the Crab Nebula.

He is selectively choosing things and leaving aside most. I challenge anyone to refute this.

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

He does say that it "made repeated close encounters with Mars, with the Earth-Moon system...", so he didn't say it went straight into orbit.

Also, there is no evidence that Mars and Venus ever collided.

Is there evidence of these close encounters?

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

It's all very well to come up with ideas about the origins of the planets, but you need evidence and theory to back up the argument to make these ideas true.

The only theory that the standard model has is proof of things which could and were proven....plus all the other unproven stuff which was arrived at by whom and using what methods? I suppose the authorities are always right so we should never even imagine deviating from what were told. Police state, facebook spying blah blah blah

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I do not claim to be any expert on orbital mechanics but I would wager that an impact event sufficient to even slightly change (let alone move it from venus' orbit) the orbit of a planet such as mars would be violent enough to almost destroy and fragment the planet.

Such an event has quite clearly not happened.

The suggestion is that Venus hit Mars and not the other way around.....I'm basing this suggestion using the same sort of logic as Carl Sagan with his evidence; which, if using Carl Sagans methods in a court of law to convict a murdererer would be quite convincing to a jury, to give him a large criminal sentence. Somebody drew a picture of the person commiting the murder so that's self evident!

2 stroke

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It would take something like a brown dwarf passing through to cast something out.

You mean to cast something out of the solar system? I just mean to cast something into a different orbit

endacl

2 stroke wrote: »

Personally I don't accept that all of of the bodies in our solar system were formed in our solar system. Some probably did form locally, others may just have been captured by gravity.
Also I agree that an impact that could change the orbit of a planet such as mars would likely destroy the planet. However a near miss with sufficiently large enough body could slingshot a planet into a different orbit. Such large body could pass through the solar system without collision, wrecking havoc, yet leaving little evidence.

Given the scale of the system, the sizes of solar system objects, and the almost infinite number of positions relative to one another that they can occupy, it's far more likely that an interstellar interloper would pass through without having any significant influence whatsoever. As a related example, when our galaxy and Andromeda eventually merge, it is predicted that any collision between individual stars is extremely unlikely, given the scales involved. A slingshot effect, if it did occur, would be far more likely to eject a plant entirely from the system than to simply alter its orbital behaviour.

And for a body to be captured by gravity, a fairly unlikely set of circumstances would have to apply regarding angle of entry, relative velocity, relative mass, etc. Not to say it couldn't happen, or, given the scale of the universe, that it doesn't ever happen. Just that it is so far on the extreme edge of probability that it almost certainly didn't happen.

euser1984

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

The point of it is that it shows that you've trying to debunk the accepted theories while at the same time displaying an astounding level of ignorance as to even the most basic things about astronomy.

What exactly is your query? Or are you just here to rant and rave?

And what would the moon having a significant atmosphere have to do with the temperature difference between equator and poles. That is due to a) declining solar irradiance (W/m2) with increasing latitude, b) greater slant depth of atmosphere for solar radiation to penetrate more is absorbed and c) the poles are physically further away from the sun due to the curvature of the earth (although this would be only a very very small factor)

I'd suggest you go to your local library and get a basic astronomy book for yourself. Perhaps one from the childrens section might be appropriate.

I think you need to get out of your bedroom and your head out of your textbooks....I also believe that you are some sort of bully who thinks is ok to attack somebody here on a forum, and then continue on to speak about alternatives yourself, like this whole thing is "your" great idea.

....if you want to just start your own thread, do so....your not going to make me feel as though I'm lacking understanding, by throwing the above information out about the moon. Believe me, if I wanted to learn about the moon the same way as you seem to say you currently do, I have the intellectual capacity.

In the meantime I suggest you go to the library and find a book for kids that teaches them about bullying.

Finally you have completely misinterpreted what I was saying with you came back with you technical answer (which you knew I would not understand)....so you are impulsive to have a dig at me? You also have something to prove by your above technical explanations, to who? Your relatively new on boards - have you yet to prove your worth?

If you want to understand what I was saying; then it was, that the suns light is not blocked to the surface of the moon due to clouds and the like. Very simple for anybody non-technical. And for the record I know that it's accepted the moon has an atmosphere now but it's hardly significant.

2 stroke

endacl wrote: »

Just that it is so far on the extreme edge of probability that it almost certainly didn't happen.

Don't many of the discoveries in the universe suggest that the extreme edge of probability is pregnant with possibilities?

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

Given the scale of the system, the sizes of solar system objects, and the almost infinite number of positions relative to one another that they can occupy, it's far more likely that an interstellar interloper would pass through without having any significant influence whatsoever. As a related example, when our galaxy and Andromeda eventually merge, it is predicted that any collision between individual stars is extremely unlikely, given the scales involved. A slingshot effect, if it did occur, would be far more likely to eject a plant entirely from the system than to simply alter its orbital behaviour.

And for a body to be captured by gravity, a fairly unlikely set of circumstances would have to apply regarding angle of entry, relative velocity, relative mass, etc. Not to say it couldn't happen, or, given the scale of the universe, that it doesn't ever happen. Just that it is so far on the extreme edge of probability that it almost certainly didn't happen.

Good old probability theory and some top scientists believe the universe may be infinite....

"
Gerald Weinberg’s book Secrets of Consulting is filled with great aphorisms. One of these he calls the Titanic Effect:

The thought that disaster is impossible often leads to an unthinkable disaster.

If your model says disaster is extremely unlikely, the weakest link may be your model.
"