Venus: Hothouse Planet (or Venus vs. Uniformitarianism)

Astrobiology Magazine ^ | Aug 16, 2004 | Henry Bortman

[Cicero]

Fascinating article, thanks.

As he says, the modeling is primitive, and there are too many variables to do more than hypothesize. But I find the idea the plate tectonics requires water to lubricate it quite provocative.

No way to know if it’s true without more evidence, but it’s an interesting idea, that the planet may have seized up at some point, and then passed the point of no return.

[AndyTheBear]

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

I agree this can not be tested by science. However current understanding of physical laws support much of it.

First the universe could not have always existed. This follows from the second law of thermodynamics combined with the apparent finite amount of energy in the universe. Now like anything science discovers, this foundation could be wrong, but both are pretty much considered "settled science". So the current state of science implies the universe did not always exist (although it appears to be extremely old).

From this it follows the universe must have started as a result from something outside of its own physics -- which means something that transcends it.

Now as far as we know, that might mean invisible pink flying unicorns...except that there is no sense in assigning them a color or shape -- concepts projected from non-transcendence...so such imaginings are better left to naturalist apologetics.

[GodGunsGuts]

==No way to know if it’s true without more evidence, but it’s an interesting idea, that the planet may have seized up at some point, and then passed the point of no return.

It also makes me wonder what different amounts of water lubrication does to the rate of tectonic movement.

[Cicero]

I was thinking while I read it, don’t let algore read this article. It makes the other catastrophe scenarios from global warming pale by comparison! Never mind sweating polar bears and penguins, what happens when the tectonics seize up and a million volcanoes all go off at once?

If he reads this, we’re liable to be subjected to another movie and another Live Earth concert.

[GodGunsGuts]

Or he might come to the opposite conclusion. Namely, that the tectonic plates are being over-lubricated, and that all the continents are in danger of crashing into each other. Thank goodness for those mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws!

[Right Winged American]

I can't believe it. 25 posts, and absolutely no one has used the name; Velikovski(sp?)

Oh, that's right. Nobody can remember how to spell it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[SunkenCiv]

Hey, not bad. Ends in “y” though. :’)

Fred, SM, Berosus, will ping the list, but you must see. :’)

[mazza]

There is an excellent book that is pro creation called Show Me God by Fred Heeren He is a scientist that uses cosmology to show the ignorance involved in being an evolutionist. I keep going back to this book again and again.

[SunkenCiv]

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[Swordmaker]

Electric Universe PING!

If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.

[billybudd]

I’m not sure how the second law of thermodynamics impacts this issue, but if you’re referring to the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, that implies that the universe has been around forever. If the universe didn’t always exist, it would have required creation of energy at the beginning of time.

[burzum]

There is no longer any doubt that the surface of Mars has in the past been covered by huge volumes of water which spread over vast areas. These resulted from cataclysmic outflows, which were also responsible for catastrophic erosion of channels and valleys, on a scale far greater than anything comparable on Earth, and deposition of sedimentary strata. It appears that much of this water still resides near the Martian surface in permafrost and as ice. Mars has in the past also experienced huge volcanic eruptions and vast lava outpourings across its surface, perhaps on a greater scale than those on the earth

You are twisting these statements greatly. You obviously have not studied Mars in *any* detail. Yes, it is likely that Mars had a northern ocean at one time and that it had from 10-70% of our atmospheric pressure (it now has about 0.7%). The convenient fact that you omit is that it was stripped away when the magnetic field of Mars failed about 3.5 billion years ago. You also cite lava flows when you know that those flows give evidence of the history of Mars over billions of years. The history of Mars is divided into three epochs by the obliteration of craters by lava. Once the magnetic field failed and the atmosphere was stripped away the weathering on Mars effectively stopped. Areas that have high crater density are the oldest features while areas that have little crater density are the youngest.

[burzum]

It also makes me wonder what different amounts of water lubrication does to the rate of tectonic movement.

Are you just making things up as you go along?!? Just so they support your conclusions?? We have plates boundaries under oceans! What are oceans again? Do they have any water? And what do subduction zones do?

[burzum]

If the universe didn’t always exist, it would have required creation of energy at the beginning of time.

There are a couple of issues with this statement that perhaps only a physicist would recognize. First you imply that you can separate time from space. You cannot do that. In order to measure time you must measure two events and the speed of some constant propagator between them (like a laser beam reflected off a mirror a set distance away and returned to a detector). This requires you to be able to calculate the distance between the points and the trajectory of your beam of light. The idea of time has no meaning without being able to do this simple experiment. 'Before' the Big Bang has no physical meaning since it would be a 0-D coordinate system. Therefore it is really meaningless to say that something was 'added' at the beginning of the universe because that implies that there was a time before that you could do the comparison with.

Second, when you talk about the conservation of energy you actually mean is that if you have some object and you measure the energy over all of it and sum it up, then you will measure the same energy later if it is undisturbed. This is more complicated in quantum mechanics, but it still applies on average. Again, the Big Bang doesn't violate this because you can't do a measurement before the Big Bang to do a comparison. It doesn't make sense physically or mathematically.

[AndyTheBear]

I’m not sure how the second law of thermodynamics impacts this issue, but if you’re referring to the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, that implies that the universe has been around forever. If the universe didn’t always exist, it would have required creation of energy at the beginning of time.

The second law is that entropy always increases. That means energy will always become less and less usable until no energy will never be used again, a concept called heat-death.

Its the first law that says energy can not be created or destroyed.

So now we have a finite (although extremely large) amount of energy in the universe. There is no way in the universe to make more. The energy is always becoming less usable with use. It is always in use. It is not yet reached the inevitable state of equilibrium when it is used up.

If the laws of thermodynamics are correct, the universe though very ancient could not have always existed. Period. There is no escape, and it is not a matter of opinion. If you want to believe that the universe always existed, then you must believe there is some kind of exception to the laws of thermodynamics.

Who knows? Maybe there is. But the amusing part is that so many naturalists and atheists claim to base their beliefs on scientific evidence.

[Fred Nerks]

If you use the word catastrophic it rubs some people the wrong way, but something dramatic happened on Venus which wiped out almost all signs of an older surface. The planet got re-paved, basically, 600 or 700 million years ago.

and what's a hundred million years here or there...if it doesn't fit, adjust the model.

-----------

http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_03/chaos_creation_10.htm#chaos_creation_10_9_

THE HEAT OF VENUS ----------------------

The great heat of Venus is predictable from its recent origin and subsequent collisions and encounters. The theory that its miles-deep clouds set up a "greenhouse effect" on its surface, heating it to over 600 Celsius, will not stand examination; little of the Sun's heat (perhaps 2%) reaches the surface, and the planet rotates upon its axis so slowly that an exceedingly cold mass would prevail on the night side for long periods of time; yet the heat is uniform throughout [11] .

No matter how many books and articles may be written on the subject of the heat of planet Venus, disdaining Velikovsky, the fact remains that he had before 1950 read nearly everything that ancient and modern sources said about the planet and decided -- indeed, was compelled to decide -- that it was hot, whereas, try as they may, those who have chosen to make an historical issue of the heat of Venus, have been hard-pressed to find any chain of opinions in modern scientific circles which affirmed that Venus was warm. Nor is if far from the truth to claim that the great heat of Venus has been the leading light pointing to the many surprises that the exploration of the solar system has since displayed.

The myth of Phaeton is famous: the inexperienced youth, who was let to drive the chariot of the sun across the skies, was burning up the Earth until Zeus, implored to help, dispatched him into the sea with a thunderbolt. Dwardu Cardona puts the case succinctly, citing the originals : "That the myth of Phaeton describes a shifting of heavenly bodies, we know from Plato. That Phaeton was comet or a "blazing star", we know from Cicero. That this "blazing star" became a planet, we know from Hesiod. And that this planet was the planet Venus, we know from both Nonnos and Solinus." [12]

Venus was not the first body to appear before astonished humans as a comet. Any body that intrudes upon an atmosphere may look like a comet. It can acquire horns as it brushes through the air, and trail turbulent gases behind it. This was especially yrue before the age of Jovea, for then the magnetic tube of Solaria Binaria was dense. Today, the gross eccentricity of motion of a comet heightens its electrical activity and brings a variety of visual forms even in "near-empty" space Planet Venus even now displays to astronomers a fan-like tail sunwards and a "comet-like tail" swept by solar winds into space [13] ...

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks! About to ping another one.

[GodGunsGuts]

I don’t know why you are getting your nose all bent out of shape. I was simply wondering what would happen to the rate of tectonic movement with more vs. less water lubricant. My speculative question was based on the following:

There may be something episodic that happens on Venus, in contrast to Earth’s steady plate tectonic recycling. Earth’s tectonics are lubricated by water in a lot of subtle ways, but Venus is much drier and instead you could have this “stop and start” action.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/venus-04k.html

[billybudd]

If the laws of thermodynamics are correct, the universe though very ancient could not have always existed.

This is the argument I'm questioning, and you really haven't elaborated on it. I'm saying that if energy cannot be created, then the energy we have now must have always been around in some form, so the universe is temporally infinite. If the universe was created at some point, the energy would have had to be created too.