When was Venus first seen?

Venus was known since early times (before history).
Before the telescope, Venus was known only as a 'wandering star' (this became the word "planet").
Several cultures thought it was two objects - a morning and evening star.
Pythagoras is usually credited with recognizing (sixth century BC) that it was a single object, though he believed that Venus orbited the Earth.
When Galileo first observed the planet in the early 17th century, he found that it showed phases like the Moon. That would be possible only if Venus orbited the Sun, and this was among the first observations to clearly contradict the geocentric model that the solar system was centered on the Earth.

reply to post by Devino

I don't understand what you mean here.

You stated that the impactor would have a tidal lock with some other object. The impactor would not since it was not in orbit with another object. You also appear to not understand the conservation properties which apply to closed systems which do not experience external forces.

In the case of this impactor, angular conservation is conserved in a system comprised of the Earth, the impactor, and the ejected material. A large amount of material was ejected. Conservation of angular momentum does not apply to any particular part of the system, but the system as a whole. The system is not really closed since the sun has removed some angular momentum.

Continued research demonstrates that the Mars sized object impact may not be the best idea.
Giant Impact Theory For Moon Formation Boosted

The Moon at no time rotated on its own axis while it was forming. If it did this then its center of gravity would be the Moon's center and this is not the case.

This does not follow since the Moon does rotate on its own axis today. The reason that the moon is in the orientation it is today is that this is the lowest energy position for the moon. The moon's differentiation into a core and outer layer may not have been uniform. The effect of the Earth's on that differentiation process is probably difficult to ascertain. Since the differentiation of the materials in the Moon left the moon in a state where the center of gravity is not the center of mass, then this led to a preferred orientation when tidal lock brought the moon's rotation to a time period that matches the Moon's orbit.

I think maybe you are not following what I mean by tidal lock.

Obviously, you are not using terms as used by the scientific community. I've gotten that feeling in some of the posts.

One of your links, Venus Tidal Lock with Earth Applet animation, refers to a site that proclaims "HOW THE BIBLE DEFEATS SCIENCE". That is a poor choice of information when trying to support a scientific position. The site also gives hugs and kisses to V. since it is trying to claim that the bible is correct even though it is very clear that the bible does not describe the world we live in.

The wiki quote also states that the existence of a tidal lock is unknown.

I would like to say that there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system and how these bodies and their orbits were formed.

It is very wrong to claim that "there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system". That is incredibly wrong. We know the orbital motions of the bodies in the solar system with great precision. You can stand by your original statement and simply be amazingly wrong. That's fine. You have a right to be amazingly wrong.

I think it would be more accurate to state that A physical situation may have been worked out that proved Velikovsky wrong. However I don't think any real situation involving physics has been worked out to try and prove Velikovsky correct. This is simple dismissal and not real science. The scientific community dismissed Velikovsky 50 some years ago and has never taken him seriously.

V. is wrong. There are so many problems with his claims it is overwhelming. His claims do not conserve angular momentum and energy. You calculate the angular momentum at the start and at the end and they do not match. It doesn't matter what happens in between, but they have to match. Is that so hard to understand? You do the same for energy. V. is a failure. At best all you could say is that his interpretations of the myths are completely wrong. But with the composition of Venus being completely different than the composition of Jupiter it seems that V.'s starting point is wrong. The problem is that myth is not history.

You are the one claiming that the laws of physics were broken here, not me. I maintain that they were not broken and I am attempting to figure out how this possibly could have happened.

You can maintain any false position you want. You have the right to be wrong.

It would not be right to ask someone to try and prove that something did not happen. I think it better to try and prove what could have possibly happened.

Science makes predictions. Predictions need to be tested. When V.'s claims are tested they fall flat on their face. Scientific principles can be used to exclude impossible situations such as that described by V.

Maybe you believe that the bible and other historical records were all made up? That's OK. I believe that some of these texts were from actual astronomical observations. People recorded what they saw and therefore contains some possible scientific value. Of coarse we call all of this myth so it is dismissed as having any scientific value.

The bible is so wrong in so many ways. The order of the creation of life does not match what we observe. That goes for the 2 different orders given in Genesis. There is no evidence for Exodus. There is no evidence for a global flood. Start there to see that the bible is not a source for scientific evidence.

Prove that there was never a huge flood nor gigantic tsunamis. Try and prove that something never happened!

That's trivial. Where are the deposits from these events? Evidence of giant tsunamis have been found in Texas due to an impact in the Yucatan. No deposits indicate a global set of gigantic tsunamis. A global flood is impossible. Where did the water come from or go to? Where are the deposits? The biblical account can be shown to be false since archaeological deposits around the world show cities living continuously across all times ever offered by the bible thumprs.

I don't find Velikovsky's claim, that Venus was once a comet, laughable. I find it intriguing! What I find laughable is the reaction from the scientific community. A lot of effort is being spent to try and prove what could not have possible happened. This is not science!

I guess you don't understand how science works. In short, facts are collected, theories formed, and tested. testing shows some theories or ideas to be wrong: V., phlogiston, cold fusion, alchemy, spontaneous generation, humors, homeopathy, animal magnetism, aether, geocentric universe, flat Earth, ...

Science sorts out the wrong from the right and is a self correcting process in which incorrect ideas need to replaced and dropped. Bad claims such as that by V. are tossed in the circular file. If you think it is laughable for science to toss out bad ideas, then you clearly need to learn more about what science does.

i just want to add that scientists can be blind just like religious people can be blind. If there are scientific discoveries that do not match up to the current theory it is hard to find support. So with that being said i do not believe everything that we are told about science and history by mainstream media and scientists, archaeologists and historians. Everything is a theory. To say that we know what happened to the earth 3 billion years ago is quite strange. I used to be all high on science but they have just as many problems as the creationist theorist do.

reply to post by stereologist

You stated that the impactor would have a tidal lock with some other object.

I don't recall even thinking such a thing. Maybe I am not explaining myself very well.
The angular motion I was, and still am, referring to comes from the Earth. The 'mars sized object', as per this Moon creation theory, only acts as an impactor. In this scenario it has nothing to do with a conservation of energy nor a tidal lock.

You also appear to not understand the conservation properties which apply to closed systems which do not experience external forces.

There is a disconnect here in our conversation. Am I am failing to explain myself clearly?
The conservation of energy resides within the Earth's original material. The Earth being the closed system. The impactor is the cause of ejected material. Most of this material was originally part of the Earth, again theoretically. This ejected material that originally came for the Earth conserves its original angular motion (i.e. rotational). I don't know how I could better explain this.

In the case of this impactor, angular conservation is conserved in a system comprised of the Earth, the impactor, and the ejected material.

Yes, and I am considering this a closed system. However I am not considering the possible angular motion of the 'impactor', just that of the Earth.

A large amount of material was ejected. Conservation of angular momentum does not apply to any particular part of the system, but the system as a whole.

I agree with this but I am not considering any possible angular motion for the impacting object because we do not know what it might have been.

The system is not really closed since the sun has removed some angular momentum.

The angular motion in which the Sun is connected with has to do with orbital motions. In the scenario I have been discussing we are concerned with only the rotational motion of the Earth. In this case the Sun is not a part of this closed system unless you are claiming that the Sun causes the Earth to rotate.

Continued research demonstrates that the Mars sized object impact may not be the best idea.
Giant Impact Theory For Moon Formation Boosted

Notice the title? Giant Impact Theory For Moon Formation Boosted?
"Boosted" not busted. The article agrees with the impact theory and discusses a multi object impact. The article seems to favor a simple single impact demonstration.
Here is the first paragraph.

The "giant impact" theory, first proposed in the mid-1970s to explain how the Moon formed, has received a major boost as new results demonstrate for the first time that a single impact could yield the current Earth-Moon system.

Added Bold Tags
Again boost not bust.

Here is the second paragraph.

Simulations performed by researchers at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC) show that a single impact by a Mars-sized object in the late stages of Earth's formation could account for an iron-depleted Moon and the masses and angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system.

Added Bold Tags
Conservation of angular motion within a closed system.

This does not follow since the Moon does rotate on its own axis today.

WHAT?
By its own axis you mean the axis of the Earth, I hope. The Moon's axis of rotation is that of the Earth's. The Moon does not rotate around its own center! If it did this we would see the far side, but of coarse we don't.

The reason that the moon is in the orientation it is today is that this is the lowest energy position for the moon.

It is the way it is because that is the way it is? This is in no way any explanation of how this happened or could have happened.

Since the differentiation of the materials in the Moon left the moon in a state where the center of gravity is not the center of mass, then this led to a preferred orientation when tidal lock brought the moon's rotation to a time period that matches the Moon's orbit.

I think what your saying is that the Moon somehow formed like it is today and because of the way it was formed it fell into its present orbital characteristics.
What I am suggesting is that its orbital characteristics was caused by its formation around the Earth and due in part out of the conservation of angular motion. In other words I am theorizing a cause for the moons motion that is connected to its formation and you seem to be suggesting it magically happened.

One of your links, Venus Tidal Lock with Earth Applet animation, refers to a site that proclaims "HOW THE BIBLE DEFEATS SCIENCE".

You've got to be kidding!!? Ad Hominem?
Try and look past what the site refers to and look at the applet animation. The animation demonstrates my point.

Obviously, you are not using terms as used by the scientific community. I've gotten that feeling in some of the posts.

Show me where I am wrong. What terms am I using incorrectly? Criticism can be constructive you know. My goal is to get my point across, maybe you can help me here.
Let's review.
What does "conserve" mean in the context of "conservation of energy"?
What does momentum mean? I'll give you a hint, the conservation of a force is momentum.
What is angular motion?
What is a tidal lock?
Orbital resonance?
Are there any other terms we should review?

The wiki quote also states that the existence of a tidal lock is unknown.

Correct! Unknown does not mean we know it does not exist. You claim a tidal lock does not exist and I am showing you that this is wrong. Wiki claims that we do not know, you claim otherwise.

Originally posted by Devino
I would like to say that there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system and how these bodies and their orbits were formed.

Added Bold Tags

Originally posted by stereologist
It is very wrong to claim that "there is a lot that we do not know about the orbital motions of the bodies in our solar system".

Why are you quoting me out of context? This style of debating is getting real boring. Please at least read the last part of my quote. This will help you understand what I mean. Quoting me out of context is another logistical fallacy.

That is incredibly wrong. We know the orbital motions of the bodies in the solar system with great precision.

To be able to predict when something happens is not the same as knowing how and why it happens and how it originally formed. Right now all science is able to do is predict the motions of the planets and their moons and guess how all of this happened.
Here is a question for you. What is the cause of gravity?
Science can predict how gravity will behave but has no clue what the cause is from.

Upon further reading of your reply I get the impression that all you're doing is attempting to deconstruct my statements and have no intention of learning anything. The logical fallacies like Ad Hominum attacks of my sources, failure to read and understand my links and even your own along with quoting me out of context to try and make me look foolish is all a waste of my time.
I am not sure I will respond to the rest of your reply for I see it as garbage and a lure away from the original topic. I am interested in understanding the nature of the planet Venus. You seem to be interested in maintaining the original scientific paradigm to the detriment of understanding and to the point of insulting me. I have tried to be considerate of you and took the time to communicate my thoughts and ideas. I get the feeling that all your doing is attacking my ideas simply because you do not like them or perhaps you do not understand them, The latter I can change, the former I cannot.

Originally posted by Devino

The system is not really closed since the sun has removed some angular momentum.

The angular motion in which the Sun is connected with has to do with orbital motions. In the scenario I have been discussing we are concerned with only the rotational motion of the Earth. In this case the Sun is not a part of this closed system unless you are claiming that the Sun causes the Earth to rotate.

Sorry, but the Sun does bleed off the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system through tidal forces. Just as the Moon does to the Earth.

Originally posted by Devino

This does not follow since the Moon does rotate on its own axis today.

WHAT?
By its own axis you mean the axis of the Earth, I hope. The Moon's axis of rotation is that of the Earth's. The Moon does not rotate around its own center! If it did this we would see the far side, but of coarse we don't.

No we don't. But if the Moon didn't rotate on it's own axis once per month, then we would enjoy a 360 degree view of the Moon's surface through each month.

Originally posted by Devino

Since the differentiation of the materials in the Moon left the moon in a state where the center of gravity is not the center of mass, then this led to a preferred orientation when tidal lock brought the moon's rotation to a time period that matches the Moon's orbit.

I think what your saying is that the Moon somehow formed like it is today and because of the way it was formed it fell into its present orbital characteristics.
What I am suggesting is that its orbital characteristics was caused by its formation around the Earth and due in part out of the conservation of angular motion. In other words I am theorizing a cause for the moons motion that is connected to its formation and you seem to be suggesting it magically happened.

There is no need to call on the Earth's gravitational field to explain the offset of the Moons C.O.G. and C.O.M. The impact theory can explain it. Any body composed of large conglomerates, some of which may have remained soid through the impact event and other parts liquified, could easily coalesce into a slightly off-centered C.O.G. And because the Moon could easily have formed this way, and this very form would actually hasten tidal locking (which, by the way, is inevitable in a system like the Earth-Moon,) then, yes, Stereologist is saying "because of the way it was formed it fell into its present orbital characteristics," and he's not the only one saying it.

Originally posted by Devino

One of your links, Venus Tidal Lock with Earth Applet animation, refers to a site that proclaims "HOW THE BIBLE DEFEATS SCIENCE".

You've got to be kidding!!? Ad Hominem?
Try and look past what the site refers to and look at the applet animation. The animation demonstrates my point.

What, creationists can't write applets? I think what you should do is find that applet somewhere else. At least, that's how I read what stereologist said.

Originally posted by Devino

Obviously, you are not using terms as used by the scientific community. I've gotten that feeling in some of the posts.

Show me where I am wrong. What terms am I using incorrectly? Criticism can be constructive you know. My goal is to get my point across, maybe you can help me here.

He's referring to your apparent misuse of the term "tidal lock." If you read the first paragraph of the Wiki link on the subject that you yourself posted, you'll see that, normally, tidal locking happens when the locked body turns the same face to the larger body constantly, not at certain intervals, as exists between Earth and Venus, though I get that point too.

Also, if you read the same paragraph, you'll see that the Moon does revolve around its own axis once a month.

Originally posted by Devino
What does momentum mean? I'll give you a hint, the conservation of a force is momentum.

No more hints, please, as that is not what momentum is.

Originally posted by Devino

The wiki quote also states that the existence of a tidal lock is unknown.

Correct! Unknown does not mean we know it does not exist. You claim a tidal lock does not exist and I am showing you that this is wrong. Wiki claims that we do not know, you claim otherwise.

English is not your first language then?

Originally posted by Devino

That is incredibly wrong. We know the orbital motions of the bodies in the solar system with great precision.

To be able to predict when something happens is not the same as knowing how and why it happens and how it originally formed. Right now all science is able to do is predict the motions of the planets and their moons and guess how all of this happened.
Here is a question for you. What is the cause of gravity?
Science can predict how gravity will behave but has no clue what the cause is from.

True, but not knowing the cause has no bearing whatsoever on our knowledge of orbital motions. At least not to the extent of affecting our predicted orbits, positions, etc., so why do you even mention this?

We don't know the cause of the existence of subatomic particles. This does not stop your computer from working on principles established about quantum theory.

Originally posted by Devino
I am not sure I will respond to the rest of your reply for I see it as garbage and a lure away from the original topic. I am interested in understanding the nature of the planet Venus. You seem to be interested in maintaining the original scientific paradigm to the detriment of understanding and to the point of insulting me. I have tried to be considerate of you and took the time to communicate my thoughts and ideas. I get the feeling that all your doing is attacking my ideas simply because you do not like them or perhaps you do not understand them, The latter I can change, the former I cannot.

Ad Hominem to you too then.

Thoughts and ideas are no substitute for established fact and well-evidenced theory. Your own thoughts and ideas are subject to others' thoughts and ideas, as well as scientific scrutiny, if you type and post them on a public message board.

Did you think you would get nothing but adoration and bemused agreement in the public realm? Reserve that for your daydreams, bub. You need to know that some people will actually examine things you say with a rational and logical methodology. If they find fault, it will usually be pointed out.

Harte

reply to post by BeastMaster2012

Everything is a theory. To say that we know what happened to the earth 3 billion years ago is quite strange. I used to be all high on science but they have just as many problems as the creationist theorist do.

A theory in science is not a guess. In common speech people use the word theory as a guess. In science a theory is an explanation for a group of facts. Theories are tested by making predictions. Theories go through the ringer before they are accepted.

The same cannot be said of religion. Creationism is nothing more than religion. The goal is prop up a particular point of view no matter how little evidence there is for it. In the case of creationism there is no evidence. It's not a theory in a scientific sense. It's a collection of bad shoehorns in an attempt to pretend that the world we see today is described by the bible.

Scientists on the other reject theories that do the fit the facts. That is why creationism is rejected.

What happened 3 billion years ago? There is evidence of the world back then. It's not as clear as evidence for the state of the world 100 years ago, but it is there. Over the years people have gotten smarter at teasing out whatever is left from that time period. Over time more evidence of that long ago time may be discovered and if the new evidence leads to a different conclusion than today's ideas, then science will take a new stand.

Creationism cannot change. It is not free to pick a new series of events. It is restricted by the bible to explain a series of events in that book even when there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence for much of the bible. There is no evidence for a global flood, or Exodus. That doesn't stop creationists from spouting that these events happened.

reply to post by Harte


Thank you Harte for explaining things I believe in a manner clearer than mine.

I am fascinated by the apparent lacking of understanding of the term momentum. It appears to be confused with force, and force is not conserved.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by BeastMaster2012

 

Creationism cannot change. It is not free to pick a new series of events. It is restricted by the bible to explain a series of events in that book even when there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence for much of the bible. There is no evidence for a global flood, or Exodus. That doesn't stop creationists from spouting that these events happened.

I think there is evidence of a global flood. It may not be "global" like all around the globe but it could have just mainly hit the region of Sumerians and possibly India and egypt/europe. It would have happened before 90%+ of civilizations did not have any form of writing. There is evidence of a flood in Sumerian cities. It appears most of the old testament is borrowed from the Sumerians so if there is evidence there of a flood from around 3000 BC i think that is good evidence. I forgot what book i read this, i believe Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner.

Anyways to say that we humans know how the earth was formed billions of years ago i think is a little strange, especially when we don't know who and how the great pyramids were built or where the Sumerians came from.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012

I think there is evidence of a global flood. It may not be "global" like all around the globe but it could have just mainly hit the region of Sumerians and possibly India and egypt/europe. It would have happened before 90%+ of civilizations did not have any form of writing. There is evidence of a flood in Sumerian cities. It appears most of the old testament is borrowed from the Sumerians so if there is evidence there of a flood from around 3000 BC i think that is good evidence. I forgot what book i read this, i believe Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner.

Anyways to say that we humans know how the earth was formed billions of years ago i think is a little strange, especially when we don't know who and how the great pyramids were built or where the Sumerians came from.

You are correct in stating that there have been locals floods. They happen all of the time. Pakistan is a good example of a recurrent flooding region. The major rivers of the Earth produce major floods. The Sumerians lived by great rivers and experienced great floods. But these are local events and certainly bare no resemblance to Noah's flood as described in the bible.

Archaeological evidence suggests that there were a series of devastating floods in the region where Sumeria lies. These flood events are claimed to be evidence of Noah's flood by some hoax authors. If these are indeed the source for the biblical account of Noah's flood, then the claim in the bible that all people on Earth were wiped out except for the people on the ark is untrue since people in other areas were unaffected.

Be careful in the meaning of civilization. People lived in areas before their lifestyles reached a condition known as a civilization. The Sumerians refers to a culture. As with any culture or civilization it is possible that the people arrived in the area or they were already there and simply attained a lifestyle which is identified today as a particular culture. In the case of the Sumerians the origins are unclear. But we do know more about the potential origins than events from 4 billion years ago. The farther back in time you go the less information is available.

As for the pyramid construction there are lots of ideas on how to build large scale stone structures. The problem is testing the ideas. Who can hire thousands of people to work on a monument for decades using ancient tools? Besides are we ever going to know everything about the past? No. But we can do our best to try and elucidate answers.

reply to post by Harte

Sorry, but the Sun does bleed off the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system through tidal forces. Just as the Moon does to the Earth.

OK, I understand this. The question is what has this got to do with the Moon's tidal lock with Earth? I got the feeling that we digressed from this question into a discussion about the solar tidal effects on the Earth.

if the Moon didn't rotate on it's own axis once per month, then we would enjoy a 360 degree view of the Moon's surface through each month.

My point was ambiguous and that was my mistake. I am basically saying the same thing. The Moon's axis of rotation is the Earth and is the same as its orbit, see synchronous rotation.

There is no need to call on the Earth's gravitational field to explain the offset of the Moons C.O.G. and C.O.M.

Perhaps there is no need, but it does fit quite well.

this very form would actually hasten tidal locking (which, by the way, is inevitable in a system like the Earth-Moon,)

By inevitable in an Earth-Moon system do you mean because of Earth's gravity? And how would this effect the formation of the Moon?

I think what you should do is find that applet somewhere else.

If I spent more time looking perhaps I could. My point isn't who created that applet but what it shows. I personally did the math over a year ago and it seems to fit the motions in that applet. The animation shows what I am trying to explain with words.

He's referring to your apparent misuse of the term "tidal lock." If you read the first paragraph of the Wiki link on the subject that you yourself posted, you'll see that, normally, tidal locking happens when the locked body turns the same face to the larger body constantly

Added bold
Key word, "normally". I understand what tidal lock is. The same wiki link suggests Venus has a possible tidal lock with Earth. Wiki/tidal lock/planets/Venus.

Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with the Earth is unknown.

Does Venus have, or had at one time, a tidal lock with Earth? Unknown.
I claim possible tidal lock.
stereologist claims no tidal lock possible, does not exist.

No more hints, please, as that is not what momentum is.

Perhaps you would care to take the time and explain what Momentum is?

English is not your first language then?

Me thinks I is a goodly speaking person.

Ad Hominem to you too then.

No Ad Hominum. stereologist keeps attempting to derail this thread into a discussion over Velikovsky while I am interested in Venus. There are other threads devoted to Immanuel Velikovsky. Any derailment I consider to be garbage. Besides I was not attacking stereologist personally, just his subject material.

You need to know that some people will actually examine things you say with a rational and logical methodology. If they find fault, it will usually be pointed out.

This is why I am here. I would hope for some discussion as to how and where I am wrong rather than simply saying, "You are wrong".

Originally posted by Devino

if the Moon didn't rotate on it's own axis once per month, then we would enjoy a 360 degree view of the Moon's surface through each month.

My point was ambiguous and that was my mistake. I am basically saying the same thing. The Moon's axis of rotation is the Earth and is the same as its orbit, see synchronous rotation.

Sorry, no.
The Moon rotates around an axis that runs through its center, and it does so once per month. I understand that it is a difficult thing to visualize.
Put a chair in the middle of the floor and face it. Look at the chair and notice the other side of the room beyond it. Continuouly facing the chair, move halfway around the chair (one-half orbit.)
Now, notice the other side of the room, beyond the chair. It is not the same "other side of the room beyond the chair" that it was before your orbit began. That part of the room is now behind you. You have turned halfway through one revolution and are facing exactly opposite the way you were facing before you began.

If you continue on around the chair, the original "other side of the room beyond the chair" will return to its original orientation with respect to your face.

I think what you should do is find that applet somewhere else.

If I spent more time looking perhaps I could. My point isn't who created that applet but what it shows.

An applet will show what its creator wants it to show, however.

I personally did the math over a year ago and it seems to fit the motions in that applet. The animation shows what I am trying to explain with words.

I'll gladly take your word for it. But sources are important and I don't trust the churchers to give good info. At least, not the online churchers.

No more hints, please, as that is not what momentum is.

Perhaps you would care to take the time and explain what Momentum is?

Sure. Momentum is defined as mass times velocity. Angular momentum is the mass times the angular velocity, which is measured by the rate of revolution, usually in radians per second, but that can be converterd into degrees per second. In an orbit, this momentum is sometimes called orbital momentum, but it's the same thing.

Momentum makes the storage of energy possible in a mechanical system. Think flywheel. That's why momentum is conserved, just like mass/energy. Angular momentum makes it easy to balance on a bicycle when the wheels are turning and not so easy when the wheels are not turning. In the second case, there is no angular momentum for the system to try to conserve.

You need to know that some people will actually examine things you say with a rational and logical methodology. If they find fault, it will usually be pointed out.

This is why I am here. I would hope for some discussion as to how and where I am wrong rather than simply saying, "You are wrong".[

Well, then, "you are wrong" about that, aren't you? LOL

Harte

reply to post by stereologist

You say Velikovski was proven wrong?

Hell, neither astronomers, physicists, geologists, or spiritual leaders ever really considered his evidence and called it outrageous right out of the gate.

The equations get a bit different if all three planets - Earth, Venus, and Mars were on different paths back in the day, and I haven't seen the postulation nor the refutation of this possibility.

After all, not many mainstream scientists as noted above will spend that much time on trying to prove Velikovski wrong.

Besides, I can tell you right now that physicists are wrong on their current models ranging from matter to energy. I'm not talking incrementally, but they are badly wrong.

Since I can violate classical physics daily in multiple ways, I don't put a lot of faith in their "determinations." Those laws of physics are more like "suggestions" to the unknowing.

A number of Velikovski's predictions about Venus, based on his postulations before we had satellites and newer technologies to make more accurate determinations, turned out accurate contrary to astronomers and geologists who stated his claims were wild and the inverse of what they believed.

No, I'm not saying Velikovski was right about everything, but his postulation certainly fits many observations, many ancient records, and many geological anomalies we see today.

It is dismissals like yours that began the day his works came out.

He can't prove it, but no one can prove it wrong.

reply to post by FarArcher


It is obvious that you do not understand physics at all. It is also clear that you have made a number of statements which are patently false. Let's take a look.

Hell, neither astronomers, physicists, geologists, or spiritual leaders ever really considered his evidence and called it outrageous right out of the gate.

The issue here is science. It's not true that people just called it false. They called it false and gave reasons.

The equations get a bit different if all three planets - Earth, Venus, and Mars were on different paths back in the day, and I haven't seen the postulation nor the refutation of this possibility.

Just because you haven't made any effort at all to understand why V. was shown to be wrong in no way supports his tall tales.

After all, not many mainstream scientists as noted above will spend that much time on trying to prove Velikovski wrong.

That's a fairly meaningless statement. No one today is going to go back and pick up V. theory and prove once again that his work is a failure. V. was heavily criticized for his nonsense claims well into the 1980s. I recall Sagan showing long lists of faults with V. There was also Shapley in the beginning and Forrest later on. And you are correct in that it does not take a real scientist to show that V. was wrong. The problems are so glaringly obvious.

Besides, I can tell you right now that physicists are wrong on their current models ranging from matter to energy. I'm not talking incrementally, but they are badly wrong.

Really? Why don't you go win a Nobel prize.

Since I can violate classical physics daily in multiple ways, I don't put a lot of faith in their "determinations." Those laws of physics are more like "suggestions" to the unknowing.

There has never been a case where conservation of energy has been violated. It has been tested in so many different forms it is hard to imagine. If you think you can easily violate these laws go win a Nobel prize. I simply doubt what you are saying. I think that what is happening here is that you do not understand the laws. You think you are doing something interesting, but you aren't. It's also likely that you are purposely telling a falsehood.

Your comment here reminds me of V. Didn't he claim in his book Worlds in Collision that if a physics law violates a myth, then accept the myth and rewrite the law. I kind of remember that bit of stupidity when I read the book.

A number of Velikovski's predictions about Venus, based on his postulations before we had satellites and newer technologies to make more accurate determinations, turned out accurate contrary to astronomers and geologists who stated his claims were wild and the inverse of what they believed.

V. only got one prediction right on Venus. He predicted it was hot because it had passed so close to the sun. That is not why Venus is hot. I have to give a fail to V. on his Venus prediction.

No, I'm not saying Velikovski was right about everything, but his postulation certainly fits many observations, many ancient records, and many geological anomalies we see today.

That's false. His ideas do not fit what is observed. A few things he got right in the hundreds of predictions he made were as right as the Venus claim. His reasoning was completely wrong.

It is dismissals like yours that began the day his works came out.

It's your blind acceptance of V. that is so interesting. It is clear that you refuse to test his ideas or more likely are unable to understand the physics involved seeing how you claim to be able to violate laws that have never been violated in any experiment ever done.

He can't prove it, but no one can prove it wrong.

You need to take a basic physics course and learn what physics is all about. Then you can look at the calculations and understand how it is possible to show something is wrong.

reply to post by Devino

Does Venus have, or had at one time, a tidal lock with Earth? Unknown.
I claim possible tidal lock.
stereologist claims no tidal lock possible, does not exist.

Thats not what I stated. If that is how you interpreted my statements then let me try to clarify my position.

The wiki says the evidence cannot differentiate between chance and a non-chance issue.

My position is that the system acts if there is no tidal lock now, nor has been a tidal lock in the past. Why invoke or introduce tidal lock when that does not have to be introduced to explain the system we see today?

If venus were originally a comet, then when it was "born" I bet it was a lot brighter and had a visible tail for a while. Maybe the tail did something to earth 5000 some years ago? Maybe it did something to us. Lucifer is the light bearer, maybe the stuff from the tail made us smarter? Or maybe the Mayans were told to begin keeping track of time in this manner after they received such a sign? If it was brighter because of the icy material that would have encased the planet and the tail coming off it, then it would be quite a significant object in the sky to our ancients. Maybe even more so than the moon in some ways?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by stereologist

No, friend, what you call science is just a limited collaboration of observations.

A Nobel? No way. Those things attract a lot of attention. Unwanted attention if you're doing anything worthwhile.

I suppose from your posts that you've never created a standing wave, and after shutting everything off, it remains in the local spacetime, altering the composition of anything you put in it, and has a half-life of roughly 30 days. Or that within that local standing wave, time slows by several minutes a week?

This violates classical physics.

I'll bet you never had a major forensic lab test, validate, and certify that your unity of wattage was in excess of 8.0, or for the laymen, your total energy output was eight times your total energy input. There's a very good reason we have that forensic lab under a strict non-disclosure agreement.

This violates classical physics.

Bet also you can't manifest at will, specific matter from where that matter didn't previously exist, can you? I guarantee, this too, violates classical physics.

Ever see large, clear crystals taken from a metal? I'm not sure if this violates classical physics, but it is one outstanding curiosity.

And I bet you can't regularly start with one common element and end with another common element at will.

I compare classical physics with the bedtime stories I read my grandchildren.

Apparently, nothing is as it seems. The unseen and undetectable is the real engine of the universe. All that dark matter and dark energy that we keep sending probes to detect? Hell, you can play with it all you want right here.

Practically every legend, fable, story,myth, legend, epic, and saga of the ancients were based on observations. Observations that may seem fantastic today, but when times of writing were precious, few wasted words making **** up.

I could be making up the claims I made above.

Could be.

But I'm not.

And I don't expect you to believe a single word, because that would violate your preconceptions. Your basis for belief.

What you think you know.

But you don't.

reply to post by Harte

Hey, look at that. I understand what you mean.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this for me. It sure is a whole lot better than simply saying, "You're wrong."

Originally posted by Devino
This is why I am here. I would hope for some discussion as to how and where I am wrong rather than simply saying, "You are wrong".

Well, then, "you are wrong" about that, aren't you?

OH, Geez... There it is again. I get this a lot at home too.

Seriously though, thanks again Harte.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Harte

 

Hey, look at that. I understand what you mean.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this for me.

It sure is a whole lot better than simply saying, "You're wrong."

Originally posted by Devino
This is why I am here. I would hope for some discussion as to how and where I am wrong rather than simply saying, "You are wrong".

Well, then, "you are wrong" about that, aren't you?

OH, Geez... There it is again. I get this a lot at home too.

Seriously though, thanks again Harte.

The chair in the middle of the floor thing is compliments of Dr. Ernst Reuning, Astronomy Professor at the University of Georgia back in the late 1970's.

See, I do know it's hard to visualize. I had the same problem until Reuning made me see it.

Glad I could help.

Harte

reply to post by FarArcher


Here is what you originally claimed:

Since I can violate classical physics daily in multiple ways

Nothing you have stated appears to be related to this claim. Instead you have made a list of vague issues.

I suppose from your posts that you've never created a standing wave, and after shutting everything off, it remains in the local spacetime, altering the composition of anything you put in it, and has a half-life of roughly 30 days. Or that within that local standing wave, time slows by several minutes a week?

What sort of standing wave are you talking about? I don't believe you created one either. And how was the slowdown of time demonstrated?

And I don't expect you to believe a single word, because that would violate your preconceptions. Your basis for belief.

Of course I don't believe you. You made up a lot of stinkers.

your total energy output was eight times your total energy input

That has never been observed. There is no experiment at a macroscopic scale or a microscopic scale that demonstrates a violation of the conservationof energy. Where did you get this story, from some gimmick salesman selling you a free energy machine?

I'm sorry I could not understand what you wrote. The only thing I was able to understand was that you guarantee instead of knowing that there is a violation. This is a guess then. There are lots of violations of classical physics. That is why relativistic considerations are needed at times.

Bet also you can't manifest at will, specific matter from where that matter didn't previously exist, can you? I guarantee, this too, violates classical physics.

Ever see large, clear crystals taken from a metal?

What does this have to do with anything? Lots of materials can be added to an alloy including sand. Ever notice how car door handle look like metal, but break in odd ways. That's due to the sand that has been added. It makes metal objects cheaper and adds bulk at little cost.

And I bet you can't regularly start with one common element and end with another common element at will.

This is half a thought. Could you complete it?

Practically every legend, fable, story,myth, legend, epic, and saga of the ancients were based on observations. Observations that may seem fantastic today, but when times of writing were precious, few wasted words making **** up.

That's not true at all. Even the bible is largely made up. Everything from the 2 different stories in Genesis, to Noah's flood, and exodus are all made up. People may have used things they saw as the germ for a story. That does not make the story itself true.

What you think you know. But you don't.

Do you apply this to yourself as well? You think that there are glaring violations that you encounter every day and yet you did not list any and you really don't know do you?

reply to post by stereologist

Every single thing I stated was true.

Your inability to do these things is because the current state of classical physics says you can't.

The second law of thermodynamics is improperly stated, and thus, null and void. Don't tell me we didn't have a large forensic laboratory - one that does lots of work for US universities - certified our results with our alpha model at 2.1 times unity of wattage, and the beta model, at over 8 times unity of wattage.

That's the point.

Those things you don't know are several.

Things you know are incorrect, and thus, worse.

Are you serious? You can't create a standing wave? A persistent standing wave weeks after everything's been shut down? That slows time? That alters matter inside?

You just read, right?

Whatever.