mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== THE SURFACE OF VENUS A NEWBORN BABE by Charles Ginenthal Strange. when you think about it. how a lack of information so often grows by leaps and bounds into a belief that has no scientific basis but becomes "accepted fact" simply because enough people want to believe it. Few things irk men of science (and they aren't all that honest) more than having to respond to questions with a puzzled look on their faces and a collective shrug of shoulders. People have a nasty habit of assuming that scientists should know about those matters on which they.re questioned-if for no other reason than that scientists spread this belief and spend great sums of money collecting information. But with all his instruments and a lifetime of study. the scientist doesn.t really have the faintest idea of what it may be like on Venus. Oh. he.s got ideas (most of them horribly wrong). but he does not know. If you don.t know- at least say something. Don't quite make up out of thin air. Deduce. If you have only a shred of cloth, weave yourself a magnificent set of clothes by mixing liberal amounts of imagination with that shred. That's just about what happened with what we thought we knew about Venus. The theories were both serious and preposterous. They were sincere and they were outlandish. They were well intended and they were based on everything we knew about Venus, but people couldn't separate minimum fact from maximum imagination. and what emerged was gibberish. Martin Caiden. "PIanetfall" (New York. 1974). p. 138 In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the testimony of ancient peoples from all parts of the globe described Venus as a giant, brilliant comet. Based on Velikovsky,s analysis of this data he drew the conclusion that Venus was a newborn planet in the early cool-down stage of its development. Therefore, if his understanding of the evidence was correct then Venus, surface should exhibit all the conditions of a world that was very recently molten and is most likely still volcanic and geologically active. In 1985, Dr. Lawrence Colin, Chief of the Space Science Division at NASA,s Ames Research Center and co-editor of ÒVenus", wrote: Ò...Our knowledge of Venus was still seriously limited in the early 1960s prior to mankind's first rendezvous by spacecraft. In 1961 competing views of Venus could be classified in seven broad categories: l. moist, swampy, teeming with life. 2. warm. enveloped by a global carbonic-acid ocean. 3. cool. Earth-like. with surface water and a dense ionosphere. 4. water. massive precipitating clouds of water droplets with intense lightning. 5. cold. polar regions with ice caps 10 kilometers thick and a hot equatorial region far above the boiling point of water. 6. hot. dusty. dry. windy global desert. 7. extremely hot and cloudy. with molten lead and zinc puddles at the equator. seas of bromine. butyric acid and phenols at the poles. From this list it is not obvious that scientists were all describing the same planet. For those who are impatient about the outcome. speculation 6 appears to represent most closely what we now think Venus is like.l Reinforcing the sixth option Ernest J. Opik, the internationally known astronomer of Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland, stated in 1960: The modern picture of Venus~ is] a borderless desert extending over an area one hundred times that of the Sahara...[The] Sahara itself would appear a paradise compared with the dry and suffocating dust storms raging behind the brilliant deceitful face of the Evening Star.2 Nowhere was it ever suggested by establishment scientists that Venus would be found to be a volcanic cauldron covered by immense lava flows. In fact, as recent as 1989, Isaac Asimov, the late popular science writer, remarked: For years astronomers had believed that Venus was a geologically dead place. Although quakes, volcanoes and other activity surely wracked the planet at one time. it seemed certain that Venus was quiet today.3 Therefore, if Velikovsky's analysis of the ancient testimony is correct the observations by the Magellan spacecraft should not only contradict the previous models of the Venusian surface but should also show overwhelming evidence of recent stupendous volcanism on a surface that appears to be pristine. One of the first indications of this excessive volcanism was presented in May 1990 in the Journal of Geophysical Research which analyzed the sulfur content of the Venusian clouds. There Na Y. Chan et al. state: Results of recent International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) observations of Venus made on January 20, 1987, and April 2 and 3. 1988. along with a re-analysis of the 1979 observations...are presented. The observations indicate that the amount of sulfur dioxideat the cloud tops of Venus declined by a factor of 8~4 from 380~70 ppb [parts per billion] to 50+'~0 ppb in 1987 and 1988. 4 One of the researchers of this phenomenon, Larry Esposito from the University of Boulder Colorado, elaborated on this decrease of SO2 and SO two months later in Astronomy: Pioneer Venus has continued to monitor these constituents above the clouds. Over the years a remarkable discovery has emerged: both sulfur dioxide and the haze have been gradually disappearing. By now only about l0 percent of the 1978 amount remains. This disappearance has also been confirmed by the Earth-orbiting International Ultraviolet Explorer between 1979 and 1987 and other Earth-based observations. The haze and the sulfur dioxide are now approaching their pre-l978 values. Analysis of recent Earth-based radio observations by Paul Steffes and his colleagues show less sulfur dioxide below the clouds than was measured by Pioneer Venus and the Venera landers. which is also consistent with the decrease of sulfur dioxide. Inclusive Earth-based data show that a similar phenomenon may also have occurred in the late 1950s. The best explanation right now for the decrease is that from time to time major volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide gas to high altitudes. The haze comes from particles of sulfuric acid. which is created by the action of sunlight on sulfur dioxide. Being heavy the particles gradually fall out of the upper atmosphere, letting conditions up there retum to normal between eruptions. My calculations show that this eruption of the late 1970s was at least as large as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa. The explosion. equal to a 500-megaton H-bomb. was the most violent of the last century or so shooting vast quantities of gas into the Earth.s stratosphere.5 Some scientists have already drawn the same tentative conclusion posited by Esposito. Thus James Pollock states: Measurements by the Pioneer Venus Orbiter show that the amount of sulfur dioxide present near the cloud tops declined from approximately l00 parts per billion (ppb) in 1978 to about 10 ppb in 1986. There is also fragmentary evidence of similar increases and decreases at earlier times. Such fluctuations might be due to episodic injections of SO2 high in the atmosphere by powerful volcanic explosions.6 David Morrison and Tobias Owen put the case even more strongly: Observations over the past twenty years have indicated that large fluctuations occur in the concentration of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the atmosphere of Venus above the clouds. When these observations are combined with indications of volcanic topography and lightning discharges for possible volcanism, the case for erupting volcanoes on Venus becomes rather strong.7 This appears to be indirect evidence that at least twice in the 1950s and 1970s there were major volcanic eruptions on Venus, surface. There are, of course, questions and objections related to this analysis; nevertheless, the Magellan spacecraft may have already observed explosive volcanism. In the December 1990 issue of Scientific American appears a photograph made by Magellan which appears to exhibit exploded material from one of its craters. The caption accompanying the picture states: Explosive volcalism may be responsible for the radar-bright deposit that extends roughly 10 kilometers from the kilometer-wide volcanic crater at the center of the image. The etched pattern of the surrounding plains becomes more obscure closer to the crater. which indicates that the deposit is thickest near the crater. The shape of the deposit suggests that local winds either carned the plume southward or else gradually eroded away the plume matenal except for that part located in the volcano's wind shadow. These bits of information, though consistent with volcanic activity, need to be corroborated by other information that will give a more comprehensive picture of a planetary surface formed by massive volcanic processes. In this respect, we turn our attention to another body in the solar system that is in the throes of massive, violent, ongoing volcanism and exhibits several notable features related to this Venusian phenomenon. That body is Io, the inner Galilean satellite of Jupiter. As Io orbits around Jupiter it is constantly being distorted in shape by its tidal interactions with the very massive Jupiter and its three outer Galilean satellites. As Io is distorted and flexed, like the action produced by bending a spoon, enormous heat is generated producing volcanism. Therefore, Io is molten at a relatively low depth of its. surface and its thin crust is floating on an ocean of molten magrna. The amount of heat emitted by Io, according to David Momson (a member of the imaging science team for the Voyager spacecraft) shows: "[An] internal heat source stimated at 10^14 W- needed to drive this volcanism is two to three orders of magnitude [100 to 1000 times] greater than that expected from normal radionucleides..."8 Io is the most volcanic body in the solar system. According to Billy Glass: The volcanic eruptions [on Io] appear to be comparable in intensity to the greatest terrestrial eruptions which are rare on the Earth. Io appears to be volcanically more active than the Earth. This has made mapping Io difficult because the active regions undergo radical changes in short periods of time. In the four month interval between Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. for example. one of the largest (200 km diameter) [122 miles] eruptive centers on Io known as Prometheus was transformed from a heart shaped feature to a circular one.9 Hence, if Venus was an incandescent body 3500 years ago and then cooled to the point where it became molten before it arrived at its present state, it should exhibit a topography quite similar to that of Io. In essence the volcanic foms observed on Io should generally be representative of the surface features seen on Venus. There should, of course be differences between the bodies because Io's temperature is not decreasing whereas we presume that Venus' temperature is. Furthermore, there will be differences in the materials each body contains which will also affect the appearance of their surfaces. Before comparing Io and Venus we wish to point out that many of the volcanic craters on Io do give the appearance of impact craters. According to Carr et al.: Calderas occur in every region of Io so far photographed. They are generally recognizable by their strong resemblance to terrestrial and Martian calderas. In many cases no relief can be detected and a caldera is inferred from the presence of a dark circular feature. Over 5% of the Ionian surface seems to be part of a caldera. either dormant or active. Where relief is discernible the calderas are recognized as rimless depressions with steep. inward-facing scarps and relatively flat floors.l0 PLAINS VULCANISM David Mornson describes Io,s volcanic features as follows: Some of Io's volcanic features look a great deal like their terrestrial counterparts: low shield-shaped constructs with calderas at their peaks and flows of erupted matenals on their sides. However. most of Io.s calderas are not at the tops of mountains but instead appear to be scattered amid the plains.ll Io exudes its magma in this manner because it is tremendously hot internally and has an extremely thin crust. Therefore if Velikovsky was right that Venus was hot internally just below its thin crust it too should pour forth its magma after the fashion of Io. observations should show evidence that lava is either presently or has very recently been exuded from circular vents on the plains of the Venusian surface. In New Scientist we learn that radar shows lava flows on Venus are indeed very much like those on Io: The flat plains of Venus consist of lava that has flowed from the planet comparatively recently, according to latest radar results. And an appreciable amount of the planet's heat may escape through these lava flows. rather than through large volcanoes and rift valleys that geologists have known for some years. In the plains the researchers found dozens of small vents, which oozed lava without forming volcanic cones. The researchers say. "The large number and wide distribution of vents in the lowlands strongly suggest that plains volcanism is an important aspect of surface evolution and contributed to heat loss on Venus."l2 Thus, there is a basic similarity that strongly suggests that Venus is venting its internal heat through plains volcanism. This implies that Venus, like Io, has a thin crust and is extremely hot not far beneath that crust. THE NATURE OF IO'S AND VENUS' CRATERS Since Io possesses such a thin crust floating on a bed of magma, that crust can become deformed. Io,s craters are situated over the upwellings of the hottest magmatic flows and, therefore, distortion of the crust should be in evidence most strongly at these sites of up-welling. This, indeed, has been well observed by Voyagers 1 and 2. Carr, et al., describe the crater caldera shapes in this manner: "Although most [craters] are nearly circular, they range widely in shape; some have scalloped walls suggesting collapse about different centers, others have rectilinear outlines, and others have elongate, slot-like shapes."l3 One of the first reports from Magellan respecting non circular craters on Venus was presented in the New York Times for Sept. 18, 1990. There it was reported that a kidney-shaped crater had been observed. The explanation given to explain this unusually shaped structure was that the "kidney-shaped crater appeared unlike any other in the solar system. Perhaps an incoming meteor broke up as it passed through the dense Venusian atmosphere, causing several large chunks of material to strike almost simultaneously in an irregular pattern."l4 However, over time more and more irregular shaped craters were observed so that the first example could no longer be considered unique. Thus an article in Discover states, "Even Venus, meteorite craters are intriguing. Some have strange and irregular shapes, in puzzling contrast to the round outline typical of most impact craters in the solar system."5 So far as is known only two worlds- Venus and Io exhibit very large numbers of misshapen craters. This again strongly implies that they were created in the same way under similar conditions. That is, both Venus and Io are highly volcanic and have thin crusts floating on magma: "Lunar craters, l.e terrestrial impact craters...tend to be circular, whereas calderas do not"l6 Geophysicists have generally considered misshapen craters as volcanic structures on the Moon and on Io. However, when they observe misshapen craters on Venus in which nearly all craters over 12 miles in diameter are observed to be filled with lava and in which a percentage have lava rivers emanating from them, the scientists have changed their interpretation to suggest that the craters are no longer of volcanic origin but of impact origin. If Io's and Venus' craters were, indeed, generated by similar processes then they should also show common features other than their non-circular shapes. For example some of Venus' craters are quite deep. Thus Dr. Gordon H. Pettengill, a leader of the Magellan radar team, reported that the spacecraft's flrst altimeter measurements were defining the texture of the planet's topography. One surprise, he said, "was discovering that a previously surveyed impact crater named Colette is more than two miles deep-far deeper than any crater seen on the Earth or any other planet."l7 On Io, too, we find that "some calderas are several kilometers deep..."l8 Moreover, there is another level of resemblance between the craters of Io and Venus that strongly suggests that Venus' craters are of volcanic rather than impact origin. Because Io's craters are accepted as having been produced by volcanism the outflows of rivers of lava from them is not considered enigmatic to the space scientists. In this regard it is reported: One of the most striking aspects of Io.s calderas is the associated albedo patterns. The floors of most are very dark and the low reflectivity of many is accentuated by bright haloes around the craters. [Sulfur] rendered molten by heat from silicate magmas...maybe the source of some of the river like features that snake across Io's surface...The flows from one of Io's craters are very long stretching for hundreds of kilometers.l9 R. Stephen Saunders reports of one Venusian crater: "The crater's flat, smooth floor hints that it has been flooded with lava.," Saunders exhibits photographs of Venusian craters which show dark floors with bright halos around them and then informs us that. "River-like erosion features running from the largest crater in the image are as yet unexplained."2l The reason for this difficulty is, of course, that the interpretation of these long river-like structures from the craters suggests that the craters are not impact formations but volcanic creations. With respect to this long river, Andrew Chaikin writes: One of the most bizarre features yet identified on Venus is a remarkably long and narrow channel that Magellan scientists have nicknamed the river Styx. Although it is only half a mile wide. Styx is 4,800 miles long. What could have caused such a channel is unclear. Water. of course. is out of the question. Flowing lava is a possibility but it would have to have been extremely hot. thin and fluid.22 One further resemblance between the craters of Io and Venus is their general size or diameter. Billy Glass observed that the craters depressions on Io are "up to 200 km in diameter."23 On Venus it is assumed that any crater larger than 300 km would settle by geological flow in about one billion years.24 Sulfur is the fluid suggested as being responsible for river structures on Io. However, the River Styx runs up as well as downhill. What is clearly implied, if this feature is a flow, is that the surface topography has shifted greatly since the flow ceased. Furthermore, Science News reports recent changes on Venus that have been attributed to wind blow debris but a deep regolith has not been seen anywhere on Venus and the scientist who discovered the changes also suggests that the differences between the 1991 image and another taken months later may stem from an actual surface change.25 The largest craters so far observed are about 275 km in diameter. This implies that a molten body like either Io or possibly Venus would produce craters of this size and smaller. This of, course, is still to be determined by the full scale observation of Venus by Magellan. If this evidence holds up it will again imply that Venus is molten at shallow depth. This however, does not negate the possibility that tidal forces on solid bodies such as the Moon may generate larger craters such as the Mana basins. In summanzing the information about craters one notes that their shape, depth, size, and bright halos around craters and dark flat centers bearing river-like lava flows on both Io and Venus are strong indications that volcanism is the cause of these surface features. One can also add that both Io and Venus possess craters with central peaks and craters without central peaks which can be seen in any good collection of photographs made of these bodies. To some extent confusion reigns in the analysis of Venus, craters as impact structures. Consider the problems posed by the crater known as Cleopatra. Here Burnham points out: Cleopatra is an impact crater surrounded by terrain that has been extensively modified by volcanism. probably induced by the impact...According to present thinking. if there was enough volcanic matenal available close to the surface so that it could spill out after the impact. then Maxwell [a nearby mount] itself would have softened and slumped to a much lower elevation. What is the answer? No one knows yet.26 In no manner at all does impact cratering explain Cleopatra. Rather, as is the case with most volcanic craters, a vent made its way up to the slopes of Maxwell Montes and broke through the surface creating a large crater and pouring lava over the surface. Significantly, Bumham reports that, "All craters larger than about 20 kilometers across have interiors at least partially flooded with lava."27 [italics added]. From this it is quite clear that volcanism rather than impact is the dominant cause of cratenng on Venus. PANCAKE-SHAPED DOMES AND OTHER ANOMALIES Among the strangest features found on Venus is a series of pancake- shaped domes. This surprising discovery was recounted in the New York Times as follows: At the news conference yesterday, Dr. R. Stephen Saunders. the [Magellan] project's chief scientist, showed pictures of...pancake- shaped domes which he said were "features never seen before.. on any planet" In one region. seven domes remarkably similar in size stretch out in a line remarkably straight for nature...They were presumably formed by extreme viscous lava pounng out of volcanic vents. The pattrn "is telling us something about the eruption mechanism. the viscosity and the eruption rate" But that was as far as geologists ventured in the interpretation.28 The unusual shape of these features should have struck a chord somewhere among the planetary geologists because pancake-shaped domes have also been observed on Io. Thus Carr et al. inform us: While most calderas [on lo] do not seem to be within shalply defined edifices a variety of positive relief features are recognizable. Most are puzzling and difficult to relate to terrestnal landforms. Among the more comprehensible because of their resemblance to low volcanic cones, are two pancake-like constructions...They are nearly circular, and surrounded by low escarpments. Each has a bright- floored small crater in the middle. The albedo [reflection of light by the material of the main edifice is uniform and close to that of the surroundings. (emphasis added)29 Once again two worlds- Venus and Io share a unique feature seen nowhere else. Of course. normal volcanic domes have also been observed on Venus. Here Eberhart reported: Beneath Venus' acid clouds which perpetually shield its surface from the eyes of Earth-bound obselvers. lie tens of thousands of low dome-shaped features. For several years planetary scientists have pondered the ongin and significance of these gentle mounds, which have appeared in radar images made of the planet since 1983. Apparently the result of volcanism. the domes constitute "the most abundant geological feature on the planet" says Jayne C. Aubele of Brown University: ÒI.m excited about the domes and other scientists are beginning to be also..." Aubele says, "the presence of a volcano on the surface of a planet always tells us something about the planet. The presence of tens of thousands of volcanoes overwhelms me...30 Although the number of domes on Venus of volcanic origin may turn out to be smaller in number when Magellan completes its survey, the great number clearly indicates how abundantly volcanic Venus must be. One researcher sums it up this way: "Magellan's radar survey of Venus found thousands of small volcanoes dotting the mostly flat landscape, as well as mountainous volcanic structures several hundred kilometers in diameter and evidence of massive outpourings of lava."3l Later we are informed that, "Magellan has found no evidence of...gradual resurfacing." This suggests that Venus lava flows were immense in scale, which is what Velikovsky's concept requires. HOT SPOTS For some time now it has been known that certain areas on Io are far hotter than the surrounding surface terrain. Such areas are described as "hot spots." Here Morison tells us, "In Io's case nature has aided us by channeling much of the heat flow into a few small areas resulting in hot- spots with temperatures far higher than the ambient background."32 Alfred McEwen et al. suggest that' "Observations...show that most of the hot spots [on Io] have remained relatively stable in temperature location and total power output at least since the Voyager encounters and possibly for the last decade."33 Hotspots have been associated with surface features on Venus for a very long time; they were originally found by Earth-bound radar and confirmed by Venera spacecraft.34 James Head asks: The question with arguably the broadest implications is simply how has Venus chosen to get rid of its internal heat (emphasis in onginal)...Does Venus cool itself by sending magma directly from the intenor to the surface? Then we would expect to see widespread volcanic deposits and numerous "hot spots'.. like those on Jupiter's satellite Io.35 Thus the presence of hot-spots suggests that Venus-like Io is venting its heat via hot-spot volcanism. This, in turn, suggests that Venus- similar to Io is molten at a shallow depth. One of the great enigmas of the "runaway greenhouse effect'' is the problem of explaining the source of Venus, high surface temperature. Based on this analysis it now seems highly probable that the high surface temperature has little if anything to do with a greenhouse effect. Velikovsky's conclusion that Venus' surface heat is derived from its molten core appears to be correct. THE AGE OF VENUS' SURFACE In Worlds in Collision Velikovsky suggested that Venus, age was to be measured in thousands of years rather than billions. In a recent article in Science a leading astronomer offered the following observation regarding the age of Venus' surface: The planetary geologists who are studying the radar images streaming back from Magellan find that they have an enigma on their hands. When they read the geologic clock that tells them how old the Venusian surface is they find a planet on the bnnk of adolescence. But when they look at the surface itself, they see a newborn babe...(emphasis added) Magellan scientists have been struck by the newly minted appearances of the craters formed...Only one of the 75 craters identified on the 5% of the planet mapped shows any of the typical signs of aging, such as filling in with lava of volcanic eruptions or being torn by the faulting of tectonic disruption. But by geologists usual measure these fresh-looking craters had plenty of time to fall prey to the ravages of geologic change.36 Based on the assumption that Venus is an ancient body the scientists estimate the surface of Venus to be on the order of 100 million to 1 billion years old, In short, even though they are confronted with a surface that is pristine scientists nevertheless interpret the evidence according to the theory that Venus is 4.5 billion years old. Thus Billy Glass tells us that in analyzing Venus' history, planetary scientists accept. "the geologic history of Venus...based primarily on what we have leamed about the other planets and is necessarily highly speculative. We assume that Venus was formed 4.5 x 109 y ago." (4.5 billion years ago)37 THE MISSING VENUSIAN REGOLITH Geophysicists, in order to explain the physical nature of the Venusian surface, offer the supposition that between 100 million and a billion years ago the entire planet turned itself inside out. If one were to accept this assumption it would require that over that period of time between the covering of the surface with lava flows and the present. erosional forces would break down the surface rock into detritus to form a regolith. The problem for the space scientists is that there is no evidence of a regolith covering the Venusian surface. Moreover, in view of the nature of the highly acidic nature of the atmosphere it is obvious that there has been significant erosion of the surface. According to Bruce Murray et al., "there can be little doubt that chemical weathering must be very effective on Venus, surface."38 Venus, atmosphere is known to contain hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid, both of whichare very corrosive. Paolo Maffei explains further that, "the atmosphere of Venus also contains- although in small amounts- hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, which reacting with sulfuric acid [known to exist in Venus' atmosphere could form fluosulfuric acid, a very strong acid capable of attacking and dissolving almost all common materials including most rocks."39 According to the scientists, Venus has been subjected to this intense weathering of its surface for at least 100 million years. Over this period of time the planet should have developed a covering of weathered material. Nevertheless, George McGill et al., inform us that: Radar and Venera lander observations imply that most of the surface of Venus cannot be covered by unconsolidated wind blown deposits; bulk densities on near surface materials are not consistent with aeolian sediments...Thus present-day wind-blown sediments cannot form a continuous layer over the entire planet.40 Thus, despite the fact that erosional processes are clearly at work on Venus, surface, there is no evidence of a regolith. Bruce Murray, in dealing with this enigma wonders: Russian cIose-ups of Venus were surpnsing. I had presumed that its surface was burried under a uniform blanket of soil and dust. Chemical weathering should be intense in such a hot and acid environment. Unknown processes of topographic renewal evidently manage to outstrip degradation and burial 4 [emphasis added]. In order to explain the lack of a Venusian regolith the scientists imagine a process that has no scientific basis for its action to reconsolidate the detritus on Venus. Nevertheless, let us assume that Venus' erosion rate is extremely weak and that it is not turned back into rock at the surface by unknown processes. What do we find? If we allow a tiny erosion rate of one millimeter per hundred years, then in 100 thousand years we produce one meter of loose material on the surface of Venus, which is equal to about 40 inches. However. in 100 million years we generate a kilometer of detritus. which is over 3000 feet of this loose material. Under no known condition can this much matter at the surface be turned to solid rock. and this is admitted by the scientists. What we find at the surface of Venus is the detritus of an erosion rate that is only a few thousand years oId. Only by ignoring this clear evidence can the astronomers support the view that Venus' surface reflects events tracing to processes occurring between 100 million and one billion years ago. Although Magellan has cast doubt upon most of the scientific establishment's predictions regarding the nature of Venus' surface, a belief in a 4.5 billion year old age of the planet Venus is sti11 enshrined as dogma. In accordance with this theory, it is believed by the space scientists that the degradation of craters on Venus' surface must have occurred over hundreds of millions of years. As the situation on Io proves, however, degradation does not require long time periods. Io's craters decay over extraordinarily short time periods measured in weeks or months. On Venus this period might take years. Based on the indications (cited above) that both Venus and Io are molten at shallow depth and are highly volcanic, Venus' craters would by no stretch of the imagination require millions of years to degrade. How then do scientists explain the fact that Venus' craters look so pristine? Here Kerr observes: Magellan scientists strove to explain the paradox of young looking craters on a relatively old surface. They raised the possibility that several hundred million years ago. a planet-wide outpounng wiped the slate clean, drowning any existing craters in a flood of lava. Then the flood would have had to tum off fairly abruptly so the craters formed by subsequent impacts would remain pnstine. But such a global episode of volcanism generates another mystery. How could Venusian volcanic activity ebb so abluptly?42 No doubt there will be other, equally imaginative, scenarios advanced in order to explain away this dilemma of so few craters showing signs of decay. To retum to Kerr: But surface remodeling is going on after all. Magellan scientists told a large crowd at the AGU [Amencan Geological Union] meeting. More recent images show the ravages of time. but in a fashion that leaves few aged craters."(emphasis added) This is not so much an explanation of the findings as a directive that the evidence is to be interpreted as such. This is not the only problem, however. Again we cite Kerr: The expanded view reveals four nearly continent-sized areas, ranging from a few million to 5 million square kilometers. that have no impact craters at all. According to Magellan team member Roger Phillips of Southem Methodist University in Dallas, the absence of impact craters- despite a steady rain of asteroids and comets onto the Venusian surface- means that in the recent geologic past the craters were wiped out either by lava flooding across these areas or by tectonic faulting. stretching and compression. The volcanic activity required to resurface the crater-free regions would be impressive by any standards, Phillips says. For example, it took at least a million cubic kilometers of lava over a few million years to produce the 66-million-year-old Deccan Traps of India...But the lava-covered areas already uncovered on a small part of Venus by Magellan must have all formed within the past few tens of millions of years to have escaped being marked by impact craters.43 So Magellan scientists are sti11 left with an enigma. What is clearly implied by the radar and photographic evidence is that immense outpourings of lava have occurred over huge areas of Venus' surface, covering over everything including craters. The scientists still cannot explain why there are so few craters that are degraded or flooded or why Venus suddenly poured out its lava in oceanic amounts. But all of this is clearly what one would expect to find from the theory that Velikovsky advanced in Worlds in Collision whereby Venus was only recently subjected to tremendous stresses and participated in numerous clashes with other planets. IRON As a newborn planet, Venus would not have fully differentiated so it remains possible that all its iron has yet to sink to its core. Accordingly, it was reported in Astronomy that: Maxwell Montes...poses a big problem in interpretation. Parts have electrical properties that indicate the surface contains "flakes.. of some unknown mineral. most likely iron sulfides. iron oxides. or magnetite. Iron sulfides ("fool's gold..) fit the obselvations best. but studies have shown that they would be quickly destroyed by the corrosive Venusian atmosphere. Iron oxides (such as hematite) and magnetite are also possible. but the presence of either is not easy to account for.44 If indeed iron is to be found upon the surface of Venus it would support the claim that it is a youthful planet in the early stages of cooling.45 A planet that had differentiated its iron into its central core would not be expected to pour iron onto the surface with volcanic materials. The reason that the iron compounds have not completely corroded in Venus' corrosive atmosphere, most probably, is that these outpourings of iron are extremely recent surface coverings measured in perhaps a few years. Iron on Venus, surface is clear evidence that supports Velikovsky. ARGON The superabundance of 36Argon, and the tiny amount of 40Ar, are glaring puzzles for the conventional view of Venus, history but perfectly consistent with Velikovsky's view that Venus is a youthful planet. As Glass explains, the 40Argon builds up over time by the breakdown of 40Potassium: The ratio of the mass of radiogenic 40Ar to the mass of Venus is smaller by amount of a factor of 15 than the value for the Earth...Since 40Ar within a planet increases with time due to radio active decay of 40K. the amount Of 40Ar should be higher if the primary outgassing took place late in the planet.s history.46 If Venus did not outgas much 40Ar over time why did it outgas so much 36Argon? If Venus lost nearly all its 40Ar why did it retain 36Argon? If, on the other hand, the great outflowings of lava released great amounts of 36Argon why didn't these outpourings also release large amounts of 40Ar? OXYGEN Ultraviolet radiation photodissociates C¡2, S¡2 and H20; over millions of years oxygen should have become plentiful in Venus, atmosphere, but it remains a minute constituent. Venus, water vapor cannot have escaped in less than 20 billion years. Where then is Venus, water? To argue Venus had no water but retains other volatiles is a basic contradiction. Moreover, Venus' middle atmosphere should have been converted to CO2 and O2 over a few thousand years, yet this is not the case. To argue that the Sun's magnetic flow implants and removes gases is based on assumptions that have never been proven and does not address all the problems of the other gases which exist and are unrelated to the solar wind. A similar problem surrounds the prevalence of hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids. Both of these acids are neutralized by new surface rock; oxygen, on the other hand, will unite with new surface rock. If nearly all of Venus, oxygen was removed by uniting with new outflows of molten rock why didn't these great outflowings neutralize all the hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid? The lack of abundant oxygen on Venus and the existence of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid are only congruent with one theory-that of Imnnanuel Velikovsky. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT For years the scientific community has maintained that the great heat of Venus is derived from an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Gary Hunt and Patrick Moore outline the ingredients necessary to generate a large and powerful greenhouse on Venus: CO2 is responsible for about 55% of the trapped heat. A further 25% is due to the presence of water vapor, while SO2 which constitutes only 0.02% [2/100 of a per cent] of the atmosphere, traps 5% of remaining infrared radiation. The remaining 15% of the greenhouse is due to the clouds and hazes which surround the planet.47 While carbon dioxide is certainly present on Venus. it can account for only 55% of the greenhouse effect. As Barrie Jones explains. other factors are also necessary to make the greenhouse work: Efficient trapping [of heat] cannot be produced by CO2 alone. in spite of the enormous mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because CO2 is fairly transparent over certain wavelength ranges to planetary wavelengths. Radiation could escape through these "windows" in suffcient quantities to greatly reduce the greenhouse effect below that which exists. It is by blocking of these windows by SO2. by H2O and by the clouds that greatly increases the greenhouse effect.48 In short, it is crucial to the runaway greenhouse effect that there be sufficient water, sulfur dioxide, and haze to maintain the heat holding capacity of the planet. Respecting water. especially in the lower atmosphere, the scientists have been looking for this vapor for a very long time. As late as September 1991, water vapor has not been found in anything like that amount needed to support the contention that the greenhouse is a foregone conclusion. According to R. Cowan: A research team has focused on the greenhouse puzzle...The absence of water vapor above Venus' cloud banks mystifies scientists because models of the planet's strong greenhouse effect suggest that [water] vapor plays a key role in maintaining the warming. Researchers have now looked for water below the cloud bank and down to the surface-and their search has come up dry Evidence of a dry Venus may force researchers to consider whether other chemicals could create and sustain the planet's greenhouse effect. says David Crisp of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory...who coauthored the new report.49 Now when a vapor responsible for 25% of the efficiency of the greenhouse-effect has been sought in vain for some 20 years it implies that a major problem exists with the model in question. Furthermore, in our earlier discussion of the SO2 and haze in the Venusian atmosphere we have shown that measurements indicate that these materials are transient products and do not sustain themselves for long periods of time. With this additional undermining of the greenhouse effect the process becomes more and more difficult to imagine. One of the major theoretical supports of the greenhouse model is the belief that Venus is in therrnal balance. Over and over we are told that measurements of the cloud tops for infrared emissions show conclusively that the amount of sunlight incident on the planet is equal to the infrared radiation emitted by Venus. However. this must also be supported by in situ measurements throughout the atmosphere: Radiative balance occurs [on a planet] at every level when the amount of downward-directed solar radiation that is absorbed is equal to the amount of infrared radiation that is emitted upward. When local temperatures satisfy this balance the atmospheric temperature is maintained. (emphasis added)50 Not only must there be thermal balance at one level of the atmosphere. this themal balance must exist at all levels throughout the atmosphere to confirm thermal balance. That this is not the case upon Venus has been known for some time. As Iong ago as 1980 Richard Kerr reported in Science that: When [4] Pioneer Venus probes looked at the temperature. each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight...To further complicate the situation. the size of the apparent upward flow of energy vanes from place to place by a factor of 2 which was a disturbing discovery.5 Kerr adds a telling and fundamental observation in this regard: "The much ballyhooed greenhouse effect of Venus can account for only part of the heating."52 [emphasis added] This simply means that the measured evidence from in situ probes precludes the possibility that Venus is in thermal balance. Since this evidence was confirmed by four probes it is highly unlikely that each probe could have been in error. What is most significant is the variation from place to place. the amount of heat rising varying at some places by a factor of 2. Thus, if in one region of Venus' atmosphere the temperature was x degrees, in another area it was 2x degrees. This means that there was at least twice the amount of heat coming up at 2x than could have been supplied by the greenhouse effect. It is most unlikely that in one region of Venus' atmosphere the greenhouse effect is twice as strong as in the other regions. CONCLUSION A fair reading of history will show that conventional astronomers have a very poor record when it comes to predicting the surface conditions of Venus. Such is not the case with regards to the thesis outlined by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1950. As this essay has sought to show, the evidence from Venus is fully consistent with the thesis of its anomalous origin and tumultuous recent history as set forth in Worlds in Collision. Indeed, it is this author's sincere hope that the day will come when members of the scientific community will find the courage and integrity to call for a full and proper investigation of Velikovsky's hypothesis. NOTE: After the Footnote Section there is a contact list for ----- further information on current Velikovskian research. I L. Coli, "Venus: The Veiled Planet", The Planets, B. Preiss ed.. (New York, 1985), p. 277. 2 E. Opik. The Oscillating Universe (New York, 1960), p. 63. 3 I. Asimov, "The Unknown Solar System", Discover (Oct. 1989). p. 40. 4 N. Chan. L. Esposito, T. Skinner. "International Ultraviolet Explorer Observations of Venus SO2 and SO", Journal of Geophy. Res. 95 (May 20, 1990). p. 7485. 5 L. Esposito, "Does Venus Have Active Volcanos?" Astronomy (July 1990). p. 45. 6 J. Pollock. "Atmospheres of the Terrestrial Planets" The New Solar System, ed. J. Beatty & A. Chaikin. (New York. 1990). p. 93. 7 D. Morrison. T. Owen, The Planetary System (New York, 1988), p. 235. 8 D. Momson, "The Satellites of Jupiter and Saturn," Ann. Rev. of Astron & Astrophysics 20 (1984), p. 480. 9 B. Glass. Introduction to Planetary Geology (New York, 1982). p. 364. 10 M. H. Carr. H. Masursky, R.S. Strom, R. J. Temle, "Volcanic features of Io," Nature 280 (Aug. 30, 1979), p. 730. II D.Momson. "The Enigma Called Io" Sky & Telescope (March 1985), p. 201. 12 New Scientist (Nov 4, 1989), p. 34. 13 carr. op. cit., p. 730. 14 R Saunders, "Surface of venus,,, Scientific American (Dec. 1990), p~ 15 Discover, (Jan. 1991), p. 38. 16 According to J.E. Guest and R. Greeley, ÒGeology of the Moon" (New York)1977), p. 99. 17 New York Times (Sept. 27, 1990), p. B4. 18 The New Solar System, J.K. Beatty & A. Chaikin eds., (New York, 1990), p. 181. l9 1bid.. p. 181. 20 R. Saunders, "The Surface of Venus," Scientific American (Dec. 1990), p. 63. 21 1bid. 22 A. Chaikin, "Magellan Pierces the Venusian Veil," Discover (Jan. 1992), p. 22. 23 B Glass. loc cit., p. 364. 24 G. McGill et al., Venus (Tempe, 1983), pp. 95-96. 25 R. Cowan, "Magellan finds wind sculpture on Venus," Science News (March 28, 1992), p. 198. 26 Robert Burnham, Astronomy (Sept. 1991) p. 37. 27 1bid., pp. 37-38. 28 J. Wilford, New York Times (Nov 17, 1990), p. 12. 29 Carr et al., Nature, loc cit., p. 730. 30 J. Eberhart, "The Diminutive Domes Of Venus," Science News 137, (June 23, 1990), p. 392. 31 Science News, Vol. 140, No. 25 & 26 (Dec. 21 & 28, 1991), p. 422. 32 D. Momson, Ann. Rev. Astron & Astrophy, loc. cit. p. 480. 33 A. McEwen et al., "Volcanic Hot Spots on lo: Correlation with Low Albedo Calderas," Journal of Geophysical Research 90. No. B14, (Dec 10, 1985), pp. 12, 346. 34 See E. Stofan, R. Saunders, "Geological Evidence of Hotspot Activity on Venus: Predictions For Magellan," Geophysical Research Letters 17:9 (Aug. l990), pp. 1377-1380. 35 The New Solar System, loc. cit. p. 85. 36 R. A. Kerr, "Venus is looking too Pristine," Science 250 (Nov. 16, 1990), p. 912. 37 B. Glass, op. cit., p. 324. 38 B. Murray, M. Malin & R. Greely, Earthlike Planets (San Francisco, 1981), p. 70. 39 P. Maffei, Beyond the Moon (Cambndge, 1978), p. 44. 40 G. McGill, op. cit., p. 94. 41 B. MulTay, Journey into Space (New York, 1989), p. 126. 42 Kerr., loc. cit. 43 R. Kerr, ~Volcanoes: Old, New, and-Perhaps-Yet to se," Science 250 (Dec. 24, 1990), p. 1660. 44R. Burnham, "Update on Magellan," Astronomy (Feb. 1991), p. 46. 45 In his analysis of the conditions of the early Earth, Carl Woese maintains as do most geologists and geophysicists that in that early period there was iron at the Earth's surface. See C. Woese, "An Alternative to the Oparin View of the Primeval Sequence," The Origin of Life and Evolution, H. O. Halvorson and K.E. van Holde. eds., (New York, 1980), pp. 65- 76 46 B. Glass, loc cit., p. 314. 47 G. Hunt & P. Moore, The Planet Venus (London, 1982), p. 132. 48 B. Jones, The Solar System (New York, 1984), pp. 138-139. 49 R. Cowan, Science News (Sept. 14, 1991), p. 167. 50 Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia, Vol. 2, (London, 1990), p. 523. 5l R. Kerr, Science 207, (1980), p. 289.