mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
VENUS IN MYTH AND SATELLITE OBSERVATION

Ev Cochrane

(Note: this piece was taken for an ongoing discussion on the Internet
newsgroup- talk.origins, a forum of evolution and cosmology?

............................................................

If Velikovsky is correct about the big catastrophe if 1500 BC
described in Worlds in Collision, one would expect (since
1500 BC isn't really THAT long ago) to find accounts in far off
corners of the world describing the great catastrophe of 1500 BC,
AND ascribing its cause to the planet Venus.  Conversely, if Sagan
is correct and Venus has been in its present orbit since before
man's time on earth, there is NO WAY that we should read this same
account from Egypt and Mexico, which to our knowledge had no
contacts in 1500 BC.  That would involve these two totally
separated groups of people totally fabricating the same
preposterous tale and ascribing to it the same preposterous cause
by PURE CHANCE.  Of all people, Sagan, the great expert on
probability, should know what the odds are on that.  Nonetheless:

............................................................

Part I, the tale from central America:

Central American people had achieved a high level of organization
at the time of the arrival of the Europeans and, although most of
these peoples literature was burned by the Spaniards, a few pieces
survive not only in hieroglyphics, but also in our own alphabet,
which Mayan priests very quickly picked up on.

One version of the tale survives in the Mayan Popul Vuh, or Council
Book.  A number of translations of the Mayan council book (Popol
Vuh) are now available in inexpensive paperback form;  I have here
a copy of Dennis Tedlock's translation, Simon & Schuster /
Touchstone 1985/86.  

Again, the basic idea of the first half of Worlds in
collision: that Venus (then on an erratic, stretched elliptical
orbit) nearly collided with Earth, causing every manner of havoc,
encounters with debris trailing Venus beginning with fine dust and
growing to ferocious storms of large meteorites, rains of burning
hydrocarbon substances (interaction of Venus' atmosphere and ours),
giant earthquakes, fierce winds, flooding nearly everywhere etc.,
followed by a protracted period of near total darkness either as a
kind of semi-nuclear winter caused by debris hanging in our own
atmosphere, or because our own present relationship with our own
sun was not yet completely established.  During that time, Venus
itself served as a light source, at least some of the time.

Back to the Popol Vuh.  We read the tale of the third race of
people, who the Mayans regarded as a wooden race because:

p 84.     "They were not competent, nor did they speak before the
builder and sculptor who had made them and brought them 
forth, and so they were killed, done in by a flood."

"There came a rain of resin from the sky."

p 260.    "Andres Xiloj commented: 'This was turpentine that fell,
and it was burning as it fell'".

This is the same tale which we read in Exodus ("and so there was
thunder and hail, and fire mingled with the hail...  ...and the
fire ran along the ground... etc.)

p 84.     "There came one called Gouger of Faces;  he gouged out  
their eyeballs."

"There came Sudden Bloodletter;  he snapped off their
heads."

"There came Crunching Jaguar;  he ate their flesh."

"There came tearing Jaguar;  he tore them open."

In other words, these peoples asses really got kicked in...

p 84.

"They were pounded down to the bones and tendons, smashed and 
pulverized even to the bones.  Their faces were smashed
because they were incompetent before their mother and their
father, the heart of sky, named Hurricane.  The Earth was
blackened because of this;  the black rainstorm began, rain
all day and rain all night.  Into their houses came the
animals small and great.  Their faces were crushed by things 
of wood and stone."

Glad I wasn't there...

p 58.

"The longest fast, 340 days, corresponds to a segment of the 
Mayan Venus calendar, beginning with the departure of Venus as 
the morning star, and continuing through its stay in the
underworld and its period of reappearance as the evening star, 
leaving just eight days to go before its rebirth as the
morning star.  This probably commemorated the heroic
adventures of Hunahpu and Xbalanque in Xibalba, the long     
darkness endured by the first generation of lords as they
watched for the appearance of the morning star..."

p 85.
"Such was the scattering of the human work, the human design. 
The people were ground down, overthrown.  The mouths and faces 
of all of them were destroyed and crushed."

p 86.

"This was when there was just a trace of early dawn on the
face of the earth, there was no sun.  But there was one who
magnified himself;  Seven Macaw was his name.  The earth/sky 
was already there, but the face of the sun-moon was clouded
over.  Even so, it is said that his light provided a sign for 
the people who were flooded."

A very clear and precise statement;  following the catastrophe, a
celestial body other than the sun or the moon provides light for
the world.  

p 360.

"The PV does not specify Seven Macaw's actual astronomical   
identification...  but A. gives it as Ursa Major..."

A. is simply wrong.  Ursa Major isn't bright enough;  remember,
this is all through an atmosphere heavy with dust and debris for a
protracted period.  

p 86.

"[Seven Macaw speaking] 'I am great.  My place is now higher 
than that of the human work, the human design.  I am their sun 
and I am their light, and I am also their months [they should 
begin to figure time by me].  So be it:  my light is great. 
I am the walkway and I am the foothold of the people, because 
my eyes are of metal...  And this nose of mine shines white
into the distance like the moon.  Since my nest is metal, it 
lights up the face of the earth.  When I come forth before my 
nest, I am like the sun and moon for those who are born in the 
light, begotten in the light.  It must be so, because my face 
reaches into the distance,' says Seven Macaw."

"It is not true that he is the sun, this Seven Macaw, yet he 
magnifies himself, his wings, his metal...  The faces of the 
sun, moon, and stars are not yet visible, it has not yet
dawned."

Seven Macaw is, of course, Venus.  The people are seeing all of
this through a ruined atmosphere, hence some confusion of effects.

p 89.

"Here is the beginning of the defeat and destruction of the  
day of Seven Macaw by the two boys, the first being named
Hunahpu and the second named Xbalanque.  Being gods... [i.e. 
celestial objects]...

p 342.

"Hunaphu and his twin succeed their father and uncle in     
controlling the morning star aspect of Venus, playing ball at 
an eastern site..."

This tale goes on for many pages.  Not only does Venus dominate all
of these stories, but we actually see the origin of the various
Meso-American ball games i.e. they are intended to represent the
celestial disorder being referred to in the Popol Vuh as well as in
other sources.

William Mullen, writing in an article entitled "The Mesoamerican
Record" mentions five dominant traits of the Mesoamerican cultures:

1.   Urbanization with large populations spread around great 
ceremonial centers.

2.   Belief in cyclical world ages ended by cosmic agents,   
jaguar, fire-rain, wind, flood, earthquake.

3.   Human sacrifice.

4.   Ritualistic ball game.

5.   Venus worship.

Number four we preserve to this day in the form of the NFL.

Velikovsky mentions a time of wandering in darkness after the great
catastrophe:  this is seen in pages 175 - 200 of (Tedlock's
translation of) the Popol Vuh:

p 176.

"When they came away from Tulan Zuyua, they weren't eating.  
They observed a continuous fast.  It was enough that they
watch intently for the dawning, that they watch closely for
the rising of the sun, taking turns at watching for the great 
star named daybringer.  This one came first before the sun
when the sun was born, the new daybringer.

Page 176 mentions sacrifice and ritualistic self-torture to bring
about the first sunset:

"It remains for you to give thanks since you have yet to take 
care of bleeding your ears and passing a cord through your
elbows.  You must worship..."

Which the people did and still lamented:

"Alas, we won't be here when we see the dawn, when the sun is 
born, when the face of the earth is lit."

i.e. the people were afraid they might die of old age first.

p. 181

"And then, when the sun came up, the animals small and great
were happy."

Whew!

p 182.  

"There were countless peoples, but there was just one dawn for 
all tribes.  And then the face of the earth was dried out by 
the sun...  Before the sun came up it was soggy, and the face 
of the earth was muddy before the sun came up.  And when the 
sun had risen just a short distance, he was like a person, and 
his heat was unbearable.  Since he revealed himself only when 
he was born, it is only his reflection which now remains.  As 
they [witnesses] put it in their own words:  'The sun that
shows itself is not the real sun'."

"They were overjoyed when it dawned.  The people on the
mountain of Hacauitz were not yet numerous, just a few were
there.  Their dawning was there...  ...And that became their 
citadel, since they were there when the sun, moon, stars
appeared, when it dawned and cleared on the face of the     
earth..."

Of course, I don't claim to know every detail of what was going on
here.  We have more bits and piece of a picture; Velikovsky's
picture, not that of Sagan or establishment scientists.  These
people were seeing the sun for the first time, the sun from our
present close orbit for the first time, or just the sun after a
very long period of darkness.  Recent studies indicate a time frame
for these events which correlates well with Velikovsky's date of
roughly -1500 for the big catastrophe in WinC.

................................................................

Part II.  The tale from Israel

I won't bore you with excessive details here;  you can read it for
yourself in the King James bible.  The 14'th chapter of the book of
Isaiah contains a hymn of thanksgiving, after Venus settled into
stable orbit and ceased to be a threat:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Lucifer, Son of the
morning [morning star] ... how art thou cut down to the
ground, which did'st weaken the nations...  which made the
world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof...

................................................................

Part III.  The view from Egypt

One version of the Egyptian equivalent of the same tale is found in
E.A. Wallis Budge's "Gods of the Egyptians" Vol I, pp 388 - 399,
wherein Ra, the old and dying chief God (actually a small star in
the last stages of dying out and being removed to an orbit little
visible from earth], sends his eye to destroy mankind, which are
beginning to blaspheme and no longer take him seriously enough:

From Samuel Noah Kramer's "Mythologies of the Ancient World",
Doubleday Anchor, pp 89-90, we read the following concerning the
Egyptian conception of the so-called "Eye of Ra", which we read
much of in Egyptian mythology:

"Only the eye of Re is identified as a heavenly body in a few 
sentences in the pyramid texts.  We used to understand them as
though the eye of Re was identified as the sun, but a careful
interpretation of them has unmistakably shown that the eye of
Re was the morning star..."

i.e. this is common knowledge amongst Egyptologists.  Those who
might doubt Kramer as a source can check pages 37 - 40 of the
latest version of LaRousse's popular mythological encyclopedia
(Pierre Grimal, I believe I'm remembering the name correctly,
editor).  You'll find the same identification of Sekhet, the Eye of
Ra, and Venus.

The following fragment of the Egyptian version of Phaeton myth may
thus be seen as clearly implicating the planet Venus in the event. 
To the best of my knowledge, Velikovsky was unaware of at the time
WinC was published.

The most common translations of Egyptian texts from pyramid and
tomb walls are those of E.A. Wallis Budge, and Dover offers
inexpensive, high-quality paperback versions of these.  Budge
published his translations towards the end of the last century, and
had no ax to grind pro or con Velikovsky.

In Budge's "Gods of the Egyptians", Vol I, pp 388 - 399, we read
the story of the destruction of mankind.  As the story goes, the
great god (Ra) had grown old and feeble and men began to blaspheme,
saying:

"behold, his majesty, life, strength, health, has grown old,
his bones are like silver, his limbs like gold, his hair like
lapis lazuli real"

The attendant gods counseled sending the eye of Ra to punish
mankind:

"... let thine eye be upon those who blaspheme thee.  ...Let
go forth thine eye, let it destroy for thee those who
blaspheme with  wickedness, not an eye can proceed it in
resistance, when it goeth  down in the form of Hathor
[Venus]...  Went forth then goddess this, she slew mankind on
the mountain...  Said goddess this, when I had power over
mankind, it was pleasing to my heart...  It came to pass that
Sekhet [again, Venus] of the offerings of the night waded
about in their blood, beginning in Suten-henen...

Note the term "she slew mankind on the mountain".  Where else do we
find this phrase?

Isaiah 2/19:

And they shall go into the holes of the rocks and into the
caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord and for the glory of
his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

Isaiah 2/21:

To go into the clefts of the rocks and into the tops of the  
jagged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of His 
majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

Normal earthquakes don't give much warning;  running up into clefts
in high mountains thus isn't a normal reaction to them.  Isaiah,
however, is talking about a different kind of an earthquake, such
as has not been seen in awhile.  The thing is, that when the CAUSE
of the earthquake is right there in the sky getting closer daily,
you don't need to be but so much of a prophet/astrologer/astronomer
to know that you'd BETTER get to high ground or do some kind of
thing before long, or your ass is grass.

The peculiar phrase from the pyramid wall is in the same vein,
describing people seeking shelter in the hills, and mostly dying
anyway.

.............................................................

There are two versions of what was going on around 1500 BC:  The
version provided by "scientists" who believe they can string tree
ring sequences together for 11000 years in such a way as to show
uniformity, stability, cosmic harmony, normality, etc. etc. ...,
and the version provided by the people who LIVED THROUGH those
times.  Dr. Velikovsky did nothing more than piece that body of
testimony together and present it to the modern reader for his
viewing.  He noted that these fragments of literature, especially
when several of them tell the same story despite coming from areas
of the world too far apart to have had contact in prehistoric or
barely historic times, constitute evidence every bit as much as do
stones, bones, tree rings etc.

The choice to me is easy.  If I wanted to find out how life was in
Magnitogorsk, for instance, and my choice lay between asking
somebody in the poli-sci department at the university about it, and
calling up a number of people in Magnitogorsk and asking them how
life in Magnitogorsk was, I'd have no trouble deciding which system
would provide more useful information.

The situation with life in 1500 BC is little different.
.................................................................

John Godowski"  537  Venus' young surface

9 Sep 1993 13:48
John Godowski" : Venus' young surface

A few comments are in order on the Venus discussion. I'll select two recent
excerpts as representative, and comment as appropriate.

Thompson writes:

>Well. Go away for a few days, and what happens? You've all been having fun
>without me. Not Fair! Let me pick up the thread again here.

Welcome back!

>The temperature is, indeed, the same on both the day and night side of
>Venus, at the surface. One could interpret this as implying no solar
>heating, as Mr. Holden has done.

Agreed - I do the same.  Solar heating not dominant in my view.

>However, this would require the corresponding interpretation that there is no
>cooling mechanism either, since the temperature remains constant.

Would it really require this? I think one may envision a cooling mechanism as 
present - I do.  I envision the constancy of temperature as occurring as an
equilibrium between heat entering the system (atmosphere) and heat leaving (by
cooling mechanisms present) The constancy of temperature is explainable in
such a scenario this way:

The major heat inflow term is heat from the surface itself; sunlight and 
commensurate greenhouse effect may be present, but are not dominant as heat
sources.

Heat removal occurs through conduction (in adiabatic lapse no convection - 
correct my use of terms - is Venus atm in ad lap? or should there be local 
conv?)  and through radiation from upper atm to space.  (can radiation
transfer be moderated by photoactives blocking IR in presence of visible
light?)

The temperature, constant such as it may be -( I expect local hotspots to 
rotate with the planet if indicative of varying surface vulcanism) -
represents an equilibrium between heat coming into the atm and heat leaving -
a thermal Balance...

This Balance is my view is not measurably tipped one way or the other by the 
presence or absence of only 60 or so earth days of insolation; solar heating
being negligible in comparison with conductive transfer from the hot interior.

>Obviously, the presumption that the lower atmosphere does not cool is silly,

Silly - Yes, agreed. Not only is it silly, but it is straw - a presumption
held by no one- Neither Velikovsky nor I so presume.

>which casts severe doubt on the presumption that there is no solar heating
>either.

No doubt cast.  Certainly solar heating is present, but in the Velikovskian
view neither dominant nor sufficiently important as to be noticibly missed
from Cytherian night to day.

>Of course, the Velikovskian is prepared for this. The heating comes, not
>from the sun, but from a hot Venus, still cooling from its former molten
>state. This would explain equal temperatures on both the day and night
sides.

Exactly.  No straw here - this is the Velikovskian perspective.

>Now the question. Is there anything else about Venus, besides the high 
>surface temperature, that might lead one to the conclusion that it was still
>cooling, from an incandescent state, a mere 3500 years ago?

A very good question - in fact, one of THE questions to ask, and asking the 
right questions is essential to sciencing correctly.  (Yes, I'll make the 
point that science is a verb - a process, not a static body of knowledge but
an objective way of pursuing it)

Now the question:  Let's see...anything else- besides the high surface
temperature-

A few of these for starters:

[to be respectful, I might add that these features, indeed all of them, 
may have other explanations, but, also, YES, they might quite easily and 
quite understandably lead me to the abovementioned conclusion- that it is
still cooling from an incandescent state a mere 3500 years ago.]

SURFACE FEATURES THAT MIGHT LEAD ONE TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS STILL
COOLING FROM AN INCANDESCENT STATE A MERE 3500 YEARS AGO:

1.  The large pancake or dome structures.  Too big around and too flat, 
suggesting convective upwelling, or perhaps gas upwelling from within the
mantle caused by impact intrusion of lighter material before crust
solidification.

2.  The Magellan pictures.  These photographs are touted and hailed by all 
[eg; look at that freshly molten surface - Wow!  What a Greenhouse!  OR,  
Look at that freshly molten surface - Wow!  What a Hot Young Planet!] I
see in the Magellan pictures areas continental in size that appear even to
my untrained eye to have riven and flowed like a half baked cake in a
tilted pan.  I see fracture lines all aligning and indicating to me the
parameters of these flows - a molten or semi molten crust cannot by
isostasy have areas continental in size flowing downhill, so what caused
these flows? The Velikovskian tidal stress of close approach comes to my
mind here as being a physical mechanism capable of inducing such lateral
flow on a semiliquid crust.

3.  The circular trenches.  These subduction zones, where it appears to me 
that Cytherian crust is subducted by convective movement, surround large
shallow circular upwellings, at least to my untrained eye, and suggest the
classic textbook case of subduction caused by convection.  Problem for the
textbook: why no circular ridge inside the upwelling area? Upwelling too
diffuse? I can easily envision a rising round pillar of convecta in the
mantle giving rise to these round upwellings and their surrounding
trenches - but how can I envision a curtain of rising convecta on Earth
wrapping the planet nearly twice and causing transform faults not
perpendicular to the ridgelines?

These terrestrial faults, some 5000 miles long and more, align to global 
references without respect to the ridgelines.  This speaks against local 
convection as prime cause in my view, and also argues for Velikovskian 
tidal stress of close approach, as with Venus.  The Hawaiian Island chain 
and trail of seamounts more adequately find explanation as being caused by 
convection alone.

4.  The 100 mile x 1/4 mile deep craters.  Really, Venus has its share of 
clearly impact craters, as one would also expect from a Velikovskian point 
of view.  But the compelling features are the large diameter low relief 
craters, like the kind you get by dropping a salt shaker into the cake
batter before it's baked - bake it shaker and all and the ring is still
there - I would recommend all Magellan watchers to bake a few cakes, some
fully , some half baked, some hardly at all, and evaluate impacts made
during these and subsequent stages of consistency  - 'sound half baked?
yes, but remember, one of the first to evaluate crater formations tried
BOTH methods - shooting bullets into sand, AND using a plaster of paris
type mixture.  With Venus, a combination of both methods may be in order -
to leave out half of the comparison for the sake of presupposition (even
if the presup IS correct) would not be warranted, especially in the light
of resurfacing scenarios.

If there were molten crust phases, even during a REsurfacing event, such 
craters made under those conditions and surviving to our day should be
identified as such.  And if these same are seen as forming during a recent
but identical Surfacing, rather than REsurfacing event, at least we will
have identified the structures for what they are.

5.  Where are the Tectonic Plates?   Textbook approach, to my view implies the
following: Venus, of all planets, if tectonic theory is sound, should have
plates.  The tectonic plates must be broken in the first place, which may
be difficult if the crust thickens too much before mantle temperature
differences become sharply delineated enough to cause strong convection.

But the Venus crust is thin now, and I don't know when it will be thinner, 
so why hasn't it broken into plates by now?  Does its hot massive
atmosphere keep the crust and mantle so thermally homogeneous that
convection does not occur?

Is the thermal gradient too small?

If Venus ever did have oceans as some suggest, why didn't it break into 
tectonics back then? Or did it, then the REsurfacing comes along to erase 
them... My view, along Velikovskian lines expects no tectonic plates on 
Venus, but does expect them on Earth.

In my view, tectonic plates are too strong to be broken by mere convection 
into the globally aligned fracture patterns I recognize.  I envision a 
stress pattern acting aligned on a global basis to cause the fractures I 
see aligned on a global basis. The motions we perceive now are real, of 
course, but residual.

The configuration of ridges in a meridional great circle causes me to
envision a region of tensile crustal stress along just such a zone.

The location of earth's greatest mountains brings to mind regions of 
crustal compression at the center of the areas circumscribed by the
ridges.

This is consistent with the crustal stress field that would be produced by 
a Velikovskian close approach of two similar sized bodies.

It may be that terrestrial fracture patterns are consistent with a 
sequential superposition of two or more of such approach events, at 
whatever time in earth's history.  The scenario has its utility in 
describing observed features whether the events are old or even as recent 
as Velikovsky.

IF as Velikovsky indicates, Venus was such a recent close approach, it may
be that some of our plates and ridges and subduction zones were reopened
or reactivated and possibly modified at that time.  It would also follow
that Venus, the other partner in the dance, would not have been
sufficiently solid at the time to have broken into plates.

6.  Geologically Young .  Where is the erosion ?  All the rocks seem jagged 
and unworn, I see few ventifacts, dunes, plains of sand, what soil there
is doesn't seem to move around much, and the cliffs don't have detritus
cones at the bottom (alluvial fan would be improper in absence of water)
and the mountains seem fresh, jagged, unworn, some appear to me to be too
high for the crust as thin as I think it is, to have sustained by isostasy
for billions of years,  so they look new to me.  Since no tectonic plates,
the surface you see is the one that has been there since the surface was
molten.

Everything looks so pristine, even the uniformitarians are postulating 
REsurfacing events - timed only long enough ago to 'backstrapolate'
current particle flux rates it seems to me.  Nobody now says the surface
we see is billions of years old anymore, even in the absence of tectonic
plates.

7.  Where's the water?  Some are saying that Venus had ancient oceans, and 
that this water vapor contributed to an ancient greenhouse that evaporated
the oceans, superheated the atmosphere, baked the carbon dioxide out of
the rocks and sealed the fate of the hot planet, leaving the water vapor
to dissociate in the upper atmosphere.

So where are the dry shorelines?  Evidence of ancient beaches, rounded 
stones, anything?  Even a difference in surface sedimentation or coloring 
consistent with all elevations below a certain 'sea level' ?  Ok -  so the 
REsurfacing event would erase that too?  We have millions, even billions 
of years to play with here, so we can certainly get rid of all the water 
except what little is left - right?

Not so.

In all the time one cares to allow in a solar system such as ours, Venus 
could not have lost more than 30 ft of ocean water.  Would that have
caused the Runaway?  Venus has never had an ocean, in my view, because the
planet has never yet in all its short history been able to accomodate
liquid water on its surface.

Perhaps more, but enough for starters...

So ARE there surface features other than the high temperature that might lead 
one to conclude that it was still cooling from an incandescent state a mere 
3500 years ago?  I would have to say YES.  Yes, at least seven times - or 
should I say it once for each crater, once for each pancake or dome structure, 
once for each circle trench, once for each tectonic plate that isn't there 
yet, once for each crack in the continental sized crustal flowfields-- the 
number of affirmative answers would be astronomical, and each feature awaits 
explanation.

Well Sir,  you have asked THE question, and you have my answer: YES

> My answer is "no".

I expected that, but maybe you'll have another look!  At least now you know 
how it looks to me...

>We have facts, and we have interpretation. The facts are the same for
>everybody, but interpretations are not. One of the fundamental activities of
>a scientist is to interpret facts, in the light of experience, and the
>current state of our understanding.

Yes, I agree, well said.  But if the facts allow varying interpretations, they 
should all be presented, tested, etc.  It is NOT the duty of science to select 
ONE interpretation from those possible and preclude investigation of alternate 
hypotheses, no matter which noble goal is espoused in the process.   
Especially, Science must take care not to hinder the investigation to see 
whether alternate theories are possible or not by prematurely insisting that 
such a determination has already conclusively been made.

>Greenhouse theory, whether it is a misnomer or not, does provide a complete 
>explanation of this observed phenomenon (the equal day-night temperatures).  
>It is entirely consistent with facts observed, and it is internally
>consistent with known fundamental physics (measured IR absorption of CO2).

This is a beautiful assertion, noble, well reasoned. It may even be true.  But 
what if it isn't?  There are those who competently question that SGH provides 
a >complete< explanation, especially with respect to thermal balance ( I 
believe more data are in order)

Facts observed include a heatflow through a near opaque cloud deck touted as
IR blocking and obviously Visible light blocking, with a snow white albedo on
top of that.  This cloud deck is pretty cold on top, most light of any kind
can't get through it very well, the bottom of the coulds are only 400 degrees
or so, and the planet surface, supposedly heated only by sunlight striking
this cloud layer, is heated to several hundred degrees beyond even this
temperature.

The presence of sufficient water vapor to account for SGH has not been 
confirmed, the oil of vitriol hypothesis doesn't answer the spectral 
signature, and until more data can conclude the matter, it appears 
questionable that the SGH theory really does in fact account for all observed 
features.

Everyone agrees that temperatures are uniform, so convection is out.  How to 
get all that heat from the sun in the cool opaque cloud deck up the thermal
incline to scorch the shaded surface?

SGH - please don't violate 2nd law again - no Hadley Cells, sorry.  No polar 
sinks, sorry - even that has cold clouds heating a hot surface -- questionable 
at best.  To force heat transfer against a thermal gradient requires an input
of work -  work that the SGH supporters have yet to perform to the
satisfaction of all.

>Velikovsky theory, on the other hand, requires that the planets behave, in 
>the recent past, in a manner not at all in keeping with what is observed.

I observe a very hot Venus out of thermal balance, a wobbling earth, a spotted 
Jupiter, errant Martian moons, young Saturnian rings spiralling ever inward, 
comets and asteroids paving the path of the last encounters like celestial 
skidmarks -- the residue of the the process in its cooling off phase .. I
didn't see the wreck happen but my grandfather did, and called to me and I ran
and looked and I saw the wreckage still smoking...  Now its time for the
investigation...

To Velikovsky at least, these events were observed, often in meticulous detail
[ref Ammizaduga]

>It requires Venus, in particularly, to behave in strange ways indeed, with no
>evidence other than distant myths, that it may ever have done so.

Is it strange to obey Keplers laws (Vel Recon: Vel and sequence of planetary 
orbits - read if you get a chance to, and comment)

Or to obey the 2nd Law of Thermo [Talbott]?

No other evidence?  Look with new eyes at Magellan, for starters...

>I choose greenhouse becuase it works, and it makes sense.  

This remark I respect very much.  The decision to interpret data frmo one 
perspective or another is a choice, and it is wise and proper to describe it
so.   A personal choice.   Made with good and compelling reasons.   Each
person has the righ to so choose.  Even if (gasp!) differently -  based on the
same data.

But when you are the spokesperson for a disipline, you must separate your 
personal choices and interpretations from what you declare officially to be 
the body of what is known and proven to the exclusion of all alternatives.  I
believe in this last statement you begin to approach the ideal I speak of.

>I reject Velikovsky because it does not work, and it does not make sense.
>This is the way science is done.

It has yet to be shown that it does not work, because the required simulations 
( which I intend to pursue ) have not been performed or even attempted.  
Therefore, we do not know it does not work, we make that statement as an 
educated assertion.

The SGH theory discussed above, claims internal consistency - rightly - as a 
virtue.  Velikovsky's scenario is also internally consistent: all the 
spectacular events described happen not for ad hoc reasons causally 
noninterdependent and unrelated, but rather each successive element appears as 
the inevitable and commensurate logical consequence of a single physical 
cause.  No physical laws are suspended or disobeyed.  No physical laws are 
neglected.  No observations are culled from the data set - especially the data 
from the original recordkeepers.  No conclusions are drawn unless testimony 
and evidence corroborate.  The hypothesis so formed is specific, splendidly 
differing from prevailing notions, and eminently testable.  It has scored a 
remarkable series of correct predictions concerning many things that 
astronomers did not expect.  In fact, every single time in this century that 
astronomy guessed first about a planet or moon, and then looked, well, you all 
were here to see it -- astronomy was wrong, astronomy was surprised, astronomy 
was not even expecting anything of the sort -- as a predictive guide, 
astronomy scores right up there with the predictions of those other friendly 
folks whose eyes are set skyward.  Velikovsky, whatever the merits of his 
theory, has embarrassed us all, repeatedly.  If I really had to bet the farm,
I'd have to go with Velikovsky.

I would really get a Cray Computer or equiv to have a good hard look before I 
dismissed Velikovsky.  I seriously intend to have such a study done one way or 
another.  Maybe by the time a PC can handle the calcs I'll have the necessary 
equipment myself - in the meantime I invite those qualified and equipped not 
to wait until then...  Check it out now... why not put your name on a Correct
prediction?

>I harbor no false illusions about the force of my arguements magically 
>changing Mr. Holden's mind, for it is already made up. Like many others, Mr.  
>Holden rejects anything not in keeping with his powerful religious 
>convictions.  To him, Velikovsky is God, and Worlds in Coillision is Gospel.  
>It cannot be wrong, therefore everything and everyone else is.  
>Interpretations are streched to the breaking point, and outlandish
>speculation takes the place of reasoned areguement. So it is, and so it shall
>ever be.  This may be a good opportunity to practice technique, and brush-up
>on the facts/theories, but nobody is going to budge.  Not everyone on T.O. is
>so religiously determined, and it is for you silent listeners out there that
>we try to keep the keel of reason's ship steady on the rough seas of T.O.

Nice writing job.  Really a good post, actually.  I found this post a real and 
sincere improvement from your last quote of note -(something like  'no way- no 
how- not now- not ever- totally impossible beyond question - unthinkable - 
heresy lunacy ahhhhh!!!' or words to that effect - I'll spare you the quote)  
I guess the time away was really a good idea for all of us - welcome back!

Now you write in terms of a decision made for defensible reasons, and you 
write very well.  You may wish to acknowledge, in the future, should you find
it warranted, that a perhaps equally rational mind may view the data from a
different perspective, and make a scientific 'choice' to at least investigate
Velikovsky seriously, again for perhaps equally defensible reasons.

To judge a decision, one must consider not only the outcome, but the reasons 
behind it.  One might even disagree with someone who believes the same way we 
do, but for the wrong reasons... or even further - respect a differing view
because of the reasoning behind it.

Time will tell which, if any view is correct. Since we can't know before we 
know, each view must be respected if sincere and well reasoned.  Who knows? It
may be that your view is the correct one - I am certainly prepared to accept
that should it prove to be so.

After all, it is what I believed before I met my Boss at the Astronautics 
Division...  A conversation or correspondence here may prove to be at least as
productive - I have many questions about JPL to ask in time.

This last paragraph is a noble expression of the sentiment to continue a good 
work even in the absence of the hope of reward.

I understand that.  Certainly a Velikovsky supporter knows that feeling all
too often, it would seem.

Think, though, for a moment, how that last paragraph would sound with just a
few words changed, if I may take the liberty sans malice: (please pardon the
mangled french )

I harbor no false illusions about the force of my arguements magically 
changing Mr.[insert your name here if you agree with Mr. Thompson-- so it
sounds personal to you]'s  mind, for it is already made up. Like many others, 
Mr.[insert your name here] rejects anything not in keeping with his powerful 
[scientific] convictions.  To him, [science] is [supreme truth], and [the 
Uniformitarian view of the universe] is [self evident beyond question]. It 
cannot be wrong, therefore everything and everyone else is. Interpretations 
are streched to the breaking point, and outlandish speculation takes the place 
of reasoned areguement. So it is, and so it shall ever be. This may be a good 
opportunity to practice technique, and brush-up on the facts/theories, but 
nobody is going to budge.  Not everyone on T.O. is so [scientifically] 
determined, and it is for you silent listeners out there that we try to keep 
the keel of reason's ship steady on the rough seas of T.O.

Well, I am living proof that sometimes people CAN change their minds even on
subjects like this.  I have now held one belief as long as the other. [11
years more or less] Interesting.  I have changed my mind once.  I may do so
again - or even again - as often as the situation warrants.

My ears and eyes are still open to perceive a new way, yet I do not choose
to be silent.

I have received mail from those whose names I had not before seen on the net, 
in support of something I had said.   I suppose there are silent supporters
for many views.  It helps if the support is not silent -  and it helps the
whole discussion if questions are asked aloud for all to hear.  But for the
encouragement, public or private, I am deeply grateful.

>Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL.
>Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network.
>Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
>Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.

Is anyone at JPL capable/interested in some small scale modeling/simulation of 
Venus/Earth encounters..  is there anything on a PC for me to have a rough go
at it?  advice along these lines - anyone?

Thanks to Mr. Thompson for the good summarizing post, I'd've had trouble 
picking the thread out of all those short parries.

JOHN GODOWSKI
godowski at ise.ufl.edu

I claim that empirical evidence involving Venus is being
doctored and falsified at every turn because it does not fit with
scientists' pre-conceived ideas involving the age of our solar
system, and because it does not match any of the logical
requirements of Carl Sagan's "super-greenhouse" theory.

Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
time to cool;  a wealth of historical evidence supports him.  Sagan
claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape.  This he claims
causes the intense heat;  he even manages to keep a straight face.

"Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium.  Is it?

Robert Anton Wilson's "The New Inquisition", page 73 quotes
T.B. Pawlicki to the effect that Jupiter, like Venus, gives off
more heat than it absorbs from the sun, and cites Funk and
Wagnall's encyclopedia as a source.

.......................................................

The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article
entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as
follows:

"Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to
show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives
from the sun.  If this surprising result is confirmed, it
means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than
the earth does.

F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented
these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week. 
Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
solar system, at 480 C.  The generally accepted theory is that
sunlight is absorbed at Venus' surface, and re-radiated as
infrared.  The later is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus
acts as a blanket, keeping the planet hot.  It is similar to
the way a greenhouse keeps warm.

Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the
tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse
effect work -- just.  If this is the whole story, the total
amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey
up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to
that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature
would be continuously changing).

But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy
than it receives.  To keep the surface temperature constant,
Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.

All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat
from radioactive elements within their rocks.  But Taylor's
observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing
almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is
inconceivable according to present theories of planetary
formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of
the radioactive elements than Earth does.  At last weeks
meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say
sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.

Taylor himself has no explanation for his result.  He simply
points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
refused to go away.  More measurements are needed before
astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
extra heat will disappear on further investigation.

Astronomers now claim that Venus is "within error bounds of thermal
equilibrium" and cite the noted astronomer Tomasko as a source. I will
explain how this works momemtarily.

.............................................................

Consider then what happens as probes descend deep into the
atmosphere of Venus towards the surface.

I am looking at two articles from Icarus magazine dated 1982
and 1985, the first by H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E.
Suomi of the Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of
Wisconsin at Madison, the second by the same three gentlemen along
with R.W. Boese of NASA-Ames (Icarus 52, 279-300 and Icarus 61,
521-538).  Both of these articles involve the infra-red flux
sensors on the Venus probes which landed in Dec. 1978, so that even
by the time the first article was written (82), these people had
quite awhile to think about what the probes had told them.  Three
small probes carried net flux radiometers carried externally, and
a larger probe carried an infrared radiometer internally, which
viewed the atmosphere through a window.  All of these instruments
measured the infrared flux of the Venereal atmosphere.  

In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed
infrared fluxes which the scientists could at least think about
living with; as they descended, however, all began to show very
large net fluxes UPWARDS, which is what you might expect if
(HORRORS) Velikovsky's view of Venus were the correct one:

"Below the Venus cloud deck both LIR and SNFR flux
measurements appear to affected by serious errors..."

"...Although the LIR [large probe enclosed instrument]
measurements might be correctable, using the multispectral
information of the data to deduce the magnitude of the
asymmetry, no reliable corrections have yet been obtained [by
1982 three years after the fact]...  Thus we cannot at this
time make use of the LIR results..."

However, if the scientists lacked imagination in forcing the
large probe data into a suitable uniformitarian, Saganesque mold,
no such lack occurred with the data from the probes carried on the
three small probes:

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are
determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net
fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net
flux must be small because of the large density of CO2.

"Must be small" based on the known facts of uniformitarianism and
"Super-Greenhouse".  The idea that four separate instruments of two
different sorts, three carried externally and one internally all
telling the same story MIGHT possibly just be correct does not even
occur to the scientists.  Religious belief overrides evidence;  the
round evidence must be pounded into the square hole.

..............................................................

But then, we know that Venus is "within error bounds of" thermal
equilibrium in its upper atmosphere (as a number of the t.o regular crew
members delight in noting), and so these lower atmosphere figures cannot
possibly be right, no?  No indeed!

The astronomers and others are citing Tomasko's article on pages
611 - 612 of THE BOOK (VENUS, Hunten, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of
Arizona Press, 1983).  This monstrosity is a size-equivalent to
War & Peace, GWTW, and the Bible, and costs $80 in North America.  They
aren't making it on volume...  One notes also that they clearly intend
that ordinary hoodlums (such as myself) should not have access to the
book;  it turns out, this could cause some embarassment to the
astronomers.

It turns out, that there are two articles on thermal equilibrium, the
Tomasko article on pages 611 - 612, AND the article by F.W. Taylor
on page 658. It turns out that only by adopting the most myopic view which
it is possible to take can you get thermal equilibrium from this story, and
that is precisely what Tomasko does.

For thermal equilibrium to pertain, two numbers must match up;  the
first is an emissions number which all parties involved agree reads
right at .76.  The second number is a planetary albedo.  Tomasko claims
(pp 611-612) "For the whole planet to be in equilibrium with absorbed
sunlight, the bolometric albedo would have to be .76..."  Nobody
anywhere appears to disagree with that statement.

Now, the Pioneer Venus readings on albedo (Taylor's article, page 658)
was .80 plus/minus .02, and the calculations from Venera data (also
page 658) are .79, plus .02, minus .01.  The closest you could get and
stay within error bounds is .78.

Now, you might ask, what's a lousy .02 amongst friends; doesn't sound
like much...  This is one of those cases in which a little bit appears
to go a long way.  Consider what Taylor claims would be required to
be believed if the .80 figure for albedo were to hold good (also page
658):

"Clearly, the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not
consistent with eachother if radiative balance applies.  A source
inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e.
accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and 0.80 is very
unlikely since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup which
would imply heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this.
Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to
construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be
transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without
the later becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse the observed
surface relief.  This could only be avoided if the transport were very
localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes.
Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus
(see chapter 6), and the content of the atmosphere is consistent with
vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial
volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on
an awesome scale to account for the missing 10^15 W or so of power."

That, of course (the little thing about "awesome" volcanic activity), is
more or less what Magellan tells us.  Taylor, naturally enough, does not
particularly care to believe what the data is telling him.  Nonetheless,
the data IS telling him that there is no way that Venus is even within
error bounds of thermal equilibrium.  How then does Tomasko make such a
claim?

Tomasko cites one 1968 calculation of albedo of .77 +- .07 without
bothering to tell you that that estimate was later revised upwards to
.80 +- .07 in 1975 (Taylor tells us that on page 657), and notes that
Taylor indicates that the .02 error bounds for the Pioneer reading (the
most recent, and done with the best instruments from the best distance)
may be "too small".

Taylor indeed notes (page 758):

"A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80
+- .02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the
uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative
(J. V. Martinchik, personal communication).  A fuller analysis of PV
albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase
coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle.  In conclusion
then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of
global energy balance, yeild a value of the albedo of 0.76 +- .01;
this is the most probable value."

Tomasko is basing his entire case on one entirely outdated calculation,
and upon a "personal communication from Martinchik".  That's hear-say...
worthless.

Tomasko is thus seen as nothing more than a source of misinformation on
the entire topic of thermal equalibrium on Venus.  It gets funnier;  the
last time I posted any of this to talk.origins, one of the regular t.o
crew, and apparently one with serious astronomical credentials, replied
that I needed to read something else of Tomasko's.  The question then
becomes:  "How much misinformation is required before one begins to
truly <understand> this business?"

Taylor is saying that the best measurements available tell us that
thermal balance is not to be had on Venus, and that Sagan and his super
greenhouse theory are FUBAR, but that that can't really be, that he and
others are probably, hopefully looking at something the wrong way, but
he doesn't know what that something is.

That's a long, long way from claiming that Venus is "within error
bounds" of equilibrium.

The only thing in the world which should cause a non-prejudiced reader
NOT to question the integrity of these two, particularly Tomasko, is the
fact that, in all likelihood, both are blithly unaware that there is a
competing theory for origins of Venus, which positively predicts and
calls for such a lack of thermal equilibrium.  They are both trying to
bring the numbers into conformance with the only cosmological base
system they know.