Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Is Venus supposed to have an atmosphere?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1    Rolci

Rolci

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM

Imagine for a moment that we have no knowledge of a Venusian atmosphere simply due to lack of observation. If anyone were to theorize ANY kind of atmosphere for Venus, how likely do you think the idea would be supported by the scientific community? Consider the questions that would arise and the arguments against it that would need reconciliation:

- Where is it supposed to have come from. The more the total atmospheric mass the harder to find plausible explanations for an origin.

- What would keep it in place? Venus has a smaller mass than Earth, meaning a weaker gravitational field, so if there were an atmosphere of any kind it would have to be thinner than on Earth.

- Even more so as Venus is closer to the Sun, which means that the atmosphere is hotter. Much hotter. In fact, it is 2,5 times hotter than on Earth. In simple terms this means that the molecules making up the atmosphere are hitting each other with some crazy speed, building up some crazy pressure, which would push out a huge percentage of the atmosphere into outer space, and the weak gravitational field wouldn't be enough to counteract this force, leaving a hot but thin atmosphere.

- Being closer to the Sun also means a considerably stronger solar wind than on Earth. This normally would't be much of a problem, except Venus has no magnetosphere, so the atmosphere should be blown away like a ball of hair in front of a hair-dryer. Especially that close to the Sun.

- Let's not forget the effects of centrifugal forces on the surface which tend to throw off any atmosphere into outer space. I'm aware of the low rotational speed of Venus TODAY, but millions and billions of years ago it was much quicker, preventing the formation and build-up of an atmosphere. Wherever the atmosphere is supposed to have come from, it would've had a hard time building up from a thin atmosphere into a thick one as the initial thin atmosphere would be thrown off, blown away etc., all that I mentioned above.

As you can see one would have a hard time supporting the idea that there should be an atmosphere. Yet we are told that not only is there some atmosphere, we are told that, despite being so hot that Zinc would be BOILING on the surface, it is so thick and heavy that the surface pressure is 90 times higher than on the heavier, magnetically shielded Earth, further away from the Sun. Sure thing.

Best piece of truth I have found so far: http://llresearch.or...of_one_pdf.aspx
A truly free society: https://sites.google...t-economy-today
The true history of our planet: http://www.floating-...rth_history.htm
Dialogues with The Absolute: unveiledsecretsandmessagesoflight.blogspot (dot) co (dot) uk/2011/08/eon-11aug2010.html
A wealth of metaphysical readings with a surprisingly high ratio of truth content: soulwise (dot) net/index-00.htm

#2    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 04 February 2014 - 02:29 PM

Are you trying to suggest that Venus doesn't have an atmosphere?

If so, you'll have to argue against evidence which was discovered by astronomers as early as the 18th century - for example:

Quote

Schröter found when the planet was a thin crescent, the cusps extended through more than 180°. He correctly surmised this was due to scattering of sunlight in a dense atmosphere. Later, American astronomer Chester Smith Lyman observed a complete ring around the dark side of the planet when it was at inferior conjunction, providing further evidence for an atmosphere.

Likewise, you'd have to explain what's been discovered by American, Soviet and European spacecraft.


#3    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,588 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 04 February 2014 - 02:31 PM

You realize the gravity of Venus isn't that much lower than Earth? Venus is has over 90% of Earths gravity.

http://www.universet...avity-on-venus/

Edit: Mars is even less massive and has an atmosphere. The moon of Saturn, Titan, less mass than Mars, also has a dense atmosphere.

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 February 2014 - 02:40 PM.


#4    davros of skaro

davros of skaro

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,688 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skaro

  • ", because in most cases men willingly believe what they wish."-Julius Caesar 'De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18'

Posted 04 February 2014 - 02:43 PM

Does this answer your question?



Posted Image
Leviticus 14 2 Peter 1:16
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MzrIHdN9O7M <-- "Ten Lies About Jesus"
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=79Lmmy2jfeo <-- "The Mythical Jesus"
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=272571 <--Science of belief

#5    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,128 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:40 PM

Venus surface temperature being as much higher than earth's as it is is not due to being closer to the sun, but to it's atmosphere and a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus surface temp is higher than Mercury's which is much closer to the sun. We can only speculate about what Venus atmosphere may have been like before the event that caused it's retrograde rotation and may have killed it's magnetic field and entirely resurfaced the planet.


#6    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 February 2014 - 03:11 AM

Just too add to what others have said, you do realize that both the US and the Soviets have sent probes into the atmosphere of Venus, and the Soviet Venera program actually managed to land probes on the surface of Venus and send back colour photos before being destroyed by the heat and pressure (after about 2 hours)?


#7    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,763 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 05 February 2014 - 03:40 AM

Good grief.  3 words..

Apply..

Scientific..

Method..

My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - ChrLzs

The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - ChrLzs

#8    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,978 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 February 2014 - 04:27 AM

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Imagine for a moment that we have no knowledge of a Venusian atmosphere simply due to lack of observation. If anyone were to theorize ANY kind of atmosphere for Venus, how likely do you think the idea would be supported by the scientific community? Consider the questions that would arise and the arguments against it that would need reconciliation:

Telescopes? The biggest and baddest cannot make out a single surface feature. It is probably just my imagination, but when I look at it through my 10" Dob, it looks like one big bad storm all the time.

We can see features on the moon, mars like craters, ice caps, and ridges, remember the Martian Canali that spawned so many rumours. Venus looks solid - dense atmosphere.

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

- Where is it supposed to have come from. The more the total atmospheric mass the harder to find plausible explanations for an origin.

The atmosphere? Same place as ours. Comets, volcanoes, accretion etc.

Why do you think it would be different for Venus than it was for Earth?

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

- What would keep it in place? Venus has a smaller mass than Earth, meaning a weaker gravitational field, so if there were an atmosphere of any kind it would have to be thinner than on Earth.

Not much, Venus is pretty close to being the same size as Earth. What keeps the Atmosphere in place? Good question because indeed, Venus does not have a magnetic field. We do not really know why. Maybe lack of convection in the mantle, maybe the slow rotation is to blame.

Some of the atmosphere is lost to space. Even though it has a thick and heavy atmosphere far more dense and compacted than earth, it only has four times as much nitrogen. The atmosphere of Venus is 90 times more dense than that on Earth and it is made of 96.5% of CO2 and a 3% of nitrogen. The CO2 on Earth is stored on calcite type rocks, not in the atmosphere, and if we would convert the CO2 on these rocks into atmospheric CO2 it would amount to the same amount of CO2 that there is on Venus' atmosphere.

Further reading:

It is instructive to compare the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere to that of its neighbor planets Venus and <a name="marker=135317" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mars. All three planets presumably formed with similar assemblages of elements but their present-day atmospheric compositions are vastly different ( See Atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars ). Venus has an atmosphere ~100 times thicker than that of Earth and consisting mostly of CO2. Because of the greater proximity of Venus to the Sun, the temperature of the early Venus was too high for the outgassed water to condense and form oceans (see section 7.5 for further discussion). As a result CO2 remained in the atmosphere. Water vapor in Venus's upper atmosphere photolyzed to produce H atoms that escaped the planet's gravitational field, and the O atoms left behind were removed by oxidation of rocks on the surface of the planet. This mechanism is thought to explain the low H2O concentrations in the Venusian atmosphere. On Earth, by contrast, the atmosphere contains only 10-5 of all water in the surface reservoirs (the bulk is in the oceans) so that loss of water to outer space is extremely slow and is compensated by evaporation from the oceans.

LINK

Interesting side fact - because of these harsh conditions on Venus. Co2 is compressed into a supercritical state - something between gas and liquid, as a gas it can permeate all areas, but it can dissolve just like a liquid - the entire surface is covered in this mass.

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

- Even more so as Venus is closer to the Sun, which means that the atmosphere is hotter. Much hotter. In fact, it is 2,5 times hotter than on Earth. In simple terms this means that the molecules making up the atmosphere are hitting each other with some crazy speed, building up some crazy pressure, which would push out a huge percentage of the atmosphere into outer space, and the weak gravitational field wouldn't be enough to counteract this force, leaving a hot but thin atmosphere.

Not as close as you are making out here.

Venus is 0.72 AU from the Sun, we are obviously 1 AU out. So then the minimum separation between Venus and the Earth is 0.28 AU, or about 40 million kilometres when we reside 149,600,000 km from the Sun.  

Not that big a deal. Remember, Venus is considered to be in our Sun's habitable zone.

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

- Being closer to the Sun also means a considerably stronger solar wind than on Earth. This normally would't be much of a problem, except Venus has no magnetosphere, so the atmosphere should be blown away like a ball of hair in front of a hair-dryer. Especially that close to the Sun.

That is right Venus does not have a magnetic field. We are not sure why, maybe because of the lack of convection in the mantle, maybe because of the slow rotation. But Venus does have an induced magnetosphere formed by the Sun's magnetic field carried by the solar wind.

Like so:

Posted Image




In the upper atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen are being created by the dissociation of neutral molecules from ultraviolet radiation. And indeed during this process some of those elements are carried away.

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

- Let's not forget the effects of centrifugal forces on the surface which tend to throw off any atmosphere into outer space. I'm aware of the low rotational speed of Venus TODAY, but millions and billions of years ago it was much quicker, preventing the formation and build-up of an atmosphere. Wherever the atmosphere is supposed to have come from, it would've had a hard time building up from a thin atmosphere into a thick one as the initial thin atmosphere would be thrown off, blown away etc., all that I mentioned above.

Rather than building up, perhaps building down might be a better analogy. Lighter gases are stripped of to an extent, leaving the heavier ones to settle, which is what we see today on Venus. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the atmosphere of Venus is almost totally comprised of CO2.

As mentioned above, the entire surface of the planet is covered in supercritical CO2.

View PostRolci, on 04 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

As you can see one would have a hard time supporting the idea that there should be an atmosphere. Yet we are told that not only is there some atmosphere, we are told that, despite being so hot that Zinc would be BOILING on the surface, it is so thick and heavy that the surface pressure is 90 times higher than on the heavier, magnetically shielded Earth, further away from the Sun. Sure thing.

Not considering that it is very different to earth and as such is bound to offer different characteristics. Did you know it has a retrograde orbit? Neptune and Venus are the only two planets int he solar system to do so.
You know the Russians have sent like ten probes there now? Soft landings on all, and up to 110 minutes of footage from some missions.

Edited by psyche101, 05 February 2014 - 04:30 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#9    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,128 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 05 February 2014 - 05:16 AM

Pluto has a retrograde rotation too. I know it got kicked out of the planet club but it'll always be a planet to me


#10    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,978 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 February 2014 - 06:59 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 05 February 2014 - 05:16 AM, said:

Pluto has a retrograde rotation too. I know it got kicked out of the planet club but it'll always be a planet to me

LOL, Poor old Pluto, it's way of the scale! Have a look at the orbits Actually thanks for focusing on that, I see that I said retrograde orbit above, I meant to say rotation.

Posted Image   Posted Image



Also, most moons that are asteroid sized are retrograde too :tu:

Edited by psyche101, 05 February 2014 - 07:04 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#11    Rolci

Rolci

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 February 2014 - 02:46 PM

Thanks for the replies, maybe I should've started with relevant bits of my background like I've been interested in astronomy from a young age and that I've been familiar with all the bits you guys picked up from wikipedia for a couple of decades now, from books of course.

Naturally I was aware of alleged space probes and their alleged reports. I'm not saying they are lies or not, faked or not, all I say is I don't have personal experience, I have not done measurements. If some other person or agency says they have, you can take it on blind faith or choose to reject it, like many are debating moon landings, while others are still insisting that the Earth is flat. Conspiracies do exist and groups of people do have different agendas, many of them global, and they would have the masses believe this or that and I do not feel that I can personally ascertain with 100% accuracy what's true what's lies. So for this reason I'd like to put the space probes aside for a moment.

I was also aware of the composition of the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect and the highest surface temp in the solar system and the retrograde rotation. Also the induced magnetosphere (which in my opinion has negligible effects).

In spite of being aware of all the above I thought it would be fruitful investigating the issue, if not for anything else, then to clear up a few basic things that, not to my surprise, NO ONE here has addressed so far, which is kind of sad. Why? Because the truly ARE the basics, as opposed to all the irrelevant stuff above like retrograde rotation (which let's admit shouldn't affect the formation of an atmosphere) or ChrLzs's non-constructive comment. It's like having kids do brainstorming in a classroom.

I was rather hoping (naively) to discuss things like, what's the theoretical upper limit for the mass of atmosphere a planet of given mass and radius (you want the surface gravity) can hold? Shouldn't there be some kind of formula? We could start from an assumption that the Earth is holding the maximum amount it can, and work from there. I would've loved to hear someone mention that MAYBE Venus is holding normal amount but Earth's is extra-thin because of dissolution of gases in the oceans. Never mind. So let's assume it's holding all it can. What happens if you reduce the mass? Lower gravity, light gases from upper atmosphere escape. What happens if you move it closer to the Sun? Temp rises, volume of atmosphere expands, top layers are pushed further out into space, more mass shed. Also stronger solar wind constantly blows gases of the upper atmospheric perimeter perpendicular to Sun-planet line, even if there is constant supply from volcanoes, so a balanced equilibrium develops. Now strip the magnetosphere. What happens? Drastic loss of the remaining thin atmosphere, possibly a total loss.

So this unprotected small piece of rock manages to support an atmosphere 90 times denser than the protected Earth can. I invite explanations. Or maybe there is a formula out there that I'm not aware of, and Venus's atmosphere is normal and ours is super-thin. The oceans can only dissolve certain gases, and only so much. Furthermore we've had and still have active volcanoes, so is our atmosphere getting thicker? Are surface atmospheric pressures constantly rising worldwide? Not that I have heard. If Venus's 90-bar atmosphere is normal, shouldn't Mars have like a 50-bar atmosphere or something? Yeah, I know, dead planet, slow solar erosion. But where is our 200-bar atmosphere? And if 90 bars is normal for Venus, how much would it be able to hold WITH a magnetic field? 150 bars? With the surface temp being a fourth of what it is (183K = -90 degrees, which we've had n Earth)? 600 bars? http://tinyurl.com/snxmf Check the picture on the right. What do you think that would do to rocks and mountains (large rocks) on the surface? It would literally level the surface. And that's normal? For a small rocky planet? So that's what Mars would have if it were volcanically active? Seriously?

So there are a few questions here still. The least the main question deserves is some basic formula for an upper limit for atmospheric mass that a planet or any large object in space can hold and carry. It should be dependent on the composition as well, if it's mainly heavy gases then a lot of mass can stay close to the surface where gravity is still strong. Let's say we have a planet of a mass of 1025 kg and a radius of 10.000 km. No stars around with solar wind, say it has a distant orbit around a brown dwarf. No planetary magnetic field. Ho much oxygen can it carry with it in a constant, stable fashion, max? I realize if it were an empty universe then even a piece of rock would theoretically be able to hold an infinite mass of gases around it, being the only gravitational centre, so we need some force constantly stripping it, like some kind of a drag from resistance from an ether, or solar wind (which is the same in principle, both based on relative movement). So let's add solar wind to the mix, choose any value. Can we have the formula?

Edited by Rolci, 06 February 2014 - 03:21 PM.

Best piece of truth I have found so far: http://llresearch.or...of_one_pdf.aspx
A truly free society: https://sites.google...t-economy-today
The true history of our planet: http://www.floating-...rth_history.htm
Dialogues with The Absolute: unveiledsecretsandmessagesoflight.blogspot (dot) co (dot) uk/2011/08/eon-11aug2010.html
A wealth of metaphysical readings with a surprisingly high ratio of truth content: soulwise (dot) net/index-00.htm

#12    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 06 February 2014 - 03:27 PM

View PostRolci, on 06 February 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the replies, maybe I should've started with relevant bits of my background like I've been interested in astronomy from a young age and that I've been familiar with all the bits you guys picked up from wikipedia for a couple of decades now, from books of course.

Please do not assume that because I quoted Wikipedia I did not know anything about Venus's atmosphere prior to that. The Wikipedia quote matched what I knew (like you, from books) and was a quote you could verify the existence of. Based on what you say below about conspiracies, I wonder what you might say if I tried to quote from a book you didn't have access to?

Quote

Naturally I was aware of alleged space probes and their alleged reports. I'm not saying they are lies or not, faked or not, all I say is I don't have personal experience, I have not done measurements. If some other person or agency says they have, you can take it on blind faith or choose to reject it, like many are debating moon landings, while others are still insisting that the Earth is flat. Conspiracies do exist and groups of people do have different agendas, many of them global, and they would have the masses believe this or that and I do not feel that I can personally ascertain with 100% accuracy what's true what's lies. So for this reason I'd like to put the space probes aside for a moment.

Seriously, what sort of conspiracy would involve scientists from multiple nations trying to convince "the masses" that Venus has an atmosphere when it doesn't? Particularly when anyone with a telescope can look at Venus and verify what astronomers have seen for 200+ years?

Quote

I was also aware of the composition of the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect and the highest surface temp in the solar system and the retrograde rotation. Also the induced magnetosphere (which in my opinion has negligible effects).

In spite of being aware of all the above I thought it would be fruitful investigating the issue, if not for anything else, then to clear up a few basic things that, not to my surprise, NO ONE here has addressed so far, which is kind of sad. Why? Because the truly ARE the basics, as opposed to all the irrelevant stuff above like retrograde rotation (which let's admit shouldn't affect the formation of an atmosphere) or ChrLzs's non-constructive comment. It's like having kids do brainstorming in a classroom.

I was rather hoping (naively) to discuss things like, what's the theoretical upper limit for the mass of atmosphere a planet of given mass and radius (you want the surface gravity) can hold? Shouldn't there be some kind of formula?

If that was the case, why didn't you raise these questions in your original post? You can hardly blame people for not discussing issues you never raised in the first place.

Quote

...

So this unprotected small piece of rock manages to support an atmosphere 90 times denser than the protected Earth can. I invite explanations. Or maybe there is a formula out there that I'm not aware of, and Venus's atmosphere is normal and ours is super-thin.

With the greatest of respect, this might have been a better place to start your inquiries, rather than calling into question a couple of centuries of investigation of Venus.

Quote

The oceans can only dissolve certain gases, and only so much. Furthermore we've had and still have active volcanoes, so is our atmosphere getting thicker? Are surface atmospheric pressures constantly rising worldwide? Not that I have heard. If Venus's 90-bar atmosphere is normal, shouldn't Mars have like a 50-bar atmosphere or something? Yeah, I know, dead planet, slow solar erosion. But where is our 200-bar atmosphere?

I'm no geologist, but isn't it the case on Earth that gases are dissolved into water and incorporated into rocks which are eventually subducted into the mantle? In other words, doesn't plate tectonics do the job of maintaining an atmospheric equilibrium on Earth, and the lack of water and plate tectonics on Venus is what means outgassed carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere? Is there a geologist in the house?

Quote

So there are a few questions here still. The least the main question deserves is some basic formula for an upper limit for atmospheric mass that a planet or any large object in space can hold and carry. It should be dependent on the composition as well, if it's mainly heavy gases then a lot of mass can stay close to the surface where gravity is still strong. Let's say we have a planet of a mass of 1025 kg and a radius of 10.000 km. No stars around with solar wind, say it has a distant orbit around a brown dwarf. No planetary magnetic field. Ho much oxygen can it carry with it in a constant, stable fashion, max? I realize if it were an empty universe then even a piece of rock would theoretically be able to hold an infinite mass of gases around it,being the only gravitational centre, so we need some force constantly stripping it, like some kind of a drag from resistance from an ether, or solar wind (which is the same in principle, both based on relative movement). So let's add solar wind to the mix, choose any value. Can we have the formula?

Fair enough question I imagine, and I'm interested to hear the answer too. But as I said above, why did you lead with your "Sure thing" sarcasm in your OP rather than simply ask these questions?


#13    Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Noteverythingisaconspiracy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,171 posts
  • Joined:31 Dec 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

  • "An open mind is like an open door, unless you're careful anything might get in." Sir Wearer of Hats

Posted 06 February 2014 - 03:28 PM

View PostRolci, on 06 February 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the replies, maybe I should've started with relevant bits of my background like I've been interested in astronomy from a young age and that I've been familiar with all the bits you guys picked up from wikipedia for a couple of decades now, from books of course.

Naturally I was aware of alleged space probes and their alleged reports. I'm not saying they are lies or not, faked or not, all I say is I don't have personal experience, I have not done measurements. If some other person or agency says they have, you can take it on blind faith or choose to reject it, like many are debating moon landings, while others are still insisting that the Earth is flat. Conspiracies do exist and groups of people do have different agendas, many of them global, and they would have the masses believe this or that and I do not feel that I can personally ascertain with 100% accuracy what's true what's lies. So for this reason I'd like to put the space probes aside for a moment.




What is, in your mind, the reason why anybody would try to fake what we know about Venus ?
So far 3 spaceagencies have launched probes to Venus (NASA, ESA and the Soviet Union), are they all lying?
In short you are saying that you dont believe in anything that you havent seen and measured yourself ?

"People will generally accept fact as truth only if the fact agree with what they already believe"
Andy Rooney

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former"
Albert Einstein

#14    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,778 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 06 February 2014 - 03:55 PM

View PostNoteverythingisaconspiracy, on 06 February 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

In short you are saying that you dont believe in anything that you havent seen and measured yourself ?

I have never met Rolci.
Since I have no personal experience of him I can apply his "logic" and I don't have to accept that he exists.
Since he doesn't exist, this thread doesn't exist.
As I don't accept this thread exists I don't have to get involved.

Of course observation disproves my conjecturer but if Rolci can casually reject observation because he doesn't like it then so can I.

Rather a blessing really given that it has the single daftest opening post I have seen to any thread in this section for a long time.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 06 February 2014 - 03:57 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#15    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 6,637 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 06 February 2014 - 04:28 PM

I never thought a discussion of Venus and some of its oddities, would become a conspracy thread.  :no:   Bascially, until rolci sends his own spacecraft to Venus and reads its findings in his home built mission control he won't believe anything said by anyone regarding the nature of the planet Venus.  What kind of mind works in this way?

Edited by Merc14, 06 February 2014 - 04:31 PM.

Believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake.  The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence and if the universe does not comply with our predispositions, okay, then we have the wrenching obligation to accommodate to the way the universe really is.  - Carl Sagan

Who is more humble, the scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us or somebody who says everything in this book should be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of the human beings involved in the writing of this legend - Carl Sagan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users