Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_1/V12_125.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 22KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EafIi5q00VcJM1iU5P>;
          Wed, 25 Jul 1990 03:34:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 1990 03:34:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #125

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
         Re: More replies to Venus arguments

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 90 10:53:25 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!texbell!nuchat![e-mail]  (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: More replies to Venus arguments



Because of the subject material, I'm cross-posting this to sci.space,
sci.astro, and sci.skeptic, which are all newsgroups that are more relevent
to the material here than talk.origins.

This posting is quite long.  I apologize for the length.  Most of it is
Ted Holden's original posting, which I've preserved in its entirety so
that others can respond to various sections of it as they wish.

For those of you who haven't ever seen any of Ted's postings before, I
should give a little background information (Ted is welcome to correct
or comment on anything I say here).  Ted seems to be a Velikovskian, i.e.
he believes that the works of Immanuel Velikovsky are at least to a large
extent correct (I would use stronger terms but it's always better to
understate someone else's position).  Recently there has been a fair
amount of discussion on talk.origins about Venus because of Ted's postings
there.  While it originally started as a result of questions and assertions
that were relevant to that newsgroup (can't remember the specifics, it's
been a couple of months or so), the debate quickly centered around Venus.
And that's where we stand now.

Anyway...

In article <[e-mail]: [e-mail] (Ted Holden) writes:
:From: Matt Briggs, CMU
:>     I believe we will start with your claim about the non-existence of
:>smooth rocks on the Venusian surface.  What you did not tell our anxious
:>readers is that there *are* in fact some smooth rocks along with some
:>jagged rocks; just like *old* Earth.  Weathering is the process that smooths
:>rocks, and volcanism one of the processes that "jaggeds" them.  On Venus,
:>there is *intense* volcanic activity (Prinn, 1990, p. 94).  This volcanic
:>activity creates new rock and upheaves older rock continuously.
:
:Even communists aren't totally stupid.  I assume they tried to land the
:Venera probes AWAY from volcanos...  nonetheless, they saw jagged rocks.

Tried doesn't mean they succeeded.  They had high winds in the upper
atmosphere to deal with.

:Weathering on Venus is done by winds of around 5 mph, not scary at first
:thought, but then you begin to think about it.  This wind is moving a
:900 degree F amosphere made up of CO2 and corrosive acids, which is as
:dense as sea water 3000' below surface.  That would just bowl you over
:(and cook and dissolve you) in no time.  Scientists expected most of Venus'
:surface to be an ocean of sand.

What is your reference for this claim?  WHEN did scientists expect this?
If your statement is consistent with many of your other statements, you
probably derived it from a source that is 40 years out of date.

:  Of course, this was based on it having
:been there for 4 - 7 billion years.  Change that to 6000 or so, and the
:jagged rocks cease to be much of a problem.

Why should they?  If volcanic processes are still going, then you'll get
jagged rocks of all sizes.

:>     Albedo:  Venusian clouds reflect about 80% of incoming short-wave
:>radiation; particularly around red and yellow wavelengths.  "Of the energy
:>not reflected back into space, two thirds (13% of incoming solar) is
:>deposited in the clouds, which *are absorptive at ultrviolet and near-
:>infrared wavelengths*; only one third (7% of incoming solar: NOT 2%) reaches
:>the lower atmosphere and surface" (Prinn, 1990, p. 97).  On Earth about
:>66% of energy from the sun is absorbed at the surface (less clouds).
:
:And this 7% of sunlight generates 900 degree F surface temperatures??
:How stupid do you have to be to believe that??????????????????????????

Not very.  Just bright enough to understand how the greenhouse effect works,
and what "temperature" really means.  Neither of which seem to apply to
you.

Tell me something, Ted.  How do YOU define "temperature"?

:>     Energy Budgets and recycling:  again, a very comlex process on Venus.
:>As mentioned, 20% of incoming solar radiaiton is absorbed *somewhere*
:>in the Venusian atmosphere.  Nearly all this radiation, once absorbed,
:>is *recycled* into longwave radiation; which is then re-emitted to the
:>atmosphere.  Here is the point which was ignored last time I mentioned
:>it (will it be ignored again?):  CO2, after absorbing energy, carries it
:>and reemits it, *NOT ALWAYS* on a straight line path to space.  *MOST*
:>is reemitted towards part of the atmophere; it is recycled.
:
:In which case, that same atmosphere will carry this blazing, fierce, 20
:degree K heat (or, at least, that is a max figure I get for 2 - 3 % of
:sunlight;  your 7 % might get you a tad higher) upwards into higher levels of
:the atmosphere, and away from the surface.

Define "heat" for us, Ted.  Have you ever taken any physics classes?  Any
that involved thermodynamics?  If not, then you probably should.  You
might find it most enlightening...

:>     Now the silliest argument of all (paraphrased): "If Earth and Venus
:>evolved from the same ball of cosmic dust why aren't they *exactly*
:>the same."
:
:You either believe in uniformity or you don't.  If not, Velikovsky is
:really your best shot;  the alternative is creationism.

"Uniformity" meaning what?  That there is no such thing as different
results due to different initial and present conditions?  Be real, man!

Not surprisingly, the real world operates on a combination of uniformity
and catastrophism.  It's just that the catastrophes don't happen as often
as you think they do, and most of them aren't as large as you think they
are.

:>I counter:  "People are all born of humans, why is it that
:>they are not all the same.
:
:Earth and Venus are like having a human and a chimp in the same family.
:Perusing the literature, I notice that the lack of large quantities of
:water causes serious consternation amongst real scientists.

Among WHICH "real scientists"?  What are your references?  The lack of
large quantities of water was explained quite a while back.  Wish I had
references handy so I could explain it in detail.  Anyone out there on
the net care to?  If not, could you email me a description of the
accepted explanation, perhaps?  Maybe tell me where a good place to look
is?

:> Why are Jupiter
:>and Saturn different?  Why doesn't Pluto sport magnificent lakes and beaches,
:>after all they all evloved out of the same cosmic dust?
:
:It turns out, the entire present order and composition of our system are
:less certain than most people might like to think.  Given the 4 - 7
:billion year history presently accepted along with the theory which has
:all planets arising out of a swirling stream of solar material at
:roughly the same time, next-door neighbors should be a great deal more
:similar than they often are.  More on planets other than Venus shortly.

Why should they?  Planets and their satellites are dynamic feedback systems.
A slight change in conditions can often yield dramatic differences.  I
don't claim that we understand everything there is to understand about the
solar system, and neither will any competent scientist.  But we certainly
understand enough to easily debunk Velikovsky's ideas, which is why the
scientific community doesn't subscribe to those ideas.

:>     Why do people believe in Velikovsky?  Ease.  Ease of belief--no
:>physics, geography, or mathematics courses to take.  Ease and comfort.
:>"See science really does confirm the bible"  Science, and scientists have
:>always erred when trying to fit preconcieved faiths to experiments.  When
:>they are confronted with the facts, as now, they will refuse to admit to
:>them, trying to hold to dear out-dated or ill-conceived theories.  No
:>scientist today confers with Velikovsky, only the sadly misinformed public.
:>This extremely long dissertation is but one attempt to refute psedoscience;but
:>I think its a worthy effort everyone should undertake; whenever possible.
:
:Why would anybody believe in the "super-greenhouse theory", which is the
:only conceivable alternative?  It's easier than having to think for
:oneself (I'll let Sagan et. al. think about that kind of stuff for me,
:after all, that's what they're paid for...), never mind that the idea
:is so patently idiotic as to amount to the kind of big lie which former
:German Reichskanzler Hitler had in mind with his famous elucidation.

It's easier to believe in it only if you are willing to forego understanding
it.  I think for myself fine, thank you very much, and have big problems
with Velikovsky's ideas, and far fewer problems with Sagan's.  At least Sagan
remains consistent with known physical laws, which is much more than I
can say for Velikovsky.

I submit to you that it's just as easy to believe in one thing as it is to
believe in something else, if you're willing to forego thinking about it.
But if you think about it, then which idea you decide is more reasonable
depends on the depth of your thinking and your understanding of how the
universe behaves.  And from your postings it would seem that your under-
standing leaves something to be desired.  You don't even seen to know what
"temperature" is!

:Again, Matt Briggs:
:>     First, let me begin by agreeing with you!  Yes!  Mr G's theory
:>may be sufficient to explain the non-existence of a super greenhouse
:>effect, *IF* it were true!
:
:>     First, the study done eons ago in 1973 is no longer current, much
:>more data has been gathered and thoughts have changed since then.
:
:And also from: Dave_Waller, HP
:
:>[e-mail] (Ted Holden) writes:
:>> It is very obvious to me that this tenth point of Ginenthals is, by
:>> itself unaided, ENTIRELY sufficient to destroy the "super-greenhouse"
:>> theory.
:
:>Except that Ginenthal's wild speculation is based on spectral
:>observations from 1973, before both Soviet and U.S. probes had visited
:>Venus. The "relaxation oscialltion" of the cloud deck simulataneously
:>dropping 1 km around the entire planet is definitely NOT taking place,
:>as actual observation by the probes show no such absurdity.
:
:I'm going to cite another source on this one, the Scientific American's
:1975 (post Venera) "The Solar System", which also mentions the fact that
:present theories do not account for the high-speed movement of the upper
:layers of Venus' atmosphere:
:
:        "Theoretical attempts to explain the generation of the winds
:        have produced several possible mechanisms such as convection
:        caused by the uneven heating of the day and night sides of the
:        planet.  None of them, however, has been shown to be capable of
:        explaining velocities greater than a few meters per second.
:        Furthermore, any comprehensive theory of atmospheric circulation
:        on Venus must account for other, more complex phenomena.  For
:        example, infrarred observations have revealed that the cloud
:        tops move vertically as well as horizontally, and that the
:        vertical movement is roughly periodic.  That period is variable,
:        but it usually lies between four and six earth days.  It is
:        therefore possible that the shifting movements do not represent
:        bulk movements of gasses at all, but are waves propogating
:        through the atmosphere.
:
:Again, I am going to ask Mr. Waller for HIS source on this one and, if
:he cannot find one, which I regard as likely, I am going to ask him to
:refrain from stating opinions as if they were facts in attempting to
:refute my articles;  it's not much different from lying.
:
:Velikovsky's theory, by the way, easily explains also the high-speed
:upper atmosphere of Venus:  the long cometary tail simply got "whipped"
:as the planet settled into stable orbit, and has not had time to slow
:down.

Yeah, right.  Whatever "force" was acting on Venus proper wasn't acting
on its atmosphere, eh Ted?  Are you even aware of what CAUSES a cometary
tail?  If you do, then isn't it funny that the tail isn't there any more?

I have a less far-fetched "explanation" of the things you've been claiming
to cause problems for the currently accepted theories: an extremely massive
asteroid struck Venus off-center with a trajectory such that the
planet's rotation was changed from a counter-clockwise (as seen from
earth's "north") to slightly clockwise rotation.  There's your explanation
for the extra heat you claim Venus to have, the retrograde rotation, the
atmospheric effects (residual results from the shock waves of the impact),
etc.

What?  You don't buy it?  Why not?  :-)

:Matt Briggs yet again:
:
:>     Second, ANY planet is *NOT* heated evenly.  All planets receive
:>unequal heating (more at equators and less at poles).  This produces
:>uneven heating.  The planet adapts by circulating the hotter air, causing
:>some areas of the atmosphere to be thicker at times (just like on earth).
:>Convection, along with some other methods, is sufficient to do the job.
:
:And, similarly, from:  Jim Merritt
:
:>}In the case of a planet whose primary source of heat is solar, this is
:>}so.  Venus is not such a case;  it's primary source of heat is internal,
:>}it being a young planet.  Probe measurements show little if any
:>}difference in surface temperature from any one spot to any other.
:
:>This is totally unsubstantiated.  Your "little"  happens to be within the
:>hundreds of degrees.
:
:If the planet's heat is via sunlight, you would expect this to be the
:case.  Why then does Ron Miller and Wm. K Hartman's "The Grand Tour, A
:Travellor's Guide to the Solar System, 1981, cite temperatures of 860 F.
:near Venus' north pole??  Why also would we see SURFACE GLOW in the
:cloud tops on the night side??????????????????????????????????????????
:
:Reginald Newell, in a Kronos article, cites Venera probe data in
:claiming that:
:
:  "variations from place to place are very small, less than a few
:  degrees..."
:
:Again, I must ask Mr. Merritt, who has frequently called me a liar over
:just such points, to cite a source for his "hundreds of degrees"
:differentials in point-to-point surface surface temperatures on Venus or
:retract the statement, one or the other.
:
:You see, if the heat of Venus is INTERNAL, then all of these nasty
:little problems go away.  Of course, then, you have to start taking Mr.
:Velikovsky a bit more seriously...

Why?  You can take my idea just as seriously, perhaps even more since it's
more physically plausible than Velikovsky's ideas...

:Briggs again:
:
:>     Thirdly, the CO2 flux HAS been explained by Prinn and others.
:
:Again, we're not talking about "fluctuating";  we're talking about
:rising and falling in waves over the entire planet surface.

Waves of what amplitude?  What frequency?  Cite your sources!

:  Again also,
:in the case of establishment astronomers, we're talking about a group of
:people with a big hairy skeleton in their closet, some of whom will,
:apparently do ANYTHING and/or promulgate ANY kind of bullshit theory
:rather than simply admit that the man whose books they attempted to ban
:and burn was right.

What?  Instead of adopting my idea instead?  When mine violates fewer
physical laws (or at least different ones!) and has a higher probability
of happening?  I'm insulted.  The fact that they don't buy my idea must
be because of a..........cover up!  Yeah!

:From C. Irby:
:
:>>>     First, the study done eons ago in 1973 is no longer current, much
:>>>more data has been gathered and thoughts have changed since then.
:
:>> Scholarship in America has gone downhill since 1973, not uphill.
:
:Which I still maintain;  witness the following:
:
:>Agreed.  Witness the following:
:
:>> For an idea of how vast is the misinterpretation being promulgated by
:>> the astronomical (establishment) community in the case of the so-called
:>> "super-greenhouse" theory, consider that solar surface flux on the
:>> lighted side of Venus is typically 10 - 20 W/meter-squared.  The upward
:>> infrared flux from a 750 degree K surface would be in the neighborhood
:>> of 18,000 W/meter-squared.  If this is astronomers' idea of
:>> "equilibrium", they need brain transplants.
:
:>You have your numbers wrong, Ted...
:>I'll give you a teeny hint: the solar flux *at Earth orbit* is
:>about 1.94 calories/cm^2/second...
:>I'll give you another hint:  a lot of uneducated people mix up
:>their calories- some calories are really *kilocalories*...
:>Go to a library and find out how many calories make a watt.

Well, according to my physics text, 1 kcal = 4185.8 J, so 1 calorie (small
c) = 4.1858 Joules.  1.94 calories then is 8.1204 Joules, so solar flux
is 8.1204 Joules/cm^2/second.  At 10000 cm^2 in a m^2, that's 81204 J/m^2/s,
which is 81204 W/m^2 at earth orbit.  Using the inverse square rule, we
multiply by (93E6/67E6)^2 and we get 156456 W/m^2 at Venus orbit.  7% of that
gets to the surface, so surface flux is somewhere around 10,000 W/m^2.

But according to my physics text, the solar constant (solar flux received
at the earth) is about 1400 W/m^2, so I think Mr. Irby meant 1.94
calories/cm^2/MINUTE.  Which means that you end up with about 180 W/m^2 at
the surface of Venus.  Ted is off by an order of magnitude.

:>Look up all of the other conversions... you're off by just
:>enough orders of magnitude...
:
:I'm not into counting calories, and it sounds like you've got one of
:your conversion tables upside down or something.

Nope.  He's got it right.  He just had seconds instead of minutes for his
flux figure.  An easy enough mistake to make...

:Problem is, I've seen the figure quoted in print a couple of times, most
:recently in one of Newell's articles, and he's a real scientist, much
:unlike yourself...

Okay.  And?  Were they something like 180 W/m^2?  You don't seem to think
so.

:Nor should there be any intuitive problem with the numbers I gave:  the
:10 - 20 W / Meter-squared figure for solar energy reaching Venus'
:surface is about what you might see in a Christmas-tree bulb or a
:night-light bulb, and corresponds roughly with what we know about light
:on Venus' surface, which is generally described as being like a heavily
:overcast day on Earth.  The 18,000 W/Meter-squared figure is what you
:might expect for a blast furnace, which is one of the metaphors you
:often encounter in books and articles on Venus.

Sorry, Ted.  A 100W light bulb puts out 100W/(4/3 * Pi) = 24W/m^2 of energy
at a distance of 1 meter from the bulb, assuming that it's actually drawing
100W and that none of the energy goes into convective heating of the bulb
fixture.  The energy reaching the surface of Venus is about 10 times as
intense.  You ever feel a 100W light bulb at a distance of 3 feet?  It
would feel like the flux reaching the surface of Venus if you were to feel
the light bulb from a distance of 1 foot.  Not exactly cold, is it?  THAT'S
the input to the greenhouse effect.

:The guy who is REALLY off by degrees of magnitude is Sagan, who seems to
:believe that the one (the night-light bulb) can cause the other (the
:blast furnace) in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics and the fact
:that convection would obviously carry even the tiny bit of heat which
:the solar energy would create on the surface upwards and away from that
:surface, there being no glass cover over the entire surface of Venus at
:the 50' level as would obvously be required.

*Yawn*.  You obviously don't know a thing about what temperature really is.
You *really* need that physics course...

:>> Good question.  Modern scientists see the history of man as a kind of a
:>> long-delayed exponential curve which, after eons on near zero (just
:>> red-neck cave men beating sticks on trees etc.), is now taking off
:>> full-bore.
:
:>>In other words:  "I'm smarter than all of you cavemen..."
:
:I was citing the absolute conflict in world view which prevails between
:modern science and all ancient literature and knowledge.  You sort of
:let your neo-caveman complex force you into missing the point there...

Yeah, that's right.  The ancients knew more than we bozos know today.
Makes you wonder why they didn't have our technology, eh?  I don't suppose
you're one of those people who subscribes to the "Atlantis theory", are
you?

I've got news for you, Ted.  Science WORKS.  We see the real-world
applications of it EVERYWHERE.  Ever wonder how they design electric
motors?  Or radios?  Or the computer you're posting from?  Ever wonder
where the technology for all that comes from?  Well, you have one guess,
and I'll tell you a secret: it didn't come from the ancients.

:Relax, I don't really have any deep-seated prejudice against cavemen;
:most employers don't even discriminate against cavemen any more.
:
:Ted Holden
:HTE


--
            Kevin Brown
        Addresses in preferred order:
        [e-mail] (dies end of August)
        [e-mail] (dies July 25)
        ...texbell!nuchat!kevin (never dies)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V12 #125
*******************