Venus and What Magellan Showed

Go to Hawaii,and see that lava flowing,and you are looking at the
surface of Venus. I am looking down at a picture of a volcano with a
diameter of 31 miles. Might as well throw this in My thoughts are Venus
can't have meteorite craters for two reasons. Its surface lava would
swallow them up,and its very dense atmosphere would burn them up. Venus
surface might be more like the "Devils pot" at Yellow Stone park.but on
a planet size scale. The Magellan did a great job from 1900 to
1994. bert

On Jun 29, 6:14 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Go to Hawaii,and see that lava flowing,and you are looking at the
surface of Venus. I am looking down at a picture of a volcano with a
diameter of 31 miles. Might as well throw this in My thoughts are Venus
can't have meteorite craters for two reasons. Its surface lava would
swallow them up,and its very dense atmosphere would burn them up. Venus
surface might be more like the "Devils pot" at Yellow Stone park.but on
a planet size scale. The Magellan did a great job from 1900 to
1994. bert


http://www.venus2004.org/comprendre/...4.php?langue=2

Double-A

On Jun 29, 6:14 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Go to Hawaii,and see that lava flowing,and you are looking at the
surface of Venus. I am looking down at a picture of a volcano with a
diameter of 31 miles. Might as well throw this in My thoughts are Venus
can't have meteorite craters for two reasons. Its surface lava would
swallow them up,and its very dense atmosphere would burn them up. Venus
surface might be more like the "Devils pot" at Yellow Stone park.but on
a planet size scale. The Magellan did a great job from 1900 to
1994. bert

That's 100% correct, as the final termination or impact velocity of
whatever's incoming can't hardly make a dent. Which means that some
of those existing craters happened prior to Venus getting such a
robust atmosphere. Either that, or perhaps those impressive craters
were derived from substantial cosmic items made of U238, or at least a
titanium coated balls of lead, as otherwise the remains of arriving
impactors of basalt and iron isn't hardly going to cause such dents
when there's such a thick soup of S8 and CO2 to cut through. Iron
solids of 8+ g/cm3 is about what it takes in order to dent Venus.

There's currently 256 fold greater geothermal energy/m2 leaving Venus
than is leaving Earth, making the planetology of Venus somewhat newish
and unavoidably testy for accommodating our naked and usually
dumbfounded DNA.
-
Brad Guth

Double-A Thanks for that site. I have one of those great pictures. It
is worth a million words bert

On Jun 29, 8:22 am, Double-A wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:14 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Go to Hawaii,and see that lava flowing,and you are looking at the
surface of Venus. I am looking down at a picture of a volcano with a
diameter of 31 miles. Might as well throw this in My thoughts are Venus
can't have meteorite craters for two reasons. Its surface lava would
swallow them up,and its very dense atmosphere would burn them up. Venus
surface might be more like the "Devils pot" at Yellow Stone park.but on
a planet size scale. The Magellan did a great job from 1900 to
1994. bert

http://www.venus2004.org/comprendre/...4.php?langue=2

Double-A

You like color, even if it's hocus-pocus color, don't you.

Are you and G=EMC^2 Glazier still a little afraid to look closely at
the real thing?
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 29, 6:14 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Go to Hawaii,and see that lava flowing,and you are looking at the
surface ofVenus. I am looking down at a picture of a volcano with a
diameter of 31 miles. Might as well throw this in My thoughts areVenus
can't have meteorite craters for two reasons. Its surface lava would
swallow them up,and its very dense atmosphere would burn them up.Venus
surface might be more like the "Devils pot" at Yellow Stone park.but on
a planet size scale. The Magellan did a great job from 1990 to
1994. bert

It's nice our having a sun around, as having been made nearly passive
by such a robust magnetosphere plus 10 tonnes/m2 worth of a sufficient
atmosphere as our primary shield with low antichathode properties.
However, in spite of what the mainstream status quo has to say, a
given sun is not actually required if your planet or even livable moon
is sufficiently massive and/or geothermally active for whatever
reasons, including the thick ice covered option, and has that ample
cache of renewable or that of its core energy to draw upon.

Much like our once upon a time icy proto-moon, Venus is quite the
interstellar worthy planet, that which could have migrated away from
one solar system that may have been going red giant postal, as for
moving over to another nearby passive solar system without such a
interstellar trek having lost all possible forms of its terrestrial
evolved life. Having established that robust atmosphere of CO2, S8
and good old N2 would have been exactly what their doctor ordered.

BTW, our good old perpetrated cold-war's Blackbird SR-71, as for
cruising along at 85,000' and mach 3.2, with an outer skin temperature
of 1200 degree F is actually more than a good 200 degrees C hotter
than Venus. Yet each and every time the crew of any such Blackbird
SR71 returned to the tarmac, it's as though each being none the worse
off for ware.

Sort of make you wonder what in hell is the insurmountable problem
with our accomplishing Venus
-
Brad Guth