What if on Venus's Clouds

What if in viewing venus before the probes it had all the features of a
life bearing planet? Clouds were encouraging,and yet in reality they
were very bad. Venus's size was very encouraging,but its spin a disaster
for life. Its about a third closer to the Sun,but I think that not to
bad. Don't like the fact it has no moon. Don't like the fact that there
are so many volcanoes. all the other reasons for no life came out of
the first probe. My reason for Venus having almost no magnetic field is
its "slow spin" Astronomers give this reason " The nickel iron core is
solid" (Oh Ya I like my reasoning much better TreBert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
What if in viewing venus before the probes it had all the features of a
life bearing planet?

Indeed it did.

Clouds were encouraging,and yet in reality they
were very bad.

Early high-altitude baloons gave data that seemed to indicate the
presence of water in the Venusian clouds, but perhaps they confused the
similar spectral lines of H2O and H2SO4.

Venus's size was very encouraging,but its spin a disaster
for life. Its about a third closer to the Sun,but I think that not to
bad. Don't like the fact it has no moon.

The importance of a moon wasn't relized until recently.

Don't like the fact that there
are so many volcanoes.

It is curious why Venus has so many volcanoes. Since its rotation is
so slow, it can't be because of friction from tidal forces as in the
case of Jupiter's moon Io.

all the other reasons for no life came out of
the first probe. My reason for Venus having almost no magnetic field is
its "slow spin" Astronomers give this reason " The nickel iron core is
solid" (Oh Ya I like my reasoning much better TreBert

The science sources I found agreed with you, that it was because of
slow spin.

Double-A

The best candidate used to be Mars.

Saul Levy


On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:12 -0500, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

What if in viewing venus before the probes it had all the features of a
life bearing planet? Clouds were encouraging,and yet in reality they
were very bad. Venus's size was very encouraging,but its spin a disaster
for life. Its about a third closer to the Sun,but I think that not to
bad. Don't like the fact it has no moon. Don't like the fact that there
are so many volcanoes. all the other reasons for no life came out of
the first probe. My reason for Venus having almost no magnetic field is
its "slow spin" Astronomers give this reason " The nickel iron core is
solid" (Oh Ya I like my reasoning much better TreBert

Double-A It is nice having Google(imperial thinking) agreeing with me.
Reality is I was thinking science longer than Google or even Einstien
(had more spacetime than Einstien),and better times for deep thinking. I
also had the Cern and Fermi accelerators. I also have Edward Witten.
Can't get my mind off of Venus this week so I'm sure I'll have more
"What if" on it TreBert

What if all three planets had intelligent life,and Mars having cooled
first had more clever animals. They had very similar life
forms(DNA) because their seeds for life came from the tail of the same
comet;.A comet that in reality that was not created from the structure
that created the Sun and the solar system.It was much older,but that's
for another post. It is interesting to
theorize how the environment(conditions) of the planets effect animals.
Here on Earth we can relate Australia's animals to this scenario.
Similar but different. "you all" might like to add to this subject how
you see the differences? I will add mine over this weekend. TreBert
PS I wrote a novel "Stepping Stones" that has all this in its first
chapter.