|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
No recent resurfacing, Salt on Venus
On 5/31/10 11:54 AM, John Curtis wrote:
During Late Heavy Bombardment oceans served to cushion the impactors from cratering the ocean floor. Got an evidence for you assertion, John? Please cite! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
No recent resurfacing, Salt on Venus
On 02/06/2010 00:58, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 31, 8:48 pm, Andrew wrote: John Curtis wrote: During Late Heavy Bombardment oceans served to cushion the impactors from cratering the ocean floor. Thus, "recent resurfacing" is not necessary to explain the craterless surface of Venus; The surface of Venus is much younger than that (the oldest age I've seen is max. 1200 Myr). Oceans do not cushions sufficiently large impactors, either. evaporation of oceans will do. Examples are the lack of craters on the floors of Earth's oceans, This is mostly because Earth's ocean floor is very young (even younger than Venus's s7urface.). Andrew Usher Correct, and especially the Arctic ocean basin may be only 12,600 some odd years old. There's very little other than large meteors or small asteroids of nearly solid nickle-iron that made any dent in that surface of Venus, primarily because it's newish atmosphere was simply too thick and dense. How do we objectively know that Venus is any older than the Sirius star system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius Stars 25x the luminosity of Sol do not last long -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No recent resurfacing, Salt on Venus
On Jun 1, 5:56*pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
wrote: On 02/06/2010 00:58, Brad Guth wrote: On May 31, 8:48 pm, Andrew *wrote: John Curtis wrote: During Late Heavy Bombardment oceans served to cushion the impactors from cratering the ocean floor. Thus, "recent resurfacing" is not necessary to explain the craterless surface of Venus; The surface of Venus is much younger than that (the oldest age I've seen is max. 1200 Myr). Oceans do not cushions sufficiently large impactors, either. evaporation of oceans will do. Examples are the lack of craters on the floors of Earth's oceans, This is mostly because Earth's ocean floor is very young (even younger than Venus's s7urface.). Andrew Usher Correct, and especially the Arctic ocean basin may be only 12,600 some odd years old. There's very little other than large meteors or small asteroids of nearly solid nickle-iron that made any dent in that surface of Venus, primarily because it's newish atmosphere was simply too thick and dense. How do we objectively know that Venus is any older than the Sirius star system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius Stars 25x the luminosity of Sol do not last long -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.blogtalkradio..com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show Correct, except Sirius(B) at 9 solar masses was likely 50100 times the luminosity of Sol. Some suggest that Sirius is only 250 million years old, and others have suggested 600 million years. Either way, Sirius is a very newish star/solar system. ~ BG |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
No recent resurfacing, Salt on Venus
On Jun 1, 10:53*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/31/10 11:54 AM, John Curtis wrote: During Late Heavy Bombardment oceans served to cushion the impactors from cratering the ocean floor. Got an evidence for you assertion, John? Please cite! Newton's approximation of impact depth, which reduces the number of craters by preventing smaller impactors from striking the ocean floor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth John Curtis |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No recent resurfacing, Salt on Venus
On Jun 1, 7:54*pm, John Curtis wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:53*am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 5/31/10 11:54 AM, John Curtis wrote: During Late Heavy Bombardment oceans served to cushion the impactors from cratering the ocean floor. * Got an evidence for you assertion, John? Please cite! Newton's approximation of impact depth, which reduces the number of craters by preventing smaller impactors from striking the ocean floor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth John Curtis "Impact Earth Impact Effects Program" also doesn't allow for a thicker and more dense atmosphere, nor ice upon ice encounters. ~ BG |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Salt on Venus
On May 31, 6:44*pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
YKhan wrote: Holy-free-holy! The boiling point of seawater is 2500°C¿!? I realized that salt would raise the boiling point of the water, but I was thinking along the lines of going from 100°C to maybe 110°C or at the outermost 150°C, but I never imagined 2500°C! boiling point seawater - Wolfram|Alpha "temperature | elements | boiling point: 2500 deg C (degrees Celsius) " http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...point+seawater Obviously this is not accurate - the boiling point of seawater is about 101 C, when that of pure water is 100. A saturated solution of NaCl boils at 109 C at 1 atm, so that boiling seawater will rise to about this temperature when nearly dry. Other salts can of course raise it higher, or even produce a continuous solubility curve at 1 atm (sodium and potassium hydroxides, ammonium nitrate, most organic salts), thus giving no boiling point of a saturated solution. I was referring, though, to behavior at the critical point, and not 1 atm. So what in the world is Wolfram Alpha displaying? They won't even give you an answer on something unless they have some data about it. Yousuf Khan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Salt on Venus
YKhan wrote:
So what in the world is Wolfram Alpha displaying? They won't even give you an answer on something unless they have some data about it. I don't know, but you should know not to trust a value like that. Unfortunately, no chemical reference is free of gross errors, as far as I know. Andrew Usher |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Salt onVenus)
Uncle Al wrote:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...salt+solutions Perhaps you should read your references before using them as a straw man's armature. Hey stooopid do - do you know what thermodynamic critical constants are? No, you do not. Of course I do. For water, Tc = 374 C Pc = 22 MPa, 220 bar Venus' surface temperature = 460 C Venus' surface pressure = 93 bar All the salt on Venus would not make a sparrow's fart of difference. Right, but for the wrong reason. You don't know (without looking it up) that no salt solution would be liquid at that temperature and pressure - in fact some would, but none of the salts likely to occur naturally. The temp is too high and the pressure is too low for colligative properties to have any effect on outcome. Of course, I wasn't speaking of Venus _today_ but of Venus when it still had water vapor and perhaps a 500 bar H2O atmosphere. Then, it would have had salty oceans. Andrew Usher |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Salt on Venus)
Andrew Usher wrote:
Uncle Al wrote: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...salt+solutions Perhaps you should read your references before using them as a straw man's armature. Hey stooopid do - do you know what thermodynamic critical constants are? No, you do not. Of course I do. For water, Tc = 374 C Pc = 22 MPa, 220 bar Venus' surface temperature = 460 C Venus' surface pressure = 93 bar All the salt on Venus would not make a sparrow's fart of difference. Right, but for the wrong reason. [snip crap] idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MARS GOT SALT ? (apparently not nearly enough) | BradGuth | History | 51 | July 13th 07 01:11 AM |
MARS GOT SALT ? (apparently not nearly enough) | BradGuth | Astronomy Misc | 51 | July 13th 07 01:11 AM |
Mars salt ? | [email protected] | History | 303 | June 1st 07 05:12 PM |
Mars salt ? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 303 | June 1st 07 05:12 PM |
Martial salt | Mike | Misc | 4 | March 7th 04 03:34 AM |