Difference between revisions of "Talk:Venus"
(New page: The physical location of hell? Did all those NASA probes miss something? ~~~~) |
(→The Picture: new section) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The physical location of hell? Did all those NASA probes miss something? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:19, 12 October 2007 (EDT) | The physical location of hell? Did all those NASA probes miss something? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:19, 12 October 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shouldn't Venus's immensely thick atmosphere be mentioned? One of the reasons for the lack of impact craters is the fact that bolides tend to break up very high up in its atmosphere, where a runaway greenhouse effect has resulted in the planet being so hot that lead would melt on its surface. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 09:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :Do you have a citation for that? That's an interesting theory, certainly. It wouldn't by itself suffice to prove [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] theories about meteoric bombardment, but it might explain why a [[catastrophism|catastrophic]] bombardment did not scar Venus as throughly as it did the [[Moon]]. But I'd still like to know who proposed that theory, so that I can look up what, precisely, that particular astronomer said.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 10:46, 14 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == The Picture == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have a few problems with the picture shown here. First of all, that's the surface of Venus, not as it actually appears from Earth. The picture is taken with radio waves, not visible light. And finally, the caption is totally wrong: The mere fact that there is no sun in the background and that Venus isn't a black disc shows it was not taken in silhouette as Venus transited the sun. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So I'm going to change the caption, but I would like to see this image changed. Since most pictures of Venus are taken by government agencies, we don't need to worry about copyright in most cases: just google images Venus and select a photo which is taken in visible light and actually shows what Venus looks like. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:51, 20 July 2009 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:51, July 21, 2009
The physical location of hell? Did all those NASA probes miss something? Maestro 16:19, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't Venus's immensely thick atmosphere be mentioned? One of the reasons for the lack of impact craters is the fact that bolides tend to break up very high up in its atmosphere, where a runaway greenhouse effect has resulted in the planet being so hot that lead would melt on its surface. Darkmind1970 09:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- Do you have a citation for that? That's an interesting theory, certainly. It wouldn't by itself suffice to prove uniformitarian theories about meteoric bombardment, but it might explain why a catastrophic bombardment did not scar Venus as throughly as it did the Moon. But I'd still like to know who proposed that theory, so that I can look up what, precisely, that particular astronomer said.--TerryHTalk 10:46, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
The Picture
I have a few problems with the picture shown here. First of all, that's the surface of Venus, not as it actually appears from Earth. The picture is taken with radio waves, not visible light. And finally, the caption is totally wrong: The mere fact that there is no sun in the background and that Venus isn't a black disc shows it was not taken in silhouette as Venus transited the sun.
So I'm going to change the caption, but I would like to see this image changed. Since most pictures of Venus are taken by government agencies, we don't need to worry about copyright in most cases: just google images Venus and select a photo which is taken in visible light and actually shows what Venus looks like. JacobB 21:51, 20 July 2009 (EDT)