Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
A new scientific study is again reshaping planetary scientists' ideas
about the planet Venus.
An enduring mystery is why the surface of Venus has so few craters
since it's believed that Venus is billions of years old
and since astronomers believe
that craters formed from random impacts over eons of time.
For decades, the consensus belief has been
that the planet must have been radically "resurfaced"
thus removing all evidence of the inevitable impacts.
One theory is that the planet's surface simply sank for some reason
then was replaced by a surface with no craters.
However, a recent paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research
purportedly falsifies that hypothesis.
A July 30th article on astronomy.com describes the research as follows,
"Using numerical models to see how material in the planet's mantle circulates,
the results found that the planet couldn't have undergone
what is called mobile lid convection
- a process where the surface rapidly sinks into the interior
and is replaced by a fresh, crater-free surface.
The results will help scientists understand how Venus evolved
and may even help us understand how the planet's runaway atmosphere came to be."
The major objections the research raises
include the absence of a significant offset between the planet's center of mass
and its actual center,
and Venus's exceptionally weak magnetic field
since the theorists believe that mobile lid convection
would leave enough heat in the planet's core to create a dynamo,
the hypothetical source of our own planet's magnetic field.
The research thus appears to favor the conventional theory
that massive volcanism must continually remove Venus's craters.
However, the author of the paper states,
"While I think my work more or less disproves the mobile-lid convection,
I don't think that is the same as proving the volcanic resurfacing event.
There could be some other mechanism, possibly even as of yet not discovered.
So I want to leave the door open."
Indeed, since the dawn of the Space Age
the planet Venus has been a proving ground
for competing hypotheses in planetary science.
From the 1950's to 1970's Venus was at the center of a blazing scientific controversy.
In 1950 in the best-selling book 'Worlds in Collision'
the scientific heretic Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the planet Venus
is a very recent addition to the inner solar system
and threatened the Earth as a terrifying comet.
By studying the ancient accounts of far-flung cultures
Velikovsky constructed a thesis of celestial catastrophe.
The converging ancient imagery includes Babylonian,
Aztec, Peruvian and Egyptian representations of Venus
using the unmistakable language and symbols for comets.
As we've outlined many times
based on his thesis of Venus's recent cometary birth
Velikovsky made the outrageous prediction
that Venus would be found to be extraordinarily hot and dry.
This was in stark contrast to the predictions of many noted astronomers
including the originator of the dirty snowball comet model Fred Whipple
who proposed that Venus would be covered with oceans.
Of course, Venus was found to be the hottest planet in the solar system
with an average surface temperature of 864 ºF
The consensus belief in planetary science today is that Venus's dense,
mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere,
has caused heating through a runaway greenhouse effect.
However the fatal objections to this hypothesis have never been resolved.
As the astronomer Victor A. Firsoff noted,
"Earth's seas are not boiling hot,
despite the total greenhouse effect of water and average sunlight
stronger than at the ground level of Venus.
Nor is it at all clear how such a condition could have become established."
Physicist Wal Thornhill addressed the issue in a 2003 article on his website
holoscience.com
"Venus receives 1.9 times more solar radiation than Earth
but its clouds reflect about 80% of that sunlight,
so that Venus actually absorbs less solar energy than the Earth...
Even with the maximum greenhouse effect,
the effective surface temperature of Venus should be low enough to freeze water.
What is being asked of the 'runaway greenhouse effect'
is equivalent to expecting a well-insulated oven
to reach a temperature sufficient to melt led
by having only the pilot light switched on!"
In the electrical hypothesis
Venus's recent electrical birthing from a gas giant and its recent capture
do explain the stunning absence of so-called impact craters.
The surface of Venus is covered with extraordinary networks of filamentary scars.
In Venus's spectacular near-Earth cometary displays
electrical discharging heated its crust and produced the filamentary patterns.
As Thornhill notes,
"Lightning occurring in a high-pressure gas causes this filamentary 'Lichtenberg' pattern.
At low atmospheric pressures, cratering is more common - as we see on the Moon."
In fact, most of the features that planetary scientists interpret as
"volcanoes" and ancient lava flows are electrical scars
which can be uncannily reproduced in experiments with electrical discharge.
Of course, this can be applied to so-called volcanic features
throughout the entire solar system
In our 2017 interview with Garrett Hill,
he showed the results of applying electrical discharge to particulate matter.
On your screen the top image is the famous Martian "shield volcano" Olympus Mons.
The bottom feature was produced by electrical discharge.
In similar experiments,
we also see stunning formations of both radial and lateral patterns
which planetary scientists typically attribute to fluidic processes such as lava flow.
Now consider this side-by-side comparison
of the electrical discharge features to the Ovda region on Venus.
Thornhill also proposes that scientists' detection of sulfur dioxide in Venus's atmosphere
need not necessarily imply ongoing episodic volcanism.
He writes,
"It is also possible that another simple nuclear reaction
is taking place at the surface of Venus,
involving the combination of the two atoms of oxygen in an oxygen molecule
to form one atom of sulphur.
It is a process occurring today in plain view on Jupiter's moon, Io.
In any case, volcanoes are an electric discharge phenomenon
so that the discovery of active volcanoes on Venus
cannot be used as a distinguishing test for or against the electrical model of Venus."
Institutional science dismissed Velikovsky's evidentiary case
because it disobeyed Newton's law of gravity
which has no means of restoring order from chaos.
But as Thornhill explains,
science today functions with no physical explanation for the force of gravity
which Newton himself admitted
and Einstein avoided the problem by discarding the force without explanation.
So what astronomers have are mere mathematical descriptions of gravity's effects.
In the Electric Universe as developed by Thornhill,
the 19th century concept of gravity as an electrodynamic force
between all subatomic particles in the universe is reinstated.
This thesis proposes that order in the solar system
was restored by charge exchange between planets
aided by slower charge exchange between a planet and the solar wind
in the form of a cometary discharge.
There can be no question that Venus's recent cometary origins
resolve countless enduring mysteries of the planet
including its orbit
which is the most circular of all the planets in the solar system,
its odd rotation,
its superhot temperature,
its vast cometary tail,
its electrically agitated super-heavy atmosphere,
its tremendous networks of filamentary scars,
and its lack of so-called impact craters.
The comet Venus, first proposed nearly 3/4 of a century ago,
is a challenge to the very foundations of planetary science
and the mythical 4.5 billion year history of our solar system.
It is past time for scientists to meet this challenge
and to finally seek new answers which await in our Electric Universe.