"Some of the Italians called Pythagoreans say that the comet is one of the planets [Venus]." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, Book I, 350 B.C.
"Democritus however, insists upon the truth of his view and affirms that certain stars [Venus] have been seen when comets dissolve." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, Book I, 350 B.C.
"Venus experienced in quick succession its birth and expulsion under violent conditions; an existence as a comet on an ellipse which approached the sun closely; two encounters with the earth accompanied by discharges of [electric] potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal effect caused by conversion of momentum into heat; a number of contacts with Mars, and probably also with Jupiter. Since all this happened between the third and first millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must still be hot." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1950
Science Daily: Super-Hot Planet With Unique [sic] Comet-Like Tail Discovered [sic].
ScienceDaily (July 15, 2010) — Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have confirmed the existence of a baked object that could be called a "cometary planet." The gas giant planet, named HD 209458b, is orbiting so close to its star that its heated atmosphere is escaping into space.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
9 comments:
The also deny Venus a tail in the Mercury messenger report.
Look what I found just below the bits you cut out:
"Enough has been said, without further argument, to show that the causes brought forward to explain comets are false." --Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, Book I, 350 B.C.
Neat that you quote someone who thinks everyone else you quote is wrong.
Jeffery,
FYI red herrings are irrelevant.
Did I mention Aristotle in the title? No.
FYI Aristotle was a creationist. Interesting you agree with creationists when it suits your purposes, namely to say that comets do not exist.
I think some clarification is needed here. All objects in the solar system have a magnetotail of one kind of another. This is because all objects are affected by the sun's radiation.
It doesn't prove (or imply, hint at, or suggest) that objects like Venus or Phobos or Earth were comets. The similarity ends with the birth of the objects from the original nebula, after that comets and planets behave somewhat differently, due to the extremes of their comparitive mass, orbital dynamics, momentum and lifespan.
This planet does have unique properties, its tail is much more active, dense and fast-moving than any so far observed. I think these new observations add a great deal to our depth of knowledge about extrasolar planets and to our knowledge of our home system. Your absurd usage of [sic] is an insult to the folks who work so hard to bring these finds to light.
I believe that if Democritus or Aristotle were with us today, they would be stunned by the advances in science that we acheive on a daily basis. After all, they could only look around and wonder, making up answers that were often wildly inaccurate but some seeming almost prophetic. They even got close to a proper atomic theory, but salt isn't an element, neither is it "salty" because it's component atoms are spikey.
We, on the other hand, have a fleet of sun-watching probes, telescopes of vast power and computers that can simulate entire galaxies of stars. Add to this the legions of dedicated researchers, and our modern world stands upon the edge of something wonderful...
something you and Velikovsky would brush aside for Electric Universe nonsense that would lead nowhere fast.
I'll just stick to the facts, thanks.
FYI Aristotle was a creationist. Interesting you agree with creationists when it suits your purposes, namely to say that comets do not exist.
I didn't say I agreed with him on that point. He was wrong, too. He seems to have thought that comets were atmospheric objects, not bound to the sun or associated with stars of any sort. Comets very definately exist. They just aren't "exhaled" or "birthed" from planets. (Unless you count the icy debris from theoretical planetary collisions as birthing)
But here, he reavels how right Democritus could be:
Anaxagoras, Democritus, and their schools say that the milky way is the light of certain stars. For, they say, when the sun passes below the earth some of the stars are hidden from it. Now the light of those on which the sun shines is invisible, being obscured by the [glare? this bit is missing in my source] of the sun. But the milky way is the peculiar light of those stars which are shaded by the earth from the sun's rays.
No one is wrong 100% of the time. Even creationists.
Jeffery,
In response to:
"I believe that if Democritus or Aristotle were with us today, they would be stunned by the advances in science that we acheive on a daily basis."
I take the opposite view: I think if you were alive in ancient times you would be stunned by Pythagoras, Democritus, and Aristotle.
Which again, I ask, show me that they knew thing one about, say, radiation ("pure fire" is bullshit), genetics (showing colored rods to sheep does not influence breeding), the true nature of matter (again, salt: not an element), the divisibility of the atom, even the notion comets do not originate in the air above us, but in the cold dark of space.
That last one Democritus called correctly, of course, but how did he know? Demonstrate the actual source of knowledge. Where is the description of their orbital telescopes, hadron colliders, radio observatories, heck... a slave-free state?
Show me an application for their science that we have not surpassed.
Compared perhaps to their fellow citizens, they impress me. They certainly were advanced thinkers for their time, but we have surpassed them. There is no debate unless you are an arrogant troll with a mad on over Teh Ebil Mainstreemz.
Great stuff! Please drop by my site and drop me an email. (Use the 'contact' page at my site, or just leave a comment on an article).
Cheers,
Liam
Japan Times Breaks Earth!
Post a Comment