The Solar System: Do Scientists Really Know How It Formed?
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2006
by Josh Greenberger
The Solar System: Do Scientists Really Know How It Formed?
The vast differences between the planets do not seem to support the accepted scientific theories of their formation.
The theory held by many scientists concerning the evolution of our solar system is basically that a large gas cloud in space condensed into what we now call the sun. Chunks of this cloud flew off into orbit around the sun and eventually condensed into planets. That is, the other planets in our solar system were allegedly formed by the same process which formed our own planet, earth.
EXPLORATION OF VENUS
On February 12, 1961, the Soviet Union launched Venera 1 into solar orbit, making it one of the earliest attempts to probe Venus. By the time Veneras 13 and 14 landed on Venus in early 1982, man had already landed several modules on Venus which relayed good data back to earth. Throughout these missions it became painfully clear to scientists that the real Venus had no resemblance to the Venus about which they had theorized before the probes.
Venus was once thought of as "earth's twin." It is our nearest neighbor in the solar system, and it is approximately the same size and density as earth. Although Venus intercepts twice as much sunlight as earth because it is closer to the sun, it was thought that its surface conditions were similar to earth's since the thick global clouds of Venus reflected most of the extra light. Scientists reasoned further that since earth and Venus condensed from the interstellar clouds of the same region in space their elemental composition must be roughly the same.
The theories about Venus went as far as saying that its atmosphere was made up of the same gases as that of earth, and one day on Venus was about the same length as a day on earth.
The picture we had of Venus was of a planet similar to earth except for something of a "murky jungle" spanning the entire globe. The impression scientists gave was that astronauts landing on Venus would need little more than London Fog coats.
As exploration of Venus proceeded, facts began replacing completely erroneous theories. Not only were conditions on Venus not what we had anticipated, but the data returned by the Venera and Mariner missions showed Venus to be so different that it appeared highly unlikely that earth and Venus could have evolved from the same gas clouds. We found Venus to be a far more hostile environment than the "murky jungle" we had envisioned.
So much so, that Venus' climate is probably more hostile than any other planet in our solar system. The only ones more disappointed than scientists were Bangladesh tigers -- they were convinced that after death they went up to the jungles of Venus.
Here's an idea of what it's like on Venus: the temperature is around 900 degrees Fahrenheit -- that's great vacation weather, if you happen to be a tube worm with poor circulation. The atmosphere is about 97 percent carbon dioxide, as compared to earth's atmosphere of about 90 percent nitrogen and oxygen.
Bright sunny days on Venus are nonexistent -- every day is like a heavy overcast. And if the sun did come out, you could never go to the beach on Venus because there are no oceans. Venus is so dry that the relative humidity rarely reaches one percent -- forget about "raindrops fallin' on your head." But then, on Venus, the last thing you'd want is rain. Rain on "earth's twin" consists of sulfuric acid. Such a rain would dissolve sulfur, mercury, lead, tin, and most rocks. To go out in weather like that your Totes hat would need a lining made of tempered steel, and Tarzan would have to wear a lot more than "Fruit of the Loom."
If you still think conditions on Venus are similar to those of earth, I strongly suggest you move to different neighborhood -- your current one has completely deteriorated.
Venus has a surface pressure of about 90 times that of earth, which is the equivalent of going about a half mile down into the ocean. The sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
One day on Venus takes approximately eight earth months -- a couple living on Venus could have a baby almost every "day."
AGAIN, CONTRADICTIONS
Of all the great differences between earth and Venus, one in particular poses a very strong and obvious question: if earth and Venus formed of the same gas clouds, how can 70 percent of earth's surface be covered with water yet the only trace of water on Venus is a relative humidity of about one percent? What happened to all the water on Venus? Or, where did all the water on earth come from?
AND THEN, THE THEORIES
One theory, and perhaps even the only one, about where all the water on Venus went is this: millions of years ago, the greenhouse effect of Venus' atmosphere caused its temperatures to soar above 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. This caused water to break up into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen escaped into space and the oxygen mixed with molten rock forming the Venusian crust.
Then why is there a large volume of water on earth?
Scientific studies suggest that earth, during its alleged formation, was hot enough that to this day it retains a molten core. So, if earth also went through extreme heat during its infancy, why didn't water on earth take the same course as water on Venus? By the time earth cooled, there should have been about as much water left on it as there is on Venus today -- practically none.
Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating that there was ever any large volume of water on Venus. There are no gullies, trenches, or craters left vacant by oceans, lakes, or rivers. If all the waters on earth were to disappear, they'd leave some unmistakable natural landmarks behind.
The answer given by some is that perhaps Venus' high temperatures never allowed water to even reach a liquid state.
Then why is there no water on Mars? Mars is cooler and farther away from the sun than Venus and even earth -- it has no scorching atmosphere, but it is an extremely dry planet. That is, Mars does not have the kind of atmosphere which might have kept water from condensing or might have caused water to disappear as it allegedly did on Venus. Yet, Mars has only some ice at the poles and small traces of water vapor in the atmosphere. No oceans, rivers, glaciers, or even ponds. Where did all the water on Mars go? Or why wasn't any there to begin with?
So, you see, no matter what your vantage point, earth's surface being 70 percent covered with water is, from an evolutionary standpoint, an inexplicable phenomena. Did the planets really evolve of the same stuff in space? Did they evolve at all? It certainly does not seem that way. How do you explain three planets right next to each other, one is a dry oven, one is an arid desert, and the one in the middle is flooded with water? Evolution? Think again.
And while you're thinking, try explaining why earth has a magnetic field while Venus does not. And why Venus revolves differently from the other planets. And why most of the planets are flat at the poles while Venus is round. And why the surface of Venus is smooth in comparison to that of earth and Mars. Because the planets in our solar system were formed by the same evolutionary process? There is no better proof than the planets themselves that presently held theories of planetary evolution do not "hold water."
A BETTER THEORY
Maybe what we need is simply another imaginative theory concerning the disappearance of water on Venus: About 648 million ago, 7 billion little aliens with big bladders landed on Venus in a spaceship the size of Krakatoa. They drank up all the water, then flew to earth and went to the men's room. (The women stayed home to take care of the babies -- with bladders like that, babies need a lot of attention.)
THEORIES DO NOT CHANGE FACTS
The question of whether scientific accounts of the origin and evolution of the planets actually occurred is premature at this point. There's a more fundamental question here: do theories of planetary evolution make any sense? In spite of the onslaught of "scientific" theories, which sometimes give the impression of being designed to make sense out of the irrational, our space explorations seem to indicate that these theories make no sense.
Strangely, here on earth, accurate weather predictions are limited to a matter of days. The course of such commonplace weather conditions as storms and hurricanes sometimes cannot be accurately predicted a mere twenty four hours in advance. But somehow, there are "experts" who can state with astonishing certainty how the weather patterns on Venus over alleged billions of years caused entire oceans to go up into space and down into rocks. Maybe we ought to send some scientists to live on Venus so they can give us better weather predictions here on earth?
NEW TOOLS
The problem apparently is that scientists are trying to solve new puzzles -- puzzles brought about by space exploration -- with outdated "tools" -- old theories. It's time to stop bending and twisting these tools in a futile attempt to make them fit the facts. It's time to get new tools. What we need are theories which fit the facts and do not pretend to explain that which they do not. We need theories which do not become obsolete every time science takes another step forward. Perhaps such theories will come when we finally realize that although every physical phenomenon must have an origin, not every origin must necessarily be of a physical nature. Is it possible the Solar System was actually Created, or Directed to form, in its current state? You have a better explanation?
by Josh Greenberger
This has been an excerpt from his free book on evolution at EvolutionDead.com shopndrop.com
This Article has been viewed 2,538 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)I agree 100% and I'm getting tired of all the know it alls telling us what they believe. That's right theory isn't fact it's a belief, not much different than most religions. Thanks for the interesting page.
How do people end up thinking like this? Is it because of religion or just some kind of frustration with not being able to understand reality? Science is about collecting evidence and postulating theories to explain the evidence. Science constantly 'evolves' as new evidence is uncovered, changing with time. Of course scientific theories can be wrong, which is why they are called theories! People against science blindly follow teachings from the past without any evidence and requires faith alone without any connection with reality.Great article if we could prove any of it
"Science is about collecting evidence and postulating theories to explain the evidence."What planet are you from? Provable science is science. Theoretical science that turns into "fact" without proof, that's a cult.The anonymous poster above yours has it right. "Provable science is science" doesn't mean anything. That is like saying there is no science of photonics because scientists have not actually produced a photon, or that Newton's law of gravity isn't really science, because it is only a theory. In fact, what "Josh" is saying is that astrophysics should not be in the business of constructing theories. This sounds very 12th Century, when the only science allowed to be taught was what Aristotle taught in the 4th Century, B.C.!Science is not about theories. Science about a search for the truth. Theories are a means to an end. If evidence do not support theories, the theories must be discarded, not hung on to like a cult. Our solar system does not seem to support many of scientists' theories.Theories are what science uses to explain phenomena, based on the best available evidence. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the purpose of theory. For example, electrical engineers study electrical theory. They study theory because nobody has actually ever seen an electron. The fact is, electrical theory is both explanatory and predictive. I can predict with a high degree of certainty that a certain amount of electrons in Joules flows through a conductor if I know its resistance and voltage. This is all because of the theory of electricity.
It is the anti-intellectuals who campaign against theories because, well, it would require learning things that are often difficult to learn, and often involve math. It is much easier to say, "The hell with it all, this is too hard. I will listen to the religious guy spouting his fantastic opinion, because at least he's not making me think for myself."Your response proves my point: "The fact is, electrical theory is both explanatory and predictive."
But if a theory is not predictive, and is actually contradicted by observations, it's no longer science -- that is religion.
You have to stop accusing others of your own shortcomings. It is you who believes in religious dogma when a theory is contradicted by observations yet you still blindly adhere to it. The entire article says nothing about religion, yet you keep harping about religion. You think, maybe, that's your freudian slip?
Theories may be part of the scientific process. Once they're disproven, they become nonsense. Still believing in them after that is religion. Stop accusing others of your shortcomings.
Science doesn't work by seeking evidence that supports your hypothesis, and disregarding or ignoring evidence to the contrary, which is I think your failure.
Science, in seeking the truth, does evolve, as better evidence comes along to modify or replace the existing theory. Theories are held in regard by a scientific community. If your new theory is not shared by the scientific community at large, there is probably a good reason for that.
Having read your other articles, Josh, there does seem to be a coherent theme that relates to a political-religious agenda, rather than a truly scientific one. Good luck with that.If this weren't a scientific (sort of) discussion, I'd think you're a comedian.
This is exactly what I'M trying to tell YOU: "Science doesn't [or, shouldn't] work by seeking evidence that supports your hypothesis, and disregarding or ignoring evidence to the contrary..."
"Evidence to the contrary" should be paid attention to. That's exactly the point of the whole article.
So then you confirm that you are not a creationist, and you don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. That would be the start of a scientific discussion. Otherwise, it would be a farce.No one mentioned this in the first place, there's no need to address it.
I would hope creationism isn't the logical conclusion to this discussion. since you are decidedly anti-science, it leaves little room for much else but theology.Strawman argument.Pleading "strawman" every time I mention creationism is like pleading the 5th Amendment whenever the prosecutor has you cornered. It's a dead give away to where you really want to take this discussion.
You could just come out and be up front about it, but honesty and creationism are not the best of friends."So much so, that Venus' climate is probably more hostile than any other planet in our solar system. "
When did scientists ever think Venus was hospitable?This goes back many years. The book (from which this is excerpted) was written over two decades ago. Yes, scientists did at one point believe that.But now you're admitting scientists don't think that anymore, which undermines your argument that science doesn't update itself.And by the way, many things about the solar system are quite predictable, including the appearance of comets.
Josh's strawman fallacy:
"A BETTER THEORY
Maybe what we need is simply another imaginative theory concerning the disappearance of water on Venus: About 648 million ago, 7 billion little aliens with big bladders landed on Venus in a spaceship the size of Krakatoa. They drank up all the water, then flew to earth and went to the men's room. (The women stayed home to take care of the babies -- with bladders like that, babies need a lot of attention.)"Take your sense of humor out of wherever you keep it and try using it.
"The question of whether scientific accounts of the origin and evolution of the planets actually occurred is premature at this point. There's a more fundamental question here: do theories of planetary evolution make any sense? In spite of the onslaught of "scientific" theories, which sometimes give the impression of being designed to make sense out of the irrational, our space explorations seem to indicate that these theories make no sense."
Here we approach the heart of Josh's concealed agenda, to replace science with something else. And that would be....Are we ready for the bombshell? The Bible. Now, who could have seen that coming ;-)"Are we ready for the bombshell? The Bible."
Talk about a strawman argument.
Hi Josh,
Loved your article. Keep them coming!
Mark ParsecWe can also know a theory by its believers.Right you are. Some ""scientists" should be priests.And some priests should not be scientists.Absolutely. And none of them are. Another strawman arguement.Why would you introduce a strawman argument, and then accuse me of using a strawman argument when it is the same argument you proposed first?
And why can't you come out and be frank about your anti-science, creationist position?
So, let me see if I have this straight: The author is saying that current scientific theory is invalid, and how does he know this? Because the same science that he is contemptuous of has sent probes to Venus and Mars, and discovered new evidence that allows science to correct itself.
There is such a thing as normal science, which does risk perpetuating itself, becoming strained and lacking innovation. But when a tipping point of evidence is reached, new paradigms replace the old, and this is called revolutionary science. Perhaps astrophysics is on the threshold of revolutionary paradigm shift.
However, this author doesn't really make a good case for revolutionary science, because he hasn't ruled out all explanations of normal science, but only given us the ones that don't conform to his expected outcome.
As to the person who pointed out that normal astrophysics has high predictive value, we have to wonder why the author ignores that, as well.
In the end there does seem to be a theological slant to this article, which undermines its credibility, since science doesn't involve itself with mysticism, magic, superstition, or mythology.
Now you're starting to talk in circles. The answers are all here; re-read them. If you still don't get it, keep re-reading till you do. I've got other things to do. Have a nice one.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.