Venus
Posted by Carol_Noble at 10:40, 01 Aug 2009http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17...
This site is from New Scientist magazine and relates to two incidents on planets recently.
You may find it of interest.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Carol_Noble's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
10 August 2004
21 hours 31 min
Perhaps a Venusian resident turned on a torch in the hopes of seeing the dark spot on Jupiter better!
Sorry - just being silly.
Regards, Kathrinn
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
We really should have satellites orbiting those planets, to keep track of suspicious activity. We keep track of practically every individual on earth (well, soon anyway) and can't find the terrorists. They must be from the other planets.
More seriously, we would understand our own planet better if we knew the other planets. We would know what is typical of earth, and what is not typical. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tides, weather and such. The best way to learn about the other planets is to watch and collect data from up close.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
3 June 2008
8 weeks 5 days
Kathrinn your post made me laugh, and who is to say it isn't true?
I agree Earthling that it would be helpful if we did have something monitoring these planets.
But my initial thoughts as I read the article was that the electric universe/solar system idea could be true. One part says that there are lines of light which connect planets and other bodies to each other. If this was the case then when Venus and Jupiter start jangling in harmony then we should sit up and take notice.
But I expect the ortbodox scientific fraternity to pooh pooh the idea. They never like changing a fundamental and basic idea that has been around for some time.
However, if this theory could be proved, then it would also prove the old adage that everything is connected to everything else!
I do wonder sometimes if we are actually part of a gigantic brain, and the planets are connected by synapses and neurons are the sudden flashes of stars etc.
Yet, perhaps it is just a joke, and there really is a torch out there!
Carol A Noble
21 February 2009
20 hours 30 min
Hi Carol,
It reminds me of Douglas Adam's notion of the meaning of life. The giant earth sized computer to calculate the answer ;)
I guess there will be people who really think that is what is going on, as a loose rule all things that can be imagined are, and as a loose internet rule all things are then discussed. I wouldn't rule it out though, but at the moment it is imaginary until someone can think of a way of firming it up a little as an idea. Since life can only have the meaning that we give it it occurs to me that all of creation can in a sense only be like a computer, but perhaps processing imagination, time or events rather than data, be it our own or some higher beings perspective. I sometimes see no way out of the 'meaning' trap, no matter which philosophy we use as a lense.
The electric universe is an interesting idea. Slightly off topic of it though i wonder what the idea landscape was like in the past. Researching some of these ideas on the internet can be a minefield. New ideas tend to attract some very poor work outside of those trying to actually build and test the idea. It makes me pine for being inside a university again and having access to better research instruments.
An electric universe would be a large simplification over our current one, which might make things easier to understand.
One thing i think is that no matter what names we give to these equations we have, call them electricity if you want or divide them up into electrical, gravitational, strong and weak. They are just names. It is each affect that is important. We can call the universe an electric universe if we like, but all it means is that electric(ity?) now has to feature those mathematical features.
I find the idea of unlinking the attractive forces between objects from the topology of space and time, which is what some websites seem to argue for if we are just use electric forces (there would be no need to visualise curvature of space and time) interesting. We know that time varies with speed though so i dont think we could help but build in Special Relativity even if we are not including General Relativity.
One of the biggest issues with all of this, and what we can all see i guess, is when people talk outside of their experience. To give the electric universe the discussion it properly deserves requires physics over my head so i will not attempt it. On http://www.holoscience.com/ there is a page on the planets though. This is more up my street. I can say that this page at the least is full of errors.
I'll add one bit though, if the moon landings were faked then the rock returned cannot be used to do a chemical comparison between the Earth and Moon. NASA would have led global geology up the wrong path, which would make me pretty upset with them - more than just lying about going to the moon.
3 June 2008
8 weeks 5 days
I don't agree that because we have not involved ourselves with the knowledge of a subject we can't discuss it. I have come up with ideas, from nowhere it often seems, about a subject which I have never studied, and found that my ideas are actually correct. I may not be able to discuss it in the jargon the knowledgeable person would usually use but newvertheless they should be able to understand what I am saying as I am more likely to use the everyday language ordinary people use rather than the jargon which is limited to those who have studied the subject in depth from their own perspective.
I also find that those who don;t know a lot about a subject often come up with questions or ideas which the "expert" should have thought of, but didn't! This is because the experts are often so engrossed within their subject that they can;t "see the wood for the trees"!
rol A Noble