From: Subject: VENUS-A YOUTHFUL PLANET Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:10:26 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/kronos/vol0403/056venus.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 VENUS-A YOUTHFUL PLANET

VENUS-A YOUTHFUL PLANET

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

The article "Venus - a Youthful Planet " was written in 1963 and = was=20 offered for publication in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical = Society=20 by Professor H. H. Hess, a member of that Society. The paper was = discussed at=20 the editorial board meeting of the Society and caused prolonged and = emotional=20 deliberations with the Board split between those favoring the = publication and=20 those opposed to it. For several months a decision could not be reached. = For a=20 time it was planned to open a new column in the Proceedings, entrust it = to=20 Professor E. G. Boring of Harvard, and have it printed there. But this = plan was=20 revoked and the decision was made, in order to safeguard the very = existence of=20 the Board, to delegate the decision on the article to three members of = the=20 society, not members of the Board. Their names were not disclosed but on = January=20 20, 1964, Dr. George W. Corner, Executive Officer of the Society and the = editor=20 of the Proceedings, informed Dr. Hess that the decision had been made to = reject=20 the article.

Subsequently it was also rejected by the Bulletin of Atomic = Scientists;=20 in that magazine in April, 1964, an abusive article was published by a = Mr.=20 Howard Margolis, attacking Velikovsky and his work. The editor of the = Bulletin,=20 Dr. Eugene Rabinowitch, in a letter to Professor Alfred de Grazia, = editor of the=20 American Behavioral Scientist, offered Velikovsky an opportunity to = reply with=20 an article "not more abusive" than that of Margolis, or, instead, to = have some=20 of his views presented in the Bulletin by some scientist of repute. Then = Professor H. H. Hess submitted the article " Venus - a Youthful Planet " = to Dr.=20 Rabinowitch. The latter returned it with the statement that he did not = read=20 Velikovsky's book, nor the article. The case is described in The = Velikovsky=20 Affair (University Books), a collection of articles originally printed = in the=20 special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist (September 1963), = then=20 reprinted with updating material, as a book, in the summer of = 1966.

[Ultimately, the article "Venus - a Youthful Planet" was = published in the=20 April, 1967 issue of the Yale Scientific Magazine . It is reprinted here = with a=20 marked timeliness. - LMG]

The nebular hypothesis of the origin of the planetary family = (Swedenborg,=20 Kant, Laplace), also in its modern form (Weiszacker), complies with the=20 uniformitarian principle of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. On the other = hand, the=20 tidal hypothesis in its original version (a tidal disruption of the sun = by a=20 passing star -- Moulton, Chamberlain, Jeans, Jeffreys) and in its = variant (the=20 collision of the passing star with one member of a binary star system of = which=20 the sun is a surviving member -- Lyttleton, H. N. Russell) is clearly=20 catastrophic. Yet, its originators claimed that the catastrophe was an = exception=20 to the rule of the otherwise valid principle of uniformity, according to = which=20 only those processes that are observable in our time could have taken = place in=20 the past.

This principle, however, is made to a veritable bed of Procrustes if = "in our=20 time" is reduced to what an observer can witness within the confines of = his=20 lifetime; with such a limitation, the existence of novae must be denied = if none=20 is seen at present or has been seen for some time. If we extend the = principle of=20 uniformity to include those seen by observers in earlier centuries, like = the=20 nova in Cassiopeia observed by de Brahe in 1572 to 1574 or even the one = which=20 was recorded by Chinese astronomers in the year 1054, then, = consistently, we are=20 dependent also on the observations of the entire recorded history. The = principle=20 of uniformity is followed better if a cosmogonical theory is built not = on an=20 assumption of what could have happened during "half an hour" (Gamow) six = or nine=20 billion years ago, but on events observed in the last few thousand years = and on=20 projection by inference into a more remote past.

ANCIENT RECORDS

The ancients -- on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans = alike -=20 referred to Venus as to a new member of the solar system. The violent = events=20 that occurred during the several stages that led to its settling down in = its=20 present orbit are described in manifold records, ranging all the way = from sober=20 astronomical minutes to vivid descriptions by witnesses of the events = and to=20 legends and myths.

Anyone who has visited Mexico or Guatemala cannot have escaped the=20 omnipresent vestiges of the cult of Quetzalcohuatl or Kukulcan, the=20 Morning-Evening Star of the Mayas, Olmecs, Toltecs, and Aztecs. From = about the=20 middle of the second millennium before the present era,* we have = cuneiform=20 records of the motions of Venus (tablets of Ammizaduga) which are in = complete=20 disagreement with the presentday elements of orbital motion of the = planet. These=20 ancient minutes could not have been errors of a scribe, since the = intervals are=20 always given in two ways -- by indicating the dates on the calendar and = by=20 telling the exact number of days between the dates. Whereas at present = Venus is=20 invisible for about 2 months and 6 days at superior conjunction, = according to=20 the tablets, it was absent from the sky for as long as 9 months and 4=20 days.⁽¹⁾ A major change in Venus took place, as related by = Varro,=20 "the most learned of all the Romans," on the authority of Adrastus of = Cyzicus=20 and Dion of Naples, "famous mathematicians," in the reign of Ogyges: "It = changed=20 its color, size, form, course."⁽²⁾

[Footnote: *According to Kugler. But see Lynn E. Rose, "Babylonian=20 Observations of Venus," Velikovsky Reconsidered (N.Y., 1976), = pp.=20 73-86. LMG]

In China, the astronomer Y-hang, in the year 721, related to the = Emperor=20 Hiuen-tsong that, according to earlier authorities in the time of Tsin = the=20 planet Venus used to move forty degrees to the south of the ecliptic; = the course=20 of the planet Venus changed in the days of Tsin.⁽³⁾

Originally, the people of Mesopotamia had a "four-planet system," and = Venus=20 was not included⁽⁴⁾; at a later period Venus was described by = the=20 Chaldeans as a "bright torch of heaven," also as a"diamond that = illuminates like=20 the sun" and "a stupendous prodigy in the sky"⁽⁵⁾ that "fills = the=20 entire heaven."

The Chinese astronomical text from Soochow refers to the past when=20 Venus,"moving across the sky, rivaled the sun in = brightness."⁽⁶⁾ The=20 Hebrews have in Midrash Rabba to Numbers 21: "The brilliant light of = Venus=20 blazes from one end of the cosmos to the other end."

Alexander von Humboldt, who undertook an exploratory voyage to Latin = America,=20 wondered: "The star that smoked, la estrella que humeava, was=20 Sitlae choloha, which the Spaniards call Venus. Now, I ask, = what=20 optical illusion could give Venus the appearance of a star throwing out = smoke?"=20 Bernardin de Sahagun, the main sixteenth century Spanish authority on = Mexico,=20 wrote that the Mexicans called a comet "a star that = smoked."⁽⁷⁾ In=20 Europe, too, "the ignorant mass of people consider Venus as a comet." = wrote=20 Horatio Grassi in 1619⁽⁸⁾

In the Talmud, in the Tractate Shabbat, it is said: "Fire is hanging = down=20 from the planet Venus": Venus "looks like fire with smoke" according to=20 Atharva-Veda VI: the Chaldeans described the planet Venus as having "a = beard," a=20 technical expression still in use in modern astronomy.⁽⁹⁾ The = Arabs=20 called Venus Zebbaj, "one with hair," and the Mexicans used for the = planet the=20 appellative Tzontemocque, "the mane"; the Peruvians called it Chaska=20 "wavy-haired."⁽¹⁰⁾ The Babylonians gave Venus the = appellative: "The=20 great star that joins the great stars* ... the planets Mercury Mars! = Jupiter,=20 and Saturn."⁽¹¹⁾

[Footnote: *Cf. Lynn L. Rose " 'Just Plainly Wrong': A critique Or = Peter=20 Huber." KRONOS IV:2 (Winter-1978) pp. 35-36. - = LMG]

These are only a few of the references to the unusual appearance and = motion=20 of Venus collected in Worlds in Collision; and there, too, only = a=20 fraction of extant references to the violent birth and history of the = planet is=20 collated. It was described by many peoples of antiquity as having = originated in=20 eruption from Jupiter. The giant planet is more than 300 times as = massive as=20 Earth or Venus, which have comparable masses.

MODERN ACCOUNTS

The origin of Venus from Jupiter is by itself no absurdity and = actually is=20 claimed among our contemporaries by Lyttleton. Analyzing the = quantitative=20 elements of the tidal theory, he came to the conclusion that the = so-called=20 terrestrial planets, Venus included, must have erupted from the giant = planets,=20 actually from Jupiter, by cleavage. "If a condensation slowly formed = from=20 interplanetary material to give a large planet at somewhere near = Jupiter's=20 present distance from the sun, the resulting body would rotate in a few = hours=20 because of the indestructible rotational momentum of the material drawn = into it.=20 With increasing size, its power to draw in material would increase, and = its=20 resulting speed of rotation would do so too, and eventually could render = it=20 unstable as a single mass because of centrifugal force. It can only get = out of=20 this embarrassing condition by breaking into two very unequal pieces ... = "⁽¹²⁾ But since, as time goes on, Jupiter contracts ever more = and the=20 speed of its rotation increases, disruption and the birth of a planet by = cleavage need not be placed far into the past - the later the riper are = the=20 conditions for a disruption.

Whereas Lyttleton analyzed the origin of the terrestrial planets in = the frame=20 of the tidal theory, W. H. McCrea, at the same time (1960), analyzed the = nebular=20 theory and came to the conclusion that "the Roche limit for the = estimated=20 initial density of the planets so formed is at about Jupiter's orbit; = thus the=20 theory requires a differentiation between planets formed outside and = inside this=20 distance."⁽¹³⁾ Because of the disruptive force that the = gravitational=20 mass of the Sun must have exercised on the planets in formation, no = planet could=20 have been formed inside the Jovian orbit. The analysis of McCrea is = valid also=20 for that variant of the tidal theory that has the disrupted gas and dust = masses=20 assembling in flocculi. He calculated that tens of thousands of years = were=20 sufficient for the Sun to acquire its shape and for the planets to = settle in the=20 plane of the ecliptic.

McCrea's demonstration that no planet could have originated inside = the Jovian=20 orbit and Lyttleton's claim that the terrestrial planets have originated = from=20 Jupiter by disruption are complementary. Since 1950, more than one = critic of=20 Worlds in Collision from among the astronomers has objected to the = notion of=20 Venus having erupted from Jupiter and traveled on a cometary orbit with = a trail=20 of meteorites and gases. Comets are thought to be very unsubstantial = bodies, a=20 notion that can be traced to Aristotle, who believed them to be = atmospheric=20 apparitions like rainbows. N. T. Bobrovnikoff, Director of Perkins = Observatory,=20 studied the orbits of the comets of 1668, 1843, 1880, 1882, 1887, and = concluded=20 that they originated in "decomposition of one single body." (Actually = the comet=20 of 1882 fell apart into five comets before the observers.) "If put = together all=20 these comets would make something like the mass of the = moon."⁽¹⁴⁾

S. K. Vsekhsviatsky, of Kiev Observatory, in a series of works claims = that=20 comets of short periods must be very recent bodies, their age being = counted up=20 to a few thousand years only, and they must have originated mainly from = Jupiter,=20 but also from other planets (Saturn, Mars, and Venus) by eruption. The = loss in=20 brilliancy of comets with every return, actual observations of their=20 fragmentation, and complete disintegration and non-return, evidence = their=20 recentness; their orbits point to their origin from planets. When = confronted=20 with the counter-argument based upon the high escape velocity from = Jupiter,=20 Vsekhsviatsky retreated in his later publications insofar as he = considers the=20 major satellites of Jupiter the source of eruption of the so-called = Jovian=20 family of comets.⁽¹⁵⁾*

[Footnote: * See S.K. Vsekhsvyatskii, "The Origin and Evolution of = the=20 Comets and Other Small Bodies in the Solar System," KRONOS 11:2 = (Nov.-1976),=20 pp. 46-54. - LMG]

On the ground of ancient texts, it is claimed in Worlds in = Collision=20 (p. 373) that "the collision between major planets brought about the = birth of=20 comets. These comets moved across the orbits of other planets and = collided with=20 them. At least one of these comets in historical times became a planet = --=20 Venus." In such near-collisions, eruptive forces could exceed escape = velocities,=20 and the red spot on Jupiter could conceivably be the locus of a major=20 eruption.

For the thesis that Venus erupted from Jupiter in historical times = and went=20 through a series of stormy events before settling on an orbit, the = natural=20 sciences must possess independent evidence. Such events theoretically = could have=20 happened -- following the syncretized notions of McCrea, Lyttleton, and=20 Vsekhsviatsky; but to show that they have happened, I have formulated = the=20 following claims as crucial tests of the concept:

(1) Venus must be very hot (W. in C., "The Thermal Balance = of=20 Venus").

(2) Venus must be enveloped in hydrocarbon (and possibly = carbohydrate) dust=20 and gases (W. in C., "The Gases of Venus").

(3) The motion of Venus has been disrupted in near collisions with = other=20 celestial bodies and in capture by the Sun (W. in C., pp. 77-8, = 85, 94,=20 141f., 259, 371), and therefore its rotation may well be retrograde.

CRUCIAL TEST (1): VENUS MUST BE HOT

As to the first proposition, it has been known since the 1920's that = the=20 cloud surface of Venus is ca. -25=B0C cold, on the illuminated and the = shadowed=20 sides alike.⁽¹⁶⁾ The radiometric data suggested a swiftly = rotating=20 planet with the shadowed side having no time to cool off during a very = short=20 night; but the spectroscopy detected no Doppler effect. The = contradicting data=20 gave birth to diverging estimates of the rotational period of the = planet. In=20 Worlds in Collision I wrote: "In reality there is no conflict = between=20 the two methods of physical observation. The night side of Venus = radiates heat=20 because Venus is hot. The reflecting, absorbing, insulating, and = conducting=20 properties of the cloud layer of Venus modify the heating effect of the = sun upon=20 the body of the planet; but at the bottom of the problem lies this fact: = Venus=20 gives off heat."

After reiterating the short but stormy history of Venus from "its = birth and=20 expulsion under violent conditions, its existence as a comet on an = ellipse which=20 approached the sun closely; two encounters with the earth accompanied by = discharges of potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal = effect=20 caused by conversion of momentum into heat; a number of contacts with = Mars, and=20 probably also with Jupiter. Since all this happened between the third = and first=20 millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must = still be=20 hot" (p. 371). On its approach 34 centuries ago, Venus was "in a state = of=20 candescence" (p. 77).

In 1954 Kozyrev calculated the ground temperature of Venus as 30=B0C; = he=20 observed an emission spectrum from the night side of Venus, but ascribed = it to=20 lightnings in the upper cloud layer of the planet.⁽¹⁷⁾

Because of the high albedo of the cloud cover of Venus, its surface = mean=20 temperature was calculated by Firsoff in 1959 to be only 17=B0C, or 3=B0 = above the=20 annual mean temperature of Earth.⁽¹⁸⁾ But by 1961 Cornell H. = Mayer,=20 F. Drake, and their collaborators detected that the surface temperature = of=20 Venus, as evidenced by radio emission, is 600=B0F, or 315=B0C. Dr. F. = Drake wrote:=20 "We would have expected a temperature only slightly greater than that of = the=20 earth, whereas the actual temperature is several hundred degrees above = the=20 boiling point of water." Radioactivity could not be the cause: "Sources = of=20 internal heating will not produce an enhanced surface temperature, = simply=20 because the conductivity of the atmosphere itself is very high compared = with any=20 conductivity we can imagine for the outer portions of the planetary = body, and=20 would carry away heat conducted to the surface too quickly to allow = significant=20 rise in the surface temperature."⁽¹⁹⁾ Cornell Mayer, however, = relying=20 on G. Kuiper's figure of only 170=B0F as the greenhouse effect of carbon = dioxide,=20 considered that "if the surface is really at 600 degrees" there may = be"some=20 source of surface heat in addition to solar = radiation."⁽²⁰⁾

Obviously, if the planet is billions of years old, it could not have=20 preserved its original heat; also, any radioactive process that can = produce such=20 heat must be of a very rapid decay, and this again would not square with = an age=20 of the planet counted in billions of years. Therefore, hopes were = expressed that=20 the projected Mariner II probe would detect a considerably lower surface = temperature, or that the source of the radio emission would prove to be = in an=20 ionosphere surrounding Venus.

But the Mariner II probe detected an even higher surface temperature = of=20 Venus, namely 800=B0F, over two hundred degrees higher than the = temperature at=20 which lead is molten. In 1954 the ashen light (the luminosity of the = night side=20 of Venus as seen through a telescope) was explained by the presence of = an ice=20 cover on the planet;⁽²¹⁾ but at the detected temperature any = ice is=20 excluded and the ashen light seems more properly to be incandescence = glowing=20 through the envelope.

The figure -25=B0C for the cloud surface of Venus found in 19231928 = by Pettit=20 and Nicholson was re-examined by them in 1955 on the basis of their = original=20 records and changed to -38=B0C for the illuminated part of the disc and = -33=B0C for=20 the nocturnal part of it.⁽²²⁾ In 1956 Sinton and Strong = measured=20 -40=B0C for both sides. If the measurements of these two pairs of = researchers are=20 given to comparison, they would suggest that in thirty years the = temperature of=20 the cloud surface fell by 2=B0 C or more; this, too, would point toward = the=20 youthful age of the planet; careful renewed measurements at intervals of = a=20 decade or so are recommended here.

Another phenomenon requiring closer scrutiny is the fact that in = agreement=20 with Pettit and Nicholson the Mariner probe found the shadowed part of = the disc=20 warmer than its illuminated part.⁽²³⁾ If the difference is = borne out=20 by more probes, it may suggest that chemical processes occurring on = Venus favor=20 a concentration of a limited supply of oxygen on the shadowed side of = the planet=20 and petroleum fires there. Actually, in W. in C. ("The Thermal = Balance=20 of Venus") it is stated: "Moreover, if there is oxygen present on Venus, = petroleum fires must be burning there."*

[Footnote: * Pioneer- Venus Early Findings: "Observations = of what=20 could be 'mysterious chemical fires' on Venus' surface." -=20 LMG]

CRUCIAL TEST (2): VENUS HAS AN ENVELOPE OF = HYDROCARBON DUST=20 AND GASES.

In Worlds in Collision I purported to establish "(1) that = there were=20 physical upheavals of a global character in historical times; (2) that = these=20 catastrophes were caused by extraterrestrial agents; and (3) that these = agents=20 can be identified" (from the Preface).

In addition to and in support of the historical evidence of such = events=20 (Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos [1952]), I collected in = Earth=20 in Upheaval ( 1955) the concurring geological and paleontological = evidence=20 as far as the first two points are concerned. Earth passed through the = fabric of=20 meteorites, dust, and gases. According to old written records, Hebrew,=20 Babylonian, and Mexican, and also to the oral traditions of the = primitive races=20 in Indonesia, Siberia and other parts of the world, bituminous liquid = poured=20 from the sky in the midst of a global upheaval. "There descended from = the sky a=20 rain of bitumen and of a sticky substance" - so in Manuscript Quiche; = the age=20 ended in a "rain of fire" (Annals of Cuauhtitlan). "A stream of hot = naphtha"=20 over Egypt (Midrash Tanhuma and other sources),⁽²⁴⁾ "the rain = of=20 fire" of Akkadian texts, or "the fire water from the sky" that caused=20 conflagration of several years' duration, of the oral tradition of the = Voguls of=20 Siberia -- illustrate what is said here by a few examples. In Mexican = texts, as=20 well as in those of the Assyrians and some others, Venus is named as the = source=20 of this outpouring. Thus Assurbanipal refers to Ishtar-Venus, "who is = clothed=20 with fire and bears aloft a crown of awful splendor, [and who] rained = fire over=20 Arabia."⁽²⁵⁾

In the years that followed the Exodus, the world was enveloped in = dense=20 clouds ("Shadow of Death" of the Israelites wandering in the Desert,=20 "Goetterdaemmerung" of the Nordic races); out of this envelope some = honey-oil=20 tasting substance precipitated (manna of the Hebrews, ambrosia of the = Greeks,=20 honey of the clouds of the Hindus, morning sweet dew -- the only = sustenance in=20 the years of gloom of the Scandinavian people).

If Venus poured bituminous stuff on Earth, we would do right to make = the=20 following three conclusions which I also offered in W. in = C.:

(a) At least some of the deposit of oil must date back to only = thousands of=20 years, not millions as it was generally assumed in 1950⁽²⁶⁾ = (p. 54=20 ff.);

(b) Some of the meteorites must have hydrocarbons on them (p. = 55);

As to (a), I was referred in 1952 by W. F. Libby, to whom I had = submitted a=20 request of radiocarbon testing of petroleum, to a paper by P. V.=20 Smith⁽²⁷⁾: The petroleum of the Mexican Gulf area was found = to have=20 been deposited sometime during the last 9,200 + 1,000 years, as = this is=20 its C14 age. Smith commented: "The most prevalent viewpoint, perhaps, = has held=20 that burial of the original complex organic matter by several millions = of years=20 were necessary conditions for its conversion into hydrocarbons ... One = of the=20 surprising results of this study has been the discovery of liquid = hydrocarbons=20 in recent sediments from the Gulf of Mexico."

As to (b): hydrocarbons were found on meteorites and the find was = termed also=20 "surprising" (Nininger)⁽²⁸⁾; soon thereafter even vestiges of = organic=20 life were detected (by Nagy and collaborators). Thus the middle link of = the=20 three-link chain was discovered.*

[Footnote: * Also see New Scientist (17 Nov. 1977), pp. = 402404;=20 "Lifecloud," by Sir l red Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe in the = February=20 1979 issue of OMNI (pp. 67ff.); Second Look (Feb. 1979). -=20 LMG]

As to (c), I have selected it for a crucial test that, if right, = would=20 reasonably confirm the entire trend of deductions as summarized in the = Preface=20 to W. in C., namely concerning global catastrophes in = historical times,=20 their extraterrestrial cause, and the identity of one of the main = agents. Four=20 years before the publication of W. in C. I applied to H. = Shapley for a=20 spectroscopic analysis of Venus' atmosphere as to the presence of = hydrocarbons:=20 he termed the surmise as "surprising" but advised me to consult R. Wildt = and W.=20 S. Adams. To both of them I wrote in the summer of 1946 requesting a=20 re-examination of the spectrogram of the atmosphere of Venus for = hydrocarbon=20 dust and gases. [Also see the back cover. -- LMG] Wildt answered that = the=20 absorption spectrum of the atmosphere of Venus shows no evidence of=20 hydrocarbons. Adams pointed out that the absorption bands of most = petroleum=20 molecules are in the far infrared, below the range of photographic = detection,=20 and that hydrocarbons known to absorb in the detectable range are not = apparent=20 in the spectrum of Venus.

Nevertheless, trusting in the correctness of the theory and its = terminal=20 deduction, I let the claim stay in the published version of W. in = C.=20 ("The Gases of Venus"): "On the basis of this research, I assume that = Venus must=20 be rich in petroleum gases. If and as long as Venus is too hot for = liquefaction=20 of petroleum, the hydrocarbons will circulate in gaseous form."

I also assumed that hydrocarbons on Venus were created "by means of=20 electrical discharges" between the constituents of the Venetic = atmosphere; and=20 that these constituents were derived from the Jovian atmosphere rich in = methane=20 and ammonia. In 1960 A. T. Wilson succeeded, by means of electrical = discharges,=20 to combine methane and ammonia into heavy molecules of=20 hydrocarbons;⁽²⁹⁾ and in 1962,⁽³⁰⁾ fortified by = the=20 published finds of hydrocarbons on meteorites,* he claimed petroleum = deposits on=20 the Moon and extraterrestrial origin of the entire deposit of petroleum = on=20 Earth, a postulate that even in a restricted form ("some of the deposits = of=20 oil") caused strong opposition in 1950.⁽³¹⁾

[Footnote: * In the Dec. 17, 1960 issue of Nature, A.T. = Wilson=20 also stated that "... organic material of high molecular weight = has been=20 found in meteorites. Do the clouds of Venus contain this = material?" (p.=20 1008, emphasis added). - LMG]

The Mariner II probe disclosed that Venus is encircled by an envelope = possessing certain outstanding physical qualities: While the ground = temperature=20 of Venus is ca. 800=B0F hot, the envelope that begins 45 miles above the = ground=20 and is ten to fifteen miles thick, has a temperature of 200=B0F on the = inside and=20 -40=B0F on the outside. In order to be rather homogeneous at such = divergent=20 temperatures and serve as a heat barrier, the envelope must consist of = compounds=20 that can condense and polymerize at such temperatures; more exactly, it = must be=20 rich in CH radicals polymerized to heavy molecular compounds. These = would be=20 hydrocarbons, and on February 26, 1963, when the results of the Mariner = II probe=20 were published, hydrocarbons - gases and dust -- were announced as the = contents=20 of the envelope. Later, in a private communication, Lewis D. Kaplan of = the Jet=20 Propulsion Laboratory, the authority for that statement, corrected = himself by=20 claiming polymerized CH molecules, which could be hydrocarbons as well = as=20 carbohydrates.⁽³²⁾

It is a comparatively simple task to identify in laboratory tests the = diverse=20 molecules with the required insulating qualities only; but ascribing the = heat to=20 a greenhouse effect of trapped solar radiation necessitates finding = compounds=20 that would combine a high opacity for heat radiation with transparency = for=20 visible light; in disagreement with pre-Mariner belief in abundance of = CO2 in=20 the cloud envelope of Venus, it was found that it may be present in some = quantity only below the envelope; water is rare; and thus a greenhouse = effect=20 due to those two compounds that permitted Kuiper to account for 170=B0F = cannot=20 account even for such temperature; all of which points to the true = source of the=20 heat of Venus: Venus is hot not because of a greenhouse effect but = because of=20 its internal heat.

CRUCIAL TEST (3): DISTURBED AXIAL ROTATION OF = VENUS

The third find resulting from Venus probes of the end of 1962 is that = the=20 planet rotates very slowly, and, what is most remarkable, clockwise, or = in a=20 retrograde direction. This fact was brought out in a definite way by R.=20 Carpenter and B. Goldstein, of the Goldstone Radar Tracking Station, at = the very=20 time of Mariner's probe between October 1 and December 17, 1962. The = nebular and=20 tidal theories alike expect no such phenomenon: the mechanical = considerations=20 involved contradict such a result. The few satellites with retrograde = revolution=20 are regarded to be captured bodies; retrograde rotation could be = explained if=20 Venus were a body captured by the Sun; but this would signify an = entirely=20 different cosmogony, for this planet, at least. The announcement of the=20 Goldstone Tracking Station's scientists caused comment at the meeting of = the=20 American Geophysical Union at Palo Alto, California, the last week of = December=20 1962, that "Maybe Venus was created apart from the other planets, = perhaps as a=20 secondary solar explosion, or perhaps in a collision of=20 planets."⁽³³⁾

According to the story as revived in W. in C., Venus was = captured by=20 the Sun; before that, between its eruption from Jupiter and settling on = its=20 present orbit, it was repeatedly disrupted in its motions (pp. 77-8, 85, = 94,=20 156, 371).

The three finds - a very hot planet, its temperature contradicting = all=20 theoretical calculations and defying all explanation after being = discovered; a=20 10 to 15 mile thick envelope consisting of heavy molecules rich in CH, = whereas=20 the claim of such composition of the cloud envelope on Venus was clearly = negated=20 on the basis of spectral studies as known in 1950; and the retrograde = slow=20 rotation in conflict with all until recently legitimate theories of = planetary=20 origin -- these three facts point to the youthful age of the planet = Venus.

The human testimony and modern finds on Earth, on meteorites, and on = Venus=20 are in agreement. There remains, however, the question of how could = Venus obtain=20 a nearly circular orbit, actually the closest to a true circle of all = planetary=20 orbits -- and a few other questions as well. They were not out of the = sight of=20 the author of this paper, and they contributed to his insistence on the=20 existence of electromagnetic interrelations between the celestial bodies = and=20 magnetic fields permeating the solar system, a subject that requires a = separate=20 treatment.

POSTSCRIPT, 1967

Two discoveries made since this paper was written in 1963 need to be=20 recorded. One of them concerns the problem of Venus' temperature. = Measurements=20 were made of the 11 cm. wavelength emission from Venus, at Green Bank=20 Observatory and reported by K. I. Kellermann in the September 1966 issue = of=20 Icarus, and strongly suggest that the heat of the ground surface of = Venus comes,=20 not from the atmosphere above, but from the sub-surface.*

[Footnote: * It should be noted that Carl Sagan was an Associate = Editor of=20 Icarus at the time. Was he oblivious of Kellermann's = findings? -=20 LMG]

The other discovery was announced by P. Goldreich and S. J. Peale of = the=20 University of California, Los Angeles, and reported at the annual = meeting of the=20 American Geophysical Union on April 23, 1966. The surprising discovery = dealt=20 with the axial rotation of Venus, already known to be slow and = retrograde. Every=20 time Venus passes between the sun and the Earth, it turns the same face = to the=20 earth. Gravitationally, this phenomenon cannot be explained; even if = Venus were=20 lopsided, as some science writers have offered as the explanation, it = would have=20 been locked with the very same face toward the sun, whose gravitational = pull on=20 Venus is so much stronger than that of the earth; this "resonance" as = the=20 discoverers of the phenomenon termed it, if confirmed, is a sure piece = of=20 evidence of close contact in the past between Earth and Venus, evidence = not=20 erased by the passage of time, in this case the time measured in a mere = few=20 thousand years.*

[Footnote: *See Robert W. Bass, "Did Worlds Collide?", = Pensee VIII=20 (Summer-1974), p. 18; cp. Lynn E. Rose, "The Rotational Resonances of = Mercury=20 and Venus," KRONOS 11:1 (Aug., 1976), pp. 21ff . -=20 LMG]

The short but stormy history of Venus is behind the phenomena = discovered --=20 the excessively massive envelope enshrouding the planet, the envelope's = contents=20 of hydrocarbon dust and gases, the metal melting temperature of Venus, = the=20 retrograde rotation, and now also the resonance phenomenon. I maintain = that=20 Venus' temperature is slowly but unmistakably decreasing. A measurement = from the=20 ground surface of Venus cannot be performed with the methods now = available with=20 accuracy sufficient to detect the phenomenon in a matter of a few years; = but,=20 with a bolometer or thermocouples, a drop, even if in only fractions of = a=20 degree, could be detected from the cloud surface of Venus; such = measurements=20 need to be repeated at each successive synodical period of Venus, of = which there=20 are five in eight terrestrial years. It is understood that only figures = obtained=20 by one and the same observatory and from the very same surface segments, = preferably also all taken during a quiet period of the Sun, can be = profitably=20 compared. On this new test, I am once more prepared to rest my case.

REFERENCES

1. Langdon, S., and J. K. = Fotheringham,=20 The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga (London: Oxford Univ. Press, = 1928).
2.=20 Varro's works are not extant; his passage about Venus survived in = Augustine,=20 The City of God, Bk. XXI, Ch. 8.
3. Gaubil, A., Histoire de = l'astronomie chinoise (1732), pp. 73-86.
4. Weidner, E. F., = Handbuch=20 der babylonischen Astronomie (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1915), pp. = 61,=20 83.
5. Schaumberger, J., in Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in=20 Babel, 3rd Suppl. Muenster in Westfalen: Aschendorff, (1935), p. = 291.
6.=20 Rufus, W. C., and Hsing-Chih tien, The Soochow Astronomical Chart = (Ann=20 Arbor Univ. Press, 1945).
7. von Humboldt, A., Researches = Concerning the=20 Institutes and Monuments of the Ancient Inhabitants of America = (London:=20 Longman, 1814); de Sahagun, B., Historia general de las cosas de = Nueva=20 Espana, Bk. VII, Ch. 4.
8. Grassi, Horatio, On the Three = Comets of the=20 Year 1618 (Rome: 1619), published by the University of Pennsylvania = Press,=20 Philadelphia, 1960, in The Controversy on the Comets of = 1618.
9.=20 Jastrow, M., Religious Beliefs in Babylonia and Assyria (New York = and=20 London: Putnam, 1911), p. 221.
10. Sources in Worlds in = Collision, pp.=20 163 ff.
11. Weidner, E., op. cit.
12. Lyttleton, R. A., = Man's=20 View of the Universe (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1961), p. = 36.
13.=20 McCrea, W. H., Proceedings, Royal Society, Series A, Vol. 256 (31 = May=20 1960).
14. Bobrovnikoff, N. T., "Comets," in Astrophysics, ed. = Hynek=20 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 195 1).
15. Astronomichesky Journal, = Academy=20 of Sciences, SSSR, Vol. XXXIX, 1962.
16. Pettit, E., in Hynek, ed.,=20 Astrophysics, p. 281.
17. Kozyrev, N. A., Izv. Krymsk. = Astrofiz.=20 Observ. 12 (1954).
18. Firsoff, V. A., "The Earth's Twin," = Science=20 News, May 1959.
19. Drake, F. D., "Radio emission from the = planets,"=20 Physics Today, Vol. 14, #4 (April 1961).
20. Mayer, C., "The=20 Temperatures of the Planets," Scientific American, (May = 1961).
21.=20 Barker, R., J.B.A.A., 64, 60 (1954).
22. Publ. Astr. Soc. = of the=20 Pacific, 67, 293 (1955).
23. Mariner II: Preliminary Reports on=20 Measurements of Venus, Science, 8 March 1963, p. 909.
24. = Worlds in=20 Collision, p. 55.
25. Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records of=20 Assyria (Chicago Univ. Press, 1926-7), 11, soc. 829.
26. = Worlds in=20 Collision, pp. 5 8, 368 f.
27. Science, 24 Oct. = 1952.
28.=20 Nininger, H. H., Out of the Sky (Denver: Univ. of Denver Press, = 1959),=20 pp. 89-90.
29. Nature, Dec. 17,1960 (188,1007 f.).
30.=20 Nature, Oct. 6, 1962.
31. Longwell, C. R., Am. J. of = Science,=20 August 1950.
32. Cf. also Kaplan, L. D., "Application of Spectroscopy = to=20 Chemical and Structural Analysis of Planetary Atmosphere" (mimeogr., = Sept.=20 1962): "All molecules that are likely candidates for condensation or=20 polymerization at this temperature [400 K] have CH bands."
33. = The=20 National Observer, Dec. 31, 1962.

[Editor's Postscript, 1979: The data being gathered by the = present=20 Soviet and American Venus probes will be evaluated in the next issue of=20 KRONOS.]

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol0403\056venus.htm=20