From: EvMick@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 16 1999 - 20:26:44 MST
In a message dated 2/16/99 6:20:49 PM Central Standard Time,
bbrown@conemsco.com writes:
>
> > Rigorous mathematical modeling by the thermodynamicist George R.
> > Talbott showed that given an incandescent state 3,500 years ago as the
> > recent-origin theory proposes, the cooling curve over that period yields
a
> > temperature today exactly as observed.
>
> The kinds of energies Velikovsky throws around would be enough to melt the
> surface of Venus to a depth of several hundred miles (we'll ignore the fact
> that if it was ripped out of Jupiter's core it would have been completely
> molten to start with). Bleeding that much heat off into space would take
> several tens of millions of years, even without a thick atmosphere in the
> way. The surface now should be thousands of degrees, not hundreds.
My understanding of "incandescent" is " so hot as to glow"....
That would kinda tend to melt things I suppose.
So how did the "thermodynamicist George R.Talbott " manage to go so far
wrong? Methinks that a molten glob would give off lots of gas...perhaps from
which an atmosphere formed? How long would it take for the "thousands of
degree" surface to crust over? ( Isn't earths center molten)? How long does it
take for a crust to form on lava? Isn't that crust then an insulator? What are
the relative thicknesses of Earth and Venus's crusts?
EvMick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:04 MST