Ah hell i didn't mean to reply to my own post i meant to edit it...
Ah hell i didn't mean to reply to my own post i meant to edit it...
Last edited by slime; 2013-01-13 at 04:55 PM.
There is actually some truth in this: A very, very long time ago all the planets were slightly closer to the sun than they are now and have drifted further away over billions of years. Mars was inside the "habitable zone" and Earth was outside of it, closer to the sun.
During that time Earth had conditions somewhat similar to Venus (but not quite as bad) while Mars' conditions were much more similar to present-day Earth.
Last edited by Netherspark; 2013-01-13 at 06:18 PM.
Well if the planets are constantly, slowly moving outward - away from the sun - I would say this theory just got more real. But it doesn't take a genius to determine that if venus is where earth is currently it would become more like earth :s
I got so confused at then end.
Wow <3 Korra<3 Giants<3
Then I read at the end that you're talking about time-travellers teaching egyptians and I realized you haven't got the slightest clue. No offense man, but keep this conspiracy stuff off the forums.
Last edited by Majad; 2013-01-13 at 07:49 PM.
So life on earth, which emerged 3.8 billion years ago, exploded 530 million years ago, ends in about a billion years when our oceans evaporate and for the first time since the few-million year period during, formation of the solar system, Earth is a waterless world.
Art by breathing2004
The OP's story is in fact true.
I know this because I am from the future...
... and my ancestors put pyramids on Mars.
My name is Voltronius Megolamanius.
That is all.
Something about this isn't right. If anything Venus used to be earthlike. But it couldn't have been; the chemical composition is very unlike that of earth. There is barely any water and ~96% CO2. Nothing could live there now or have lived there in the past or future. The planet is very hot.
Opposite things happen to be wrong with Mars. The planet itself is very cold, at its warmest the planet is 35*C. The atmosphere is ~95% CO2. There happens to be a nice bit of water on the surface but most is on the north and south poles as ice. The atmosphere has 220 ppm water vapor. Mars is very likely to be a future home for humanity. But venus is no good.
I have to agree that it is indeed interesting. But it totally lost me after the fact of Jupiter.
We all know that Mars use to be earth like or close to it. I remember reading that at one point in time Venus was on its way to being earth like but instead turned into the living hell it is today. As someone has said you can terraform Mars, but I'm not sure about Venus. They are in the range of the sun that can sustain life as we know it.
*I would like to point out I went back and read and totally missed the part about the pymarids. LOL. But there was a time when people entertained the idea that Venus was a topical jungle under all the clouds, until Russia sent a satellite there. So I'm sure at one point people have entertained the idea of Mars being like Egypt.*
Last edited by Usako; 2013-01-14 at 01:50 AM.
How about we go with this theory - Venus and Mars merged to become Earth. As humanity matures the Earth will be allowed to enter into the larger galactic environment and the current Venus and Mars will merge to create a new Earth which will be populated with 'infant' Souls to begin the long evolutionary process much like we have and are still going through Peace
You know, it's generally a good idea to leave out information that may demolish the argument you're trying to make.In 2012 there will be a transit of Venus. Venus will be between the Sun and earth in it's orbit. When an asteroid impacts Earth, and Earth loses some of its mass as debris into space, Venus will attract a lot of that debris and that debris will cluster together creating Venus first moon(Earth). The remainder of the debris will stay in earths gravitational pull and cluster together creating a second moon(mars)
OP is ludicrous, of course.
But the ankh and the symbol of venus is why I'm posting. Everything in OP is incorrect, of course, but this is the one that might confuse people (because amid his bad astronomy, some bad symbology will seem unimportant). The symbol for Venus and the Ankh are only superficially similar.
This is a heiroglyph. It also appears in paintings.
The first thing to note is that these are DIFFERENT SYMBOLS. The top of the ankh is NOT a circle. The bottom of the ankh has the horizontal of a cross, and also goes down- but it does NOT have the same shape as the venus symbol. Venus is not associated with eternal life- she's not even a psychopomp! The superficial relation with these symbols is just that.
Now that I've stopped laughing, lets list everything wrong in the OP =D IGNORING the time travel mumbo-jumbo.
Oceans of plasma? In planetary conditions, Venus or otherwise, plasma isn't a sustainaible condition. There might be passing moments of minute traces of plasma in burning reactions (with flames) but these require special conditions even by Venusian standards. There are no conditions that would allow both plasma and a solid surface exist simultaneously, which is why you'll only find plasma inside massive objects or in space.
When gravitational condensation is factored out, mercury is 20.7% denser that earth. How do you suggest it manages to greatly expand its internal structure while accumulating substantial mass? While we are at it, same holds for Venus. In an collision capable of forming the moon, Earth (or in your scenario, venus) would have LOST substantial amounts of mass.
And while we're at it, Mars isn't just a bit smaller than Earth. It has 10.7% the mass, and 15.1% of the volume. Note that it also means it is less dense than any of the planets you call its predecessors. Any impact capable of reducing it by that much would have completely annihillated it, and at the very least made a huge debris field on the smae orbit. I can't read your link since it only takes me to a front page, but quite frankly, if they claim this is feasible I already know they're bogus.
And Mars's moons are tiny. You could put them together and not get shit. You add them to mars and how much of Earths mass do you have? 10.7%. Like adding two specs of dust on a chiken egg and say it now weighs more than a bowling ball. This alone should set off your "obvious bullshit" klaxxons. That, and it's already 2013.
What, prey tell, would cause an explosion inside jupiter? It doesn't have a surface to collide with. It has had fully fledged comets collide in it and not flinch. An event making a gas giant lose its layers would have to be releated to solar activity, and that would just blow them right away from the solar system and not allow any sort of rings to form. Of course, this would do nothing to hamper Jupiters ginormous magnetic field, compared t which Saturns field is weak as chicken shit.
Saturn is also much less dense than Jupiter. A solar even capable of delayering Jupiter would almost completely annihillate Saturn. And, sa said, not allow rings to form.
Even if such an event was somehow possible, Jupiter would have lose helium from its inner structures while leaving its outerl ayer relatively untouched to match Saturns composition. And free gasses in the solar system get blow away by the solar wind. So when saturn turned to uranus (losing a third of its mass in another physically impossible event) and at the same time time gain ~7 earth masses worth of helium?
While neptune is very much like Uranus, what do you suppose changed its axis? Uranus has a tilted axis so its pole is set almost towards the sun. You suggest whatever changed saturn into uranus trashed its axis, and the next similar ecent put it back like how it was again?
Neither sets of planets show any kind of a chronological progression to anyone even minorly knowledgeable in the subject matter. You could as well be watching pictures of a watch, all showign a date and time, and asked to put them in a chronological order. When you did, smug f your obvious answer, the clocksmith chuckles and tells you that obviously, none of them are running or even the same watch. They just look the same to an untrained eye that knows nothing about watches.
Also, this kind of embarassing stupidity isn't what the wuote "watching through space is watching through time" means. It's about the speed of light, and us being able to see how space was in distant past because we're only now seeing the lgiht from some objects back then. The backgrund radiation is 13.77 billion years ago, btw. Not a billion. Which also keeps us form seeing the birth of the universe. So the continuation is double false (and no, that doesn't make a true).
And then we get to end that is pretty much more mubo-jumbo about wisful interpretation of ancient religious symbolism.
And finally the line that could have saved me a lot of time. Crap. Screw it, it's written and I'm not rephrasing it! it's 2am, astronomer gotta sleep!
my god, I feel less intelligent just for reading that.