Amateur Astronomy to suit the standards of the David W.K's

From time to time I've posted information into GOOGLE and a few other sites, more often posted a question or two, where certainly I expected some give and take worth all this effort. This following paragraph is a typical response or perhaps it's actually another evasive non-response.

"What Topics Are *Not* Suitable for sci.astro.amateur?"

"Anything of a highly technical, theoretical, or cosmological nature.

Seriously, one of the major reasons that sci.astro.amateur was created was that people were tired of wading through all the black hole, origin & fate of the universe, Steven Hawking | Carl Sagan is a twit, et. al. kind of posts to get to the ones discussing the topics listed in this charter. While some of the theoretical/cosmological topics may be of interest to some amateur astronomers, discussion in sci.astro.amateur should be pretty much limited to the PRACTICE of amateur astronomy. We'll leave the heavy topics for sci.astro."

OK folks and all of you "non Carl Sagan twits", as frail amateur astronomers that can't possibly comprehend the merits nor implications of what the discovery of other life NOT as we know it could do for humanity (obviously that humanity doesn't necessarily have to include the David W.K's of the astronomy). Silly me, initially I even mistakenly thought those professionals of NASA would have been modestly interested but, lo and behold, there's still no cigar (too busy risking shuttle astronauts and all that other billions worth of stuff that's entirely unbeneficial to 99% of humanity, otherwise of looking at such distant objects that those too are humanly unobtainable and so far off that there's zero benefit to life here on Earth, where even the Mars or bust cults can't nail that one down without further risking lives, blowing hundreds of billions and leaving Earth with another hundred+ thousand tonnes of CO2, not to mention their bringing back Mars microbes and perhaps some radiation proof virus to boot (gee folks, I can't wait to see what's better than AIDS, perhaps an entirely new form of smallpox that's mutated to survive on no O2, you obviously can't freeze it to death and likes all the radiation it can get).

Getting ourselves back to reality

Since I'm nowhere as smart as most and I'm not even certain if anything Venus is astronomy worthy (so hot and nasty you know) but, even though it is our closest planet and it certainly does offer a good number of natural energy signatures, most of which are the sorts of energies which others (again smarter than myself) have provided the science as well as physics that stipulates upon the how and of how much energy there is to being had.

I've taken instruction as well as comments (sometimes a good deal of flak) from others, learning more about their worlds of science and physics then I thought necessary. Such as learning how other life even as we know it can survive upon 0.1% O2 when under sufficient pressure, then such as learning of the terrific buoyancy available to float rigid airships about Venus was certainly another eye opener. Even going by David W.K's specification of those original raw pixels being more likely of 225 meters certainly added considerable impact to whatever sort of occurrence (natural or otherwise) was affected in order to sufficiently produce that entirely horizontal bridge-like attribute, as to exist where nothing of that size nor span should have, at least of the known sciences, geology and physics has not provided an answer (that's including of anything Earth and not even by way of wizard D.W.K's point of anti-everything view), least of all to exist upon such a geologically active as well as such a "hot and nasty" planet as Venus.

According to the astronomer D.W.K's, if you can see anything that could even remotely be considered as artificial, as in man made or perhaps lizard folk made, then it simply doesn't exist, it's just an illusion or of something that's entirely natural, even though others nor can wizard David offer any clue as to how such could have possibly been formed by the known laws of science and physics as applied to any planet's geology and tectonics.

Speaking astronomically about planets that could have and may yet support life, be it life NOT as we know it, where none other planet out of all the hundreds potentially located so far are even remotely as close to containing all that's necessary for life. Certainly no other planet is so humanly accessible (not necessarily in person but via robotics and communications), In the case of Venus, that form of life may have recently passed their final mile marker, as in becoming history, toasted relics of whatever managed to construct such substantially outrageous items. Uncle Darwin on the other hand, he may have offered an alternative to roasted death on the barbe, such as altered genetics and of whatever greenhouse motivated Frankenstein science and physiology could dream up, that which might have managed to pull something out of that flaming hat without having to apply actual technology but, that's still way out of the box for mere Earth humans to comprehend.

Unless I'm mistaken again (wouldn't be the first nor the last time); Venus certainly had the thousands of years worth of ever increasing temperatures to think about doing something, whether or not that ever transpired into reality is what the Lords and Wizards of D.W.K's flat world of astronomy is apparently suggesting never got itself past go (period!), as in life falling off the edge of the great abyss.

True; where Earth still has it's surface oceans (somewhat polluted and not 10% of the fish they once held), I've learned that those once lesser Venus oceans have shifted into their upper atmosphere, along with megatonnes of sulphur and a little of whatever else is sufficiently buoyant (btw; sulphuric acid is quite stable at extremely high temperatures, thus H2O is nicely assimilated), thus the current ocean of Venus has become what's surrounding above their planet and basically performing as a darn good shield, so that their world is spared from cosmic and the bulk of solar flare radiation (without a magnetic core and no Van Allen belts, a good thing to be having about yourself is a super dense as well as thick atmosphere, further preferable as to be floating particulate loaded clouds and of whatever else it takes to survive a truly bad greenhouse situation).

Considering the sheer bulk of that atmosphere being mostly CO2 and under such pressure/density, a good number of mineral substances, certainly microbes and of whatever has learned to fly (artificial or otherwise) is likely cruising just sufficiently below that cloud deck by day or night (say < 35 km) or above (say > 55 km) of which that's speaking of their season of nighttime, as the daytime season is not only somewhat hotter but certainly of anything cruising above those daytime clouds is being seriously solar radiated to death. Basically what I'm saying is gospel, it's something far better off being a little toasty warm, even damn hot, rather than being cosmic and solar flare radiated to death (such as our moon and of Mars) and, of whatever is hot is not really such a problem if that's tempered by pressure and you've got sufficient natural energy resources to tap, especially as for heat exchanging as well as creating mechanical or perhaps electro-mechanical (even Earth has motor/generators that perform reliably within 1000F, which is basically 100K hotter than the daytime season on Venus).

I'll suspect that on Venus (given the terrific buoyancy of 65+kg/m3) that cows and even pigs could fly but firstly, if it were not for the terrific shielding created by their dense atmosphere, they'd be outfitted with at least 10 t/m2 of shielding, else those flying cows and pigs are fried, and not necessarily from the heat but from all that cosmic solar radiation, not to mention solar flares. Nighttime cruising above those cool clouds is quite another issue, purely star lit and otherwise more than 50% flooded by sufficient Earthshine for nearly 9 months out of every cycle relationship with Earth's orbit, which is not only somewhat radiation safe because there's still a good deal of atmosphere above but also quite well illuminated by any nocturnal standard. Even their surface would receive some measurable UV and near UV spectrums from the stars, a lesser penetration of mostly WL (white light) as from Earthshine (being that it's WL is so much brighter than any star except the sun) could even enable a respectable amount of color rendition below those nighttime clouds, where again that's only to what a good nocturnal sort of creature sees by having it's magnitude 5 advantage, as otherwise that surface nighttime to the human eye is blacker than the bottom of a coal mine on an overcast night, none the less clear as a bell, especially for as far as a nocturnal eye could see.

Now that I've over hyped nocturnals (most likely lizard folk), upset their coal miners and pitched another fit about the toasty heat of Venus being tempered by all that terrific density of thermally conductive CO2, here I'm asking of others (again smarter than myself) to bone up and own up upon all the things we apparently don't know about Venus. In other words, do not go about telling myself nor others about what it is we already know because, that does not sufficiently explain what's clearly visible in the primary discovery site, as offered by a certified SAR image of sufficient resolution that only the blind could complain about.

OOPS; their I go again, this time I've gone and upset all those braille image interpreters of NASA, as well as nearly the entire Magellen mapping team (dozens of fine folks) that obviously were never directed to search for anything potentially artificial, as obviously according to astronomy wizard D.W.K., what's the point if Venus is supposedly so "hot and nasty".

I'd best stop while I'm ahead, as it seems I just can't keep from giving credit where credits are long past due, like how about 13 years and counting past due. Good grief folks, if we wait around much longer, Moses is going to have back-tracked out of that desert before our teams of crack astronomers figure out that the black plastic thing on top of their telescope is actually not a high density light pollution filter but that of a relatively solid dust cap.

Perhaps the problem is actually with those telescope manufactures, as their instruments (as good as they are) simply can't focus upon something that's so freaking close as 0.27 AU, only of 1.5+AU. Thus Venus is either so bright and/or so out of focus (perhaps way too many pixels worth) that it's no longer worth the eye strain, even though we shouldn't be looking for planet nor even atmospheric features, unless you'd consider artificial illumination coming from their nighttime season as being of interest, of which I do. Dang nabbit, there I go upsetting telescope manufactures, suggesting that some of their customers are basically morons.

Just another side note; if we should establish interplanetary communications, thus saving us from unnecessary risk and the vast expense of space travel to/from Venus, I would have to believe that the outcome will be economically beneficial, so much so that investing even a trillion towards anything Mars could become a reality, not that I'm convinced we need that sort of risk nor that Mars is better off than Venus, just that it's far better having happy campers than not. Some times you simply need to throw them a bone.

Now again I'll ask, if you can contribute a little of anything preferably positive that we don't already know about Venus (everything that's negative has already been published at least a thousand fold), that's truly great. Likewise I'll share whatever I can dig up in spite of all the warm and fuzzy flak. Of course, if you have a certain expertise, say aerodynamics, airship engineering, obviously physics, chemistry, physiology/biology, beam illumination, communications via light/UV or whatever spectrum, and don't forget about interpretive language, in any case I'm quite interested in learning and sharing what's certainly worth more than all the radiated dry ice of Mars. I'll also see that you receive the fullest of credit and presumably rewards for your contributions.

Some of the more recent items of interest will be having to do with near UV transmission, as in how much of an artificial beam leaves Earth's atmosphere and subsequently how much illuminates through those pitch black but relatively UV transparent nighttime clouds of Venus. Though I already offer a page or two on interplanetary communications, I'll introduce new information that's less complicated and somewhat related to what's being accomplished by Phantom Works and of commercial enterprise.

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of updates)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: April 18, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS