From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Subject: Re: Pictures of a sea of lava, and where they may be found
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:51:40 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> From: Benjamin T Dehner, Iowa State University, Ames IA
> 
> 
> 
> >1) Ted lies about the surface features of Venus.  He claims that Venus is a
> >smooth, lava-covered surface.  The Magellan radar maps of Venus are available
> >via anonymous FTP at ames.arc.nasa.gov (I forget where; ask/look for FAQ on
> >sci.astro or sci.space.news for more info) which CLEARLY show mountainous
> >and rugged terrain.
> 
> Dehner lies in claiming that I ever claimed Venus to be smooth or without
> features;  as lying goes, putting words in other peoples mouthes is a 
> particularly pernicious variety.
> 
> That Venus is mostly covered by lava and much of that recent is well known
> by now from the probes and may be seen in the Jan. 92 issue of Discover 
> magazine which is readily available.  Quotes include "... one of the most
> striking characteristics of the Venusian topography is its distinct shortage
> of craters..."
> 
> That's because the lava flows cover them up.  The article goes on to say:
> "The planet's pristine face does not mean that it somehow dodged such bom-
> bardment;  rather, it implies that something came along to erase the traces
> left behind.  That something, Magellan scientists now think, was probably
> lava.  At various points in the planets history, large localized valcanoes
> may have spilled lava over hundreds of thousands of miles, in effect
> resurfacing much of the planet."

Yes, Ted.  Now go read the rest of the article.  "Recent" means about
1 BILLION years ago.  (That's a thousand million, for my friends across
the Atlantic.)

Given that you think that recorded history started with the Roman
Empire, I don't see how this "Recent" surface is going to help you
any.

Furthermore, your use of the word "lava" is incorrect.  You claimed
that the surface was covered with lava.  Dehner disagrees, claiming it
has mountainous and rugged terrain.  Lava would be flat.  What you
meant to say was solidified lava.  Lava is molten.

> I mean, these suckers have been looking at these pictures of a lava-
> covered planet for two years now and they're just starting to figure out
> that maybe ....

No, it is not lava-covered.  Its surface was formed by lava.  This
fits perfectly with the standard model.  The age of the surface
utterly refutes Velikovsky's model.

> >2) Ted shows total ignorance of radiative transfer and atmospheric modeling.
> 
> Again, this is a case in which I can take justifiable pride in my ignorance.
> 
> Dehner obviously refers to the sort of radiative transfer which would allow
> the surface of Venus, which receives less than 2% of any solar energy which
> gets past the cloud tops, which is less than gets past our cloud tops, to
> reach temperatures far in excess of those of the middle cloud layer which
> absorbs 90% of this energy or more, i.e. to a radiative transfer model which
> is in gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, Ted.  Your model (you admit you don't understand the real one)
would violate the second law.  If you understood the real one, you
would see that it does not violate that law.  Of course, it would also
help if you had any idea of what the second law says.

> I'm PROUD to be ignorant of that sort of physics, Dehner.  

We had suspected as much.  Dehner's physics is, of course, correct.
Your ignorance has been plain for years, but I for one was not certain
that you were proud of it.  Isn't that the perfect definition of an
idiot?  I'll shoot for an aphorism here.  "Who does not know is a
fool.  Who knows that he does not know is a wise man.  Who know that
he does not know and is proud of it is a moron."

> >5) Ted calls almost all astronomers liars and dogmatics.  Several responses
> >suggest themselves, varying from insulting to obscene.  While I don't mind
> >so much insults directed at me, as I have little concern for the opinions
> >of Ted, he is now attacking the integrity of a professional community of
> >which I am a part.  Keep it up Ted; one of these days you will have a chance
> >to prove your paranoid rambling in a court for a slander suit.
> 
> 
> The guy calls me a liar, ignorant, a creationist, and then talks about
> suing me for slander...

Ah, but he can back up his claim.  I have seen you lie, you boast of
your ignorance, and you have claimed to believe that life was probably
an act of Divine creation.  You are going to have a hard time arguing
slander on *those* grounds.



-- 
*Eric Shafto             * Sometimes, I think we are alone.  Sometimes I  *
*Institute for the       * think we are not.  In either case, the thought *
*    Learning Sciences   * is quite staggering.                           *
*Northwestern University *     -- R. Buckminster Fuller                   *