Re: Velikovsky?
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:26:44 EST

In a message dated 2/16/99 6:20:49 PM Central Standard Time, 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
> > 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?