Doubts cast on "Venus Catastrophe"

[yevaud]

<b>Doubts cast on "Venus Catastrophe"</b><br /><br /><i>Accepted views of how the planet Venus evolved are challenged by new age dates for its surface.<br /><br />Massive volcanism 500 million years ago was thought to have covered over much of the planet's ancient features.<br /><br />But work carried out at Imperial College London, UK, suggests a "volcanic catastrophe" is not needed to explain the look of Venus's surface.<br /><br />The British team presented details of its research to a major science conference in Texas, US.<br /><br />Scientists will have an early opportunity to examine the new ideas - Europe's Venus Express spacecraft is due to arrive at the planet next month for a two-year investigation of Earth's near-neighbour.<br /><br />Researchers date planetary surfaces by looking at the distribution of their impact craters.<br /><br />On most planets and moons, impact craters tend to be clustered on very old parts of the surface, due to the heavy bombardment that is believed to have taken place in the early Solar System.<br /><br />But craters on Venus are distributed randomly over the whole planet. This has led some scientists to the conclusion that most of the surface is of similar age.<br /><br />One way to arrive at this result is by rapid resurfacing - the model long accepted by planetary scientists.<br /><br />Timothy Bond and Mike Warner of Imperial College London have now thrown that theory into doubt.<br /><br />Using computer modelling, they came up with a suite of possible scenarios that were compatible with the planet's cratering record and surface features.<br /><br />They concluded that there was no need to invoke massive outpourings of lava over a short period. Instead, the planet's present-day surface could be compatible with a slow decline of volcanic activity, they argue.</i><br /><br />Full Story <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On most planets and moons, impact craters tend to be clustered on very old parts of the surface, due to the heavy bombardment that is <b>believed</b> to have taken place in the early Solar System. [Emphasis added.]<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Like the Tempel 1 "news," this seems to be more dogma based on a "belief" that may well be completely erroneous.<br /><br />Is "crater counting" a valid method for aging planetary surfaces? These new "doubts" at least raise questions about this on Venus. This new approach, however, may also lead them down another dead-end path. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Hi Sirius.... I couldn't agree more.

 

[spacechump]

Because you have ALL the answers Sirius <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />No one accepts your explanations and all you can do is get hostile. Deal with it.