The Accelerating Winds of Venus | Space News

The astronomers studying the atmosphere of Venus are facing a new mystery. The Venusian winds have been steadily accelerating for the last 6 years. Scientists monitoring the Venus Express orbiter since 2006 noted the stunning increase in the already super fast winds, from 186 mph to 249 mph. The astronomers acknowledge they do not understand why this enormous variation in wind speed occurred. What is it about the Venusian atmosphere that mainstream astronomers find so puzzling?

Thunderbolts Project Home:
Picture of the Day:…
Electric Universe (Wal Thornhill):
Essential Guide to the Electric Universe:…

  • Electric Sceptic

    When applied to something like planetary weather systems, the Electric Universe claptrap really reveals its absurdity. The magnetic field of Venus has been extensively mapped. If there are indeed such massive electrical discharges going on, why has no detector, ever, found any evidence for them, beyond the electrical storms which are already well documented?

    And the serious point: Wal Thornhill is quoting a (real) scientist badly out of context here. You might assume from the Fred Taylor quote that it represents the current state of scientific knowledge. But Taylor wrote that sentence almost a quarter of a century ago, in 1990, before the Magellan, Venus Express or Messenger missions had gathered any data. For context, the double vortex Wal Thornhill is discussing was only discovered in 2006, 16 years after Taylor’s paper was written! Since then there has been a flood of papers on the subject, including some quite detailed modelling of the atmospheric dynamics responsible for it and based on radar and other measurements made by Venus Express. The vortex (if not the high wind speeds referred to elsewhere) is pretty well understood.

    A final point. Earth has polar vortices. These are demonstrably not electric in nature. Why should a vortex on Venus be electric, while ours are simply atmospheric phenomena?

    • The standard theorists can’t even tell us what causes lightening here on Earth:

      You do you think their sensors are going to detect the Brownian electron motion that’s driving the magnetic fields of planets? Why would you trust the standard theorists to tell you about the electricity in space if they can’t explain the atmospheric electricity that takes place here on Earth?

  • Sceptic of the Electric

    Oh the beautiful irony of being blocked from a libertarian website because the owner doesn’t like your views. I hope a few people see this before it is deleted.

    Mr Suede, I (genuinely) apologize if I offended you in my previous post. But I felt your use of the word ‘bullshit’, applied to what is merely the version of the solar system taught in every respectable university in the world, was really uncalled for. Deleting my post was also an interesting silencing of dissent, particularly from a person who suggests that ‘alternative’ cosmologies are being suppressed by government-funded science. I was making an argument, not simply abusing you.

    I did have a meaningful point, however, which you have so far not answered. Wal Thornhill’s version of the Venusian polar vortex involves enormous electrical discharges. Polar vortices are observed on many planets, including our own. How can you reconcile Thornhill’s theory with the demonstrable fact that Earth’s polar vortices have nothing to do with electricity, and everything to do with simple gas physics?

    If you choose to delete and block me for a third time, rather than answer my point… well, we both know what that would say about you.

    • “Polar vortices are observed on many planets, including our own. How can you reconcile Thornhill’s theory with the demonstrable fact that Earth’s polar vortices have nothing to do with electricity, and everything to do with simple gas physics?”

      You keep asserting that the Earth’s vorticies have nothing to do with electricity as if this is a proven fact. It is not. It stands to reason that the same drivers are responsible for polar voritcies across all planets. The standard model makes the exception for Earth, EU theory says the same thing is responsible for all of them on all planets. Wal Thornhill did a good write up on this on his blog here:

      And Anthony Peratt published a paper on electron beam vorticies that matches the observed patterns on Saturn:

      I find it amazing that Saturn displays the exact same morphology as Peratt found in his lab experiment. I did address your question in my previous response, you just don’t seem to like the answer.

      You say simple gas physics can explain the vorticies, and I say simple plasma physics can explain them just as well. EU theory says the standard theory has its cause and effect for weather inverted.

      To quote one recent paper on the modeling of hurricanes, “As model grid spacing increases towards 1 km, the vortex is simulated more accurately and in some cases the modelled intensity may exceed the theoretical maximum predicted by the MPI theory. Such discrepancy suggests there are limitations in current intensification theories which could be attributed to the lack of understanding of hurricane dynamics.” – In other words, the current models of atmospheric vortexes suck, so this team is trying to throw in some more variables in order to fit the model to the data. That is not good science.

      Like I said, the standard theory can’t explain lightening, it can’t predict or explain hurricanes or tornadoes with any good degree of accuracy. It can’t tell us why we see elves or sprites taking place in the ionosphere. The upper atmosphere lightening should be a big red flashing light that the current theories about weather are garbage.

  • Christian

    I love it when two intellectuals fight over their respective theory’s. I tend to learn more about subjects that way. I have to agree right off the bat without doing any research that computer models are mostly not worth the time they take to create. Garbage in equals garbage out. Garbage can enter a computer model in many ways. Data can be excluded, not entered, or entered incorrectly. Weather models are a good example of this.
    I also have a tendency to believe in an electric model of planets base solely on Nicola Tesla’s research and his desire to power the planet using the magnetic poles. Anyway that is my first impression and two cents. I don’t know much about this subject and will cleverly back out now.

  • Rich Grise

    Well, it’s obviously Anthropogenic Global Climate Change! /sarc