The ‘Myth’ of the Habitable Zone
The up-coming launch of the NASA Kepler satellite has prompted a rash of articles intended to explain the purpose of the mission. Simply stated it is designed to detect planets around distant stars which appear to have the potential of supporting life. This staring satellite uses a ninety-five megabyte image array to sense slight periodic reductions in the radiation from thousands of stars in the field of view, if and when a planet transits the light-path from any star to the satellite. It does not form an image of the stars because the small mirror (55 cm diameter) does not have sufficient resolution. The periodicity of the intensity reductions of each star provides information on the orbital period and this combined with the estimated mass of the star gives the approximate orbit of the planet. This method has been used to detect a few of the some 300 exo-planets discovered to date. The more common method is based on the detection of minute shifts in a star’s spectra caused by its motion, which is induced by its planets. This method is biased toward the discovery of giant planets, such as Jupiter or larger, since they influence the motion of the star more strongly. As a result, the majority of exo-planets detected to date have been hot, giant planets orbiting relatively close to their star – attributes which are not only counter to the presence of life on the planet, but probably in the system as a whole.
In the Kepler mission, the primary criteria for a potential life-bearing planet will be whether the planet’s distance from the star would allow the presence of liquid water on its surface. The range of orbital radii in which this would be possible is called the ‘habitable zone’ or, as stated in a recent popular article, “ in the not-too-cold, not-too-hot, Goldilocks zones around stars where liquid water can exist.” Astrophysicists think they know this zone – “ahh, but there’s the rub,” paraphrasing Hamlet.
The entire astrophysical ‘community’ believe that Venus was created at the inception of the solar system as a twin of the Earth. Believe it or not, they imagine that it acquired vast oceans, similar to the Earth, but then, because it was too close to the Sun, a ‘greenhouse effect’ caused it to heat up to the point where all of its oceans evaporated to space, resulting in the Venus we observe today with a surface so hot that lead and zinc would melt on its rocks. Because the surface pressure on Venus is ninety-one times that of the Earth, planetary scientists believe that the atmosphere comprises 30,000 times the amount of carbon dioxide as that of the Earth. But the Pioneer Venus probe instruments could not detect the very heavy molecule S8 (sulfur ring molecule) which completely dominates the lower 50 km of the atmosphere. The sulfur is being shot from the boiling interior through 200,000 ‘small domes’ around the planet. Unfortunately, their lack of understanding that Venus is a new planet has led to a completely false history of Venus, which is a primary factor in the threatened global warming of the Earth.
But the ancient texts tell us of the time when there were two living planets in our own solar system. [Given this, why are we even looking outside our system to see if there is life on other planets?] The other one, which I call priori-Mars, had been in a Venus-like orbit for 4.7 billion years, up until about 6000 years ago. This planet was then ejected from its ancient orbit by the rampaging proto-Venus, just after its birth from an enormous impact on Jupiter. This is why Venus is still so hot – not due to a greenhouse effect. Therefore Venus, which now occupies the same orbit as the living priori-Mars, is well inside the habitable zone.
As has consistently been the case, NASA engineers will conduct another successful mission, delivering beautiful data, but the astrophysical community, stuck in their uniformitarian mindset, will interpret it incorrectly – worse yet, they will add even more faulty ideas to the text books, poisoning the intellects of yet another generation.