Laird Scranton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aine wrote:
>
> I fail to see how any of this discredits the
> standard solar system formation model and
> validates Velikovsky.
>
> The oxygen suggests that comets may have formed
> later than is postulated by the standard model. It
> goes along with evidence from other comet studies
> that shows them to consist of a mix of materials
> that could only have formed under widely varying
> conditions, and so poses big difficulties for the
> standard view of comet formation.
>
> Velikovsky's view, which comes more and more into
> accord with what we know of planet formation in
> exo-solar systems, is that collisions with gas
> giants may be responsible for the formation of
> certain astronomic bodies. Gas giants like Jupiter
> are viewed as "pristine samples" of the original
> solar cloud, but their descending layers allow for
> the formation of materials under varying
> conditions. Given that the orbits of many
> short-term comets coincide with Jupiter, it seems
> only sensible to ask if they might have originated
> there.
>
> All of this is out of the ballpark of the standard
> model, and well in the ballpark of Velikovsky.
>
> - Laird


That may be true of small bodies like comets, Laird, but Venus is not, and never was, a comet - which is what you're hinting at here in mentioning Velikovsky and objects flying out of Jupiter. There's nothing in standard astronomy to suggest Venus formed at any other time than with the rest of the planets.

Carol