Why Does Venus Rotate so Slow?

[G=EMC^2]

Reality is it takes longer to spin once around than to orbit the Sun.
It does not have a moon to slow its rotation. Even Mercury rotates
much faster. So does Pluto.Uranus after taking a blow that tipped it
about 100 degrees did not slow its rotation. I think it got to rotate
faster. Venus is so like Earth OK what is the best the imperial
thinkers can do on the reason it rotates ar a walk? TreBert PS I have
my own ideas too.

[Brad Guth]

Some of us think it used to have an icy moon of roughly 7.4e22 kg.

Perhaps Venus was also a captured planet that didn't have much spin to
start with.

[HVAC]

Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up?
I mean, Jesus fucking Christ!

(No offense, Jesus)




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[Gordon]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:51:35 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physicist.net> wrote:

>On 1/23/2013 2:27 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> Reality is it takes longer to spin once around than to orbit the Sun.
>> It does not have a moon to slow its rotation. Even Mercury rotates
>> much faster. So does Pluto.Uranus after taking a blow that tipped it
>> about 100 degrees did not slow its rotation. I think it got to rotate
>> faster. Venus is so like Earth OK what is the best the imperial
>> thinkers can do on the reason it rotates ar a walk? TreBert PS I have
>> my own ideas too.
>
>Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up?
>I mean, Jesus fucking Christ!
>
>(No offense, Jesus)
>

Harlow, why do you feel impelled to use such gutter language? It
suggests a very deep running inferiority complex or limited ability to
express your emotions otherwise.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 24, 11:04 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:

The only emotion Harlow has to spare is his inability to deal with
whatever anyone else might have to say, because apparently only his
interpretation matters.

Bert is just an old fart that's still having problems understanding
how to turn on a computer, much less of how to utilize it for anything
educational or even for self publishing, and our LLPOF Harlow simply
loves to plagiarize, hijack as well as topic/author stalk and bash
others for sport.

[saul...@cox.net]

BEERTbrainMORONIDIOT IS THAT FUCKING STUPID!

HE'S PROVED IT MANY TIMES NOW!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:04:41 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

[HVAC]

On 1/24/2013 2:04 PM, Gordon wrote:
>
>> Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up?
>> I mean, Jesus fucking Christ!
>>
>> (No offense, Jesus)
>>
> Harlow, why do you feel impelled to use such gutter language? It
> suggests a very deep running inferiority complex or limited ability to
> express your emotions otherwise.

Yes. I have a deep seated inferiority complex.

Thank you for pointing it out in a public forum and making me feel worse
about myself.

[Gordon]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:14:41 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physicist.net> wrote:

>On 1/24/2013 2:04 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>
>>> Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up?
>>> I mean, Jesus fucking Christ!
>>>
>>> (No offense, Jesus)
>>>
>> Harlow, why do you feel impelled to use such gutter language? It
>> suggests a very deep running inferiority complex or limited ability to
>> express your emotions otherwise.
>
>
>Yes. I have a deep seated inferiority complex.
>
>Thank you for pointing it out in a public forum and making me feel worse
>about myself.
>

Harlow, I for one, and I suspect many others have a deep level of
respect for your intellectual capacity, but your use of gutter trash
expletives really turns us off. Maybe you should consider omitting
these expletives from your posts and see how that works out in terms
of respect and admiration. Try it for a week or so and take another
appraisal of yourself, based upon the resulting responses. Gordon

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 24, 12:24 pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:

Should we hold our breath?

Why would a born-again redneck and otherwise worse kind of despicable
human on Earth bother to honestly change, if not as a trick?

Perhaps this change is only a temporary condition of his heart or some
other organ transplant criteria?

Perhaps if he doesn't have all that long to go, he should honestly
tell us so that we can return the favor of being nice to a guy that's
on his way out.

[Father Haskell]

On Jan 24, 1:51 pm, HVAC <h...@physicist.net> wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 2:27 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> > Reality is it takes longer to spin once around than to orbit the Sun.
> > It does not have a moon to slow its rotation. Even Mercury rotates
> > much faster. So does Pluto.Uranus after taking a blow that tipped it
> > about 100 degrees did not slow its rotation. I think it got to rotate
> > faster.    Venus is so like Earth    OK what is the best the imperial
> > thinkers can do on the reason it rotates ar a walk?  TreBert PS I have
> > my own ideas too.
>
> Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up?
> I mean, Jesus fucking Christ!
>
> (No offense, Jesus)

Sometimes the answer is as simple as why the fuck not. Better
question is, why can't some people accept that?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

persumably, all bodies without any "dynamo" would
be able to overcome an offcenter centroid,
only to rock a little. (NB,
most or all of the "libration" of Moon is because
of our own rotation.)

[MarkA]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:51:35 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/23/2013 2:27 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> Reality is it takes longer to spin once around than to orbit the Sun. It
>> does not have a moon to slow its rotation. Even Mercury rotates much
>> faster. So does Pluto.Uranus after taking a blow that tipped it about
>> 100 degrees did not slow its rotation. I think it got to rotate faster.
>> Venus is so like Earth OK what is the best the imperial thinkers
>> can do on the reason it rotates ar a walk? TreBert PS I have my own
>> ideas too.
>
> Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up? I mean, Jesus
> fucking Christ!
>
> (No offense, Jesus)

A more interesting question is why it rotates in a retrograde direction,
instead of prograde, like all the other planets?

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

is the magnetic pole, the same?

> A more interesting question is why it rotates in a retrograde direction,
> instead of prograde, like all the other planets?

thus:
it is really no different from a breakwater
with two breaks in it, giving you the "classical
two-pinhole experiment of Young, but
relegated to a plane (sik; it's spherical, of course)."

the other thing, beside of the atoms of water (or
"free space") is the (atoms of the) edges of the slit/breakwater,
known by "diffraction" effects.

> What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

thus:
there is no way to detect antimatter "by visual inspection;" so,
meet your doppelganger at the event horizon.

> I love it! With ZERO astrophysical training you dismiss the work of

thus:
two-column proofs are simply shown, once
in the textbook of projective geometry, after which
you just "know" about the other proof,
that you did not have to do, any more ... unless,
you *want* to replace "lines" by "points" and vise-versa.

as for combustion, I use the eupemism of "423 --
they forgot the three biggest constituents of plant-smoke!..."
I think it is also meant to be a "safe time, after which it is
allright
to smoke, or before which."

> > > forcing by the continued addition of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere,
> > > increased risk of ozone loss and associated increases in ultraviolet
> > every quantum of CO2 "forcing" is accompanied
> > by almost the same quantum (of molarity) of water,
> > already vaporized by creatin in combustion.

> > there are a few explanations, of why it is that
> > FTL is akin to "travel" in time (that is to say,
> > "travel in a single graphical 'dimension of time,
> > just because I can draw *it* on a piece of paper,
> > a la phase-spaces...."
>
> > but, all you really have to do, is get rid of a)
> > newton's screw-up theory of light corpuscles, and b)
> > the lightconeheads.
>
> > "the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave,"
> > only in a remotely realistic sense for the photoelectrical effect,
> > which certainly does not have to be
> > interpreted solely as a wave-effect,
> > viz the "tuning" of the detector. however,
> > one should not try to mix the two representations, unless
> > you want to get totally bogged in an ersatz problem
> > of mathematical duality, or "two-column proof."

> What?

thus:
the instantiety is just as relavent to "non-relativistic,"
since the internal angular momenta are relativistic,
that is to say, in atoms ... no matter what,
goofy QM fundament one might abuse.... such as,
spacetime is fundamentally a phase-space,
nothing more than that & almost always used
to obfuscate.... now, get off of my God-am hamster-wheel!

> invariant, and is directly related to the object's 4-acceleration, while

[HVAC]

On 1/24/2013 3:24 PM, Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:14:41 -0500, HVAC<hv...@physicist.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 2:04 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you too fucking stupid to even know how to look shit up?
>>>> I mean, Jesus fucking Christ!
>>>>
>>>> (No offense, Jesus)
>>>>
>>> Harlow, why do you feel impelled to use such gutter language? It
>>> suggests a very deep running inferiority complex or limited ability to
>>> express your emotions otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Yes. I have a deep seated inferiority complex.
>>
>> Thank you for pointing it out in a public forum and making me feel worse
>> about myself.
>>
> Harlow, I for one, and I suspect many others have a deep level of
> respect for your intellectual capacity, but your use of gutter trash
> expletives really turns us off.

Exactly which group do you speak for when you use the term 'we'?

> Maybe you should consider omitting
> these expletives from your posts and see how that works out in terms
> of respect and admiration. Try it for a week or so and take another
> appraisal of yourself, based upon the resulting responses. Gordon

I'll take that suggestion under advisement, Gordo.

(See what a nice fucking guy I've become?)

[Double-A]

Perhaps it never got "spun up" like the Earth by the glancing blow of
a Mars sized object that later became the Moon.

Dobule-A

[saul...@cox.net]

THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO STOP POSTING YOUR FUCKING IDIOTIC RELIGIOUS
BULLSHIT, Gordon!

FAIR IS FAIR!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:24:07 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

[G=EMC^2]

AA Could I put Venus as the slowest spinning object in the universe?
I can not think of any object that spins so slow. TreBert
AA

[Brad Guth]

How about a moon sized impact, from a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid that
glanced off Earth to become our moon?

[G=EMC^2]

On Jan 24, 3:24 pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:

Gordon your wasting your time with Harlow. He is 100% brain
washed. Getting back to Venus's slow rotation here is my
thinking. It has a very large liquid core of iron and nickel. A core
that takes up 3/4 of its radius. This acts like a ball inside a ball
and its two shells create great friction. Acting like brakes.
TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

My next reason is its very heavy atmosphere could slow it down to
close to nothing. The pressure of the atmosphere relates to 3,000 feet
of the weight of water.(WOW) Venus's surface is rather smooth,and
that was caused by friction.over billions of years. Even as I type
Venus's atmosphere is getting heavier.,for I predict Venus's volcanic
activity is still intense. Reason it has so many pancake domes
TreBert.

[HVAC]

On 1/24/2013 9:12 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> Gordon your wasting your time with Harlow. He is 100% brain
> washed. Getting back to Venus's slow rotation here is my
> thinking. It has a very large liquid core of iron and nickel. A core
> that takes up 3/4 of its radius. This acts like a ball inside a ball
> and its two shells create great friction. Acting like brakes.
> TreBert

LOL! That's funny, Bert!

[Brad Guth]

Venus is in fact the most geodynamically active body of all the
planets and moons.

Venus also offers the most spectacular and/or complex surface
formations of any planet or moon ever imaged.

Venus is also the most ignored planet of our solar system, even though
every 19 months it can pass within 100 LD of us.

Thumbnail images of Venus, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/
pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314

[saul...@cox.net]

SAME OLD FUCKING SENILITY!

GOOD JOB, BEERTbrainMORONIDIOT!

YOU PROVE THAT STUPID IS ALWAYS JUST STUPID!

Saul Levy

[Brad Guth]

Its retrograde rotation and its enormous surplus or cache of internal
heat, as well as for not having any moon are all problematic issues.

Have you ever bothered to actually look at any of its complex and
totally unique surface details?

Other thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in

[Brad Guth]

Tidal locked moons rotate very slow. Possibly Venus was once a moon
or as having been parked a lot closer to its star.

[Double-A]

On Jan 24, 6:01 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It spins so slowly that it is spinning backwards!

Double-A

[Brad Guth]

It spins somewhat like a moon from a gas giant or transitory/nomad
planet given off from Sirius(b).

[Double-A]

Did you know that Venus has a tail?

Double-A

[Brad Guth]

Yes indeed, and every 19 month cycle our planet gets to go right
through it, as well and experiencing outbreaks of influenza that oddly
persist as being linked to that 19 month cycle.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918.htm
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/iamds.htm
http://intellectualodditiesnetwork.com/showthread.php?tid=9347

Of course, just one misspelled word or improper syntax and all of the
science pertaining to such bugs, spores or microbes from Venus gets to
be tossed out the nearest window.

Darwin proved that you can terraform a relatively barren and isolated
island that’s geologically newish and nearly worthless as Ascension
Island, with hardly any topsoil and essentially offering no original
biodiversity, and systematically transforming parts of it into a
tropical Eden with more biodiversity per given km2 area than most
anywhere on Earth. Therefore, once we’ve perfected interplanetary
space travels, or at least for that of robotically transferring a few
complex spores of life, as such there’s a pretty darn good chance that
at least 0.1% of that effort is going to pay off by managing to adapt
and survive all on their own, whereas the purely random-happenstance
of any natural process creating original life is most highly
unlikely. With any luck and via direct intervention by those of the
necessary expertise, seems that a 90% success rate of introduced
biodiversity making a go of it could be achieved.

Of course this method represents an alternative as to how Earth could
have been terraformed by God or by the purely natural random
happenstance process, instead by those of similar space travel
expertise. However, due to the ongoing expansion of space and
otherwise the proper motion of stars passing nearby and moving on
could represent a practical limitation of our planet ever getting a
return visit by those responsible for having at least supplied some of
the complex biodiversity that’s both good and bad for us.

This isn’t a replacement creation thing, so much as offering a
perfectly logical can-do or trial-and-error method of simply expanding
the survivable horizons for those ET Goldilocks to try out or fall
back on should their world turn out as badly overpopulated and
resource depleted as Earth, as simply worth doing if only one out of
10 selected planets manages to sustain any of their imported life. At
least we know that Darwin could manage to pull this off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island
http://www.globalwhisperer.com/2010/09/ascension-island-darwins-best-kept-secret/
“It’s a terrible waste that no-one is studying it” says Dr Wilkinson.
Therefore, the greatest Terra-Forming experiment the world has ever
known remains largely a mystery, as remote as Ascension Island itself.

No doubt the usual gauntlet of naysayers and FUD-masters will strongly
object to any notions of our terraforming anything except Mars,
because the last things they want any of us considering is t6he
interior of our moon or god forbid Venus.

[MarkA]

Everything I know about Venus I learned from the movie, "First Spaceship
on Venus". They didn't mention any of that "sciency" stuff.

[Brad Guth]

Then have yourself a first-hand look-see at what a good radar obtained
image of Venus has to offer. Trust me, there's no other planet or
moon that has anything as large and complex to show that looks so
perfectly geometric and community like.