Venus rotation

The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.

In this era when it is possible to using planetary comparisons in many
ways,the link between maximum equatorial speed ,spherical deviation
and geological consequences being just one of them and not a single
intelligent person here who can affirm with me that the Earth rotates
15 degrees/1669.5 km per hour.

Of course we also live in an era when this race decides that it can do
what King Canute knew nobody could - control the link between the
astronomical cycles and terrestrial effects,in our case,the shocking
belief that people,by some act,can control global temperatures within
a certain range,that is not just wrong but at the brink of insanity.

The way out of this mess is not to contend with insanity but to
demonstrate productive areas which emerge from a clean and clear view
of the link between planetary dynamics and their terrestrial effects,a
good start is to affirm that the Earth's equator covers a distance of
1669.8 km per hour in spite of the 'sidereal time' proponents who
cannot accept this.

On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.


A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
of angular velocity. Or State the 360° rotation in earth days.

For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 × 10^-4 rad/s.
For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days

For Venus, it is 2.99244922 × 10^-7 rad/s
For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days

On Jan 2, 11:38 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.

A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.

For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days

For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days

That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.
There ya go Sammy.
Ken

On 1/2/10 2:00 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:38 am, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.

A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.

For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days

For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days

That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.
There ya go Sammy.
Ken

If you were right, Ken, would you not expect to see some
correlation of plate velocity with patterns of the sun and
moon?

On Jan 2, 12:17 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/2/10 2:00 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:



On Jan 2, 11:38 am, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.

A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.

For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days

For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days

That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.
There ya go Sammy.
Ken

If you were right, Ken, would you not expect to see some
correlation of plate velocity with patterns of the sun and
moon?

Hey there Sammy old boy, how ya doing, you like refs, so heres one,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1223133347.htm

"They found the strongest effect when the pull on the Earth from the
sun
and moon sheared the fault in the direction it normally breaks".

Of course there is much more...the Andes.
Best regards
Ken

On 1/2/10 3:31 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:17 pm, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 2:00 PM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:



On Jan 2, 11:38 am, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.

A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.

For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days

For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days

That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.
There ya go Sammy.
Ken

If you were right, Ken, would you not expect to see some
correlation of plate velocity with patterns of the sun and
moon?

Hey there Sammy old boy, how ya doing, you like refs, so heres one,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1223133347.htm

"They found the strongest effect when the pull on the Earth from the
sun and moon sheared the fault in the direction it normally breaks".

Of course there is much more...the Andes.
Best regards
Ken

Triggering minor quakes is one thing... influencing plate notion
should show up in the plate monitoring gps data.

On Jan 2, 8:00*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:38 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
Earth's equatorial region *rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.

* *A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
* *of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.

* *For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s..
* *For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days

* *For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
* *For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days

That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.
There ya go Sammy.
Ken

Mr genius iq,turn a globe through 15 degrees and the distance traveled
at the equator is 1669.8 km,at 60 degrees latitude the value is 836 km
per hour/15 degrees so that all know we are on a rotating sphere with
definite dimensions and rotational speeds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../GEO_Globe.jpg

So,for all the hoopla you turn out to be worse than a flat Earther but
astronomy will do that to you if you do not respect its geometric
language.Maybe somebody else here will explain to you what Isaac was
really doing with absolute/relative space and time in terms of
observations/modelling based on an Ra/Dec framework,they will be the
first generation in centuries to actually be capable of geometrically
distinguishing what is correct and what is not instead of linguistic
dithering which Newton employed to obfuscate his untutored attempt to
hijack astronomy.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.

Well, I think that theory has been solidly demonstrated false, based on
basic energy calculations. Plate tectonics on Earth are largely believed
to be driven in large part by the presence of oceanic crust, which
doesn't exist on Venus. There is evidence that the crust of Venus has
been recently reformed, however, and that could significantly reduce the
amount of heat that can escape from the mantle. Without much heat loss,
you lose convection. This happens when you have radioactive heating in
the core, so the lack of convection really tells us nothing about the
source of internal heating.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 2, 1:14 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.

Well, I think that theory has been solidly demonstrated false, based on
basic energy calculations. Plate tectonics on Earth are largely believed
to be driven in large part by the presence of oceanic crust, which
doesn't exist on Venus. There is evidence that the crust of Venus has
been recently reformed, however, and that could significantly reduce the
amount of heat that can escape from the mantle. Without much heat loss,
you lose convection. This happens when you have radioactive heating in
the core, so the lack of convection really tells us nothing about the
source of internal heating.

Chris, I read your post a couple of times, I guess your refering to
Power Factor?. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm dense...
Ken

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:39:44 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

Chris, I read your post a couple of times, I guess your refering to
Power Factor?. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm dense...

I don't know how to interpret "power factor" in this context. I don't
think that's what I'm talking about.

My point was that tidal heating of the Earth's interior can be ruled out
because we aren't extracting enough energy from the Moon to explain the
observed heating, and the lack of tectonics on Venus is explainable by a
lack of convection in the mantle, which is understood as a consequence
of a low thermal gradient. Radioactive heating doesn't automatically
require that convection will be present.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com