A question on Venus

"abc" wrote in message ...
abc wrote:
Hi All,


Thanks to everybody for your explanations.

I was under the wrong assumption that rotation would generate
gravitational force while it actually generates centrifugal force.

So would it be correct to state that gravity is a direct function of the
number of atoms for each chemical element that is contained in a certain
volume at a certain temperature in certain spatial (in topological sense)
configuration?


Are you a lawyer? :-)

One of the theorems of newtonian gravitation is that a spherically symmetric
body (i.e., each shell of constant radius has uniform density, but density
can vary as a function of radius) has a gravitational attraction
proportional to its total mass, which acts on point masses outside as if all
the mass was concentrated at the center.

Non-spherical bodies have more complicated gravitational fields, that have
to be calculated from knowing the distribution of mass everywhere in the
body.

So yes. Temperature has nothing to do with it, other than that T may govern
the equation of state that influences density vs radius.

Terrestrial planets are a good approximation to spherical symmetry (though
not perfect).

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

In article ,
Mike Dworetsky wrote:

One of the theorems of newtonian gravitation is that a spherically symmetric
body (i.e., each shell of constant radius has uniform density, but density
can vary as a function of radius)

If density varies with the radius, then the density isn't uniform.... ;-)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Dworetsky wrote:

One of the theorems of newtonian gravitation is that a spherically
symmetric
body (i.e., each shell of constant radius has uniform density, but density
can vary as a function of radius)

If density varies with the radius, then the density isn't uniform.... ;-)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Better re-read what I wrote. Each shell is symmetric and has a constant
density **in the shell**. Ah. I spotted the smiley.




--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

OK ok
This is dumb,
as a kid I never thought spinning creates gravity.
When you swing anything by a rope around your head
it gets pulled out not inward.
It has always been clear that mass has gravity no matter
how small and that the bigger the mass the more the gravity.
Duh no kidding a space station does not have enough mass
to hold an ant down. And I have yet to see anyone build
a space station that rotates or spins to keep a persons
feet on the curved wall. Hehehehe, do they get to have
fun and drop the bottom out. I have sat up on those rides,
or i mean pulled my knees up and sat with head to center of spin.
You have to do it before it gets too fast to pull your
body off the wall.

But you brought something to mind since I am trying to save
a couple million people from asteroid impact effects next month.
They claim (though I dont know) that Earth is the only planet that
has a magnetic field generated by its iron flow under the mantle.
Well its not the spin that keeps Earth away from the sun,
its the speed of orbit to keep it in a straight line resisting the
pull of gravity. Apparently, some force that we calculate for aphelion
and perihelion distances by arc of ellipse is not explaining why
anything
headed toward a great mass like the sun doesnt pull into the sun
but rather increases speed to swing orbit around it.
Meteors do not increase speed. What we have in orbit if it increases
speed will lose orbit and leave. It must slow down to fall, and then
it
increases speed when falling but it is not a speed that gains to
the extent to regain orbit. Its speed increased toward Earth is not
tangent to gravity
but rather becoming closer to Earth where even greater speed of orbit
would
be required. So it crashes if it doesnt burn up from the heat
compressed
out of air under it. We still have alot of stupid scientists and
teachers
and planetarium guids who say friction. There is no side friction hot
enough
or our astronaut re-entries would burn up. It is all about air
compression
under a falling object squeezing heat out of the compressed air.

Do you suppose that since all gravity attracts, and risks deceleration
of orbital speed that our wise Creator is using the magnetic field to
asist the Earth
in being repelled. Does Earth have an opposite magentic field to the
sun.
Or does the sun not have a magnetic field.
Any info on that.


Elijah
PS. Asteroid impact April 9 will push ocean floors up,
melt the mantle under the crust, which spred under continents.
With water lost over the land, the ocean becomes lighter and the
continents drop under water again as with Noah this time 6000-8000
feet
instead of 11,000 due to elevation ratios.
Example. Pikes Peak is 8000 feet high resting on 6000 feet.
so in 11,000 feet of ocean water it was under 3000 feet of water
during
the last impact that Noah experienced, while Ararat is 11,000 feet
above
its 6000 foot plateau and so when under our 11,000 foot ocean it was
only 22 feet under surface when the ark grounds on its peak.
The fact that Jehovah's witness Angelo Palego found the ark by
assuming a drop of ocean by 110 days before it grounded or 74 days
before seeing Little Ararat... however he figures it is not
mathematical
but he came up with an elevation that he found it at and assumes thats
where it grounded. That is only coincidence, it gorunded on the peak
and whether druing those 74 days or centuires later slid down to its
highest position... before other sections slid further... the point is
he
had Caudio Schranz find it and video it on YouTube (utube) and sadly i
would have risked my life over that 6 foot crack to get inside it.
I know their are text tablets on it by teh fact the Great Pyramids
Holy of Holies
and Tabernacle and ark of covenant were all intended for texts,
the sarcophagus is symbolic of saving man from death. The pyramids are
not
tombs.

On Feb 20, 2:07*pm, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
abc wrote:
Hi All,

please forgive me for this question but I am not in the field...

Yesterday I learned, to my amazement, that a venusian day is longer than
* * *a venusian year as the former is about 240 earth-days and the
latter is about 10 earth-days less.

Which, if I am not wrong, means that the "sphere" Venus rotates very
very slowly.

But the size of the planet and its gravity are not that different from
Earth's.

So my question is how can the planet have that gravity if it rotates so
slowly? Shouldn't it be torn apart by the Sun's gravity?

Thanks.

No...
at earth orbit the suns gravity is about .02 G.
The ratio of earth orbit versus Venus orbit is 149/108
That makes the suns gravity at the venus orbit about .04 G
The only thing unusual you will notice at the surface,
is the temperature, 500 degree celcius.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Why unusual?
Consisder the distance from the Sun and the activity of the planet.
That's normal

"Elijahovah" wrote in message
...
OK ok
This is dumb,
as a kid I never thought spinning creates gravity.
When you swing anything by a rope around your head
it gets pulled out not inward.
It has always been clear that mass has gravity no matter
how small and that the bigger the mass the more the gravity.
Duh no kidding a space station does not have enough mass
to hold an ant down. And I have yet to see anyone build
a space station that rotates or spins to keep a persons
feet on the curved wall. Hehehehe, do they get to have
fun and drop the bottom out. I have sat up on those rides,
or i mean pulled my knees up and sat with head to center of spin.
You have to do it before it gets too fast to pull your
body off the wall.

But you brought something to mind since I am trying to save
a couple million people from asteroid impact effects next month.
They claim (though I dont know) that Earth is the only planet that
has a magnetic field generated by its iron flow under the mantle.
Well its not the spin that keeps Earth away from the sun,
its the speed of orbit to keep it in a straight line resisting the
pull of gravity. Apparently, some force that we calculate for aphelion
and perihelion distances by arc of ellipse is not explaining why
anything
headed toward a great mass like the sun doesnt pull into the sun
but rather increases speed to swing orbit around it.
Meteors do not increase speed. What we have in orbit if it increases
speed will lose orbit and leave. It must slow down to fall, and then
it
increases speed when falling but it is not a speed that gains to
the extent to regain orbit. Its speed increased toward Earth is not
tangent to gravity
but rather becoming closer to Earth where even greater speed of orbit
would
be required. So it crashes if it doesnt burn up from the heat
compressed
out of air under it. We still have alot of stupid scientists and
teachers
and planetarium guids who say friction. There is no side friction hot
enough
or our astronaut re-entries would burn up. It is all about air
compression
under a falling object squeezing heat out of the compressed air.

Do you suppose that since all gravity attracts, and risks deceleration
of orbital speed that our wise Creator is using the magnetic field to
asist the Earth
in being repelled. Does Earth have an opposite magentic field to the
sun.
Or does the sun not have a magnetic field.
Any info on that.


The Sun has a magnetic field, yes. It isn't relevant to discussions about
the Earth's gravity, or Venus' gravity, or the orbit of the Earth. From
your post it is obvious that you don't know anything about celestial
mechanics or hypersonic aerodynamics.


Elijah
PS. Asteroid impact April 9 will push ocean floors up,
melt the mantle under the crust, which spred under continents.
With water lost over the land, the ocean becomes lighter and the
continents drop under water again as with Noah this time 6000-8000
feet
instead of 11,000 due to elevation ratios.
Example. Pikes Peak is 8000 feet high resting on 6000 feet.
so in 11,000 feet of ocean water it was under 3000 feet of water
during
the last impact that Noah experienced, while Ararat is 11,000 feet
above
its 6000 foot plateau and so when under our 11,000 foot ocean it was
only 22 feet under surface when the ark grounds on its peak.
The fact that Jehovah's witness Angelo Palego found the ark by
assuming a drop of ocean by 110 days before it grounded or 74 days
before seeing Little Ararat... however he figures it is not
mathematical
but he came up with an elevation that he found it at and assumes thats
where it grounded. That is only coincidence, it gorunded on the peak
and whether druing those 74 days or centuires later slid down to its
highest position... before other sections slid further... the point is
he
had Caudio Schranz find it and video it on YouTube (utube) and sadly i
would have risked my life over that 6 foot crack to get inside it.
I know their are text tablets on it by teh fact the Great Pyramids
Holy of Holies
and Tabernacle and ark of covenant were all intended for texts,
the sarcophagus is symbolic of saving man from death. The pyramids are
not
tombs.

Aren't you going to feel foolish on April 10th when we wake up and find that
none of this has happened?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Feb 20, 5:41*pm, abc wrote:
So would it be correct to state that gravity is a direct function of the
number of atoms for each chemical element that is contained in a certain
volume at a certain temperature in certain spatial (in topological
sense) configuration?

Way too complicated, you don't need to get that complicated.
Gravitational force is simply a function of mass and distance. Gravity
if proportional to mass, the greater the mass, the greater the
gravity. It is also inversely proportional to the square of distance:
that means the further you go away from an object, it's force declines
by a power of 2 (increase distance by 2 and gravity goes down by 4,
increase distance by 3 and gravity declines by 9, increase distance by
4 and gravity declines by 16, etc.). The distance is measured to the
centre of the object, not to the surface.

The Earth's gravitational force at the surface is at the strength that
it is, because when we touch the solid surface, we cannot go any
further down. So we're stuck 6400 km/4000 miles from the centre of the
Earth where the measure of gravitational distance is taken. If the
Earth's surface were closer to its centre, but it had the same amount
of mass, then gravity would increase due to the closer distance even
though mass hasn't increased.

Yousuf Khan