Talk:Venus

"sister planet" explained

In the introduction, it's written:
... it (Venus) is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet"
and then someone added [by whom?] after the sentence.
The explanation is actually in the "Physical characteristics" paragraph. Could someone remove the [by whom?], and write sometimes like "(see below)" in its place?
石庭豐 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

doesn't matter, I've changed it myself. 石庭豐 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

bright enough to cast shadows

My intuition tells me this is not possible, as the only time Venus is visible in the sky is near sunrise/sunset and the twilight should still be much brighter. This may be latitude dependent, however. Rip-Saw (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Venus is often visible hours after sunrise/set, and when it is very dark. Saros136 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory every light source, no matter how dim, will cast a shadow. It is just a matter of deciding at what point do you say that the shadow is too undifferentiated to still be a shadow. Basically, there would need to be some sort of clear definition of how to measure and decide at what point you declare that a shadow is seen? HumphreyW (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been some informal reports of Venus casting a shadow.[1][2][3][4] Regards, RJH (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dynamo Theory - Point of View

This article discusses the lack of dynamo in the core of Venus, presuming that Earth has dynamo. I quote, "In 1967, Venera-4 found that the Venusian magnetic field is much weaker than that of Earth. This magnetic field is induced by an interaction between the ionosphere and the solar wind, rather than by an internal dynamo in the core like the one inside the Earth." Contrarily, the dynamo theory has a plausible competitor, the rapid decay theory. Isn't the inclusion of the dynamo theory as fact when it is still a theory in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy? Jack Elviri (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The dynamo theory is a well-accepted fact in the scientific community, commonly taught in classrooms and discussed in scholarly papers. I have to profess ignorance of the rapid decay theory, despite having done a fair amount of studying regarding the terrestrial magnetic field and near-Earth environment. Absent some compelling evidence, I don't think it's a violation of NPOV as it stands. siafu (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.113.118.138, 10 May 2011

In this article's intro, it says "Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets in our solar system..." It should say "Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets in the solar system..." 204.113.118.138 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kheider (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)