Talk:Venus

Edit Request - Moment of Inertia

Contrary to the claims of the "Internal Structure" section, we know Venus's moment of inertia and can thus say that it has a differentiated mantle and core, with about the same proportions as Earth's: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html --Simon Heath, Feb 27 2011

Since the reference you give makes no mention of the internal structure then that means your analysis from that one figure would constitute original research and thus is not eligible for inclusion in the article until a reliable source is found that clearly states the internal structure. HumphreyW (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Clouds of Sulfuric Acid

Why are there "Clouds of Sulfuric Acid" when there is no sulfuric acid listed in the atmospheric composition and very little hydrogen containing compounds? Should it not read "Clouds of Sulfur Dioxide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not when the sources say sulfuric acid. This molecule appears in the less dense upper atmosphere, but it is a trace constituent overall (on average).[1]—RJH (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I suspect that the clouds are mostly SO2. Will do some more research. Jim1138 (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sulfuric acid, which is the main compound of the clouds, is created by photochemistry in the upper clouds. SO₂ and H₂O are the gases precursor of the clouds particles..." per Zasova et al. (2007). For me, an interesting question is where the hydrogen came from. Is it just the surviving hydrogen from the original surface oceans, or was it added as a result of external sources and excretion from underground storage?—RJH (talk)

"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.[2][3][4][5] 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)

Velikovsy controversy

I am confused.

Carl Sagan said that Babylonian astronomers recorded that Venus existed many years before Velikovsky said it existed. Peter Huber seems to confirm this:-

http://www.velikovsky.info/Peter_Huber

Soo...are there any rebuttals to Huber's observations, and do they hold any weight?

I checked on Google and found this:-

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/venus/zenith.htm

But it doesn't refute the allegation by Huber that Venus was observed long before Velikovsky said it existed.

In this piece by James P. Hogan, we have a quote by Velikovsky claiming that Jupiter was ejected thousands of years before the collision:-

"That Venus was observed before it came into conflict with Earth is clear from what I wrote. It did not come from Jupiter just on the eve of that collision. It came thousands of years before. It could be seen." http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=37&cmd=sample&sample=79

Some guy called Rose claimed that Huber made a lot of amendments and factual errors in his assumptions. I am unable to obtain Rose's work on the internet. Thus, I am unable to verify if Roses' critique is even valid.

Why does this article on thunderbolts.info say that Venus was ejected (in the final sentence)? How can we confirm this if there is no clear way to resolve dates in which the planet was observed? http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070115titanatmosphere.htm

Hence...my confusion.