point taken - no i affirm your view here - only lacked understanding of retrograde. reverse revolution would be more apt?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:54 amNo worries gaffo, but I think you still might be a little off the mark with the what retrograde is as oppsed to my main point - that, Venus and Uranus are the only two planets that revolve on their axis (on their poles) in an opposite direction to all the other planets.
Retrograde denotes where the planet is in relation to Earth as each planet orbits the Sun, which as far as I am aware, they all orbit the Sun in the same direction, however at different rates - the closer planets to the Sun orbit faster than the outer planets. So, depending on the time of year and indeed what year it actually is, a planets position in the night sky will be offset depending on that thing called retrograde.
In relation to the other points you raised, maybe when I get some spare time, I will have an investigation - gotta love the internet these days! - A lot better than the early 90s!!
Uranus was kicked on its axis to what? near her poles facing the sun - and revese revolution too? - so in the early days of solar system therie must ahve ben many otyher "planets" - tow of which hit Venues and Uranus to alter their natural spin - to revese then, and to alter unanous poles -----and of course the current moon theory of the thrird "palent" to hit earth to make the moon - and to shift our axis tomfr zere to 23 degrees to make our sasons. Its a good theory, but with lack of empirical evidence, not pur solid - i think the most likely, but will not tak it as fact (per the mons formatiosn - not per ven and ur - clearly some huge plants hit them), and prob the same for us - but the co-formations of earth and moom (like the Satrunian and Jovian moons were formd) - may be viable per our moon (les likely tan Thea - but lacking evidenc of thea should not be closed off) - and least likely would be the capture of the moon by earth - unlikely,the most, but should not be walled off as imposible.
we just don't know - i affirm thaa is the most likely then co-formaton and llastly capture - per the moon - what pisses me off is the now gospel of Thea hit earth and formd the moon as fact!
its not fact! its the most probably, but lacking empirical evidence, it remains most probable not fact! - the toehr two theoriris remain posible if improbable.
-per Venus, she has near the mass of the earth - and Mercury much les (with a mag field! - while the more massiv venuse lacks it) - WHY so????????????? on one knows, but i'd like to know why venues lacks what lower mass bodies have - Mercury now (I suspect Mercurcy has one now due to being so close to the sun as to have the sun provide it to her via tidal fores (like why Io has vulcanism being as small moon - tidal forc via jupitor). mars had a mag field but lsot it due to its small mass long ago - venue should have also ben born with one - being nar the earth's mass - and way more massive than mars - maybe venuse was like mars and lost it long ago - but she is near earth in mas - not mars-ish - and should have a mag field now! but dos not!
why not is key to understanding, its a mystery - and i've not heard anyone konw as to why. ;-/.
i suspect ven the brightest of us do not know why. whne sh "should" have one.
thanks for reply Sir.