It is true that it is unknown when Venus slowed down and whether it did so gradually or in jumps. We haven't observed Earth or any other planet suddenly changing, and until we do we have to assume that Venus acts normally (otherwise anything goes). That Venus is slowing down was not unexpected (all of the planets are either known or believed to have changed rotation rates in the past and have fluctuating rates now); what was unexpected was the magnitude of the change, but that is partly because so few speed measurements have ever been made and they were taken in too short a space of time to calculate a trend. They didn't know what to expect, so any result was unexpected. Now they have made new measurements it would be fair to say that a big deviation from 6.5 minutes in the next 16 years would definitely be unexpected in the sense that it would go against expectations.The Aten wrote:Based on the recent unexpected data, quite possible, but what if Venus' rate of deceleration increases? Perhaps the rapid cooling of Venus playing a part? We could also ask, did the recent finds occur gradually as per the assumption or did it happen more rapidly?seb wrote:At its current rate of deceleration, it will take about 1 million years before it begins to reverse direction. Also, while Venus is losing its atmosphere, it is doing so too slowly for it to be problem. Earth is losing its atmosphere too to the solar wind at the poles, which might be indicative of a signficant age difference if both planets started out with a very dense atmosphere. Some very big changes would have to happen to make Venus's rotation and atmosphere change significantly any time soon.
Some of the reasons why I don't think the rate of deceleration supports any theory either way are because (a) too little is known about Venus to have made any prediction in standard theory that could be falsified by the observations; (b) an anomaly for standard theory does not imply support for any alternative theory; (c) no-one knows what mechanism is responsible for the change of speed, nor whether it is constant or cyclical; (d) what, in the alternative theories, requires 6.5 minutes in 16 years? In the case of (d), I bet that if the anomaly had been an hour in 16 years, this thread would have been the same, or if Venus had spun even faster in a retrograde direction then that would have been cited as even greater evidence for Venus's young age or an imbalance in the solar system.
My concern (and I'm not being in any way personal here, I'm just talking generally) is that anomalies like this aren't used to back up alternative theories based on what the anomaly shows, they are used in support merely by their non-conformance to the consensus.
In other words, if the notion that Venus is new is made dependent upon a rapid deceleration of Venus, and 6.5 minutes in 16 years is considered rapid enough, then any reduction in the deceleration or any increase in rotational speed will falsify everything that Velikovsky said - not just about Venus, but also about Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Troy, Joshua, the Israelites, etc.. Is 6.5 minutes in 16 years sufficient evidence on which everything should be allowed to hinge? Any evidence used in support of a theory has to be carefully chosen to ensure that it really does support it, otherwise the credibility of the theory is put in unnecessary risk.
Why would Venus continue to slow down after the event? The events in the past could well have changed its spin considerably, but if it is slowing down now then it can only be doing so because something is acting on it now.Either way, I would agree with MattEU, the 6 and a half minutes a year deceleration of Venus is "stunning news" and totally unexpected by mainstream planetary scientists. The article almost downplays the discovery.
A logical sequence of events?seb wrote:The deceleration is a minor problem in the larger question of why its rotation is so strange to begin with.
Venus inherited its retrograde motion during 3,000 plus years encounters with earth in the not to distant past (historical times). We have two opposing cogs, earth prograde motion imparting energy and spinning up the newly birthed incandescent Venus retrograde. How fast? who knows. Queen Venus eventually beaks away off towards the Sun (with Mercury in tow). Venus is presently cooling down and its spin rate slowing down.
The Earth too has cooled down and is slowing down. Why should Venus eventually stop and begin rotating the "right" way any more than the Earth should eventually stop and begin rotating the "wrong" way?As above, it will eventually stop, and begin to spin the 'right' way.
That sounds logical, unless Venus does indeed accelerate the "right" way and acquires a magnetic field before its atmosphere is lost. Then it might become the lush Jurassic Park that people once imagined.As Venus cools, its many thousands of volcanic vents (which are constantly replenishing the Venusian atmosphere) will all but cease. Having no intrinsic protective magnetic field, the solar wind will subsequently strip Venus of its atmosphere. Venus will then take on the appearance of a dead rocky planet. The only analogy I can think of here would be the once earth-like Mars (home). It is proposed by many that Mars lost its atmosphere and volatiles as a direct result of losing its magnetic field.