IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Did Venus Have A Moon?
nprev
post Oct 11 2006, 07:06 PM
Post #1


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8789
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



...or two?

http://skytonight.com/news/home/4353026.html


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
nprev
post Oct 14 2006, 03:45 AM
Post #2


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8789
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Argh...my apologies for misunderstanding you, RN. sad.gif

Well, the central point I was trying to make was that Mars' rotation period does not seem to be an artifact of primordial major impacts, although I'm sure that some such events certainly had an influence. Venus' case is entirely different...and just to throw a bit more churn into the mix, what in blazes must've happened to Uranus??? blink.gif

I am willing to accept chaotic early System events like major collisions as likely explanations for some current dynamic oddities like the Venusian rotation period & direction. However, Sagan's Law must still apply: extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence. Using this heuristic, the "two-moon Venus" (or even one-moon) scenario seems difficult to defend.

(Did someone just mutter "Hyperion"??? Quiet, you! tongue.gif )


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Oct 14 2006, 04:59 AM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 13 2006, 08:45 PM) *
what in blazes must've happened to Uranus??? blink.gif


This is solidly off-Venus-topic, but I was wondering recently: What if Uranus once orbited in the plane of its rotation and the tugs of other giant planets pulled it towards the ecliptic while the axis remained gyroscopically (near) fixed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Oct 14 2006, 09:21 AM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3652
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (JRehling @ Oct 14 2006, 05:59 AM) *
What if Uranus once orbited in the plane of its rotation

That would be one very inclined orbit. Which brings up another question: why Uranus? why not Neptune too? What made Uranus form in such a weird orbit?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Oct 14 2006, 11:17 AM
Post #5


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



That was my thinking too.

To nudge this slightly back on topic. There are plenty of theories out there (Martian polar wander, the long term stability of the earth's inclination resulting from the moon etc) that seem to imply that the obliquity of the planets should be fairly widely distrubuted. In that case no really odd mechanics is required to explain the Uranian tilt. However if it really is that "simple" then how come it's the only really extreme one?

edited: replaced inclination with obliquity. Doh!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Oct 15 2006, 04:59 AM
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (helvick @ Oct 14 2006, 04:17 AM) *
That was my thinking too.

To nudge this slightly back on topic. There are plenty of theories out there (Martian polar wander, the long term stability of the earth's inclination resulting from the moon etc) that seem to imply that the inclination of the planets should be fairly widely distrubuted. In that case no really odd mechanics is required to explain the Uranian tilt. However if it really is that "simple" then how come it's the only really extreme one?


We can probably exclude Mercury and Venus as being solar-locked, and we can perhaps exclude Earth on the anthropic principle (would we be here as an advanced species to discuss the issue if Earth had Uranus's inclination?).

That leaves us with Mars and four giants, plus choose-as-you-like for other worthy bodies to include in the discussion. Pluto is tidally locked to its satellite, which probably excludes that one from consideration (Mars and the giants are NOT locked to their satellites, to say the least). Eris is unknown.

Jupiter and Ceres are very low inclination. Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune are eerily similar in their modest inclinations; Vesta is also in that general vicinity. Then Uranus is the big outlier. Mars, at least, is prone to swings over geological time. Earth and probably Saturn seem to be stabilized and I'm quite sure that the other three giants are too big/too far from anything to get tossed around.

It's important to note that this is a very small n. You can't call any trends you spot statistically significant. I wonder if the "expected" distribution is flat or clustered in Gaussian fashion around 0. The data leads me to the wild guess that it is the latter, and it's a fluke that the "midrange" instances are clustered around 25 degrees with nothing between 6 and 21 or between 30 and 90. If one standard deviation is 30 degrees, we would expect about 2/9 to be in each of these bins: 0-10, 11-20, 21-30. The first bin got its quota and it just happened that the third bin ended up with "both" of the planets that "should have" been in the second bin, and one that "should" have been in a higher-number bin. Three little flukes. A friend of mine had a phone number with "666" in it -- things like this happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Oct 15 2006, 06:07 AM
Post #7


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (JRehling @ Oct 15 2006, 05:59 AM) *
It's important to note that this is a very small n...

All true and very good points.
However some further digging has reminded me that the really extreme one is actually Venus since it's not tidally locked to the sun and it's obliquity is 178deg so we really should be binning 6 samples into the 0-180 range. If obliquity is chaotic in the long term then surely neither Venus or Uranus are in any way in need of an extraordinary explanation.

I haven't done the numbers at all but adding the above to the Solar tidal drag explanation certainly seems more convincing to me - Venus "reverse" obliquity is just an extreme outlier by chance and it's dense atmosphere\high surface temp\proximity to the sun have allowed solar tidal drag to slow it down nearly (but not quite) to a stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Oct 15 2006, 03:32 PM
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (helvick @ Oct 14 2006, 11:07 PM) *
All true and very good points.
However some further digging has reminded me that the really extreme one is actually Venus since it's not tidally locked to the sun and it's obliquity is 178deg so we really should be binning 6 samples into the 0-180 range. If obliquity is chaotic in the long term then surely neither Venus or Uranus are in any way in need of an extraordinary explanation.

I haven't done the numbers at all but adding the above to the Solar tidal drag explanation certainly seems more convincing to me - Venus "reverse" obliquity is just an extreme outlier by chance and it's dense atmosphere\high surface temp\proximity to the sun have allowed solar tidal drag to slow it down nearly (but not quite) to a stop.


But if Venus's rotation is being altered by the Sun, per the paper Don cited, it isn't part of the distribution the gas giants are in. It says in a nutshell that Venus could have had a rotational speed of +12 mph or -4 mph. Presumably, then, we can say that Venus has historically undergone a change towards one of these attractors and the angular momentum of its (slight) inclination away from the ideal attractor is so slight as to be a rounding error. Whatever accounts for this: either a deviation from the dynamics that would draw it to the attractor (which could be atmospheric) or residual from the original rotation, are assuredly not among the important phenomena influencing the giants' rotation (which have not settled on solar-tide-induced attractors), so it's not really part of the same distribution.

Put another way, if we looked at large numbers of planets (using extrasolar ones as our data), you are always free to call whatever set you like a distribution, but you may find multiple independent modes caused by meaningful subgroups. For example, "height" of adults is bimodal, because men and women have different modes and the heights between the female mode and the male mode are cumulatively rarer than the female mode or the male mode. It looks to me like Mercury and Venus either represent a "sun-altered" mode of their own or even two different modes (tidally locked vs. solar-thermal tidally locked) which would both be closer to low-inclination than everything else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- nprev   Did Venus Have A Moon?   Oct 11 2006, 07:06 PM
- - Myran   I read it and agree that slow rotation of Venus ar...   Oct 11 2006, 08:01 PM
- - Jyril   I agree, the theory sounds a bit too complicated a...   Oct 11 2006, 08:08 PM
- - Rob Pinnegar   Cute, but it's just speculation. Nobody can pr...   Oct 11 2006, 08:09 PM
|- - JRehling   Keep in mind that the rate of Venus's rotation...   Oct 11 2006, 09:07 PM
|- - AndyG   QUOTE (Rob Pinnegar @ Oct 11 2006, 09:09 ...   Oct 12 2006, 08:41 AM
- - tasp   Whew, heady stuff. I think the odds for the Satur...   Oct 12 2006, 03:20 AM
- - nprev   I gotta agree with the majority opinion so far; th...   Oct 12 2006, 03:53 AM
- - edstrick   Venus's solar tidal drag on the solid body is ...   Oct 12 2006, 10:18 AM
|- - Rob Pinnegar   QUOTE (edstrick @ Oct 12 2006, 04:18 AM) ...   Oct 12 2006, 02:20 PM
- - RNeuhaus   QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 11 2006, 02:06 PM) ......   Oct 12 2006, 02:49 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Oct 12 2006, 07:49 AM) ...   Oct 12 2006, 04:08 PM
|- - Rob Pinnegar   Hmmm. Would a satellite small enough to avoid disi...   Oct 12 2006, 04:58 PM
|- - RNeuhaus   QUOTE (JRehling @ Oct 12 2006, 11:08 AM) ...   Oct 12 2006, 06:53 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Oct 12 2006, 11:53 AM) ...   Oct 12 2006, 08:25 PM
- - Bill Harris   QUOTE My initial thought was "but that requir...   Oct 12 2006, 03:42 PM
- - DonPMitchell   According to dynamics calculations by Alexandre Co...   Oct 12 2006, 07:36 PM
- - nprev   Interesting...but how about Mars' relatively r...   Oct 13 2006, 04:55 AM
|- - RNeuhaus   QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 12 2006, 11:55 PM) Int...   Oct 13 2006, 06:59 PM
- - nprev   Well, I'll be...I actually didn't know tha...   Oct 14 2006, 12:14 AM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 13 2006, 05:14 PM) Wel...   Oct 14 2006, 02:24 AM
- - nprev   Argh...my apologies for misunderstanding you, RN. ...   Oct 14 2006, 03:45 AM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 13 2006, 08:45 PM) wha...   Oct 14 2006, 04:59 AM
||- - ugordan   QUOTE (JRehling @ Oct 14 2006, 05:59 AM) ...   Oct 14 2006, 09:21 AM
||- - helvick   That was my thinking too. To nudge this slightly ...   Oct 14 2006, 11:17 AM
||- - JRehling   QUOTE (helvick @ Oct 14 2006, 04:17 AM) T...   Oct 15 2006, 04:59 AM
||- - helvick   QUOTE (JRehling @ Oct 15 2006, 05:59 AM) ...   Oct 15 2006, 06:07 AM
||- - JRehling   QUOTE (helvick @ Oct 14 2006, 11:07 PM) A...   Oct 15 2006, 03:32 PM
|- - RNeuhaus   QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 13 2006, 10:45 PM) Arg...   Oct 15 2006, 12:00 AM
|- - nprev   Delinquent thanks for the great "pocket...   Oct 19 2006, 09:27 AM
|- - diane   QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 19 2006, 05:27 AM) Del...   Oct 20 2006, 10:42 PM
- - Myran   QUOTE JRehling wrote: ...would we be here as an ad...   Oct 16 2006, 11:48 AM
|- - tty   QUOTE (Myran @ Oct 16 2006, 01:48 PM) Hal...   Oct 16 2006, 06:19 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (tty @ Oct 16 2006, 11:19 AM) In ea...   Oct 16 2006, 06:35 PM
- - dvandorn   Here's a question: If this model is correct a...   Oct 21 2006, 02:11 AM
- - tasp   QUOTE (dvandorn @ Oct 20 2006, 09:11 PM) ...   Oct 21 2006, 02:24 AM
- - Rob Pinnegar   QUOTE (dvandorn @ Oct 20 2006, 08:11 PM) ...   Oct 24 2006, 08:57 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:31 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.