Of course, to be able to remove or cancel something, you must be able to understand it (to a certain degree, at least). Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is: if these effects were standard and known, why were they so unexpected? And also: What's their cause? not in the sense of how they work...
I meant: can't.
I meant: Venus's position in the solar system (distance to the Sun)
Incidentally, a similar process can probably explain Mercury comparatively slow rotation rate.
What issue do you raised? The fact that the standard model of solar system formation has a potential explanation for the anomalous rotation of some planets, involving one or multiple collisions, does not mean that other cause can be the one responsible.
Uranus, by example, could be a former...
"Simply". "Easily". I'm dismayed by your fondness for "easy" explanations. "Easy" meaning, of course, that you can explain things (independently of how improbable these explanations really are) using standard physics and models.
Venus has a super-rotating atmosphere. That atmosphere circles...
That can't be so simple, or it is incomplete, considering by example that Venus is slowly spinning in the opposite direction.
Electromagnetic effects will have to be taken into account, sooner or later, to explain this solar system anomaly, and also others.
Oh, I don't believe either in a mechanical and material ether.
But in fact, I certainly do believe that reality is composed by more than matter. Particularly, I believe that there are fields and "forces" that have no material cause, but that interact with and affect matter.
Moreover: matter is...
Very interesting. Are you suggesting that this is related also to the origin of the rotation of the planets, or I misunderstood/read too much?
Talking about the likely effect of refractive mediums, you might be interested in this 2003 paper by Consoli & Constanzo...
Yes, because MOND is too simple. It works well for spiral galaxies and other radially symmetrical cases. Zhao & Li mention this in their paper, characterizing MOND as naive. What is needed is a dynamical theory of gravity. Gravity dependant on a dynamical field or flow.
Regarding Zhao & Li...
Yes! thanks for posting this, twofish-quant. I didn't know it.
This is an important paper.
I'll read it carefully, and comment back later.
You're right, but to do that you have to be aware of the original papers :-)
I think that he's right. Or better said: I think that he is pointing in...
Hi twofish-quant.
I'm not so sure about that. These anomalies are relatively recent.
And Iorio in fact did discovered something related to the retrograde perihelion of Saturn. Namely, that it could be explained by a mass outside the solar system, and (perhaps more importantly) if the mass is...
You're right, of course. The short answer is: I couldn't care less :-)
The long answer is, that I'm not going to do all the calculations, because I don't have the time. I'm just pondering and throwing ideas here, because it looks like a good place to do it(mainly thanks to you, I must say), and...
I've noticed that you've deleted my last reply to Garth, in the name of "topicness". Do as you please. I couldn't care less, except to mention that I don't see why you didn't removed Garth's last comment too. He was the one which initiated that avenue towards "offtopicness", so to speak...
The Moon orbit is turning more eccentric:
"Williams J.G., Boggs, D.H., 2008, paper presented at 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging 13-17 October 2008 - Poznań , Poland"
This is consistent with an acceleration of the Earth. Which is in turn consistent with an acceleration of the...
I've found the original paper on the secular increase of the AU:
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/GAKVAB.pdf
They are using comparations of radiometric distances to Mars stationed spacecraft .
That's why the precision is better than that of the AU itself.
I suppose this rules out my idea...