JPL Website Wrong: Venus & Uranus Rotate Opposite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philosophaie
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a claim that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) website inaccurately depicts the rotation of Venus and Uranus. It is clarified that Venus and Uranus do indeed rotate counterclockwise when viewed from the North Pole, while the other planets rotate clockwise. The distinction between "rotation" and "revolution" is emphasized, with all planets revolving counterclockwise around the Sun. The conversation also touches on the correct interpretation of planetary rotation angles, particularly for Venus and Uranus, which have unique axial inclinations. Overall, the initial assertion about JPL's depiction is corrected through a better understanding of planetary motion.
Philosophaie
Messages
456
Reaction score
0
JPL Website is Wrong!

Recently I wrote a letter to Jet Propultion Laboratory's Webmaster but never got a response. It stated that the Solar Simulator on their website http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/solar_system/
is wrong even considering there was no inclination, i, is for all planets. Still the planets Venus and Uranus rotate counterclockwise as time passes if viewed from the North Pole side of the universe. The rest of the planets rotate clockwise, as time passes if viewed from the North Poleside of the universe. In JPL's depiction all the planets rotate counterclockwise. Am I wrong or is this not the case?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Uranus is featureless in those simulations. How can you tell which way it rotates?

Are you confusing "rotates" with "revolves"?

Rotate refers to the direction the planet spins on its axis, while revolve refers to the direction the planet moves in its orbit around the Sun.

All planets in our solar system revolve counterclockwise as viewed from North.
 


If we use the right-hand-rule for planet rotation then all planets rotate correctly, its just that Venus and Uranus do so at very inclined angles.

To find the north pole of a planet think of your right thumb as representing the pole and have your fingers curl in the direction of the planet's rotation. You'll find that for Earth your thumb points up, sideways for Uranus, and almost straight down for Venus.

Also note that from the Sun's north pole, looking down on the Solar System, the planets both rotate and revolve counter-clockwise.
 
Last edited:


My bad, got rotation around the sun and axial spin confused.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
Back
Top