Talk:Venus

Surface Geology: Contradiction?

This article states that a complete resurfacing of Venus due to massive subduction occurs at intervals averaging 100 million years. Yet it also says that the last resurfacing event occured about 500 million years ago. What gives? 63.211.201.174 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Xuthus

Venus in Alchemy

I think author of this part flipped it around: "Alchemists constructed the symbol from a circle (representing matter) above a cross (representing spirit)." In alchemical symbolism, the circle represents spirit and the cross represents matter, as referenced in wikipedia's Classical Planets in Western Alchemy page. Also, it probably should reference "western alchemy" to be accurate, since alchemy was not limited to the west. BSWright 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I'd like to know how anybody pretends to know how the symbol was constructed. It's a feminine symbol (obviously) for a feminine planet, and one that has to do with beauty. And to me it looks like a simple copper mirror (such highly polished copper mirrors have been found in Egyptian tombs). And this is the alchemical symbol for copper also. SBHarris 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism.

Can anyone check this edit? Thanks. · AndonicO ^Talk 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the edit on 10/08/07 under "Venus in Alchemy" discussion topic, and made the edit in the article in 10/16/07. BSWright 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Venus in Human Culture - Philosophy

That the terms "Morning Star" and "Evening Star" both refer to Venus, but that it is not necessarily known that they do so, is a classic example in Philosophy. It shows there is more to names than that which they name. See Sense and Reference Wacky philosophy professors everywhere talk about Venus because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.139.249 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the mass?

Is there a reason I am not seeing a mass listed on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.9.214 (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. There was a missing terminating / in an embedded reference. I think it's fixed now. — BillC ^talk 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Venus Brightness

The first paragraph states

"It is the brightest natural object in the night sky, except for the Moon, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6"

Alternative:

"It is the third brightest object in the sky, following the sun and moon, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6"

90% of the surface Venus appears to be recently solid basalt lava.-xXSlipKnoTfan182Xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.188.111 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

objections?

Enlinesix (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, but in the planet articles Sun and Moon are capitalized.Saros136 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New research here!!

It essentially tells us that Venus losses 2 H per 1 O, the solar wind interacts heavily with the atmosphere, and that in the beginning, oceans with beautiful singing sirens and boats with strong and bold heroes, ... approximately covered Venus, ... once upon a time. Maybe... Said: Rursus ☻ 08:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of a conundrum, because no one wants to be the one to take on the task of completely rewriting this article from the ground up. I think the best thing to do would be to gather together a group of people and assign each of them a single task; one dealing with the past, one dealing with the solar wind, one dealing with the lightning and so on. Then we will have to figure out which of the information goes here and which goes into the more specific articles. Serendi^podous 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

East or West?

The article says that the sun rises in the west on Venus. This makes sense if you imagine that you're on the north side of the solar system, looking down on the north pole of the Earth rotating one way and Venus rotating the other. But so far as I knew north is defined by planets, not solar systems - in that case the north pole of Earth points roughly the same direction as the south pole of Venus. That would mean the sun rises in the east on Venus. On the other hand, the articles for Venus and Mars list the right ascension and declination of the north poles of each planet in roughly the same place, so maybe there is a north side of the solar system? Forum discussions seem to suggest there is real inconsistency between definitions with some people using either one,[1] but I'm not enough of an astronomer to know whether one side of the disagreement might be seen as a "fringe" view. Regardless of the answer there's enough potential for confusion that something should be said explicitly about how the directions are defined. If I took the article for north at face value I could even believe that east could be counterclockwise of north! 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Technicly the north pole of the planet is the pole that apears to be spinning counter-clockwise from above, however i think there should be some sort of standard, because of the extreem tilt of uranus it probably was just nocked on its side by an asteroid, and not actual retrograde, and venus's rotation is probably a result of tital locking or some other not impact force, I say title locking because a thick dense atmosphere would effect tital locking more than the water on the earth effects earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.253 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

Would someone care to rewrite the tail end of this sentence from the introduction:

"but the venusian behavior corresponds well with Earth modeled then changed by removing the lubricant—the oceans."

I would do it myself, but I'm not sure what the original intent was. 271828182 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement was inserted on 21:19, 26 June 2007. Someone might want to re-proof some of the wording. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a go; I understand what the guy was trying to say, since I've heard it numerous times on geology shows, yet I would prefer a citation to explain it. Serendi^podous 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Venus and pelicans at twilight picture

Maybe I'm stupid, but what is this, pelicans on venus?! I don't see the planet venus as viewed from earth on that picture? Please help, thank you. 86.52.79.130 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the bright white dot (actually a crescent) beneath the 6th bird from the left. — BillC ^talk 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oceans, two continets and Life?

I know that venus must have had an ocean, it might have escaped into space but what about fossils? Mars and Venus had oceans long before earth had Habitable habitats. They say that Mars's evaporated after 3 or 5 million years but venus kept it's ocean for 100 more years (Or something) it was years later that Venus must have had Global warming which made the water vapor escape from the atmosphere into space. But because it had it's oceans longer could it have supported life? If you look at the two of the continents and some of it's islands i could see a whole range of habitats from rainforests to srubby shrubland.

Refs

• doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.04.011
• doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.021
• C. de Bergh, V.I. Moroz, F.W. Taylor, D. Crisp, B. Bézard and L.V. Zasova (2006). "The composition of the atmosphere of Venus below 100 km altitude: An overview". Planetary and Space Science. 54: 1389–1397. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.020. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |issues= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• [2]
• doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.26.1.23
• doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.489--Stone (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Venus climate

• Thesis
• Sean C. Solomon, Mark A. Bullock, David H. Grinspoon (1999). "Climate Change as a Regulator of Tectonics on Venus". Science. 286: 87–90. doi:10.1126/science.286.5437.87. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |issues= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Mark A. Bullock and David H. Grinspoon (2001). "The Recent Evolution of Climate on Venus". Icarus. 150: 19–37. doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6570. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |issues= ignored (help)
• George L. Hashimotoa, and Yutaka Abe (2005). "Climate control on Venus: Comparison of the carbonate and pyrite models". Planetary and Space Science. 53: 839–848. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2005.01.005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |issues= ignored (help)--Stone (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Loss of water from the atmosphere into space

I believe, discovery of ongoing loss of water into space, which is carried out from the atmosphere by the solar wind (due to the absence of intrinsic magnetosphere) was much more important discovery by Venus Express than vortex at the South Pole. I think, it should be mentioned, and not just in a few words as it is in Atmosphere of Venus article for now. As is mentioned at the mission website, if we condense all water vapor from the atmosphere of Venus and continuously distribute it on the sphere with a radius equal to mean radius of Venus, we should get a layer of water 3cm thick. But prior to the beginning of loss of water into space this layer might be at least 4.5 meters thick (according to the mission website)! I believe, it's clear now, that it was a very important discovery. Av0id3r (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree we should find a place for it. The section discussing Venus and Earth as sister planets: but "What happened to Earth's CO2 and what happened to Venus' water?" or something.SBHarris 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unscientific Hypocritical Propaganda

Saidsoisms:

"Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years, separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters) sometime in the last billion years."

Where is the citation for even one of these statements? Where even a "citation needed"? Why hypocrites you evolutionists and panspermians are. It is also false as there are many scientists who believe it is about 6000 years old. SINCE WHEN IS EVIDENCELESS SPECULATION, "just trust me" "cuz I said so" objective fact? Is this the same as what so many anti-christians on wikipedia call weasel wording? It should be. It is weaseling in anti-biblical propaganda in the guise of science.

So this is what the wikipedia "community" (anti-christian propagandists) considers one of the best examples of their Wickedpedia work? They are right, it is one of the best examples of their subtle sneaking in of lies without immediately looking like hypocrites to the masses of gullible and deluded. I think you all should watch Tainted Evidence - Forensics On Trial and Forensics on Fire to get another dose of reality. Mere pretension does not make something scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleain (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

References:

http://media.gospelcom.net/aig/Volume_072/03.mp3
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/venus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp

_______

And here are some references from actual peer-reviewed scientific articles:

[3], [4], [5] [6], [7]

And here is a ref explaining water's role in plate techtonics: [8], As you can see, there is some debate about whether the volcanism was sudden or gradual, but no one doubts the 500-million year time frame.

And really, since this is a scientific article, creationism, since it cannot be disproved, and is therefore not science, doesn't belong here anyway.

Nonetheless, I agree; that paragraph should have been better and more accessibly referenced. So there you are. Serendi^podous 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Error about Venus Express

I've spotted an error in the Exploration of Venus section. It is said that the Venus Express probe was launched by the Russian Federal Space Agency. Although it was indeed launched by a Soyouz rocket, the launch was carried by the private company Starsem. In fact the ESA purchased a launch from this company, so saying that it was launched by the russian governement agency is fairly inaccurate, I think. This can be corroborated in the ESA web page and in the Starsem launch log (wich states de launch as "commercial").

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMZE3808BE_0.html
http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm

I'd have corrected this myself, but as the page is protected, can any of the moderators do it? Thanks.
--86.66.150.201 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this! I've made the corrections to the text and cited it. Incidentally, the article is not protected, but semi-protected, meaning it can be edited by anyone with an account. You might like to create one. Regards, — BillC ^talk 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

venus:second planet of solar systen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.16.58 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please need answers!!HELP

What is the diameter of Venus? Density? Distance from the sun? Rotation Period ? Revolution Period? thats all i need to know so just help witht the answers thats all!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.234.49 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the blue infobox along the side. Or just read the physical characteristics and orbit and rotation sections. Serendi^podous 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the composition of Venus?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.shipley (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the infobox on the right hand side of the article. --Tango (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox and article give information about the composition of Venus's atmosphere. If the question is about the composition of Venus itself, then it is a fair question: the Internal structure section does not go into great detail, though it acknowledges that "there is little direct information". There may be some well-sourced, peer-reviewed papers speculating on Venus's bulk chemical composition, for example. I'll have a look around. — BillC ^talk 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I misread the infobox. Sorry. I suspect the composition is pretty similar to that of Earth, the masses are pretty similar so they should have retained the same proportions of different weighted elements. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead section has a phrase to that effect, however it is not brought out and sourced in the main text, and so ought to be. After a quick search, here is an article describing density constraints on the composition. (Haven't read it yet, but it is a start.) — BillC ^talk 02:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Language Used

What is "best hypothesis" ? There is no such an expression in science. I suggest re-writing the first section. It is writen like a novel or newspaper article rather then an encyclopedic one.

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.197.21 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"which look somewhat like pancakes" is another example of that language. please let's be serious. and "after that only" we can expect the rest of the world to take wikipedia seriously.

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.197.21 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone translate the information box on the side into ENGLISH please!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.222.188 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you people just be serios

Venus, the goddess

I noticed that all of the other planets (that were named after male dieties) had mentioned in the intro that the planet was named after a god, but nothing mentioned with venus. So I am adding one. Kind of ironic that all of the male planets had a mentioning in the intro, but not the female though... JanderVK (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For people who think that this page is their personal property!!

This page seems to get vandalised a lot by 'deleters' who appear to think that the Venus wiki page is their personal website. Wiki is not for that purpose. It is for collaboration by multiple users. So how about you vandals who want only your content and your opinions inside the article go and make your own personal website and stop trying to take possession of this website for your own purposes otherwise I will have to start reporting you.

This addition has been removed several times because it does not cite any reliable references, and it basically sounds like speculation on an event that may or may not happen many years in the future. Please read the applicable Wikipedia policies on this at WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Crystal, and WP:OR. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now added reliable scientific references from two scientists well versed in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you simply press 'undo' how about you give other users the opportunity to expand and improve upon this addition before taking the opportunity away from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that your attitude (as evidenced above) can be taken as being unnecessarily hostile and confrontational. There is no need to make spurious accusations of "vandalism"; in fact, the repeated addition of uncited material could itself be considered vandalism, justifying the removal. In future, please try asking "why" first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what lads. I went out of my way to find references as requested, then after that I even requested that the information added remain for a short time so others could improve upon it and you still pressed the 'zap' button without a moments thought. Wiki is meant to be a community however you lads obviously dont have a very high regard for beginners. Think I wont waste my time with this anymore. This is one person encouraged to take part in wiki who is very disappointed and wont be coming back. Perhaps you lads need to take a course in customer service one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might wish to elaborate; as of this post, the text is still present in the article. Furthermore, it has actually been edited (twice, by two different editors) and the references have been improved. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a pathetic argument! You are all arguing about nothing! Wiki is a comunity and everyone is intitled to there own opinions. If everyone simply double checked where they were getting this information from we wouldn't be having this argument! You have no right to delete other peoples articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.222.188 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

venus ( the planet )

Problem with the value of the axial tilt of Venus.It is 2.6° and not 177.36°. 86.205.58.28 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing: 180-2.6° is (approximately) 177.36°. Venus' axial tilt has been expressed relative to prograde rotation. 2.6° is the axial tilt if the rotation is considered retrograde. — BillC ^talk 20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Axial tilt

Is Venus tilt of 177 degs. or 2.7 degs? this source say it's 177 degs. What source said 2.7 degs?--Freewayguy ^{Ask? +000s} 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

$2.7\approx 180-177$. Venus rotates clockwise, while other planets conterclockwise. So the tilt depends on the definition of the north pole. Ruslik (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it tilt 2.7 degs similar to Jupiter's. or it's tilt chaos like Pluto .--Freewayguy ^{Ask? +000s} 18:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is difference from retrograde rotation. A retrograde rotation is when a planet orbits left to right, most planets rotates right to left. Venus I know rotates left to right same as Uranus, so their sun rises at west and sets at east, everyone else sun rises at east and sets at west, except gas giants do not have solid surface period, so their skies is always colorful, and multilayer, and they don't even have day/night.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Any other answers. You still didn't answer my question. Be clear that retrograde rotations has nothing to do with axial tilt. In older planet books they said Venus is tilt 2.7 degs. Just Venus' rotations rtro meaning it orbits left to right so the sun rises at west and sets at east, i beleive Uranus is the same thing.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Craters

Can someone explain this statement?

It is also noteworthy that there are a surprisingly low number of impact craters. 

With the extraordinarily dense atmosphere, what would be a surprise would be any significant impact craters at all. The meteors would have to be really big to last long enough to hit the surface. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant infobox

Shouldn't the infobox either give an axial tilt of 3 degrees and the rotation as prograde, or an axial tilt of 177 degrees and the rotation as retrograde? At the moment it gives a combination of the two, which doesn't seem right to me. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right - I changed it. Icek (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

venus

venus is the second planet from the sun ☼ƒτxá`☼☼c╝+▐1 ♂▐♣▐MM♣ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.96 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

suck sucks

i hate school im reserching venus and this sit gives u shit BOOO THIS SITE