# Mercury - Venus - Earth space drag?

Reposting this from the "Jupiter" thread. because although Mars does not belong in the Mercury-Venus-Earth OP limitation, it has the same elements, arguments and results. There is a relationship between the rotation, revolution and the planet size, that is unique, showing in zero or related conditions, aka the imaginary space drag.

Mars:

Orbital velocity 86652 km/hr
Equatorial rotation velocity 868 km/hr. therefor:
3.91 km of radius for I km of equatorial speed.
86652 : 3.91 = 22161 km.--OV-RV =0 because they oppose in direction at noon. (like on Jupiter.)
Zero velocity, OV-RV=0 at 22 161 km
Moon Deimos orbit radius: 23 458 km a match within 6%. so :
This is the 5 st zero velocity area match based on the radius of planet size / velocities in the ecliptic.
The extended rotational speed of Mars projected out ward to match the orbital speed, gives the orbit of Deimos (5)

Here I was tackling Mercury, who, with nothing big between him and the Sun is no candidate to have a remarkable feature at it's zero velocity area, where his orbital velocity of 170 505 km/hr would be turned back to zero by his opposing blistering rotational equator speed of 10.892 km/hr. (yes 10) ! so doing the math:
R 2440 km : 10. 892= 4.446 km for each km/hr of rotational speed.
170 505 x 4.446 = 38 196 124 km in toward the sun from Mercury's 57 909 050, which gives a orbit circle with a radius ~ 19 712 926 km, between 2/3 to 3/4 in toward the Sun, as has been said., here is The Hunt for Vulcan . If ever something exciting happens in that neighbourhood, the quiet place to do it, is at ~ 20 x 1o^6 km from the Sun, ~ .1 AU. totally wrong, but true, tentative.
Here the list of other zero velocity still spots:
1) Venus, zero velocity at Mars orbit
2) Earth, standstill at moon orbit
3) Mars, velocity cancellation at Deimos orbit
4) Jupiter equal velocities coming to zero at equator, or great red spot.
5) Saturn, having an ~ 10 km/sec zero area near it's rings, Equator and out.
6) Neptune. with orbital movement and rotation equalizing at 2R, rings and Moons so: not naming causation, but there is a
size of planet and zero velocity connection in the solar system. Interesting things happen at those points. passing the pop to the kids on the horsies on the carrousel.
PS: The sizes of planets follow no set pattern as Kepler's laws, the Tietze, Bode sequence, so it is surprising that the radius size would reappear in these particular random, but often well occupied still station, points.

Last edited:
.removed for revision

Last edited:
revision: Mars, using formula (R km : VR km) x OV km/hr = Zero velocity circle R km in the ecliptic field.
3397 km radius divided by 868 km/hr = 3,91 km of R for 1 km of velocity. X 86 652 = 338 809 km ~ 335 312 from surface.
No mars moons there, sorry.
Earth:
6371:1674 = 3.8 km for each km /hr. times 107 200 km ~~ 40 736 km, from surface 34 365 km vs Moon 38440o km.
sorry, no moon there either. done. but
subtracting 40 736 000 km from Earth's 150 000 000 km semi major axis, inward, you get 109 202 000 km within 1% of Venus. 108 208 000 km!
so, please disregard the errors in post 21.
What has emerged now is a relationship with based on the planet size of Venus, Earth and Mars.
a) The zero velocity location of Venus is Mars.
b) The zero velocity location of Earth is Venus. so: by knowing
Venus's VER , R and VO, you could have predicted SMA of Mars,
Earth's equatorial radius velocity, the radius and orbital velocity, you could have predicted the orbit of Venus.
novel: using the planetary radius to predict the orbits of nearby planets?
not for Mercury, no objects at the predicted for 1/3, 1/2 it's distance from Sun
not for Mars, no objects orbiting at 338 000 km distance
anybody heard of using a planets size to predict the location of it's neighbours?

The model of having matching zero velocities for all planets has been dragged into this imaginary "space drag "thread, because of nearly matching rotation directions. To get both matching directions, or matching, cancelling velocities, requires spooky action at a distance, through as much as 117 o25 589 km for example out to Mars from Venus, using the formula V orbital : ( V equator : Radius). but
Mars itself, outside from this smoothly rotating OP trio, also has no known zero velocity feature at 337 555 km. solutions welcome.

Last edited:
requires spooky action at a distance, through as much as 117 o25 589 km for example out to Mars from Venus, using the formula V orbital : ( V equator : Radius). but
Mars itself, outside from this smoothly rotating OP trio, also has no known zero velocity feature at 337 555 km. solutions welcome.

These calculated radii, where the combined Orbital and Revolution velocity would come to zero, a standstill, are indeed spooky, like spokes ( as my son said) on bicycle wheels.
While the 337 555 km toward the Sun from Mars has no direct solution, embodied in an object, it is a value that brings us closer to the Venus spoke that reaches up to within 1% of Mars. perhaps the twain shall meet, in the 1% gap?
Applying the formula to the Sun gives a 2 R result, which only means that the velocity on the other side of the Star would cancel the one measured, because it goes the other way.

The Moon will ultimately be pulled apart by Earth's gravity and its remnants will crash into Earth making it a molten mess. This will be in about 65 million years however. Earth will be quite toasty by 5 billion years and probably not conducive to life by 1 billion years.

The Moon will ultimately be pulled apart by Earth's gravity and its remnants will crash into Earth making it a molten mess. This will be in about 65 million years however. Earth will be quite toasty by 5 billion years and probably not conducive to life by 1 billion years.

That it is why I like to look at the present situation, when planets have stopped wandering much (like Jupiter born further in), and resonances enforce the present order that served our species so well, and we are after all, the Universe's way of knowing itself!
Not too sure about the moon going done in by Earth tides, it is getting further away, if we have not ripped it apart by now, better hurry! thank you!

Just getting back to Neptune and it orbits at twice the speed it rotates at the equator, so the 0 velocity match is close in, happening all the time, not just at syzygy s, moons and rings in place.

Last edited:
That it is why I like to look at the present situation, when planets have stopped wandering much (like Jupiter born further in), and resonances enforce the present order that served our species so well, and we are after all, the Universe's way of knowing itself!
Not too sure about the moon going done in by Earth tides, it is getting further away, if we have not ripped it apart by now, better hurry! thank you!

Just getting back to Neptune and it orbits at twice the speed it rotates at the equator, so the 0 velocity match is close in, happening all the time, not just at syzygy s, moons and rings in place.

The Moon is currently moving away from Earth. The Sun will expand to Earth's orbit in 5 billion years as a Red Giant. If the Earth/Moon survives that stage, the hypothesis is that the Sun's tidal forces would reduce energy from the Earth/Moon system which would lead eventually to the Moon becoming too close to the Earth (Roche Limit) and Earth's pull would be more than the pull of the Moon's gravity.

Sun's tidal forces would reduce energy from the Earth/Moon system which would lead eventually to the Moon becoming too close to the Earth (Roche Limit) and Earth's pull would be more than the pull of the Moon's gravity.

I hear you, but you said 65 million years. not 5 billion, even then, the tidal forces of the Sun will not change if it expands into our orbit. look at origin's diagram post#2 in the "Most Gravity in and out" thread. The moon came from the Earth in the first place, so dust to dust in a cremation.?
It took life 4 billion years to reach our stage, with me 75% done, hope the family will carry on.

Back to the the topic of this thread:.Where I need help here is: what is the right formula to calculate the zero velocity zone for all bodies in the ecliptic and even the space around it.?( (because of tilted axises like Uranus, Pluto, the Solar System)
The Case of Neptune is easy, because the Orbital velocity and Equatorial velocity are in the ratio 2:1 within 2%. so you have to double the radius to have the velocities match and cancel. That would give a formula (Vo : Vre)x R, not what I have been working with, still getting matches. Are these values so matched related, that it does not matter how you apply them?

Last edited:
I hear you, but you said 65 million years. not 5 billion, even then, the tidal forces of the Sun will not change if it expands into our orbit. look at origin's diagram post#2 in the "Most Gravity in and out" thread. The moon came from the Earth in the first place, so dust to dust in a cremation.?
It took life 4 billion years to reach our stage, with me 75% done, hope the family will carry on.

Back to the the topic of this thread:.Where I need help here is: what is the right formula to calculate the zero velocity zone for all bodies in the ecliptic and even the space around it.?( (because of tilted axises like Uranus, Pluto, the Solar System)
The Case of Neptune is easy, because the Orbital velocity and Equatorial velocity are in the ratio 2:1 within 2%. so you have to double the radius to have the velocities match and cancel. That would give a formula Vo : Vre x R, not what I have been working with, still getting matches. Are these values so matched related, that it does not matter how you apply them?
I meant to say "65 billion". That is the current prediction.

I meant to say "65 billion". That is the current prediction.
You can see that I am looking at this seriously, although it has nothing to do what I am working on with this thread. Now the moon is retreating, it was once very close, high tides, survived Roche et al.
Heat and high tides again? It all was stable enough to allow us to evolve, for 4 billion years.

Back to the space drag question of this thread, using the amended formula (just a rewriting of the equation I suspect) (Vo:Vr) x R gives 225 230 065 for venus, if you have added its own ~108 000 000 SMA. Mars's SMA is 227 939 000 m that leaves the zero velocity points at 270 835 km below Mars, compared to Mars' own Zero velocity points of 337 555 toward venus ( see post # 26 above), is an almost perfect match. so:
If the wheels of planetary rotation would meet at zero velocity as they do in a transmission gearing, without slip and drag, it would be at 300 ooo km inside the Mars orbit.
Radii of Planets are involved in establishing zero velocity points*** in the ecliptic. with .oo4 % accuracy between Venus and Mars.
*** and other orbits.

Last edited:
You can see that I am looking at this seriously, although it has nothing to do what I am working on with this thread. Now the moon is retreating, it was once very close, high tides, survived Roche et al.
Heat and high tides again? It all was stable enough to allow us to evolve, for 4 billion years.

Back to the space drag question of this thread, using the amended formula (just a rewriting of the equation I suspect) (Vo:Vr) x R gives 225 230 065 for venus, if you have added its own ~108 000 000 SMA. Mars's SMA is 227 939 000 m that leaves the zero velocity points at 270 835 km below Mars, compared to Mars' own Zero velocity points of 337 555 toward venus ( see post # 26 above), is an almost perfect match. so:
If the wheels of planetary rotation would meet at zero velocity as they do in a transmission gearing, without slip and drag, it would be at 300 ooo km inside the Mars orbit.
Radii of Planets are involved in establishing zero velocity points*** in the ecliptic. with .oo4 % accuracy between Venus and Mars.
*** and other orbits.
No one cares about this thread. You are the only one posting. The Moon didn't approach the Roche Limit the first time around. This time it will eventually.

[QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3520676, member: 271333"]No one cares about this thread. You are the only one posting. The Moon didn't approach the Roche Limit the first time around. This time it will eventually.[/QUOTE] bold added for emphasis.
Yeah, I am glad that you at least trigger the alert, even if it is off topic.

Here is a copy and paste of the Moon situation right now, not 5 billion years hence: from the "Jupiter zero velocity cancel " thread.Post 130:
"Take the Earth, with a radius of 6 371 km it manages 1670 km/h rotational equatorial speed going backward on the sunny side against a orbital velocity of 107 218 km/hr. so: you need ~9.8 km of radius for ever km/h of speed. Multiplying that radius fraction with the speed, you get an imaginary radius of ~ 400 000 km , which is within 6% of the orbital diameter of the moon. (385 000 km). So:

a) When the new Moon at noon is in a southern position, at that point, the Earth orbital velocity and rotational velocity cancel, are Zero. I suspect if you calculate it all on the barycentre, the 6% might vanish.
"

I wonder why nobody cares? have you heard of the size of planets used to calculate their orbits, before or somewhere else?
I have a good record of coming up with seminal ideas, US patent proofed, and commercialized bringing in six figure amounts, sold even in the Seattle area. perhaps I am not finished yet.

Well, shut me down then, reject my "patent" application, be the patent examiner (Albert the Great was one) and prove a) the zero velocity model is in valid, and b) that there is " prior art" showing someone has used the planet radius to calculate possible neighbouring orbits, like in the above example that the Earth zero velocity projection is the lunar orbit, or, in the context of this thread, space drag wheeling would have the Moon just roll along like Jupiter and Saturn do.
perhaps no one cares, because there is no successful refutation to be done?

Yes, perhaps that's it...

Yes, perhaps that's it...

Thank you: just did the Moon. to discover the zero velocity with respect to the Earth. ( not the ecliptic)

Vo 3679.2 divided by Vr 16, 66 km/hr = 220.877 times R 1738.8 km = 388.907 Moon SMA is 384 399 km within 1%! so
The sizes of Earth and Moon are such, given their velocities, that they would roll with perfect synchronization , like a tire has zero velocity with the road. now,
why I need input from the experts like you on this , is that I can fabricate things like that, think it is unique, with a priority stamp, but perhaps it is old discovered 3oo years ago. cast in point: I have a US patent on the Yarkovsky effect, that I thought of on the beach in FT Lauderdale, but now with google and the renaissance of Russian science, was defined ~150 years ago. Even the Patent examiners did not catch it. so:
somebody from Seattle, Portland prove that Planetary radii have been used to calculate orbits, zero velocity points before.

Last edited:
nebel:

Please keep in mind that sciforums is not a blog site. You can blog somewhere else. This place is for discussion.

Please keep in mind that sciforums is not a blog site. You can blog somewhere else. This place is for discussion.
sorry, hoped to prompt by citing past science experiences to bring out of the woodworks anyone knowing about the relationship of Plant size and orbit prediction.
hoping or not that history may repeats itself.

The OP noted that Venus at night and Earth in daytime rotated in the same direction, because Venus is retrograde rotating, so spurious "space drag" was suggested, between the to bodies.
borrowing a page from the now demoted "equal and cancelling Jupiter velocity" thread,
using the (Vo:Vr)x Radius formula , that meeting of the rotating surfaces would occur 3 000 000 million km inside the Mars orbit well within 43 000 000 km reach of its eccentricity, or it's 1 000 000 km L1 point.
Mars itself would find a O space drag area 37 474 km toward the sun. So, unexpectedly,
The coinciding, meshing of movement direction and velocity had to reach all the way to Mars.