Thank you YOGI for your replies.
Your first reply is on point and except for the one comment about solar radiation that has nothing to do with my contention about heat being generated in solar objects by their orientation to the plane of the suns equator. The three current propositions you offer from your readings do represent the mainstream view of the causes for the Earths internal heat. They seem to have some doubts as to all of the possible causes so they may have more explanations than they need to answer the heat question or it may reflect a little insecurity in the conclusions. You have a typo when you refer to the Earth as 5,000 miles in diameter. There is a little conflict in the published data that I have reviewed and that is not even close to the polar diameter. The equatorial diameter of earth is about 7,926 miles.
Your second response about the Greenhouse effect on Venus by infrared energy is well taken. Your comment that Venus is closer to the sun than Earth is also noted. It is about 67 million miles average compared to Earths at about 93 million miles average. I think the planet Mercury is estimated to rotate about 1.58 times as it revolves the 360 degrees around the sun. The difference with your statement is nominal and I mention it to keep us on tract. To my limited knowledge NO ONE has offered a formula to calculate the factors involved with the alleged Greenhouse effect attributed to Venus. There is always the likelihood of more than one explanation. Science is not supposed to stop investigating because one possible conclusion is offered. I am not concluding anything and that is the way things should be done. I postulate that with the knowledge we have of the planets and comparing two objects we know are extremely hot and finding that both of those objects are in retrograde rotation there may be a common effect that may not be universal to all solar objects because the others rotate counterclockwise.
I am seeking a mathematical formula to determine if the heat generated can be equated to the retrograde rotation and/or the tilt of objects to the suns plane.
For you to insist on a Greenhouse effect for which no mathematical proof has been offered is not a viable response to my conjecture. It remains a conclusion until proof is provided. Even if the Greenhouse contention were correct that of itself would not rule out the contribution of other causes unless every degree of hest measured was covered by the proposed formula for the Greenhouse effect.
Thank you for your interest and the historical review.
jjw
