Shoe's on the other foot as they say. So, now you know how it feels to be on the defensive, dvnt, how about discussing the topic in a civilized manner? Some constructive criticism that we can all build on, not resorting to religious gibe's. Clean sheet and all that.

I'm no astrophysicist but I'm keen to understand how the rotation of the planet Venus was reversed. I've read a couple of theories that suggest it could be inherent or due to a near miss. The Earth as well is a bit of an anomaly with its large changing obliquity (angle of tilt for those who don't know). Considering the proximity of these two planets at times, is it possible that a third object (planet or asteroid) passed between them and caused these effects?

It makes sense.

However, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's also the theory in wich a comet impact could 'cause the Venus rotation to be reversed, and change both Earth and Venus angle of tilt.

Answer:

Wikipedia wrote:- a high-velocity asteroid or comet which hits Earth at such an angle that the lithosphere moves independent of the mantle
- a high-velocity asteroid or comet which hits Earth at such an angle that the entire planet shifts axis.
- an unusually magnetic celestial object which passes close enough to Earth to temporarily reorient the magnetic field, which then "drags" the lithosphere about a new axis of rotation. Eventually, the sun's magnetic field again determines the Earth's, after the intruding celestial object "returns" to a location from which it cannot influence Earth.
- perturbations of the topography of the core-mantle boundary, perhaps induced by differential core rotation and shift of its axial rotation vector, leading to CMB mass redistributions.
- mass redistributions in the mantle from mantle avalanches or other deformations.

There's also the theory in wich the ice mass in one of both poles over-accumulates, leading to a disturbance in Earth's balanced rotation.

About Venus, I suppose it would be possible for a comet to hit in such an agle that would 'cause it's rotation to be reversed, if the speed was high enough. It's just a theory, dunno if it's even possible. Perhaps you can confirm this stonehenge?

Stop me if I'm being pedantic here but when you say, "I dunno it's just a theory" you're not talking about a scientific theory right? This back and forth between you and Stonehenge is not science, it's just discussion. Which is fine. I'm not knocking it, discussion is great, but there seems to be a lot of confusion between science and discussions involving purely speculative ideas.

What I'm saying is there is nothing theoretical or scientific about saying, "I guess maybe a planet might have come between them."

There are so many holes in your ideas I don't know where to begin.

I guess my one hope is that you really believe this stuff and when it doesn't happen you come to your senses and stop believing in myths. If a rogue planet the size of Jupiter does show up in the solar system (anywhere within the orbit of Neptune let's say) and does affect earth as you say I will certainly be the first to convert to your ways of thinking - I promise. Can you make the same promise?

If you haven't got anything to add to the post, dvnt, then don't bother. No one said we were doing anything more than discussing - I certainly didn't and I don't think Zanariel did either. I don't think we need to apply to NASA for permission to discuss what's going on in the universe (yet).

There's also the theory in which the ice mass in one of both poles over-accumulates, leading to a disturbance in Earth's balanced rotation.

Einstein commented favourably on Hapgood's hypothesis and there's reason to believe a sudden redistribution of weight caused a shift of Mars.

http://www.realscience.org.uk/2007/07/martian-wandering.html

I would have thought an impact capable of altering the obliquity of a planet would be devastating, which is why I pursued the idea of another body influencing either the angle or having an effect on the lithosphere. If (and it is a big IF) the Mayans were aware of the approach of a comet, asteroid or planet there wouldn't be much they could have done of course and, with all repect to the movie makers, there's not a lot we could do in the same situation. I'm duty bound to go along with the idea of the Earth shifting in the past because of my book and I don't subscribe to the idea that changes in climate over the past 10 years are the result of pollution over the past 200 years, but that doesn't mean I believe there's any cause and effect now. Having said that there's still doubt over what caused the Younger Dryas period 13,000 years ago - was the sudden cooling caused by an extraterrestrial event or did the sudden cooling cause the lithosphere to shift?

No you didn't right now, but both of you constantly hop over the fence on what is science and what isn't. If it suits you then it's science and discuss it using words like theories and facts, when I show you it's not then you get all upiddy.

I've already mencioned somewhere that I work on logic, not on science. When I mention facts, theories, it's not scientifical talk. Don't get me wrong. It's just hypothetical.

That's not logic. It's not logical to conclude something because you don't have evidence against it. That's horrible logic, science or not.

The idea that a third planet might have passed in between Venus and Earth has nothing to do with logic! Where is the logic? You need information to perform logic on. Of which you have none!

"Well stuff has gravity and if stuff passes close to stuff the gravity can effect stuff." That's not logic, it is NOTHING but speculation. I can't remember if you or he said it I'm just using it as an example.

I'm sorry I hold people to higher standards of intellectual honesty than you two do. Again I'm not telling you guys not to talk about this stuff, but when it's raised in other conversations you guys will often cite it as if it's as valid as current scientific models and it simply is not.

dvnt, I'm sorry, but I have to say that, working like you do, you'll never get anywhere.

Science comes from speculation. And this time, I'm sorry, but you can't come up with a theory that explains why it doesn't. 'Cause it does.

First, it's speculation, hypothetical, something that can work OR not. If it works, if there exists evidence, facts, it becomes science. If it was wrong, well, it was just an idea that never came true.

If every single science stick to science AND science alone, there wouldn't be any room for improvement or revolutionary ideas. Science would just stop in time and remain with the same ideas forever. That's not human, it's not natural.