**24 hours in a day**

The obvious clue to the day lengths of the planets is gravity field turn rates.

The first thing to note on the table is the inner two planets are like the moon. Have rotation periods of the order of their orbital periods.

The Mercury year length is 88 earth days and the Mercury day length is 58.65 earth days.

The Venus year length is 224.7 earth days and the Venus day length is 243.02 earth days.

After that, the rotation numbers the telescopes provide about the inner (three) planets are Venus turns backwards on its axis once whilst this planet does almost exactly 2/3's of its 'orbit' around the sun. That is Venus rotates 3 times on its axis while the earth completes 2 years.

Every 584 earth days, the same face of Venus is almost precisely towards the earth when Venus passes between the earth and the sun.

A Venus sunrise occurs every 117. something earth days. Meaning there is almost precisely 5 Venus sunrises to each Venus transit of the earth.

Coupled with that 117 earth days between Venus sunrises, adjacent inner planet Mercury rotates twice on its axis every 117.3 earth days.

With Mercury itself, virtually exactly there are 3 Mercury days to every 2 Mercury years.

The apparent connecting ratios running between the inner three planets.........

The next thing to note is.........................

The next thing to note is.........................

Telescopes have been generationally declaring rotation rates with increasing accuracy.

On these adjacent inner planet a quarter of an orbit advanced beyond a transit diagrams, planetary speed magnitudes come tidal axii speed magnitudes are relative to each other. With respect of the motion of the sun, the diagrams are all timeless and the push vectors instantaneous forces. Minus the ellipses, the diagrams are scale diagrams. Even if there is nothing in them, looking at the diagrams is a bit of off the planet classroom fun. Significantly, the Venus - earth relationship is the odd one out with the slightly obtuse angle. Without the ellipses and for rest of the planets with a slight exception for the Mars - Jupiter relationship, the outer planet works into just beyond the tangential position after the inner planet has performed a 1/4 cycle advancement around the sun.

After the journey from prehistoric times to discern them, declaring the inner planet ratios and adjacent outer planet rotation rate similarities to be coincidence without certainty would be goofy. The prima facie evidence is it is up there with the best of telescopic finds. Unless there is something astray with discerned day lengths, equally there is something rotational going on between the planets that we don't understand as yet.

Uranus and Venus have the most advanced outer planet (Neptune and earth respectively) when they reach their quarter cycle points. And Uranus and Venus are the two planets with the idiosyncratic rotations.

If it is on the right track, the 24 hours in our day and the 23 degrees of our axis of rotation would be a consequence of the uniqueness of the solar system. The more you involve yourself with the table, the more wondrous our existence seems to be. It's not just a question of could there be other life supporting planets. The covering question is could there be other solar systems that so do.

The way Kepler presented his great work is probably where modern thought pattern irregularities began. Time squared in the third law means nothing. Likewise the fact that a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times in his second law.

1/ Kepler's first law says the paths of the planets around the sun are elliptical when the sun is fixed. When Kepler stated that the sun is at one of focii of the ellipse, he was unaware of perturbations.

2/ Kepler's second law says the

__speed__of an individual planet relative to a moving sun varies with the inverse of its distance from the sun.

3/ Kepler's third law says the

__average__speed of any planet

__squared__relative to a moving sun varies with the inverse of distance from the sun.

*(link)Did Newton answer Halley's question.*

The Galilean rocket science problem of the planets ascending and descending at the same time aside, the answer to Halley's question was a circle. Not an ellipse. Somehow Sir Isaac has attributed the equal areas in equal times to the sun's inverse square law. All the equal areas in equal times means is the speed of an individual planet varies with the inverse of distance from the sun.

**Which then says there is a striking relative speed conflict between Kepler's second law and Kepler's third law.**

The suggested likelihood is the push vectors of the adjacent planet diagrams explain the second law - third law relative speed conflict and also the day lengths of all the planets. The interest is where the rotation of the sun's inverse square law fits in. The average fluid rotation period of the sun is assessed to be about a third of a Mercury year.

Even if this rotation cause column addition to the rotation rate table is unable to explain day lengths, congratulations to telescope builders and operators for the second column.

The weakness here is scant regard for the motion of the sun, where moons fit in and, beyond it must be made out of space, a firm idea of the structure of a gravity field. If a sinusoidal planetary motion model of the planets and their moons with all the rotations can be constructed, it should allow fresh considerations to begin about Sir Isaac's ongoing unknown of how 'gravity gets there'. Minus time, mass imprinting an inverse square law into surrounding space is in modern bureaucratic jargon anyway. The only slight difference here is seeing the imprint as the structure of large galactic journey particles with the planets as the little dots in their centres causing the imprint.

*The added centre column to the rotation rates of the planets is based upon Newton third law supposition. One of the pair of the forces that causes an inverse square law in space being*

**away**from mass. The manifestation of this force as increasing spherical shells in space around mass altering the vertical nature of space is the inverse square law. If that happened to be right, it would mean that space is spontaneous and that the three dimensions in unison are finite. Thus the**opposite**force of the supposed pair traces to the impossibility of three dimensional infinite distance.