<p>I wouldn't call the reference dubious so much as very much out-of-date. The paper in question was written in 1969, which was still pretty early in our understanding of the dynamics of the Solar System, including Venus. There would have been a lot of uncertainty in many of the measurements, such as rotation speed, which would have been determined by radar. Consequently, the <em>possibility</em> of resonance was there, at least until better measurements were available. However, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Orbit_and_rotation" rel="noreferrer">the wikipedia article on Venus</a>, and the <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...230L.123S" rel="noreferrer">attendant 1979 paper</a> citation (#90) indicate the idea of a resonant Venus was rejected decades ago once sufficiently accurate radar observations of the planet had been made. </p>

<p>So, clarifying of the wikipedia article you mention is probably in order.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-08T22:18:05.007Z
2015-09-08T22:18:05.007Z
Nathan Stock
<p>Is reference 6 in <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#Planets" rel="nofollow">this Wikipedia article</a> "dubious" and this passage in need of excising or clarifying?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Venus's 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to Earth is equal to 5.001444 Venusian [sic] solar days, making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Gold T., Soter S. (1969), Atmospheric tides and the resonant rotation of Venus, Icarus, v. 11, p 356-366</p>

<p>Is it still an "unknown" or "crazy idea that didn't develop with further investigation"?</p>

<p>The idea that Venus is tidally locked with <em>Earth</em> sounds far-fetched. We understand the slowing of Earth's rotation, and I don't recall ever reading of Venus's resistance to the change!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-08T19:47:52.687Z
Well it's not tidally locked. i.e 0.0014 > 0
adrianmcmenamin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-08T20:51:22.220Z
It does sound very far-fetched.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-09T17:16:52.707Z
Why the (anonymous) downvote?  Isn't it a perfectly good question?
JDługosz
<orbit>
Venus presents same face toward Earth at closest approach. What do you make of that?
JDługosz
# Venus presents same face toward Earth at closest approach. What do you make of that?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-09-08)

Is reference 6 in [this Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#Planets) "dubious" and this passage in need of excising or clarifying?

> Venus's 583.92-day interval between successive close approaches to Earth is equal to 5.001444 Venusian [sic] solar days, making approximately the same face visible from Earth at each close approach. Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown.

Gold T., Soter S. (1969), Atmospheric tides and the resonant rotation of Venus, Icarus, v. 11, p 356-366

Is it still an "unknown" or "crazy idea that didn't develop with further investigation"?

The idea that Venus is tidally locked with *Earth* sounds far-fetched. We understand the slowing of Earth's rotation, and I don't recall ever reading of Venus's resistance to the change!

**Tags:** orbit

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Well it's not tidally locked. i.e 0.0014 > 0  
> **username_2**: It does sound very far-fetched.  
> **username_0**: Why the (anonymous) downvote?  Isn't it a perfectly good question?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-09-08. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

I wouldn't call the reference dubious so much as very much out-of-date. The paper in question was written in 1969, which was still pretty early in our understanding of the dynamics of the Solar System, including Venus. There would have been a lot of uncertainty in many of the measurements, such as rotation speed, which would have been determined by radar. Consequently, the *possibility* of resonance was there, at least until better measurements were available. However, [the wikipedia article on Venus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Orbit_and_rotation), and the [attendant 1979 paper](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...230L.123S) citation (#90) indicate the idea of a resonant Venus was rejected decades ago once sufficiently accurate radar observations of the planet had been made.

So, clarifying of the wikipedia article you mention is probably in order.


---

