well numerology can be fun, think of yesterday's mirror number date

**02 02 20 20 ! **will vanish if you use a different dating system, calendar, start date. by contrast

The present formulas that are at the heart of the numbers current discussions,

**zero velocity **areas:

**(V:Vr)xR **or

**g_r x A = C **for the zero difference for near or distant total gravity are

__ number independent. __
In comparison what have you Dave offered that is instructive, novel?

Moderators are still waiting to see your correction/ explanation for the assertion in post #266 that

Pluto is up there with Mercury at Vo

**48** km/s and Vr

**4** km/sec ( actually

**4.74 .013** )

Mercury with rotational velocity of

** 12** km/sec when it is actually .

**003** km/sec, 400 magnitudes off.

Venus with Vr of

**6** kms when it is only minus

**.0018 **( a >3000 fold uncorrected error)

Uranus and Neptune with a

**6** km/sec difference in Vrs when it is only

**.o8 **(75 fold mistake) and the whole

**spaghetti **-like connected by meaningless lines meant to either sow confusion or mock serious science efforts

Your latest attempt: post #268:

Venus still spinning

**prograde at 7 **km/sec. still 4000 times the wrong side of the y axis.

Pluto now spinning at

**47** km/sec. still 3600 times too fast. thankfully thinner noodles, but without interpretative value. so was this repeatedly confusion intentional. ? or ?

You pulled those numbers out of thin air. There you go. Falsified.

My numbers were based on the formulas above. Where did your's come from and why? and

yes, part of

**92 %** of the planetary mass (Jupiter and Saturn) has within 3%

**zero orbital velocity **at the equator noon, like the cycloid in post 271.