Since the poles are defined by the axis of rotation, it is hard to imagine how we could have two competing sets. On the other hand, if are thinking of magnetic poles, then there is no reason that they have to be aligned with the axis of rotation (in fact they aren’t exactly right now) but could produce a magnetic pole anywhere, with another at the antipodal site. Of course, we couldn’t call them North and South poles, but I am not sure East and West would fit either.

Small bodies in space can be non-spherical, but I think gravity pulls things into spheres once the mass is big enough (?). Presumably the same effect results in a uniform distribution of mass so the centre of the sphere is also the centre of gravity. This surely means that a grossly eccentric spin is not likely? Otherwise, the axis of rotation could be a chord of the sphere instead of a diameter.

??

The Earth, or any body for that matter, rotes about an axis that we define as being a straight line constructed between the north pole and the south pole. There is no reason why we should not also define an axis of rotation at right angles to the north south axis and being a line between the east pole and the west pole. To work with this matematically we would probably define the N/S axis as real and the E/W axis as imaginary.

We know that the rate of rotation of the Earth is variable being influenced by seasonal changes in wind patterns and also by large weather pattern changes and ocean current changes. We also know that the actual axis of rotation wobbles. Using real and imaginary axes would allow us to describe this . To describe all this fully would, of course, require a third axis at right angles to the other two. You could call this third axis anything that you like.

You can, of course, apply this to any body at all.

I posted that question largely to elicit analytical and independent discussion, and given the company in this forum, I unsurprisingly found the responses enjoyable. I have been away for a couple of days and now it is pay time; I have to put in my ha'porth.

One immediate problem to settle is the fact that the semantics of the word "pole" is open to discussion. I do not claim to have a definition that is watertight, let alone cogent and exclusive. I am thinking of something along the lines of points, generally paired points, opposite in some sense, unambiguous and in fixed positions relative to some suitable set of coordinates. That certainly suits poles of rotation, such as on the North-South axis of our planet. It explains why we don't have East-West poles. So far, so fairly simple, right?

Now, please imagine as an illustrative example a scenario in rather hard science fiction. Suppose we sent out several thousand spacecraft, probably unmanned, to explore our Kuiper Belt and locate bodies, preferably ice or metal, of some 1e9 to 1e10 tonnes mass. Each suitable body first would be de-spun, then redirected, probably in slingshot orbits past gas giants and possibly the Sun as well, and ridden into collision with the limb of Venus in such a mode as speed up the rotation of the planet as drastically as possible. The procedure would be continued until the planet maintained the same face to the Sun all year round.

Why Venus? Think about it. Think about the consequences. Think about a planet that could supply more useful land area than Earth (roughly twice as much in fact) and as much free energy year round as anyone might reasonably wish to use.

But that is tangential (if you will excuse the impact of the expression in context) to the main point. Note that if we regard the leading edge (or limb) of the planet as seen from the Sun, as the Western limb, then the point where that limb crosses the ecliptic would be stable and unambiguous. It would be as much of a West Pole, and its opposite would be as much of an East Pole, as it axis of rotation would pass through the North and South Pole.

What is more, one could make an analogous claim for every point on that great circle. You could have a pole for each spike on the compass rose. What is more, there would be a Perihelionic Pole, and of course an Aphelionic Pole as well. All in all, an unusually polar planet.

Now, I do not know whether you will find anything what so ever of interest in this speculation, nor whether you will be more interested in the semantics of polar terminology or philosophy, or in why we should consider doing this to Venus in particular, but I should be grateful for your remarks on any or all aspects of the matter. I have been thinking about them for quite some decades, but without much encouragement from those in the corridors of power. Some other planets are tempting in various ways, but Mars isn’t one of them. Until someone discovers some material reason to justify it, the idea of a manned Mars expedition must surely be the nuttiest and least original idea that any Buck-Rogers-struck mental teenager in NASA ever came up with. I could make a (MUCH) more persuasive case for Mercury.

Cheers,

Jon

I don't want to leave you talking to yourself, so here are a couple of thoughts.

I love the idea of blasting Venus with space material till it speeds up its lazy spin-rate. I wouldn't know how to do the calculations, but I wonder if the repeated impacts - plus the increase in mass - would risk introducing perturbations of the orbit. There's also a serious risk of setting off massive amounts of volcanic activity that could last an awfully long time.

So we get the planet into a moon-like orbit. Then what? This is where you lose me. Surely no one can think of living there? It's a bit toasty for that. Energy on Venus isn't much use to us on Earth (and importing energy is a no-no when our own planet may be warming up anyway).

You'll have to expand a bit more before I catch up with you, sorry.