do all planets spin in the same direction?

Question

I dont mean orbit but thier rotation

Answer 1

No, Venus is retrograde. And Uranus is tilted almost all the way over on its "side."

Edit: Actually, Uranus is tilted *more* than 90 degrees. But it is still lying mostly "on its side."

Chas, I just asked a question yesterday about Unranus and its moons being on equatorial orbits, and it was answered to my satisfaction. You say there is no evidence of catastrophe where Uranus is concerned. What evidence, aside from the polar tilt, would you expect? So if you deny what "evolutionists" claim, then what is your theory and what is the evidence to support it?

Answer 2

Hmm, I like the idea that jed slade said about the Earth rotating opposite in the past, and about the left handedness thing, but that is impossible. If the Earth started spinning in the opposite direction it would take like a million years (or loads more) for it to slow down, let alone start turning the other way. And what with the lava currents running under the surface, which would also slow down the slow down...

and if that had happened, then there would be more evidence of an ice age on one side of the planet (the one away from the sun) and a desert on the other, because the atmosphere would disipate alot as well because the gravity would decrease (thats why the moon has less atmosphere than us, its smaller = less grav= less atmosphere)

Anyway, even if it was possible for the earth to change spin way, it would have no impact on leftness or rightness. You might as well say that facing east all your life will impact it just as much as facing west, or north or south even :)

Anyway, no, all planets spin differently, Earth is Tilted, Uranus is on its side, I think saturn is tilted too (Dont quote me on that) and the moon rotates enough so it always faces the earth the same side. Which is actually a strange coincedent if you think about it.

Answer 3

No. Uranus 'rolls' instead of spins. Venus spins the 'wrong' way.

Incidently both these planets present big problems for the evolutionary Big Bang nebular hypothesis.

Venus provides a major problem—the nebular hypothesis predicts that as the nebula spiralled inwards, all the resulting planets would rotate in the same direction (prograde). But Venus rotates in the opposite direction, called retrograde. Evolutionists once tried to explain this away by proposing that Venus rotated prograde at first, but it had a bulge on which gravitational tidal forces on Earth could act, and turn the rotation around. Aside from the weakness of tidal forces, which decrease with the cube of the distance, it is now known that Venus is even rounder than Earth so there is no bulge on which to act.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/408
Uranus’s equator is at 98 degrees to the ecliptic.2 Instead of spinning like a top as it orbits the Sun, as the other planets do, Uranus rolls along on its side. Thus, for part of its orbit, the ‘north’ pole of Uranus faces the Sun, while the ‘south’ pole faces the Sun during a different portion of the orbit. (Indeed, there is disagreement as to which pole should be considered north, and which one south!)

This situation is impossible, according to evolutionary ideas about the formation of the solar system, namely that the planets condensed from a rotating nebula. Uranus cannot have formed this way naturally. What then is the evolutionists’ solution? Most of them believe that Uranus did actually form the ‘correct’ way, i.e. as according to evolution, but then was subsequently knocked over during a collision with another planet, supposedly the size of the Earth. Indeed, ‘Models for the development of the solar system cannot produce such an orientation without invoking a collision with another object.’3 How feasible is this explanation?

First of all, Uranus’s orbit shows no sign of such a catastrophic collision. Its orbit is one of the most circular of all the planets (only Venus, Earth and Neptune have orbits that are more circular). A collision would have more likely resulted in a more elliptical orbit. Also, Uranus’s orbit lies more closely within the ecliptic plane than any other planet except Earth. A massive collision should have disturbed the planet’s orbit more than this.
Furthermore, the moons of Uranus pose many problems all by themselves. Today, they are orbiting around the planet’s equator, which is approximately at a right angle to the ecliptic. Obviously, these moons could not have been present when the supposed Earth‑size object hit Uranus, because the moons would have been scattered or disrupted, and would not have quietly moved into stable orbits that are now inclined 98 degrees away from their previous orbits. Therefore, reasons the evolutionist, the moons must have formed after the impact, and the moons that we see today are actually the fragments left over from the impact. However, all of the moons combined, plus the particles in the small ‘ring’ around Uranus, constitute only about 0.01% of the mass of the planet, which puts a severe limitation on the amount of debris produced by the collision. An impact violent enough to push Uranus over presumably would have produced much more debris than that—indeed, a currently fashionable idea about the formation of Earth’s moon uses a collision of a comparable relative scale to ‘produce’ a moon with 1.2% of the parent planet’s mass.4

Finally, this idea of a catastrophic impact implies more than a little hypocrisy among the evolutionists. Christians are mocked by evolutionists for accepting the Biblical account of a global Flood (an event for which there is abundant physical evidence), because it was a one‑time catastrophe. We are told that such catastrophes are unrepeatable, and are therefore ‘unscientific’. Yet here we see that evolutionists are allowed to invoke one-off planetary catastrophes with impunity, to overcome problems within their belief system.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/485/

Answer 4

while it is absolutely certain that there will be a lot of exceptions caused by "impact events", the VERY broad and informal, sweeping generalization that "every planet in the galaxy will spin in the same direction" has a LOT of truth to it. The early "galactic nebula" that our galaxy formed from and all the subsequent solar nebula that the individual solar systems form from will all have the same initial angular momentum, resulting in stars that all spin and planets that all spin in the same (galacticaly speaking) direction. Exceptions will be rampant, on the order of 20 to 25% due to local variations.

Answer 5

Planet Venus in reverse direction compared to other planets.
Planet Uranus spins with it axis towards Sun where as other planets spin with axis parallel to Sun.Sun will rise in the west and set in East on Venus
Chandramohan

Answer 6

Venus spins the other way than most of the planets. Uranus is tilted over slightly past ninety degrees, so it spins "on its side".

Answer 7

It is generally though in some circles that the earth used to rotate in the opposite direction many thousands of years ago,but a huge passing asteroid as described in the various scriptures,caused worldwide catastrophies and altered the rotation of the earth in its passing.They say that the human race was mainly left handed before this event,and now they are predominantly right handed because of it.There are many books literature and myths and legends,take your pick,MAKES YER FINK THO DUNNIT?

Answer 8

uranus spins in the opposite direction

Answer 9

no uranus and venus spins in opposite directions.

Answer 10

NO !