Spinning Universe

Introduction to SpinningUniverse.com

INTRODUCTION TO SPINNINGUNIVERSE.COM
By Puthalath Koroth Raghuprasad
Odessa, Texas
Contact Us or Leave Comment

THE ORIGIN AND PERSISTENCE OF THE MOTION MECHANICS IN THE UNIVERSE:

-A HYPOTHESIS

        In this essay I present several clues that allow us to formulate a theory around the onset and continuation in perpetuity of the motions in all astronomical bodies.  The most recognizable of the motions is the axial rotation; this is noticed even in the fundamental particles, as well as in all freestanding celestial bodies, including the ultimate conglomerations of matter, the galaxies.  The next, almost as ubiquitous are the orbital motions of satellite bodies.  Such orbital motions obey certain rules; the orbiting satellite bodies almost always follow the mother bodies' axial rotation in direction, as well as in speed.  The finding that there is a linear connection between the mass and axial rotation speed of the regularly rotating planets (as opposed to those rare planets that rotate negatively), is a clear clue that this ability to rotate on their axes is an intrinsic property of matter.  I also present the way the large mother bodies such as the gas and ice giants control not only the orbital speed but also the axial rotation speed of the most proximal satellite bodies. The recurring sequence of a cluster of synchronously rotating large satellites situated close to the mother bodies, transitioning to the non-synchronously rotating satellites at intermediate distances from the mother and, finally, the farthest tiny satellites that are rotating negatively, is illustrative of the way these motion mechanics are using the mutual gravitation of bodies, along with their inherent axial rotation to create the desired motions and continuing them in perpetuity.  Also recognizable is the lateral motion through space of larger bodies such as the stars and galaxies; we observe the stars' motion in their respective galaxies in the counterclockwise direction and in this essay, I suggest that the galaxies themselves also move in space circumferentially, also in the counterclockwise direction.

        All celestial bodies are in constant motion, and such motions continue throughout the lives of such bodies. How these motions begin and what forces lead to their persistence are not well-defined. Newton's mutual gravitation of bodies, when applied to the orbital motions of the planets in the solar system with the aid of his inverse square law has been useful to predict the speed of such motions.  However, this mutually attractive force, even with the addition of Newton's First Law of Motion does not address some consistent findings.  Such findings include the motion of satellite bodies in the counterclockwise direction (and not being pulled in to the mother bodies), along the ecliptic of mother bodies, as well as all bodies' own axial rotation in the counterclockwise direction are some of those findings that cannot be explained by Newton's ideas. Einstein's teaching of warping of the fabric of space can at best suggest where the satellite bodies might be situated, and perhaps some random movements, but it cannot explain any of the axial rotational motions, or the orbits being only in the counterclockwise direction, and along the ecliptic of mother bodies.  The commonly believed "conservation of the angular momentum", even if is real, will fail when bodies rotate and move in space constantly for billions of years; the extraneous influences that the bodies encounter on their journey, such as gravitational pull from other bodies will tend to slow them down and eventually stop the motions altogether.  Some crucial findings we reported in our prior papers and re-stress in this essay will also dispute such an ill-defined phenomenon as being responsible for the perpetual motions of celestial bodies, as we will discuss in more detail later in this essay.

        The circular motions of bodies in orbit bring another natural force into action, the centrifugal force.  Those bodies that are in motion due to the pull from mother bodies' gravitation and the accompanying rotational effect, are orbiting in a circular (or elliptical) path, and thus experience this force, in exact proportion and in the opposite direction.  The harder the rotation of the mother and the inward pull, the faster the orbits of the satellites and the stronger the centrifugal force.   An exact balance is thus struck.  This is a crucial phenomenon that has not been considered by scientists so far.  The age-old question of why all bodies do not end up in a pile due to mutual gravitation is thus answered.  When confronted by this puzzle, Einstein concocted an idea that gravity that works on the empty space is one that mysteriously pushes away, unlike the gravity that bodies exert on other bodies; he called this repelling force the “Cosmological Constant”.  When Hubble described his finding of an apparent outward motion of all galaxies, from the purported Big Bang, Einstein dropped his idea, calling it his "greatest blunder" and he went on to "fudge his data" (as Stephen Hawkins observed).  Our model deals with this question perfectly, without the need for invoking forces such as "negative energy”, "dark energy", etc. that have been proposed.  All problems with explaining the ever-present motion mechanics of the celestial bodies arose from the scientists ignoring the ubiquitous axial rotation of bodies as having any functional importance, as it was just the result of a "conservation of the angular momentum".  Thus, when confronted by the exquisite phenomenon of galaxies rotating on their axes, while carrying their enormous loads of stars, the scientists resorted to mathematical constructs, and based on how much energy might be needed to accomplish such feats, they either assigned "black holes" or, when required, "supermassive blackholes", in the center of each galaxy.  Such calculations are, of course wrong, if they did not include the dramatically reduced effort of rotating on the axes of the galaxies, because, in the deep space that they are situated, all bodies, including the galaxies, are essentially weightless.  In this scenario also, an obvious feature at the center of all spiral galaxies, the very large bright object, was ignored as having any purpose.  I believe those bodies are billions of stars that have coalesced and become a giant star in its own right and invested with the job of carrying the whole galaxy while rotating on its axis so fluently and with extreme rapidity (we call this luminous object, "Galaxstar").   Again, just by recognizing the contribution of axial spin in the galaxies as a functioning unit, we can explain the rotation of all galaxies. 

        As we present data later in this essay, just like the planets, stars and galaxies also rotate faster, the larger they are, and thus there is no need for looking for extraneous factors.  The recent discovery of "Super Spirals" (these are galaxies that are much larger than our home galaxy and have been noted to spin faster on their axes than Milky Way Galaxy).  With my explanation it is not at all difficult to conclude how that feat is accomplished by those larger galaxies. Another observation in the motion characteristics in spiral galaxies, that the scientists could not explain was how the stars closer to the center of the galaxy and those that are situated near the periphery were moving at similar speeds. Of course, they are treating the goings on in galaxies as being similar to the motion mechanics of planets going around the sun. That simply is a fallacy.  In the case of the solar system, the sun is by far the most dominant gravitationally active body, and the 1% of the mass in the system, contained in the planets and all the trillions of other bodies, clearly, the sun's ability to move all else dominates.  The distance from Sun has a profound effect and hence the inverse square law works here. On the other hand, I believe, the billions of gravitationally super active stars, stacked up relatively close together (in cosmological terms), are making the whole galaxy to function like a rotating tabletop.  Thus, all stars will move in roughly the same speed; it is just that the peripheral stars will take longer to complete each journey.  Another puzzling feature they could not explain was how the flailing peripheral arms of the spiral galaxies are held back from flying away during the high-speed rotation of the galaxy.  In order to explain how this happens, the scientists have proposed that there must be huge amounts of some unseen, undetectable, but mathematically demonstrable form of matter that they call dark matter and lately, also "dark haloes".  The other suggestions have been to invoke more esoteric, unseen, imaginary objects that have been dubbed "MACHOS" (Massive Compact Halo Objects), or "WIMPS" (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) etc.  By now it should be clear to all readers that no such explanations are needed if we simply assign the job of celestial body motion mechanics to the combined efforts of gravity and the inherent ability of bodies to spin on their axes.

        Before I get to the finer details of my discoveries, it seems appropriate to dwell on some background stuff. I will start with an outline of what the mutual gravitation of astronomical bodies is.  Next, we'll examine the other principal actor in motion mechanics in the universe, the axial rotation of bodies.  Science has not determined what gravity is, how this essential property of matter at all levels is carried from one body to others through space, does this mutual attraction travel at or faster than the speed of light etc. etc.   The current thinking is that there is a purported force boson termed "graviton" involved in this. It is just that there is no consensus about what this elusive force looks like, how it works and so on.  To my way of thinking, the weirdest of all was proposed by Einstein: it goes like this.  The large celestial bodies wield this force on the surrounding space, "warping" or bending it. It is not at all clear to me if this bending of space just places the smaller bodies in certain locations or if they are allowed to do some haphazard movements. Well, I totally disagree with this genius explanation, as presently we will be presenting data that make it clear that the mutual gravitation is between bodies, and it has nothing to do with the empty space.   Now let us examine the story of gravity, the invisible but essential property of matter.

        The very first genius who recognized the presence of an attractive force that keeps objects on the surface of the earth and also keeps celestial bodies in their respective places, was an astronomer from India, in the fifth century, called Varahamihira.  Notice that this genius graced this earth more than a Millennium before Isaac Newton proposed this same idea.

Varahamihira (Born 475 CE)

        What this mutual gravitation is and how it plays a crucial part in the motion mechanics in the universe can be inferred from the following cartoons:

        We are tethered to the ground all over the world, as shown in the picture above. And nobody is about to fall off the globe, although half of them appear to be standing upside down. It is clear from this example that it is a force that makes objects move towards the center of the earth. It also shows that that force is all around the globe, essentially in equal strength.

        As we go up in a rocket our weight lessens, as a product of the distance from the earth. This is of course, due to diminishing gravitational pull from the earth. Then, even farther away from the earth, we are essentially weightless (the astronauts’ jargon for this is “microgravity”). Here is a video showing an astronaut floating inside a space shuttle.

This short video shows an astronaut aboard a space shuttle, floating effortlessly.

 

         If we reach our Moon and try to walk on it, what happens? We are almost floating, unable to walk steadily like on earth. Why? Because the gravitational pull from Moon on the astronaut is so much less than that on earth. In the photo below is an astronaut on Moon; I think we can make out that he is barely touching the ground. In fact, people find it somewhat hard to stay upright or walk freely on the Moon. Why? Of course, it is because the gravity exerted by the moon is only about 1/6th that on earth. So, the earth’s gravitation gives us enough of a pull to keep us securely situated on the ground, and still enabling easy movement.

An astronaut “walking” on the moon; he is barely touching the ground, but also not floating freely either.

 

         Let us now examine the effects gravity has on the celestial body itself. First is that all bodies of substantial amounts of matter will assume a spherical or almost spherical shape, as a direct result of the gravitational pull exerted by those bodies on themselves. In the solar system, this applies to the myriad small bodies in the Kuiper Belt, all satellites of planets and the planets themselves. Of course, the same rule applies to all stars and all celestial bodies in other star systems. Here below is a reproduction of the Sun and the planets of our solar system, which shows how all bodies have assumed a roughly spherical shape, are situated around the ecliptic of the sun, and all are orbiting this star. It is instructional that both the axial rotation of the Sun and the orbital direction of the planets are counterclockwise.  We now have evidence from recent studies on the “exo-planets” (these are planets that have been discovered in other star systems) that all of them also have roughly spherical shapes.

         When a critical amount of dust (matter) coalesces to form a nascent star system, the central collection of matter that is already spherical ignites with the energy created by fusion reaction. Thus, a star is formed; the figure below is a photograph of the sun as it appears now.

Sun - NASA Science

 

         This huge fireball is actually made of plasma, displaying intense magnetism and gravity and, through the fusion reactions, enormous amounts of power is generated. It is, of course, spinning on its axis.

         Next, in planets, besides the shape, the intense pressure generated by the inward thrust of the body’s own gravitation leads to heat of such a degree that even rocks and all metals melt in the interior of the planets. The figure below is of earth, with a section cut open to show the interior structures; this image is reproduced from NASA’s gallery. As shown in the figure, most of the interior is hot, with the outer core (here shown in yellow) is molten (liquid) rock and metals. This is an example of what happens to rocky planets, due to the inward pull of gravity. However, the intensity of the pressure is not enough to lead to fusion reaction; thus, they remain mere planets. The gas and ice giants (Jupiter and Saturn and Uranus and Neptune respectively) are also spherical. However, both Jupiter and Saturn are gaseous (which means, there is no solid ground on the outside) but Uranus and Neptune have solidified gases such as methane, nitrogen and some trace elements). These giant planets are still too small and thus the intensity of the gravitational pull is not strong enough to lead to fusion reactions, as described above.

Layers of the Earth

 

.

 

 

 

         The figure below depicts the relationship between the mass of a body and its degree of gravitational pull in the planets of the solar system. While the mass does have a positive relationship with gravitation, as shown in this figure, it is not linear, unlike the axial rotation. However, it demonstrates how having increased mass gives the potential of stronger gravitational pull on other bodies. This is a crucial ability, as this is one half of what enables larger bodies to control smaller bodies’ motions.

         In summary, gravity or mutual gravitation is an inherent property of matter; it is present in matter at the nanoscale and in the large astronomical bodies, including the galaxies.  This force is what keeps the objects on earth tethered to the planet’s surface.  Gravity’s effect on the celestial bodies themselves is to make the bodies spherical, induce so much pressure and heat within the bodies to make rocks and metals to remain molten inside bodies such as the earth, while in bodies that are large enough, even lead to fusion reactions and the production of enormous amounts of energy in the stars. By its very nature, larger bodies attract smaller bodies in their vicinity, and with the cooperation of axial rotation (as we will soon examine), it makes the smaller bodies orbit them.  One can assume that all corners of the universe are crisscrossed by the gravitational influences from all gravitationally active bodies.  It is not as if something is emanating from a large body at particular times but, these forces are always there.  Therefore, the question some have raised about a so-called "Pluto paradox", whereby, if our sun suddenly disappears, will Pluto continue to orbit the sun for five more hours can be answered this way?  This question is examining the prevailing belief that nothing can travel faster than light, and as the sunlight takes 5 hours to reach Pluto, clearly, Pluto will not know about sun's demise for that many hours.  In my estimation, as the gravitational web between the star (our sun) and all the orbiting bodies in our solar system are in place, and continuously, when sun disappears, immediately a new arrangement is brought to bear and the next largest body (Jupiter) might take charge or the planets and all other smaller bodies will move away to the nearest star.  The point is, there is no delay in all the bodies becoming aware of the new circumstance.  In all the above instances, there is not a hint that the gravity from a celestial body has any effect on the empty space.

         Now let us examine how the mutually attracting force of gravity of the bodies will lead to the orderly movements of the planets, the orbits.

 

ORBITAL MOTIONS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM:

 

         (The objects in this simulation are not to scale, as the sun is actually 99% of the mass in the whole solar system; therefore, it should fill the whole picture or more). So, how does the inward pull by bodies on other bodies large and small result in an orbital motion as shown in this animation? Clearly, something is using the attractive force (gravity) and changing it into a circular or elliptical motion. In order to understand this transformation, we need to introduce axial spin or rotation of all bodies. This video also demonstrates how, as they orbit the mother star, all planets are also rotating on their axes. Also notice both the axial rotation of all bodies, and the direction of their orbits are in the counterclockwise direction and the orbital motion is along the ecliptic of the sun.

 

AXIAL ROTATION :

 

Aryabhata (476-550 CE), a great Indian mathematician and astronomer.

         Please check here for more details about Aryabhata's contributions in mathematics and astronomy: www.indiancentury.com/arya.htm

         The ability of celestial bodies to rotate on their axes was recognized by the brilliant Indian mathematician/astronomer, Aryabhata (476-550 CE). He observed that the commonly recognized “heavens rotating” around the earth was actually an illusion created by the earth rotating on its axis; this predated the notion of a heliocentric model of the solar system by over a Millennium.  Aryabhata was wrong in assuming that all the planets and the sun orbited the earth, however.

 

         The graph below will show how the ability of the solar system planets to rotate is clearly related to their mass.

 

COMPARISON OF SPEED OF AXIAL ROTATION AND MASS OF

SELECTED SOLAR SYSTEM PLANETS

 

 

Adapted from http://www.nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet.htm

Reproduced from Applied Science and Innovative Research, www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/asir Vol. 4,

No.3, 2020

 

        Notice that I did not include Mercury, Venus, or Pluto (a “dwarf planet”) because they have some unusual properties in relation to their axial spin.  Mercury is the first planet closest to the sun, is largely made up of iron, and it is standing very close to an intensely magnetic body (Sun).  It does not display any axial tilt (i.e., its axis is parallel to the sun’s, just what one would expect a bar magnet to do, standing next to another bar magnet) and it rotates very slowly (1407.6 hours to complete one rotation on its axis).  This is 58.65 times slower than our earth’s rotation! (Remember, earth rotates in 24hours).  I believe Mercury’s absence of axial tilt and its slow axial rotation are both a consequence of its close proximity to Sun, and due to the strong magnetic interaction between them, the inherent axial rotational ability of the planet is impeded severely.  Venus is the second planet from the sun, it is almost the same size as the earth, but it has some unusual properties.  First, its axis is tilted 177.4 ^o, which means, it is almost upside down; as a consequence of this upside-down orientation, its axial rotation speed is severely slowed.  In fact, it rotates on its axis in -5832.6 hours, which is 243 times slower than the earth’s speed of rotation!  The minus notation means that Venus is rotating “negatively” or opposite to the rotation direction of most bodies; in other words, it appears to rotate clockwise.  However, it appears that way only because it is tilted almost 180 degrees, although it is still rotating on its axis in the proper way, to us it appears to do exactly the opposite.  A full explanation for this phenomenon is given elsewhere when we are dealing with “synchronous” “nonsynchronous” and “negative rotations” later on in this presentation.  The dwarf planet Pluto is tilted on its axis 122.5 ^o and consequently, its axial rotation is also delayed to -153.3 hours.  The explanation for this too is essentially the same as I have given above for Venus.

        The figure above demonstrates how closely the size of a free-standing celestial body is related to its ability to spin on its axis.  This clearly implies that the ability to spin on its axis is a derivative of the amount of matter contained in the body, and it refutes the contention that the spin is carried forward from the time of formation of the protoplanetary disk around the newly formed star.  Otherwise, one would expect all bodies to exhibit the same speed of axial rotation, or the larger bodies to rotate slower than the smaller bodies.  Only an inherent, autonomous property of matter explains the above observation; the more massive a body is, the faster it is able to rotate on its own axis.  Just compare how earth takes 24 hours to rotate on its axis, while Jupiter, a body with a diameter 13 times that of the earth, rotates on its axis in only 9.9 hours! Some of the other consequences of axial rotation will be presented below and they will highlight not only the fact that spin of bodies is inherent and fundamental, but also that it serves several functions. The shape of the free-standing celestial bodies is one such consequence; another is the ability to generate magnetism and what these two features contribute to the architecture and proper functioning in the universe, as will be discussed later in other areas.  Of course, the most important function of axial spin is in initiating celestial body motions, then continuing such motions in an orderly manner, and in sustaining it in perpetuity.  The correlation between the size of a body and its axial rotation speed, in even more fidelity than that between gravity and the size of a body is interesting.  And it has a practical importance in assuring equal force of rotation and attraction, which then leads to a proportional degree of centrifugal force in opposite direction to the gravitational pull.  This is a beautiful use of prevalent natural phenomena for inducing movements in bodies, in an orderly fashion and then continue them forever.  Here below we describe this mutual cooperation and the resultant motions in simple terms.

        The consequences of the interactions between mutual gravitation and the bodies’ ability to spin on their axes can be likened to the mother body(ies) grabbing hold of the satellite bodies and making them orbit in the same direction as the mother’s axial rotation. How the mother bodies also influence and either enhance or impede the axial rotation speed to the satellite, is explained in later sections.

 

 

 

        The table below shows how this size of a planet to rotate on its axis faster or slower, depending on its size affects the speed of orbit of their respective proximal  satellites;  note that these are  the larger, synchronously rotating satellites.  It is as if the mother bodies are grabbing these large satellites, all atoms that make up the body of each satellite,  so that the satellites orbit at the same or similar speed as the mother’s own speed of rotation.  Herein is one crucial cooperative interaction between the gravity and the axial rotation of the celestial bodies.

 

PLANETARY AXIAL ROTATION RATES  vs. SATELLITES’ ORBITAL SPEEDS ( Synchronously Rotating Satellites)
PLANETS			SATELLITES
	MASS (10 24 Kg)	AXIAL ROT. SPEED (Km/hr)		DIST. FROM MOTHER (10 3 km)	MASS*	ORBITAL SPEED (Km/hr)
1) Mars	0.642	867	Phobos Deimos	9.38 23.46	10.6 2.4	7,695 4,868 =6,281
2) Earth	5.97	1677	Moon	384.4	0.073	3,679
3) Uranus	86.8	9,310	Miranda Ariel Umbriel Titania Oberon	129.9 190.9 557 436 584	0.66 13.5 11.7 35.2 30.1	23,923 19,844 16,821 13,110 11,320 =17,004
4) Neptune	102	10,231	Naiad Thalassa Despina Galatea Larissa	23.2 25.2 27.7 37.2 48.8	0.002 0.004 0.02 0.04 0.05	43,350 42,129 41,045 37,836 35,238 =39,920
5) Saturn	568	17,775	Mimas Enceladus Tethys Dione Rhea	185.5 238 294.7 377.4 527	0.379 1.08 6.18 11.0 23.1	51,684 45,471 40,879 36,036 30,531 =40,920
6) Jupiter	1899	45,255	Io Europa Ganymede Calisto	421.6 670.9 1070 1883	893.2 480 1481.9 1075.9	62,382 49,613 39,103 29,531 =45,157

TABLE I

 

 

The Data presented in this table were adapted from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet and related pages.  Only for the moon was actual value derived from the NASA’s website; all other values were calculated from the values for the orbital parameters posted at the website.  For calculating the orbits of the small satellites, where only semi-major axes were provided, they were used; since all satellites’ values were thus affected, we accepted that limitation. = followed by a number is the average of each planet’s satellites’ orbital speed.  These values clearly demonstrate that the larger the planet, faster it rotates on its axis and faster its satellites orbit.  The only exception is the earth and its moon; we suspect this is due to the greater distance between the Moon and earth (384.4 x10 ³ km) and Mars and its two moons (9.38 and 23.46 x10 ³ km, despite the smaller sizes of the two moons of Mars.

*The masses for all the planets and earth’s moon were x10 ²⁴ kg and for the satellites of Mars were x 10 ¹⁵ kg; for Jupiter’s moons were x 10 ²¹ kg; for Saturn’s, Uranus’ and Neptune’s were x 10 ²⁰ kg. The above satellites are all synchronously rotating bodies (they rotate on their axes and orbit the mother bodies in the same time period and show only one face of the satellite to the mother).

 

        A scrutiny of the above table will reveal the interesting relationship between the size of the mother bodies (in response to the corresponding proportional ability of the mother bodies to rotate on their axes) and orbital speed of their synchronously rotating satellites’ orbital speeds. This is a clear testament to the power the mass of a body exerts on even the orbital speed of its satellites.   This sort of influence by mother bodies on the satellites can only be explained by the gravity and the mother’s axial rotation cooperating to literally carry the satellites in the direction of the rotation of the mother bodies’ axis, while still allowing the satellites to rotate on their own axes.

 

       The table also shows that in all instances, the closer the satellite is to the mother, the faster the satellite’s orbital speed, albeit the degree of the speed is still higher, the larger the mother body. Thus, the satellite Miranda of Uranus is closest to the mother, and it orbits faster than the farthest satellite Oberon; similarly, Neptune’s closest satellite Naiad orbits the fastest and the farthest Larissa slowest; Saturn’s closest satellite Mimas orbits the fastest and the farthest Rhea the slowest and finally, Jupiter’s closest satellite Io orbits fastest and the farthest Calisto orbits slowest.

 

        The numbers in red following = are average orbital speeds of satellites.  Notice that the orbital speeds roughly parallel the mass and the axial rotation speed of the mother body.  Thus, Mars’ satellites register 6.28, Earth’s, 3.679, Uranus’, 17.004, Neptune’s, 39,920, Saturn’s, 40,920, and Jupiter’s, 46,157.  As noted elsewhere, the odd one out, our Moon’s orbital speed being slower than those of the satellites of Mars, is probably because of the longer distance between Moon and Earth than the two satellites of Mars’ (384.4 vs 9.38 and 23.46 x10 ³ km , respectively).  Clearly, in the speed of orbit, distance does have a dominant role, over the mass of the mother body.

 

        Now let us examine the effect that the size of the mother bodies and the resultant axial rotation speed have on the axial rotation characteristics in the synchronously rotating satellites of the planets:

 

 

The close-by, synchronously rotating large moons of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus rotate faster if they are closer to the mother body:

 

TABLE II PLANETARY AXIAL ROTATION vs.  SATELLITES’ AXIAL ROTATION SPEED (Synchronously Rotating Satellites)
PLANETS			SATELLITES
	MASS (10 24 kg)	AXIAL ROT. SPEED (km/h)		MASS*	DIST. FROM MOTHER (10 3 km)	AXIAL. ROT. SPEED (km/h)
MARS	0.642	867	PHOBOS DEIMOS	10.6 2.4	9.38 23.46	9.33 1.25 =5.29
EARTH	5.97	1,677	MOON	0.073	384.4	16.7
URANUS	86.8	9,130	MIRANDA ARIEL UMBRIEL TITANIA OBERON	0.66 13.5 11.7 35.2 30.1	129.9 190.9 557 436 584	44 60.7 38 23.7 14.8 =36.24
NEPTUNE	102	10,231	NAIAD THALASSIA DESPINA GALATIA LARISSA	0.002 0.004 0.02 0.04 0.05	23.2 25.2 27.7 37.2 48.8	31.5 36.9 60.5 54.3 47 =46.04
SATURN	568	17,775	MIMAS ENCELADUS TETHYS DIONE RHEA	0.379 1.08 6.18 11.0 23.1	185.5 238 294.7 377.4 527	51.6 44.5 40.8 36 30.7 =40.72
JUPITER	1899	42,255	IO EUROPA GANYMEDE CALLISTO	893.2 480 1481.9 1075.9	421.6 670.9 1070 1883	269.6 115.2 95.7 37.8 =129.58

 

The Data in this table were adapted from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet and related pages.  Only for the moon was actual values derived from NASA’s website; all other values were calculated from the values for the orbital parameters posted on that site.  For calculating the axial rotation speeds, either using the ‘median axis radius’ given by NASA, or by calculating it from the data provided (for the small satellites, where their shapes are not spherical) were used to determine the circumference.  Since the satellites were synchronously rotating, for axial rotation period, the orbital period was used.  Then, the satellites’ orbital rotation was calculated from the two values. * The masses for satellites of Mars were x10 ¹⁵ kg; for moon it was x10 ²⁴ kg, for Uranus’, Neptune’s and Saturn’s were x10 ²⁰ kg; for Jupiter’s they were 10 ²¹ kg.

        The above table deals with the most compelling evidence of beneficial interactions between the gravitation and axial rotation of bodies.  A close scrutiny of the axial rotation speed of the synchronously rotating satellites clearly shows that it mirrors the size of the mother planets and their (the mothers’) own axial rotation speeds.  In fact, there are two interesting effects discernible in the presented data in this table .   Those satellites that are closest to the mother bodies display the fastest axial rotation, while also, the satellites of the larger planets are correspondingly faster in their axial rotation than those of the smaller planets .  This latter effect is recorded also in red, which is the average for each planet’s satellite(s) axial rotation speed.  Thus, Mars’ satellites’ rotation speed is 5.39,  ‘earth’s moon’s is 16.7, Uranus’ satellites at 36.24, Neptune’s at 46.04, Saturn’s at 40.72, and Jupiter’s at 129.58.  All values are in km/h.  These findings are compelling evidence for the way mother bodies’ axial rotation controls the axial rotation of the close by satellites.  My explanation of how they interact and produce these exquisite phenomena, are given in subsequent sections, with schematic representations of how synchronous rotation and negative rotations are produced.

 

1) Satellites of planets orbit the mother “synchronously” if they are in close proximity to the mother:         Those satellites that are farther out, depending on the distance from the mother rotate on their axes nonsynchronously or normally and the farthest satellites are tilted on their axes excessively, and they are rotating negatively.  All satellites of the gas and ice giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune display these features.  I will present a table showing the pattern of distribution of the satellites of Jupiter as a typical gas and ice giants; the other giant planets follow exactly the same pattern, and thus are not presented here.

2)

TABLE III

ORBITAL PARAMETERS OF SATELLITES OF JUPITER*

Satellites:	Radius (Km)	Distance from Jupiter Δ (10 3 Km)	Orbital Period (Days)	Rotation Period (Days)	Inclination (Degrees)
A) Galilean:
Io	1,821.6	421.8	1.769138	S	0.04
Europa	1,560.8	671.1	3.551181	S	0.47
Ganymede	2,631.2	1,070.4	7.154553	S	0.18
Calisto	2,410.3	1,882.7	16.689017	S	0.19
B) ‘Lesser’
Metis	30x20x17	128	0.294779	S	0.06
Adrastea	10x8x7	129	0.298260	S	0.03
Amalthea	125x73x64	181.4	0.498179	S	0.40
Thebe	58x49x42	221.9	0.6745	S	0.8
Themisto	4	7,507	132.02	ND	45.67
Leda	5	11,170	240.92	ND	27.47
Himalia	85	11,460	250.5662	0.4	27.63
Lysithea	12	11,720	259.22	ND	27.35
Elara S/2000 J11 Carpo (S/2003 J20)	40 2.0 3.0	11,740 12,560 16,990	259.6528 287.0 456.1	0.5 ND ND	24.77 28.2 51.4
Euporie Orthosie Euanthe Thyone Mneme	1 1 1.5 2 2	19,390 20,720 20,800 20,940 21,070	553.1 R 622.6 R 620.6 R 627.3 R 620.0 R	ND ND ND ND ND	147 145.9 148.9 148.5 148.6
Harpalyke Hermippe	2.2 2	21,110 21,130	623.3 R 633.9 R	ND ND	148.7 150.7
Praxidike Thelxinoe Helike	3.4 2.0 4.0	21,150 21,160 21,260	625.3 R 628.1 R 634.8 R	ND ND ND	148.7 151.4 154.8
Iocaste	2.6	21,270	631.5 R	ND	159.7
Ananke Eurydome	10 1.5	21,280 22,870	629.8 R 717.3 R	ND ND	148.9 150.3
Arche Autonoe Herse	1.5 2 2	22,930 23,040 23,097	723.9 R 762.7 R 715.4 R	ND ND ND	165 152.9 164.2
Pasithee Chaldene	1 1.9	23,100 23,180	716.3 R 723.8 R	ND ND	165.4 165.4
Kale	1	23,220	729.5 R	ND	165
Isonoe Aitne	1.9 1.5	23,220 23,230	725.5 R 730.2 R	ND ND	165 165.1
Erinome	1.6	23,280	728.3 R	ND	164.9
Taygete	2.5	23,360	732.2 R	ND	165.2
Carme Sponde	15 1	23,400 23,490	734.2 R 748.3 R	ND ND	164.9 151
Kalyke	2.6	23,580	743 R	ND	165.2
Pasiphae Eukelade	18 4	23,620 23,660	743.6 R 746.4 R	ND ND	151.4 165.5
Megaclite Sinope Hegemono Aoede Kallichore	2.7 14 3 4 2	23,810 23,940 23,950 23,980 24,040	752.8 R 758.9 R 739.6 R 761.5 R 764.7 R	ND ND ND ND ND	152.8 158.1 155.2 158.3 165.5
Callirrhoe	4	24,100	758.8 R	ND	147.1
Cyllene Kore	2 2	24,350 24,540	737.8 R 779.2 R	ND ND	149.3 152.4

 

C = Newly discovered satellites S/2000 J2 to S/2011 J2 have orbital periods from 504 to 982.5; all exhibit reverse ‘motion’ and orbital  inclination from 140.8 to 165.  Numerous peripheral newly discovered unnamed satellites are not included in this Table. Most of them rotate negatively. S=Synchronous rotation (rotation period is the same as orbital period) R=Retrograde rotation ND= No data available ^Δ Distance from Jupiter (10 ³ km) = Semi-major Axis

*Adapted from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/joviansatfact.html 16 July 2019 Reproduced with kind permission of Physics Essays Publication, http://physicsessays.org/ with modifications. Note the synchronous rotation in the closest moons, transitioning to nonsynchronous and then to negative rotations in distant satellites.

        Please note the large satellites that orbit in close proximity to Jupiter (Io, Europa, Ganymede, Calisto, Metis, Adrastia, and Amalthea) are rotating synchronously; the satellites from Themisto to Carpo are farther out and are rotating normally (nonsynchronously); those satellites that are farthest from Jupiter and are tilted over 140 degrees, Euporie and beyond are rotating negatively.  Also note that the axial tilt is progressively increasing with distance from the mother (Jupiter).

        So, how do the mother bodies orchestrate these fluid, purposeful motions in their satellite bodies?  Two seemingly opposite phenomena in the solar system planets/their satellites help us elucidate the mechanisms involved.  Figure 2 below deals with how the confluent phenomenon of synchronous rotation is produced, using three fictional close-by satellites.  The closest satellite is orbiting faster, although all three are rotating synchronously.  In this slide, satellite 1 is closest and therefore, it is orbiting faster than satellites 2&3, both of which are orbiting slower depending on their proximity to Jupiter.  All of them follow Jupiter’s axial rotation and thus they are orbiting in the counterclockwise direction.  All three of them appear to be held tightly by the mother, with the gravitational pull felt by the whole body of each satellite, while the resulting centrifugal force is felt by the satellites in an appropriate measure depending on the orbital speed of each of them keeping them from falling into the mother .  However, ahead of the front end of each moving satellite is a tug experienced by the gravitational pull from the mother. The strength of this pull will be slightly different for each satellite, depending on the distance from the mother; this pull will lead to a rotational effect felt at the advancing (front) end of each satellite.  Thus, satellite 1 will have stronger rotational pull, making it rotate faster, as its orbital speed is the fastest among the three satellites and thus the tug from the mother is also more rapid. Satellite 2 and 3 will also experience such rotational effect from encountering the gravitational tug from the mother, except in somewhat reduced intensity and with less rapidity.  Thus, their augmentation of axial rotation will also be lesser than on satellite 1.  Notice, this direction of pull by the mother also makes sure each satellite is also rotating in the same direction as its own intrinsic rotation, and thus there is no conflict, only enhancement.  To summarize, such effect from mother to satellites, with different degrees on intensity means that during each orbit the satellites’ faces are turned with fidelity, and thus showing only one face of each to the mother.  This is why we earthlings only see one face of our Moon, and there is a “dark side” of this satellite at all times; this same effect applies to all synchronously rotating satellites in the solar system.  Please refer to the figure in slide 17 carefully to confirm the above explanation:

 

 

 

 

 

Reproduced from Applied Phys. Res. Vol 12, No 2, 2020

http://dx.dol.org/10.5539/apr.c12n2p

 

 

Table 4. Comparison of Planets with Negative Rotation* (Venus, Uranus, and Pluto), to Earth and Jupiter

	Venus	Uranus	Pluto	Earth	Jupiter
Mass (10 24 Kg)	4.87	86.8	0.0125	5.97	1,899
Diameter (Km)	12,104	51,118	2,390	12,756	142,984
Rotation Period (Hours)	-5,832.5*	-17.2*	-153.3*	23.9	9.9
Length of Day (hrs)	2,802	17.2	153.3	24	9.9
Orbital inclination (Degrees)	3.4	0.8	17.2	0.0	1.3
Axial Tilt (Degrees)	177.4	97.8	122.5	23.4	3.1
Magnetic Field	No	Yes	Unknown	Yes	Yes

*Negative rotation means axial rotation opposite to that of the Sun

Adapted from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html

Reproduced with kind permission of Physics Essays Publication, http://physicsessays.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reproduced from Appl. Phys. Res. Vol 12, No 2, 2020; http://dx.dol.org/

10.5539/apr.v12n2p1

        The above explanation of the genesis of negative or reverse rotation of Venus is presented as a classic case.  However, all the most peripheral satellites of the gas and ice giants of our solar system, that are also tilted in excess of 120 degrees or so, also exhibit this characteristic.  Likewise, Pluto and the other Kuiper Belt inhabitants that also exhibit excessive tilt of their axes are likely to be rotating negatively, as well.

 

        Let us examine how the data presented in Tables I through III and the figures 1-3 support my hypothesis about how motion mechanics originate and continue perpetually in celestial bodies.  We know that the larger a body is it will have increased gravity and even more increased speed of axial rotation.  Then we show that the larger a planet is, with its faster axial rotation, it is able to make the closest satellites to orbit faster.  Even more interesting is the fact that such satellites are actually rotated on their axes faster by the larger mother bodies.  Fig. 4 shows statistically the ability of the mother bodies on the synchronously rotating satellites to rotate faster, the closer they are to the mother bodies.  (Here we use the orbital period as being representative of the rotation speed).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE IV   SELECTED PARAMETERS  OF  STARS  IN  SUN’S  NEIGHBORHOOD
STAR	DISTANCE (Light Years)	RADIUS*	MASS*	RAD.VEL Km/sec	ROT. VEL Km/sec
1) Proxima Centauri	4.24	0.154	0.122	-22.20	<0.1
2) Alpha Centauri A	4.37	1.22	1.1	-21.4	2.7+-0.7
3) Alpha Centauri B	4.37	0.86	0.907	-18.6	1.1+-0,8
4) Barnard’s star	5.96	0.196	0.144	-110.6	<2.5
5) Wolf 359	7.86	0.16	0.09	+19	<3.0
6) Sirius A	8.6	1.71	2.063	-5.5	16
7) Luyten 726-8	8.73	0.14	0.102	+29	28.2
8) Ross 154	9.6	0.24	0.17	-10.7	3.5
9) Ross 248	10.29	0.16	0.136	-75.2	1.2
10) Ross 128	11	0.197	0.168	-31	N/A
11) 61 Cygni A	11.4	0.665	0.7	-65.9	N/A
12) 61 Cygni B	11.4	0.595	0.63	-64.4	N/A
13) Procyon A	11.46	2.05	1.50	-3.2	3.16
14) Epsilon Indi	11.87	0.732	0.754	-40.4	1.46
15) Vega	25	2.36 x 2.82	2.1	-13.9	20.48
16) Arcturus	36.7	25.4	1.08	-5.19	2.4
17) Aldebaran	65.3	44.13	1.16	54.26	3.5+-1.5
18) Beta Carinae	113.2	6.8	3.5	-5.2	145.7
19) Achernar	139	7.3 x 11.4	6.7	+16	250
20) Alpha Arae	270+-20	4.5	9.6	0	375
21) Canopus	310	71	8	+20.3	9
22) Polaris	323-433	37.5	5.4	-17	14
23) Pleione	392	3.2	3.4	+4.4	329
24) Epsilon Aurigae	653-1,500	143-358	2.2-15	10.4	54
25) PZ Cassiopeiae	2810	1062	N/A	-45.68	45
26) Rho Cassiopeiae	~3,400	636-981	40	-47	25
27) VY Canis Majoris	~3,820	1420	17	41	300
28) KY Cygni	~3,600	672	25	N/A	N/A
29) UY Scuti	~5,100	755	7-10	+18.33	18
30) V382 Carinae	5,930	485	20	+6	57+-15 (?)
31)  V915 Scorpii	5436	760	N/A	+46	N/A
32) Eta Carinae	7,500	~240	120-200	-25	N/A
33) VFTS 102	164,000	N/A	~25	+228	610+-30

 

The data for this table were derived from published material online, mainly from Wikipedia.org but, some were confirmed or corrected by values posted in other sites, as well as from nasa.gov website

· = Radius and mass are expressed as multiples of solar radius or solar mass

· N/A= Data not available

 

 

        This table compares the equatorial radii, masses, distances from earth, radial velocities    (the stars’ movement across the galaxy), and the speeds of the axial rotation of a selection of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy; the stars were randomly selected based mainly on their radii compared to those of our sun and listed in increasing order of distances from earth.  The only other consideration was the availability of essential data such as mass, radius, radial velocity and rotational velocity.  Although there is a definite suggestion of increased axial rotation rates with the masses and radii, when both the radii and masses are similar, (stars 1-15, 19 and 23) it is not strictly linear. It is also noteworthy that both the availability of complete data and similar values of masses and radii are in stars that are the closest to the sun.  This means the readings are more accurate and more available for close-by stars.  When the radii and masses do not correspond, which also are in stars that are much farther away, the rotational values are quite unpredictable. Even so, one does notice larger rotational speeds in larger stars (stars 18, 19,20, 33).  We infer from the above that the farther away the stars are from the observers, the less accurate the readings are.  Therefore, only with more accurate readings in the future can we have conclusive evidence for the patterns of stars’ behavior.  In general, we believe, the data presented in this table does not refute our contention that the larger a star, faster it will rotate on its axis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE V

SELECTED PARAMETERS OF LARGE GALAXIES
Name	Distance (LY)	Mass*	Size (Diam.) (LY)	No. of Stars	Helio-Radial Vel (Km/s)	Galacto- Centric Vel (Km/s)
1) 1C 1101	1.045 ± 0.073 B	N/A	4M	100 T (10 14 )	23,368 ± 26	23,395 ± 26
2) 3C 348 (Hercules A)	2.1 B	1,000 *	1.5M	N/A	N/A	N/A
3) A2261 – BCG	3 B	10 *	1M	10 T (10 13 )	N/A	N/A
4) ESO 306 – 17	493 M	2.5 arc. Sec	1M	N/A	N/A	N/A
5) UGC 2885	232 M	463 K ly	800	1T	N/A	N/A
6) Comet	3.2 B	3.8 x 10 8 M ⊙	600K	N/A	3.4M	N/A
7) NGC 6872 (Condor Gal)	212 M	>10 11 M ⊙	522K	N/A	4,555	4,443
8) ESO 444 – 46	640 M	10,000 *	402K	N/A	14,061	N/A
9) Tadpole	420 M	N/A	280K	N/A	N/A	N/A
10)Andromeda	2.54 M	1.76 *	~220K	1T	-301	- 120
11) Milky Way	_______	1x10 12 M ⊙	105.2	250-500	210	N/A

 

LY= Light years    K= x1000    M=  Million      B= Billion   T= Trillion

N/A = Data not available

⋆ =  x Mass of Milky Way Galaxy

M ⊙ = x Mass of Sun

 

The data for this table were derived from our review of astronomy/astrophysical journals and various online sites, including nasa.gov, Wikipedia.org and others.   There is great paucity of data for the parameters we were particularly interested in (axial rotation speeds and radial velocity, vs mass/size of the galaxies).  We tried to select large galaxies and compare them with medium-sized ones such as our Milky Way Galaxy.  Apparently, the largest of the galaxies are also the farthest and clearly the availability of data is severely hampered by that fact alone.  Thus, on this table we are left with comparison of only a few galaxies (Nos.1,6,7,8 vs 10 & 11).  Even with this sparse data, there is a good hint that the galacto-radial and helio-radial velocities are higher, the larger the galaxy is.  Taken together with the recent observation (5) of the “Super Spirals” rotating even faster, we can safely predict that future availability of accurate information will confirm our belief.

 

SUMMARY: 

        The data presented in the foregoing paragraphs can be used to formulate a credible theory of how all motions start and then they are sustained for perpetuity.  Central to this understanding is the observation that matter at the smallest level, such as the elementary particles has the ability to rotate on its axis.  Thus, congregations of matter of ever larger denominations, on through the satellites of planets, to the stars and galaxies display the same ability to spin on their axes.  When this axial spin is combined with another inherent property of matter, its ability to attract other congregations of matter, mutual gravitation, it is easy to understand how the larger bodies with their stronger gravitation and increased ability to spin on their axes, can influence ( as if they are holding  at arms lengths) the lesser bodies in their neighborhood to orbit, and to some extent also to allow and even augment the satellites' own abilities to spin on their axes.  What happens in the stars and galaxies is just an extension of this phenomenon. Thus, in all stellar evolution, from their genesis to becoming a full-blown star from a protoplanetary disc, with its own plethora of lesser bodies, this is repeated in all star systems.  The enormous congregations of stars that form the galaxies, we suggest, faithful to their component star systems, also display the same spontaneous rotation and movement across space.  So, it is not at all difficult to postulate how these spontaneous motions remain perpetual.  The importance and elegance of the ability of congregations of matter to spin on its axis is clear from the following : The rotational speed of satellites and planets of the solar system are measured in kilometers/hour, whereas the infinitely larger conglomerations of matter, the stars’ and galaxies’ axial rotations are measured in kilometers/second.  Thus, the satellites rotate between 9.33 and 269.6 kms/hr, their mother planets rotate between 867 and 45,255 km/hr, while the stars rotate between 0.1 and 610 km/second and the infinitely larger galaxies rotate between 210 and 23,368 km/second! It is important to stress that along with gravity and axial rotation, the resultant centrifugal force in equal measure and the weightlessness in the empty deep space, combined with the near perfect vacuum that exists there, rendering all motions easy due to the frictionless state, are equally important actors. Finally, my concept embodied in the notion of spinning universe, is simply the illusion of the universe spinning, produced by the circumferential movement of all galaxies in one direction through space. As the larger the galaxy, not only does it rotate on its axis faster, it also moves in space in the counterclockwise direction, also faster, it is easy to explain how such larger galaxies will be able to overtake smaller galaxies or collide/merge with them.

 

 

ADDENDUM:

        Let me go over the current teachings in Cosmology and discuss why I think each idea fails to explain fully the observed phenomena.  And how these bedrocks of modern cosmology are indeed weak, and are modern versions of the flat earth ideology:

1) Newtonian mutual gravitation, with or without his First Law of motion:  While mutual gravitation between bodies is still relevant and explains certain findings, there are many parts of the motion of celestial bodies his ideas fail to explain.  The inverse square law that he postulated, definitely remains true in predicting the speed at which the solar system bodies orbit the central star, our Sun.  However, they cannot explain why such orbits remain in the ecliptic of the sun, or why the planets and all other bodies orbit the sun in the counterclockwise direction.  Further, the enhancement of the axial rotation speeds of the synchronously rotating nearby satellites of the gas and ice giants, Mars or the earth cannot be accounted for by Newton's ideas. They also fail miserably when dealing with the motion mechanics of stars within the galaxies (stars in the periphery and those close to the center of the galaxy move at similar speeds, and not according to the inverse square law, as noted in the motion of planets in a solar system).

2) Einstein's curvature of the spacetime:  I do not believe gravity does anything to empty space; the effect of gravity is felt by bodies, across space.  Even if, as Einstein theorized, the space does bend due to the local presence of a body or bodies, it will only explain why the bodies remain in those locations.  It does not deal with any of the orbital or axial rotational motions, including, why all bodies rotate and orbit in the counterclockwise direction. As mentioned earlier, it will not explain how large bodies become spherical, create so much pressure in their interior to melt even rocks and, in stars so much pressure and heat to lead to fusion reactions.

3) Hubble's Big Bang and the expanding universe.  His finding that in almost 95% of galaxies that he examined, the phenomenon of red shift increasing in the farthest of them, prompted scientists to suggest that that meant those congregations of stars were flying apart inexorably and, therefore, they might have started this journey from a point, as a result of a cataclysmic explosion.  This was then called the "Big Bang".  This idea flies in the face of what we observe in all freestanding celestial bodies, including the galaxies.  All bodies rotate on their axes and orbit a neighboring larger body; even the galaxies do rotate on their axes.  My question is, then why would only the galaxies move in space in a straight line and not in the counterclockwise direction?  Not to mention, the ludicrous and entirely naive notion of the space itself being made from nothing, from the time of the Big Bang to today and, increase at almost the speed of light, forever!  I explain the red shift this way:  since all rotating galaxies are rotating in the counterclockwise direction, the light from them will naturally appear to be moving away from the observer.  On the other hand, if they were to rotate in the clockwise direction, the light might appear blue-shifted.

 

        Finally, a couple of suggestions on how to prove the validity of my assessment that the axial spin or rotation is fundamental and inherent in all freestanding bodies and that the galaxies are moving in space in the counterclockwise direction.  For the former, I propose carrying several spherical bodies of different sizes and made of different materials, with a bar magnet placed inside to keep the bodies aligned properly, on a rocket and release them in deep space (away from large bodies).  Of course, the bodies will simply be weightless.  If all conditions are satisfied, i.e. weightless, almost perfect vacuum, the bodies will start rotating on their "axes" (in this situation, that will be determined by the magnets) and in the counterclockwise direction.  The other experiment is to design careful studies to determine the axial rotation, as well as the lateral movement of galaxies, by various astronomy departments and researchers in the globe to determine which way the galaxies rotate and also move in space.  I predict they will find that all galaxies both rotate and move in space in the counterclockwise direction.

 

 

.