Introduction to SpinningUniverse.com

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

     From my earliest exposure to the current cosmological teaching, I had my doubts about some of their principal tenets.  First and foremost was the notion that the universe began with a cataclysmic explosion, the "Big Bang", which was followed by an inexorable expansion of the universe, which included not only the outward motion of all bodies in the universe but, apparently, even the space itself being made at almost the speed of light. Further, this expansion of space has already gone on for over 13 billion years and is destined to go on forever!  There were two inconsistencies in these notions, that I couldn't accept.  First, the motion outward in a straight line of all galaxies; since all component bodies that make up the galaxies are rotating on their axes and orbiting larger bodies, I argued, the galaxies should also follow that pattern and thus, they should also move in space in a circumferential direction.  Secondly, I questioned the notion that all bodies were racing outwardly away from us, the earthbound observers; this was based, of course, on the observation of Hubble of red shift of the light from the galaxies.  I questioned this assertion on the basis that, since our home planet is located on a spiral arm of our home galaxy, the Milky Way Galaxy, unless we (the earth) are at the dead center of the universe, there must be an equal number of galaxies racing towards us, and therefore, be blue shifted.  With these objections to blindly following the currently fashionable teaching, I began researching the scientific literature.  This comprised all articles in print and online, in astronomy and astrophysics, as well as the usually well-researched and presented scientific programs on "Nova", which is a series broadcast on Public Broadcasting Services (PBS), in the US.  I spent countless hours scouring the literature and unearthed many nuggets that revealed not only flaws in the current teaching, but also provided many unexpected findings that supported my notions and many others that gave me the direction to take in the future.

       A cardinal error in the current teaching is the scant attention given to the universally observed phenomenon in astronomical bodies, that of their axial rotation.  It turned out, that was because the spin had been attributed to a "conservation of the angular momentum", which was a property all bodies acquired during the birth of the solar system, and such motions then continuing inexorably for billions and billions of years.  Newton’s first law of motion was invoked in this, but how it would facilitate an axial rotational motion was not even addressed. As a direct consequence of this neglect, the incessant rotation of bodies and their circular or elliptical orbits were not given any functional importance. It is of interest to note that, no explanation has been offered by current cosmology about how the nascent sun is already rotating on its axis, and the protoplanetary disk is already orbiting it, in the same direction as the sun rotates. So, I asked the question, who started these apparently orderly motions in the infant solar system?   Not to mention, how the same axial rotation is also exhibited by the vast majority of the galaxies, and also in the same counterclockwise direction, just like the lesser bodies that the galaxies are made of. Obviously, a rotational movement that starts in the infant solar system cannot be responsible for imparting the same motion in the infinitely vast conglomeration of stars, the galaxy.  Soon, I would realize that any modification of Newton's mutual gravitation/first law of motion,(without the inclusion of the equally pervasive attribute of all astronomical bodies, their axial rotation) or Einstein's "curvature of the fabric of space" around large bodies (which is the accepted replacement theory of gravitation in the universe), appeared to me to be inadequate to account for the ever- present rotational and orbital movements of the astronomical bodies, which are the hallmarks of the motion mechanics in the universe.  

    Naturally, as I questioned such notions, I started studying these topics, and in due course, I had formulated my own ideas of the way the universe functions, and recognized that the motions of the free-standing celestial bodies can be explained most satisfactorily by incorporating axial spin into the mix.  As I developed my ideas further, it appeared reasonable to assign a central role to a collaborative interaction between this axial spin of bodies, with the other universal property of the bodies, their inherent mutual gravitational attraction.  Finally, I soon recognized that the motion mechanics of the celestial bodies also require the resulting centrifugal force in equal measure,  for balancing the inward pull of smaller bodies by the larger mother bodies, as well as the roles played by weightlessness and the friction-free state of the almost perfect vacuum in the deep space where all bodies reside. This latter understanding is important in explaining the ease of movement of all celestial bodies, including the vast conglomeration of bodies that constitute the galaxies, as no matter how large they are, all of these accumulation of matter are essentially weightless in the empty areas of space where they are located.  I found my intuition gratifying in that, the more I studied, the more substance I found that supported my suspicions. In a nutshell, my ideas hinge around the finding of axial rotation (or spin) in matter of all sizes, beginning with the fundamental particles, to all freestanding bodies such as the satellites, planets and all the myriad lesser bodies orbiting the sun, all stars and the large congregations of matter, the mighty galaxies. The rest of this Introduction will present my discoveries from studying the astrophysical literature and from NASA's website.  Such are the findings of a linear relationship between the speed of axial rotation of the planets in our solar system with the respective bodies' sizes, the axial rotation speed of the closest satellites of the mother planetary bodies, resulting in the interesting and illustrative phenomenon of synchronous rotation, and the stars' and even the galaxies' axial rotation speeds apparently depending on their masses.  The most astonishing finding is the ability of the "super-spirals" (which are spiral galaxies that are much larger than our Milky Way galaxy), to spin on their axes at proportionately faster speeds, the larger they are in size.  All of the above attest to the autonomous ability of matter to rotate on its axis; thus, my explanation of the motion mechanics eliminates the need for conjuring up the imaginary monsters in the center of all spiral galaxies, (the "supermassive black holes") to explain their ability to rotate on their axes.  I will now take the readers through such discovery systematically and hopefully, all will also agree with my conclusions.

 1) Matter at all levels, from the tiniest elementary particles to the mightiest galaxies, spin on their axes.  This attests to the fundamental nature of spin.

2) In the solar system planets, the larger the body, the faster it rotates on its axis (see Fig. 1, below). This is counter-intuitive, as logic would have us expect larger bodies to take longer to move, even to spin on their axes, and it attests to the autonomous and fundamental nature of spin, quite akin to the increase in gravity that larger bodies have. Also, if the alleged conservation is a property acquired during the formation of the solar system, one could reasonably ask, wouldn't such motions diminish or even entirely stop, over astronomical time periods?  Further, if such motions originated in the nascent solar system, how do the whole galaxies also rotate on their axes? In other words, how can the motion characteristics acquired at the time of the birth of a solar system (tiny compared to a galaxy that typically contains tens of billions of such stars) impart any permanent effect on the motion of the whole galaxy that the star lives in?

In this figure the masses of the regularly rotating planets of our solar system are plotted against the speed of their axial rotations.  We did not include Mercury, Venus and the dwarf planet Pluto, as they have unique features that make them behave differently from the normal planets as listed above.  For a detailed explanation of this selection, please refer to my paper entitled: "Pivotal role of spin.....", the link to which is located on the left margin of this page.  As can be seen, there is a linear relationship between the mass of the body and its ability to rotate on its axis.  A good comparison is the speed at which earth rotates (24hours), with Jupiter, a body which is 13 times larger in diameter, which has the ability to rotate in just over 9 hours!  As noted above, the reasonable inference from this observation is that the axial spin is a fundamental property of matter, and therefore, larger bodies will inherently have greater ability to spin. Also, it has a specific purpose in initiating and continuing in perpetuity, the motion mechanics in all celestial bodies.  Thus, the largest body in any neighborhood will have the ability to spin faster, and with the correspondingly larger gravitational pull, this body will acquire the ability to move (orbit) the smaller bodies around it; this then becomes permanent.  Please check Figure 3 in my paper entitled ".Spin, ubiquitous...." posted as a link to the left margin of this page for a comparison of mass and the gravitational force of the same solar system planets.  While the values are similar, the increase in gravity is not linear.

3) All bodies rotate on their axes in the counterclockwise direction; this assures order in the movements of bodies, and avoid chaos.

4) All satellite bodies orbit mother bodies (with vanishingly small exceptions) in this same counterclockwise direction; i.e. they follow the mother body's axial rotation.  This clearly suggests that the mother bodies have a dominant role in guiding the direction of movement of their satellite bodies; again, this assures orderly movements of the bodies.

5) The major satellites that are closest to the regularly rotating planets in the solar system (Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune), rotate "synchronously"(this means their axial rotation period and the orbital period are the same, and they present only one face to the mother.  Our moon is a classic example of this); the satellites of the gas and ice giants that are intermediate in distance from their respective mother bodies, rotate non-synchronously or normally.  The farthest, tiny satellites, all of which are excessively tilted on their axes, rotate negatively  (this means they rotate on their axes opposite in direction to the mother body's and all the closer satellites, including the synchronously rotating satellites). Thus, one finds a continuum from synchronous rotation of the closest satellites, to normal rotation in the satellites that are situated in intermediate locations and finally, the tiniest satellites situated at the farthest locations rotating negatively.  Accompanying the axial rotational characteristics as mentioned above, the synchronously rotating bodies have negligible axial tilt, while the bodies that are farther out from the mother bodies exhibit increasing tilt of their axes.  All the tiny satellites that are negatively rotating are tilted more than 120 degrees.   See Table  III below, which is selected as a typical example of the gas and ice giants' satellites: These features also hint at the  dominant role played by mother bodies in determining and controlling the satellite bodies' orbital and axial rotational motions, and how, with distance from the mother, the satellites' orbital as well as axial rotation characteristics change.  Please check our paper entitled: "Synchronous, nonsynchronous and reverse rotations...." that is posted at the left margin of this page, for this and other tables and other relevant material.

TABLE III
ORBITAL PARAMETERS OF SATELLITES OF JUPITER*

Satellites:

Radius
(Km)

Distance from Jupiter Δ
(103Km)

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

Callisto

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

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      This table is representative of all the gas and ice giants in our solar system, as far as how the satellite bodies' distances from the mother bodies determine both the axial tilts and the axial rotational speeds, as well as their orbital speeds. Note how the close-in "Galilean" satellites (Io, Europa, Ganymede and Calisto) display minimal axial tilts and "synchronous rotation", whereas, the "lesser" satellites that are intermediate in distances from the mother (Metis to Carpo) display axial tilts intermediate (24.77 to 45.67 degrees) between the synchronously rotating satellites and the peripheral, "negatively" rotating satellites, (Euporie to Kore); all of the latter have higher axial tilts, between 147 and 165.5 degrees.  We infer from these findings that again, local gravitational/rotational influences are responsible for all the motion mechanics of celestial bodies.

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 (103km) = Semi-major Axis*                                                              Adapted from:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/joviansatfact.html 16 July 201

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

  

6) The closest satellites that are rotating synchronously, rotate on their axes faster, the closer they are to the mother bodies.  This is in addition to the faster orbits with proximity to mother bodies. (see Figures 4a-c and Tables 2a and 2b, below:

 

             

       The data pertaining to the dominant influence of mother bodies on their satellites, especially those in their immediate vicinity, are shown in the following two tables, Table IIa and IIb.  Table IIa compares the orbital speeds of the synchronously rotating satellites, and Table IIb shows the axial rotation speeds of the same mother  bodies and their satellites.  

   

TABLE IIa
PLANETARY AXIAL ROTATION RATES  vs. SATELLITES’ ORBITAL SPEEDS

(Synchronously Rotating Satellites)

 

                         PLANETS

 

SATELLITES

 

MASS
(10x24 Kg)

AXIAL ROT. SPEED
(Km/hr)

 

DIST. FROM MOTHER
(1000 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

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

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

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

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

 

       The orbital speeds of satellites having a positive relationship with both the size of the mother bodies, and the distance from the mother, implies that the gravitational pull (which is the result of the mass of the body), is operative.  Again, this argues against residual rotational/orbital influences from the time of the formation of the solar system, as implied in the notion of "conservation of the angular momentum", in the conventional teaching in cosmology.

        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.  
*The masses for all of the planets and earth’s moon were 10 x 24 kg and for the satellites of Mars were 10x15 kg; for Jupiter’s moons were 10x21 kg; for Saturn’s, Uranus’ and Neptune’s were 10x20 kg.  It is clear that the orbital speeds not only depend on the distance from the mother bodies, but also the size and axial rotation speeds of the respective mother bodies.

 

TABLE II b
PLANETARY AXIAL ROTATION vs.  SATELLITES’ AXIAL ROTATION SPEED
(Synchronously Rotating Satellites)

 

PLANETS

 

SATELLITES

 

MASS
(1024kg)

AXIAL ROT.
SPEED
(km/h)

 

MASS*

DIST. FROM
MOTHER
(x1000 km)

AXIAL. ROT.
SPEED
(km/h)

 

MARS

 

0.642

 

867

 

PHOBOS
DEIMOS

 

10.6
2.4

 

9.38
23.46

 

9.33
1.25

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The findings presented in this table further support our argument that local gravitational and rotational influences (i.e. from the mother bodies) determine all motions of satellite bodies.  Further, the augmentation of the axial rotation speeds directly by both the sizes of the mother bodies and closeness to them, as shown in this table, elegantly supports our contention that such motions are all the results of local events and not predetermined by any "conservation of the angular momentum", as the current teaching is.

 The crucial finding in this table is that in synchronously rotating satellites of these solar system planets, the speed of the satellites' axial rotation is controlled by both the mother body's size and its axial rotation speed.  This influence is more pronounced in satellites that are closest to the mother, with diminishing effects on satellites that are farther away. The control over the satellites' speed of axial rotation by the mother bodies even override the influence that the mass of the satellite has on its own axial rotation speed.  This is the most compelling argument in favor of the "rotational" influence mother bodies have on their satellite bodies, without which celestial body motion mechanics would not be possible, thus validating this author's hypothesis.

        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’ rotation rates were calculated from the two values. * The masses for satellites of Mars were x1015 kg; for moon it was x1024 kg, for Uranus’, Neptune’s and Saturn’s were x1020 kg; for Jupiter’s they were x1021 kg.

This fascinating finding underscores the dominant influence that mother bodies have on the lesser bodies' motion mechanics.  The traditional explanation of the synchronous rotation, of a "tidal locking" mechanism fails to explain this effect the mother bodies have, on the axial rotations of satellite bodies.  Again, please check our article, "Synchronous, nonsynchronous...." that is posted as a link at the left margin of this page.

 7) The satellites' orbital speeds and their rotational speeds are influenced positively by the size of the mother bodies, again, in the gas and ice-giants' closest large moons (please see the figures and tables of (6) above.  Thus, the larger the mother body, the faster it rotates on its axis, and this effect is then imparted to the satellite bodies!  This finding alone will argue against the well-established notion of "conservation of the angular momentum", as such an effect should be equal in all bodies.  In contrast, a collaborative interaction between the bodies' mutual gravitation and the axial rotation will explain these phenomena quite adequately.

8) All stars also rotate on their axes in the same counterclockwise direction; they also rotate faster, the larger the star is (see Table IV).  This is the issue the scientific community had not been able to explain, and thus they conjure up ideas such as "black holes"; this is especially so in the case of explaining the motions of stars within the galaxies.   Thus, imaginary monsters in the center of galaxies are given supernatural power, to make the galaxies spin and carry all the stars around; thus the larger galaxies are gifted ever larger "supermassive black holes".  When such mathematical computations are unable to explain why all stars, those nearer to the center of the galaxy as well as those towards the periphery of the galaxy move at about the same speed, they come up with, other explanations, such as, "dark matter" , and lately, with "dark haloes".  In our hypothesis, as explained in our papers "Spin, ubiquitous...." and "Pivotal role of spin in celestial body motion mechanics...", both of which are posted as links on the left margin of this page, we give a rather feasible explanation based on the above observed tendencies of matter to spin spontaneously, and like the degree of gravity, the larger the body, the stronger the rotational ability and its ability to influence neighboring smaller bodies.

 

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) Barnaard’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) Alha 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
  • The Table above suggests that if the radius  and mass of the stars as reported by the observers conform,  there is a rough correlation between the sizes of the stars and with the axial rotation speeds as well as their lateral motion in their mother galaxies. This finding also supports our notion that intrinsic, autonomous property of matter is what determines the motions of the stars as well. We are not sure why in many of the stars the mass and radius do not conform; we think it is because of the enormous distances to these stars and therefore, with the technology available to observers, some values are inaccurate.  Future improvements in measurements might solve this problem.

9) All spiral and elliptical galaxies rotate on their axes in the counterclockwise direction, and they rotate really, really fast!  Also, the larger the galaxy, the faster it rotates. (see Table V and Figure 5 below).  This observation is dramatically demonstrated in the significantly increased speed of axial rotation of the "Supermassive galaxies". Please check our recently published paper entitled, "Pivotal role of spin....", also presented as a link at the left margin of this introductory page.  Here again, the astronomy scientific literature is at a loss in explaining how the large units such as spiral galaxies are able to rotate so fast on their axes, and conjure up ideas such as "Supermassive black holes". and lately, (to explain the exquisitely rapid rotations of the Super spirals( the notion of "Dark haloes".  Since the mathematical computational monsters residing in the core of the spirals, and the purported "dark matter" that surely must be lurking in these galaxies, they expanded the area surrounding such super spirals, filled with dark matter, which now can somehow explain the exquisite rapidity of axial rotation of the super spirals.  I  am at a loss in imagining how an infinite amount of dark matter will make the galaxies spin faster; unless, of course, the role of universal axial spin is acknowledged.  In our paper, we give available data pertaining to the speed of axial rotation of spiral galaxies, in relation to their sizes (in the table), and our understanding of how galaxies rotate and move in space.  If the larger galaxies both rotate and move circumferentially in space, this will then also explain how galaxies collide.  In the expanding universe idea embraced by the current cosmological teaching, it will be impossible to explain how galaxies collide with one another, if they are all inexorably flying apart from one another.  However, in our ideas, it is quite easy to explain this phenomenon; the larger galaxies spin on their axes and move in space faster, and thus catch-up with smaller galaxies and either overtake them, or crash into them.  (see an artist's rendition of this idea, in Fig. 5, below). Our nearest larger neighbor, Andromeda galaxy is doing just this; we will collide and become one huge galaxy in the future.

 

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 (1014 )

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 (1013)

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 108 M⊙

600K

N/A

3.4M

N/A

7) NGC 6872 (Condor Gal)

212 M

>1011 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

_______

1x1012 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). 

       Figure 5 below is our concept of how the collaborative interactions between gravity and axial rotation in spiral galaxies also lead to not only their rotation in the counterclockwise direction, but that during such rotations, the galaxies move in space also in a circumferential fashion, very much like a frisbee does, once it is launched.  Such motion of the galaxies  in the counterclockwise direction, and the collective motion of all other galaxies, we suggest will give the illusion that the whole universe is rotating, in the counterclockwise direction, as well.

 10)  The exquisite properties of neutron stars, the odd behavior of Venus, Mercury, Uranus, Triton (a large moon of Neptune), and others all offer useful information about the cosmos.

     In conclusion, let me bring to focus the relative  axial rotational speeds of celestial bodies of various sizes: The satellites of the major planets of the solar system rotate on their axes at meager 9.33 to 269 km/hour, while their mother planets rotate between 867 and 45,255 km/hour.  The stars on the other hand, rotate at astonishing speeds between 0.1 and 610 km/second, and the galaxies rotate on their axes at even higher rates between 210 and 23,368 km/ second?  Thus, we find that the larger the body, the faster the rotation.

      The data presented in the foregoing paragraphs can be used to formulate a credible theory of how all motions start and then they sustain 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 the lesser bodies in their neighborhood to orbit, and to some extent also to 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 through 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.  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 exist 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. 

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 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.

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!

       The  two figures shown below are from my paper, "Synchronous, nonsynchronous...." paper; please check that paper by clicking on the link placed on the left margin on the Introduction. They are presented here just to take the readers through my explanation of two interesting phenomena in the solar system, according to the principles laid down in the foregoing paragraphs.   The Fig.2 shows Jupiter (the large body to the left), with its interactions with three nearby large moons, each of which is rotating synchronously. (This means the axial rotation of each satellite is the same as its orbital time, and they only show one face to the mother body, Jupiter.  This is despite the fact that these bodies are constantly rotating in the counterclockwise direction).  According to my ideas, how the synchronously rotating satellite is grabbed by the mother body and takes it along on its orbital path.  See how the closer the satellite is, the more gravitational tugs will be experienced (denoted by the number of bold arrows pulling the body towards the mother body) whereas, the moons situated farther away from the mother body have less strong tug from being weaker as well less tugging arrows.  Now, as the satellites are carried on their orbital path, in the counterclockwise direction, the gravitational pulls just ahead of its path will tend to exert a pull at the front end of the satellite.  Thus, this pull is felt more intensely on the closer satellite than the farther away ones.  Thus the synchronicity at different time periods, depending on the distance from the mother.  

 

Reproduced from Applied Phys. Res. Vol 12, No 2, 2020
http://dx.dol.org/10.5539/apr.c12n2p

 

      The figure below (Fig. 3) is also from the same paper as above and it deals with the negative or reverse rotation as in the planet Venus.  Note how the axis of Venus is almost 180 degrees upside down; thus, its axial rotation appears to be clockwise (although it is still actually rotating in the counterclockwise direction), and during its orbiting of Sun, the pull from the mother is exerting a tug at the front end of Venus, trying to persuade Venus to rotate in the proper way (if the planet had been oriented upright).  Thus, the rotation of Venus runs foul of Sun's efforts, thus the axial rotation of Venus is slowed enormously.  Consequently, it takes 5832.5 hours to complete one rotation!