Spinning Universe

• Abstract
• Introducton
• Materials and Observations
• Discussion
  • Axial Spin Is a Fundamental Property of Matter
  • Axial Spin of Celestial Bodies is in the Counterclockwise Direction
  • How Mother Bodies' Axial Rotation Guides and Controls the Orbital Motion of the Satellites
  • Other Ways in Which Spin and Gravity Interact
  • How are Large Bodies Influenced by the Mother Bodies to Orbit, and How Do Huge Congregations of Stars Move in Space?
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgements
• References

 

ABSTRACT:

This is the final article in our series dealing with the dominant role spin plays in the make up and functioning of matter in the universe.  In our papers we have shown that matter at all levels display the ability to spin on its axis; the larger the celestial body, the faster its axial rotation.  We have noted that, with rare exceptions, all bodies spin in the counterclockwise direction and all satellites orbit mother bodies in the same counterclockwise direction.  Further, the speed of both the orbital motion and the axial rotation of satellites are controlled by the size, and speed of axial rotation of mother bodies.  The progression from synchronous, to non-synchronous, and then to the negative rotation in satellite bodies of the gas giants, simply due to distance from the mother bodies, also hint at how the gas giants interact and guide all aspects of movements of their satellites.  Clearly, all these rotational movements are purposeful and such an arrangement assures orderly orbital motions.  The stars also spin on their axes in the same counterclockwise direction, with a suggestion of faster spin by more massive stars.  Interestingly, the transit of stars within the galaxies is also in the counterclockwise direction and their motion across the galaxy is faster, the larger the star.  Even the axial spin rates of spiral galaxies are faster the larger the galaxies are.  All the above findings lead us to predict that the movement of galaxies themselves across the universe will also be in the counterclockwise direction and not in a radial direction as proposed by scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory.  Since the electrons spin on their axes and orbit the nucleus, and almost all elementary particles spin on their axes, taken together with the celestial orbital mechanics described above, all data suggest that axial spin of matter is a fundamental property of it.  The movement of the galaxies across the vastness of the universe is an extension of observed features in nature as described above and that is what we describe as “Spinning Universe”.

Key Words:  Axial spin, electromagnetism, galaxies, gravity, orbit

 

INTRODUCTION:
                 
                  In 1929 Edwin Hubble reported his findings of increased red shift of light from all the observed galaxies (1).   By extrapolating backwards in time, he inferred from this observation that, therefore, all the matter that constitute the universe must have come from one point.  This he called the “Big Bang”.   He concluded that the universe was born from that cataclysmic event and, scientists later concluded that ever since that event all matter and even the space is still being created at enormous speeds.  Scientists offered supporting evidence for this notion by the finding of a uniform “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” (CMB), in the space in all directions. (2) This has led to the common belief system in cosmology that has been dubbed “Expanding Universe” (3,4,5).  Einstein agreed with this view of the beginning and the state of the universe as we observe now and promptly he scrubbed his idea of a “Cosmological Constant”, an imaginary counteracting force to mutual gravitation that prevented the collapse of the whole universe into itself.  He then recalculated the equations to explain gravity and that evolved into his “General Theory of Relativity”(6).  Unfortunately, calculations by the followers determined that this view of the universe left considerable amount of matter to be accounted for (7,8); this missing matter, they first called “Dark Matter”.   When that was deemed inadequate, other, even more esoteric purported forces have been invoked; such are “Dark Energy” and “Negative Energy”.   Vast amounts of time and money have been spent chasing such concepts and, even highly valued awards have been given to proponents and scientists for the results of such investigations.   As far as we can tell, the scientific community is still in a state of quandary in finding definitive answers.

                  In all of the above, no one had considered the ubiquitous axial spin as playing any part in the planetary or other celestial body motions.   Axial spin, which is an universally observed phenomenon in fundamental particles, all free-standing bodies in the universe such as the stars, the planets, their satellites and even the whole galaxies, had been ignored by the scientific community.   It was described as being due to a “conservation of the angular momentum”, apparently the remnant of a property acquired during the formation of the solar system and carried on by the objects in the solar system.  This latter idea ignores the fact that whole galaxies are also spinning on their axes.  Then the question is how a ‘ conservation of the angular momentum’ starting from a solar nebula would go on to power the whole galaxy of billions of such stars?  Another question we asked was, if the light from all galaxies and stars tell us that the bodies are receding, unless we are at the dead center of the universe, why we don’t see an equal number of galaxies and stars coming towards us also from all directions and therefore, are blue-shifted?  We also questioned that the measurements of the CMB done in the vicinity of the earth can tell us about what is going on even in the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy, let alone in the infinitely vast universe.

                  These questions, and our conviction that any readily observable finding such as spinning must have some purpose, prompted us to analyze the data that was available in the astronomy literature.  Such search culminated in our discovery that this fundamental property of matter at the smallest scale is carried through all congregations of matter, all the way to the mighty galaxies and that is what powers celestial body motions in the universe, and which makes these motions also perpetual.  We strongly suspect that the motion of galaxies through the empty space of the universe will follow the same pattern as that of its component bodies and will therefore, be circumferential.

 

MATERIALS AND OBSERVATIONS:

                  The material that formed the backbones of our prior papers, and which culminated in the current one, were uncovered from NASA’s website, as well as from the astronomical literature in print and online.   As we scoured the scientific literature, we were astonished to find the wealth of information that clearly showed the ubiquitous nature of spin and the many ways in which it functions in the universe.  Many of the findings we present in this paper are reproduced from our prior articles (9,10) and we present them not in the order in which they were published but in the order that makes logical sense to develop our theory.

Fig. 1: This figure compares the masses of the regularly rotating planets in our solar system, with their axial rotation speeds.  For obvious reasons, the three negatively rotating planets (Venus, Uranus and the dwarf planet Pluto) and the highly unusual, Mercury were not included in this comparison.  For detailed explanations, please check our prior publications (9, 10), and a brief explanation in the appropriate section in Discussion in this paper.  It clearly shows a linear relationship:  the larger the body, the faster the axial rotation.  This shows the fundamental and independent nature of axial rotation of celestial bodies, here represented by these planets.  If, on the other hand, this tendency to rotate were derived from the solar nebula at its inception, one would expect all bodies to retain the same rotation rates or, the larger bodies to rotate slower and the smaller ones faster.  Only an autonomous, inherent tendency of matter to spin on its axis can explain the above phenomenon, much like the degree of gravity of celestial bodies, which also increases with the mass of the body.

 

Table I:  In this Table, we compare the axial rotation speeds of the planets with the orbital speeds of their respective most proximal, synchronously rotating satellites.  Included in the analysis are Mars and its two moons, the earth and its moon and the gas giants with their closest 4 or 5, largest moons.  It shows a close relationship between the two; the faster the axial rotation of the mother body, the faster the satellites orbiting it.  The only deviation was between the satellites of Mars and earth; the former display faster orbits than the latter, although earth’s axial rotation is faster than that of Mars, however, the orbital speeds of these three moons are considerably slower than those of the moons of the gas giants.  Note that all the satellites represented in this figure are synchronously rotating, (except for Mars’ satellites, which we are uncertain of their being synchronous).  These findings confirm our conviction that spin of celestial bodies is purposeful and necessary to move satellites in orbit in the right direction and speed.  It is as though the mother bodies grasp the satellites and move them around in orbit in the same direction as their own axial rotation, thus determining also the orbital speed of the satellites.  It is noteworthy that this relationship will at once also assure the counterclockwise direction of orbits of satellite bodies.  This table also confirms the linear relationship between the mass of the bodies and their own axial rotation speeds.

             When similar comparison was made between the closest non-synchronously and negatively rotating satellites, they do not show the same close relationship with the mother body’s axial rotation speeds.   We think this finding attests to the rapidly diminishing gravitational/spin effect on the more peripheral bodies, and thus the mother body’s diminishing ability to move the satellite bodies with fidelity, unlike on the synchronously rotating satellites. 

 

Table II: (Presented with kind permission of Physics Essays Publication)(9)

This table lists the satellites of the gas giant Jupiter, as a representative of all the gas giants, all of which have multiple satellites.  It clearly shows the progression of the orbital motions of the satellites from, “synchronous rotation” in the closest moons with no or very limited axial tilts (in the first seven satellites, Io to Thebe), to nonsynchronous rotation in the satellites that are farther away and with intermediate degrees of axial tilts, but less than 90o  (Next 7 satellites, Themisto to Carpo).  Finally, all peripheral, small satellites display ‘negative rotation’ (opposite to the normal, counterclockwise rotation) and have axial tilts over -140o (all peripheral satellites from Euporie onwards).   We have offered detailed explanations of these phenomena in our prior paper (10) but suffice it to stress that this table teaches us the way in which spin and gravity interact in most planetary systems.  

Figure 2 (Featured in our article in (10)):  This figure is an artist’s rendition of Jupiter, as seen from above the North Pole, with three close-in large moons, all of which are rotating synchronously.  It explains the way in which the mother body influences these proximal satellites in such a way that, while they orbit in the counterclockwise direction, as indicated by the closed curved arrows, at the front or advancing edge of the satellites, they encounter a pull towards the mother, and this leads to the satellite(s)’ axial rotation to be augmented.  The closer the satellite, the faster the orbit and the faster the axial rotation.  This clearly means that mother bodies have a dominant role in not only directing the satellites to orbit in its own counterclockwise axial rotation, but also in controlling both the speed of orbits and, increasing the speed of the satellites’ axial rotation.

 

Table III compares the three negatively rotating planets in the solar system, Venus, Uranus and Pluto, with two “regularly rotating” planets, the earth and Jupiter.  It shows the inordinate delay in the rotation rates of Venus and of Pluto but not of Uranus.  The axial tilts of these three planets are  -177.4o,  - 97.8o and -122.5o degrees respectively.  In sharp contrast, the earth is tilted by only 23.4 degrees and Jupiter is almost vertically oriented.  This table teaches two principles: First, those bodies that are tilted >90 degrees rotate “negatively”, which means they are rotating in a direction opposite to that of most bodies, including the sun.  Second, the two solid bodies rotating negatively (Venus and Pluto) but not the gas giant Uranus rotate slowly.  Again, we have offered explanations for how the ‘negative’ rotations come about and why the rotation rate is slowed, in our prior articles.   Briefly, when the bodies are tilted excessively, their own inherent counterclockwise axial rotation will appear to be ‘negative’; the slowness is due to conflict with the mother body’s (sun’s) instruction to rotate in the usual direction (see Fig. 3) but since these bodies are almost upside down, in their efforts to rotate in their inherent direction, the rotation rate is slowed down considerably.  An important message from this table is that, even when the bodies are tilted upside down, their inherent clockwise axial rotation is maintained, confirming our inference that it is a fundamental and permanent property.   We believe Uranus’ rotation rate is not reduced because, for that slowing effect to be transmitted from Sun to the negatively rotating planet, the tilt has to be much higher than 90 degrees.

 

Figure 3 (Featured in our article (10)):  This figure is a rendition of the interplay between the sun and Venus, a negatively rotating planet.  The closed arrow with interrupted curved line indicates the path taken by Venus, in a counterclockwise direction.  The closed arrow with less interrupted vertical line through Venus shows the upside down orientation of its axis.  The two curved, open arrows indicate the direction of axial rotation of both sun and Venus; notice the ‘clockwise’ direction of Venus’ rotation, opposite to that of the sun.  The array of lines and arrows pointing towards Sun are representation of the gravitational pull towards it.  In this scenario, the apparent clockwise rotation of Venus makes it encounter an instruction from Sun to correct its direction of rotation, and this leads to the inordinate delay in the axial rotation of Venus, although the speed and direction of its orbit remain unaffected.

 

Figure 4: (Derived from Table III and Reproduced from (10)).  As noted before, the table lists major moons of three gas giants, all of which rotate synchronously.  The main message to get from this figure is the increasing orbital period with the distance from the mother bodies (an indirect measure of orbital speed). All the represented moons are rotating synchronously, with a good correlation between the distance from the mother and the satellites’ orbital periods.  This graph shows a linear relationship (r=0.9959, 0.9893 and 0.9962, respectively).

 

Table IV:  This table compares the equatorial radius, mass, distance from earth, radial velocity (of the stars’ movement across the galaxy), and the speed of the axial rotation of a selection of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy; the stars were randomly selected based only on their radii compared to those of our sun and listed in increasing order of distances from earth (6).  Although there is a definite suggestion of increased radial rotation rates with the mass and radii, it is not strictly linear and there are many outliers.   Stars 1-5 and 8 do show clear increase in rotational velocity with increasing radii and masses.  However, stars 6,7, and 9-20 do not show the same relationship or values are not available.  We are not certain why the latter do not show the expected close relationships, however, since these stars are also considerably farther away from the earth, we suspect the values we obtained from the literature about these very far away objects may not be accurate.  This idea is bolstered by the finding of some incongruity between the values of radii and masses in some stars.  Some examples of these are: stars 9-11, 13, 14-20.  In them the radii are substantially higher than their masses.  In those stars where the values for equatorial radii and masses were closer in value, there seems to be a good correlation with increase in axial rotation speed and the values for both radii and masses.   Clearly, this issue will be solved only when more accurate data become available.  We are optimistic that future studies will yield such data and we can make definitive assessment of this matter; the planetary and galactic values, where the data are more reliable, do confirm our ideas.   We hasten to point out that, since individual planets and galaxies of stars tend to rotate on their axes faster, but the intervening stars do not obey this arrangement, this finding is an aberration brought about by inaccurate data that deal with those stars that are situated at such unimaginable distances.

Figure 5:  This figure is an artist’s rendition of a spiral galaxy from above and to the right of the galaxy.  The two closed arrows on opposite sides of the galaxy (at 5 min. and around 40 min.) show the counterclockwise direction of its axial rotation.  The open arrow shows the direction taken by the galaxy as it moves through the universe (as opposed to its axial rotation).  It outlines the three features of the structure and movement of spiral galaxies highlighted in this article.  These are, the centrifugal force experienced by the galaxy by its axial rotation making the spiral arms to flare out, the counterclockwise rotation and the consequent lateral motion imparted to the galaxy by this counterclockwise motion (open arrow, at the top) which leads to the illusion of spinning of the universe.

 

DISCUSSION:

                   After many years of studying the current teaching in cosmology and after much contemplation, the current author became convinced that the concepts of “Big Bang” and “Expanding Universe” were fundamentally flawed.  The main arguments in this dissent were based on our assessment that axial rotation and orbits in circumferential paths were prevalent in all free-standing celestial bodies, including most of the galaxies; thus, we argued that, beyond the realm of the galaxies the teaching that the motion was in a radial direction was untenable.  It was obvious to us that, since the galaxies are made of the same matter, their own motion in space should also be circumferential and not in a radial direction, as is proposed by the current teaching.  Intuitively, we suspected that the increased redshift of light from far away galaxies need not necessarily mean flight of those galaxies in a radial direction; even a circumferential motion in space could easily be misinterpreted as motion away from us.  Our feeble instruments might not distinguish between motion radially and that in a tangential direction when they are used to measure movements of bodies at those unimaginably vast distances.   We also argued that, since our solar system is in a peripheral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, and the galaxy is rotating on its axis, one should find many stars coming towards us, and as such, blue-shifted on spectroscopy.  Further, we questioned the notion that the CMB found in our neighborhood is representative of what is going on even in the rest of our galaxy, let alone in the unimaginably vast universe.   Thus began the quest for answers and, our prior articles have tackled this topic in a piece-meal way; they bring us now to this study as the culmination of our quest.
                 
                  The data presented above in the Materials section clearly show the many ways in which the ubiquitous axial spin of matter participates in maintaining the structure and functioning of almost all components of the universe.   In this functioning, spin and gravity together play vital roles.  In this paper, we bring to the attention of the scientific community how these same cooperative interactions ultimately lead the largest congregations of matter in the universe, the galaxies themselves to move in space, in a counterclockwise, circumferential way, and thus lead to the phenomenon we label “Spinning Universe”.   We now discuss the subject matter of this paper under the following headings.

 

AXIAL SPIN IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF MATTER

                  All fundamental particles are known to spin on their axes  (11,12); electrons both spin on their axes and orbit the nucleus of atoms.  Even photons, one of the force-carrying elementary particles (bosons), are known to spin (13,14,15); it is not known if gravitons, another force-carrying boson also display this property.  All freestanding bodies, the planets and their satellites, as well as all stars are known to spin on their axes. The finding of a linear positive relationship between the mass of a planet to the speed of its axial rotation (Fig.1), is a proof that the axial spin is an inherent, fundamental property of matter.  A spectacular example of this intrinsic property displayed by matter is the case of the neutron stars.  These remnants of large stars that underwent supernova explosion, after losing most of their electrons, and are left with almost exclusively of neutrons, and are of roughly the size of medium-sized cities, spin on their axes at several times a second up to 716 times a second! (17).  We explain this ability of neutron stars to rotate so rapidly as evidence of how fast the nuclei of atoms rotate on their axes as well; these remnants of stars, are just displaying this natural tendency unfettered by friction, in the vacuum at the areas they are situated, and behave like a nucleus of an atom.  Also, the finding that even planets and satellites that are upside down in orientation, still rotate on their axes in the appropriate way, that is, counterclockwise, is telling. Most of the congregations of stars, the galaxies also spin on their axes (21-23).  It is not difficult to draw the conclusion from all of the above that, this ubiquitous finding, axial spin of congregations of matter, is a fundamental property of matter. 

 

AXIAL SPIN OF CELESTIAL BODIES IS IN THE COUNTERCLOCKWISE DIRECTION:

                  All congregations of matter spin in a counterclockwise direction and this motion is continued in the orbital movements of all satellites around their respective mother bodies (with the sole exception of Triton, a major moon of Neptune, which orbits in the wrong direction) and in all planets and all the other major bodies in our solar system around the sun.  Thus, the counterclockwise axial rotation, combined with mutual gravitation, guides and carries the satellites.  As we noted above in Table II, dealing with Jupiter and its satellites, and in our paper dealing with synchronous, nonsynchronous and negative rotations (10), all celestial movements are controlled by this arrangement.  We have not presented in this paper the corresponding details about the satellites of Saturn and Uranus, for the sake of brevity but the closest moons of both of these planets also display synchronous rotation, while the satellites that are farther away either have nonsynchronous or reverse rotations, depending on the distance from the mother, just like in the case of Jupiter’s satellites.   There are not enough data available on Neptune’s satellites to include in our report.   These orderly orbital motions of the satellites teach us how the mother bodies are able to carry their satellites in exact orbits, at the necessary speeds, only in one direction, and thus avoid constant chaos.  This direction of axial rotation is continued in the congregations of stars that form the galaxies. As expected, the direction of this rotation is also counterclockwise in spiral and elliptical galaxies. (21-24).

 

 

HOW MOTHER BODIES’ AXIAL ROTATION GUIDES AND CONTROLS THE ORBITAL MOTION OF THE SATELLITES:

 

                  We have shown how the combined forces of axial spin and gravity determine the direction and speed of orbits of planets and their satellites; Table I clearly shows how the speed of axial rotation of the mother bodies determine the speed of orbits of the satellites.  Thus, this effect is purposeful and is in exact proportions.   We have also shown how the speed of axial rotation of the satellites is also influenced by the mother bodies (11), as the Fig. 4 a-c clearly show.  The predictable sequence of synchronous rotations in the closest satellites, followed by nonsynchronous and then negative rotations as shown in Table II, bear witness to mother bodies’ commanding influence on their satellites.  No random occurrence of orbitals will explain these orderly transitions.  It is not difficult to infer from both of the above observations that the mother body is using the combination of gravity and spin in charting the course of its satellites.  Such influence clearly guides all planetary/satellite bodies’ motions in the same direction.

 

THE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH SPIN AND GRAVITY INTERACT:

                  Our prior studies clearly showed that this ubiquitous property of matter is purposeful in many ways, in both maintaining the architecture and functioning of the universe.  It is common knowledge that the orbital movements of electrons lead to the generation of magnetic moments; it emphasizes the fact that even at the level of fundamental particles, (19) the same arrangement obtains.  We proposed that the generation of magnetism in planets is also due to this same interaction (9).  Briefly, this process involves the molten iron in the interior of the earth, which is not rotating, but the rest of the planet’s mass is rotating around it and this rotating mass generates the magnetism.  We believe this magnetism is beneficial in ways other than by protecting the earth from the destructive power of solar flares; one such purpose is to help maintain the proper orientation of the planets, as well as (by the repulsion effect of like-poles) to keep the planets at appropriate distances.   The increase in the speed of axial rotation of planets depending on their masses (Fig. 1) implies that it is meant to counteract the inherently increased gravitational effect of larger masses of planets.  Thus, a balance is struck.  The increased gravity, along with the increase in axial rotation, which leads to increase in centrifugal force in exact amounts mean there remains an exact counterbalance in celestial motion mechanics.  A simple extrapolation of such cooperation between axial spin, gravity and centrifugal force to the realm of the galaxies will help explain the motion of stars within them, as well as the motion of the whole galaxies across the universe.  The reason for the inversion of the most peripheral satellites to such an extent that they uniformly rotate negatively is not known.  However, we speculate that this may be due to an “inversion” of the magnetic polarity in the farthest reaches of each planet’s field of influence.  This can be tested by experimentation with the satellites of the gas giants.

                  Another important function of the interaction of axial spin and gravity is to maintain the nearly spherical shape of stars, planets and other bodies of substantial size in the solar system.  This brings us to the question why the spherical shape is essential or preferred over other shapes for celestial bodies.   We think spherical or nearly spherical shape makes the axial rotation of bodies easier than an irregular shape or even another geometrically symmetrical shape such as a cube, as these are likely significantly less efficient.   It may even be the case that spheres would travel in space as in orbits, much easier than any other shape of bodies, as well.

 

HOW ARE LARGE BODIES INFLUENCED BY THE MOTHER BODIES TO ORBIT, AND HOW DO HUGE CONGREGATIONS OF STARS MOVE IN SPACE?

                  It is appropriate to consider the question of how stars and other mother bodies influence satellite bodies, using mutual gravitation and spin, from vast distances.    Gravity is a rather feeble force and it diminishes at geometric scale with distance (the inverse square law).   We believe that this motion is accomplished because all bodies, where they are situated in deep space, are almost weightless.  Thus, a star like our Sun is able to move a rather large planet like Jupiter, at a distance.   The same logic can be applied to explain how the axial rotation of large congregations of stars, the galaxies occur.  Since even the galaxies are essentially weightless, it would not require as much power to move the galaxy in a circular direction, unlike what has been proposed by scientists.  The current teaching is to attribute the task of rotating the galaxy to a central “supermassive black hole” and its strength is determined mathematically.   We instead suspect that the huge fireball in the center of the galaxy itself behaves like a huge star, (we have given it the nickname: “Galaxstar”) except that it has the mass of billions of stars; it spins on its axis as expected and takes the rest of the galaxy with it. 

We have an explanation for the peculiarity with the speed of motion of the stars in spiral galaxies.  The finding that baffles scientists is that all stars in spiral galaxies, those closest to the center and the most peripheral ones, seem to move at about the same speed, quite unlike the orbital movement of planets and satellites in the solar system.  We believe this is due to the fact that the flattened galaxy has stacks and stacks of stars, with of course their intense gravity such that, the whole galaxy behaves like a table top spinning on a central fulcrum; this motion is quite unlike the motion in our solar system, where the farthest planets orbit slower and cover longer distances.  We think this is where the scientists went wrong, in trying to explain the stars’ motion by using the laws that govern the orbits of the planets in this solar system.  In the spiral galaxies, although all the stars are moving at the same speed, the most peripheral stars take longer to cover the vast distances involved, compared to those stars situated near the center of the galaxies.  

 

                  The axial rotation speed of spiral galaxies will yield another proof of our contention that this property is inherent and fundamental to all congregations of matter.  Like the axial rotation speed of the regular planets of our solar system, where the larger the planet, the faster its rotation, the spiral galaxies also display the same characteristic.  Our Milky Way Galaxy, which is a medium-sized galaxy, 100,000 light years across, rotates at the rate of 130miles/sec (210km/sec).  In contrast, some “super spirals” (some as large as 450,000 light years across), are known to rotate at up to 350 miles/sec (579 km/sec). (24).  The explanation for this phenomenon in current teaching is to invoke the usual “default” idea of the presence of “incredibly large clouds or haloes of dark matter” (25).   The suggestion here is that this invisible and un-provable dark matter imparts so much extra gravity that somehow it translates to increased speed of axial rotation of galaxies.  We fail to understand how having more gravity will impart this increased ability to rotate.  On the other hand, by our idea of larger congregations of matter having the ability to rotate faster on their axes, it is easy to explain this phenomenon.  Thus, the larger the congregation, the faster the spin; even at the level of stars and galaxies, they obey the same law.
                   
                  The flaring outward of the arms of the spiral galaxies can be explained by the peripheral congregations of stars lagging behind as the whole galaxy is spinning in one direction, due to the distance traversed, in conjunction with the centrifugal force experienced by these arms in the process.  The very same counterclockwise motion of the disk of the whole galaxy will tend to propel the galaxy itself in the direction of the open ends of the arms; this makes the motion of the galaxy to be also counterclockwise, as reported by Longo (26). 

                  Finally, we want to draw the distinction between our concept of spinning universe to what some investigators have proposed  (29).  In their concept the galaxies and stars and all the lesser bodies acquire the ability to spin on their axes as a result of an explosive birth of the universe, akin to Big Bang, but apparently in a rotational event.   Then, the theory goes, that spinning ability is carried on forever.  This idea is thus an amalgam of Hubble’s Big Bang and the ‘conservation of angular momentum’.  We have already explained why the original big bang is untenable.  The real problem with this birth of the universe in a spinning model is that they are taking the concept of the conservation from just the solar nebula to all the way through the universe.  We strongly believe that, just like all radiations, exemplified by light, when they (any body or radiation) travel close to large bodies with intense gravitation, the light rays are bent, and the bodies are pulled in.  This also means that the transit of the rays and bodies is slowed; such encounters for billions of years will slow down all kinds of motions and eventually bring them to a stop.  In our idea, the spin is an inherent ability of matter, and thus it remains independent of all sorts of influences and, given the right conditions, such as a frictionless state, the low gravitational distractions and perhaps the intense cold, this ability to spin is maintained perpetually.  The beauty of this theory is that all the elements of this balanced interactions are readily observable and does not require invoking any esoteric force(s) such as dark matter, dark energy, negative energy etc.   In conclusion, just a word about the ideas that led the field of astronomy astray in the last century.  The idea of Big Bang was fundamentally flawed, as we indicated earlier.  Equally disastrous were Einstein’s “warping of space-time” idea and Newton’s explanation of planetary motions based on mutual gravitational attraction, in conjunction with his first law of motion.  Both of these ideas, and Hubble ignored all the orderly axial rotational and orbital motions that we are surrounded by in nature.  The notion of ‘conservation of angular momentum’ is equally at fault in lulling science to complacency about the crucial role played by spin in celestial motion mechanics.

 

CONCLUSION:

                  In order to understand the concept of “Spinning Universe”, one needs to free oneself from the constraints imposed by earthbound existence and imagine the milieu that the celestial bodies exist in; this includes the galaxies as well.  In the vast void of space, where there is an almost perfect vacuum means there is no friction.  Also, as the galaxies are separated by vast spaces, gravitational effects are minimal; this necessarily means that all       bodies, regardless of their masses, are essentially weightless.  What effect the almost absolute zero temperature that also exists in such deep space has on the celestial bodies, is unknown.  However, superconductivity and altered forms of matter such as Bose-Einstein Condensate (27,28) are consequences of such intense cold temperatures.  Therefore, this is an area that needs to be investigated.   Regardless the other extremes of conditions, just by the confluence of the vacuum and the weightlessness of bodies, even the galaxies, with their cargo of matter in all shapes and sizes, are still essentially like fluff, floating in space.  Thus, their own axial rotation does not require as much energy as one might suspect.  Further, this rotation of the galaxies on their own axes imparts a tangential motion to the galaxy, in the direction of the spin and they move in the same counterclockwise direction.  We are tempted to compare the motion of the galaxies to that of Frisbees, which also tend to move in a curvilinear direction, when launched.  The larger galaxies will tend to move faster and then tend to bump into smaller, slower-moving galaxies.  However, most of the time the motion of galaxies in the counter-clockwise direction means avoidance of collisions.  This concept of spinning universe eliminates the need for proposing esoteric, un-provable ideas such as dark matter, dark energy, negative energy and so on, to explain the problems presented by current cosmological teaching.   In doing so, the current teaching in science had ignored the axial spin, the only readily observable, ubiquitous property of matter!  Finally, it seems appropriate to stress once again, that what we call “Spinning Universe” is not the whole universe spinning on a hypothetical axis; rather, it is the movement of galaxies through space being in only one direction, counterclockwise.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

            We wish to thank Ms. Rosie Gonzales for her excellent secretarial assistance.  Equally important contributions were made by Jeff Nichols in preparing all the figures presented in this paper.  We are also deeply indebted to Dr. Lloyd Taylor, who provided the statistical analyses and the original Fig. 4 a-c.

REFERENCES:

1. Hubble, E.: A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among   Extragalactic Nebulae.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 15(3), 168-173. (1929).
2. Penzias, A.A., and Wilson, R.W.: Astrophys. J., 142, 1149 (1965)
3. Guth, A.H.: Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems.  Phys. Rev. D. 23 (2), 347-356. (1981). 4
4. A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982).
5. Peebles, P.J. E., and Ratra, B.: (2003).  The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy.  Rev. of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.
6. Einstein, A.:  Relativity: The Special and General Theory (Random House, New York, 1920.
7. Linde, A.D.: A New Inflationary Universe Scenario:  A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems. Physics Letters B, 108(6), 389-393. (1982)
8. Kirshner, R.P.: Throwing Light on Dark Energy.  Science (New York, NY), 300 (5627), 1914-18,
9. Raghuprasad, P.K.:  Planetary Spin-Orbit Attributes in the Solar System and their wider implications.  Physics Essays, 26(2), 331-338.  http://physicsessays.org/dol/full/10.4006/0836-1398-26.2.331
10. Raghuprasad, P.K.: Synchronous, Nonsynchronous and Negative Rotations: How Spin and Gravity Orchestrate Planetary Motions, Appl. Physics Res., Vol. 12, No. 2.: 2020.  http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v12n2p1
11. Braibant, S., Giacomell, G., Spurio, Maurizio.: Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.), Springer. pp 1-3. (2012).
12. Feynman, R. P, and Weinberg, S.: Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures. Cambridge Univ. Press. (1987)
13. Hofmeister, A., Criss, R.E.: Origin of Axial Spin and Orbital Rotation of the Solar System: http:/ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.P11A158H/

Abstract

14. Bouchard, Frederic., Leon, Israel De., Sebastian A., Upham, Jeremy., Karimi, Ebrahim., Boyd, Robert W.: 2014-09-11): Optical Spin-to-orbital Angular Momentum Coversion in Ultra-Thin Metasurfaces with Arbitrary Topological Charge”.  Appl. Phys. Lett. 105 (10): 101905
15. Zang, W., Qi, Q., Zhou, J., and Chen, L.:  Mimicking Faraday rotation to sort orbital angular momentum of light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112(15), 153601 (2014)
16. 16) Harris, Robin, K., Becker, Edwin, D., Cabral de Menezes, Sonia, M., Goodfellow.,  Robin Granger., Pierre.:  NMR Nomenclature: Nuclear Spin Properties and Conventions for Chemical Shifts. (UPAC Recommendations, 2001).  http://www.iupace.org/publications/Pac/2001/7311x1795.html
17. Hessels, J.W.T.; Ransom, S.M.; Stairs, I.H.; Freire, P.C.; Kaspi, V.M.; and Camilo, F.: (2006) A Radio Pulsar Spinning at 716 Hz.  Science, 311 (1569): 1901-1904.  ArXiv:astro-ph/0601337
18. McBride, Neil., Bland, Philip. A., Gilmour, Iain (2004): An Introduction to the Solar System.  Cambridge University Press. P 248 
19. Gasiorowicz, S., and Langacker, P.: Elementary Particles in Physics, www.physics.upenn.edu/~pgl/e27/E27.pdf 
20. Hobbs, Bernie.: How a Planet Becomes a Magnet: https://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s2109073.htm?site=science/ basics
21. Lin, C.C., and Shu, Frank, H.: On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies. Astrophysical J. Vol. 140, p 646 (1964)
22. Francis, C., Canderson, E.:  Galactic Spiral Structure: Proceeds of the Royal Society, A.: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. Vol. 465, Issue 2111, pp 3425-3446 (2009)
23. Jog, C.J.: Large Scale Asymmetry of Rotation Curves in Lopsided Spiral Galaxies: Astronomy and Astrophysics, 391 (2): 471-479, (2002)
24. Ogle, P.M., Jarrett, T., Lanz, L., Cluver, M., Alatalo, K., Appleton, P.N., and Mazzarella, J.M.: A Break in Spiral Galaxy Scaling Relations at the Upper Limit of Galaxy Mass: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884:L11 (6pp), (2019)
25. https://hubblesites.org/contents/news-releases/2019/news-2019-547news=true
26. Longo, M.J.: Detection of a Dipole in the Handedness of Spiral Galaxies with Redshifts z~ 0.04,  Phys. Letter B. 699, 224-229, (2011)
27. Morsch, O., Arimondo, E.:  Ultracold Atoms and Bose-Einstein Condensate in Optical Lattices, Lecture Notes in Physics:vol.602, Springer (2002)

Sachdev, S.: Quantum Phase Transition from a Superfluid to a Mott Insulator in a Gas of Ultracold Atoms: Published by Cambridge University Press.

 

Sivaram, C., and Arun, Kenath.:  Primordial Rotation of the Universe and Angular Momentum of a wide range of Celestial Objects: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3873

 

 

TABLE I PLANETARY AXIAL ROTATION RATES  vs. SATELLITES’ ORBITAL SPEED (Synchronously Rotating Satellites)
PLANET	MASS (1024 Kg)	AXIAL ROT. SPEED (Km/ hour	SATELLITE	MASS	ORBITAL SPEED (Km/hour)
1) Mars	0.642	867	Phobos Deimos	10.6 2.4	7,695 4,868
2) Earth	5.97	1677	Moon	0.073	3,679
3) Uranus	86.8	9,310	Miranda Ariel Umbriel Titania Oberon	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	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	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 Callisto	421.6 670.9 1070.4 1882.7	62,382 49,613 39,103 29,531

 

 

 

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 the satellites of Mars were x 1015 kg; for moon it was x 1024; for Jupiter’s moons were x 1021kg; for Saturn’s, Uranus’ and Neptune’s were x 1020kg

 

TABLE II
ORBITAL PARAMETERS OF SATELLITES OF JUPITER*

 

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 satellite 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.

 

 

TABLE III

COMPARISON OF PLANETS WITH NEGATIVE ROTATION*
(VENUS, URANUS, AND PLUTO), TO EARTH AND JUPITER

 

 

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

Adapted from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html (as  
Of  21 Oct 2019)

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

 

 

 

TABLE IV COMPARISON OF SELECTED PARAMETERS OF STARS
STAR	RADIUS	MASS	DISTANCE (Light years)	RAD. VEL (Km/sec)	ROT. VEL (Km/sec)
1)  Sirius A	1.711	2.063	8.60	-5.5	16
2)  Vega	2.5	2.14	25.04	-13.9	20.4
3)  Pleione	3.2	3.4	392+-6	-13.9	20.4
4) Alpha  Arae	4.5	9.6	270+-20	0	375
5) Achernar	7.3x11.4	6.7	139+-3	16	250
6) VV Cephei	13	8	4,900	N/A	N/A
7) CV Cephei	25	18.2	N/A	N/A	N/A
8) VFTS 102	N/A	~25	164,000	228	600+-100
9) Arcturus	25	1.08	36.7	-5.19	2.4
10) Aldebaran	44.13	1.16	65.3	54.26	3.5+-1.5
11) Polaris	37.5	5.4	323-433	-17	14
12) Canopus	71	8	310_-20	20.3	8
13) Epsilon Aurigae	143-358	2.2-15	653-1,500	10.40	N/A
14) Beta Carinae A	~240	~150	113.2	-5.2	-25
15) Rho Cassiopeiae	~450	40	~3,400	-47	25
16) V382 Carinae	700+-250	20	8.9	6	N/A
17) PZ Cassiopeiae	1190	N/A	2,810	-45.68	-45
18) VY Canis Majoris	1420	17	~3,820	41	300
19) KY Cyngi	1420	25	~5,000	N/A	N/A
20) UY Scuti	1708	7-10	~5,100	18.33	18

 

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.  For explanations of the findings on this table, please refer to the text, under Materials and Observations, Table III.  The radii of stars are in multiples of solar (our sun’s) radius and the masses are in multiples of the solar mass.  The distances are in light years from earth.  The stars are listed according to their increasing radii and masses and numbered from 1-20.  They were selected at random from available literature, solely based on their radii and mass in ascending order.  When the radius of a star and its mass are similar, they do show a rough positive relationship between them and their axial rotational velocities. (see Nos. 1-5 and 8).  However, most of the represented stars do not show such close relationships between their radii and masses and thus, the radial and rotational speeds may be unreliable.