"Synchronous" and "Negative" Rotations in the Solar System Explained

"SYNCHRONOUS" AND "NEGATIVE" ROTATIONS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLAINED

AUTHOR

PUTHALATH KOROTH RAGHUPRASAD
2400 E. 8TH STREET
ODESSA, TEXAS 79761
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ABSTRACT:

"Synchronous rotation" of the major satellites of the gas giants and the "negative rotation" of Venus, Uranus and Pluto are two curious features in the solar system planetary motions. A "tidal locking" mechanism is the currently accepted explanation for the synchronous rotation, while no satisfactory explanation has been offered for the latter. While "tidal locking" can explain the increased orbital velocity in the closer satellites of the gas giants, it cannot explain the cardinal finding reported in this paper, that of the increased speed of the axial spin of these satellites, with a direct relationship with the distance of the major satellites from the mother planet. It is proposed that this represents an independent influence emanating from the mother to the satellites, which influence is proportionately larger the closer the satellites are and that this leads to an augmentation of the pace of the axial spin of the satellites. When the satellites are more distant, this effect is more feeble and no synchronicity is possible. Using the same principles, we also offer a credible explanation for the "negative rotation", as well as the slowing of the axial rotation of Venus and Pluto. This 'rotational effect' from the mother bodies may have wider implications in many other situations where the complementary interactions of spin and gravity are operative, in the functioning of the planetary motions in the solar system and also in the larger universe.

INTRODUCTION:

The "synchronous rotation" (the orbital period of the satellites is the same as their axial rotation period) of the large, close-by major satellites of the gas giants has been traditionally explained as being due to 'tidal forces' or to a 'tidal locking' mechanism. However, the crucial finding reported in this paper, that of the axial rotation speed increasing in direct relationship to the closeness to the mother is difficult to explain by such forces. A tidal locking mechanism can be used to explain how a satellite that is close to the mother, will orbit faster, even to the extent of synchronizing its orbit with the mother's axial rotation. However, it will fail to explain how the axial rotation speed itself of the satellite is increased, which of course leads to the 'synchronicity'. It is not known if all the satellites that display synchronous rotation only show one face to the mother, but at least the earth's moon, which also displays synchronicity does display that characteristic. Since such satellites are also rotating on their axes, a simple 'tidal locking' mechanism is inadequate to explain this feature either. Instead, these findings hint at a direct 'rotational' influence from the mother, which makes the satellite rotate on its axis faster, commensurate with the increased orbital speed, the closer the satellite is situated from the mother. This paper explains how such an influence from the mother is transmitted to the satellites. This paper also explores the other curious finding in the orbital parameters of the planets, the 'reverse rotation' (the axial rotation is opposite in direction to those of the Sun and the other planets).

The sum total of all the findings reported in this paper support the notion that spin is a purposeful property of free-standing celestial bodies. It is proposed that even the orderly orbits of the planets around the Sun and the satellites around their mother planets, involve the combined forces of mutual gravitation (which obeys the " Inverse square law") but requires this spin/rotational influence from the mother bodies to guide the direction of such orbits. They also help explain how, the complementary nature of the axial spin and gravity can explain many other observed phenomena in our solar system and in the larger universe. Therefore, when appropriate, reasonable extrapolations will be made to explain some other observed phenomena in the solar system, which are directly influenced by spin and gravity and about their complementary roles in the universe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As the solar system can be considered a representative unit of the universe, with a complex system of bodies obeying roughly the same physics that perhaps obtains in all parts of the universe, the available data about that system was reviewed. This decision was also influenced by the fact that data are available in sufficient detail. Thus, the data dealing with the solar system, provided by NASA on their website (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov.html) were studied in depth. Close attention was paid to the rotational and orbital parameters and those other factors that might have a bearing on them. The distance from the mother body, the mass and size of each body, and the axial tilts, gravity and other relevant properties were examined in detail. Current astronomical literature referenced in this paper was also studied as it applied to the architectural and functional aspects of the universe.

RESULTS:

Table I presents the orbital parameters of all the planets of our solar system and some other salient features. Included in the analyses are the mass, diameter, density, distance from the Sun, orbital velocity, orbital period, aphelion, perihelion, gravity, axial tilt and rotation period. The distance from the Sun shows a direct relationship with the orbital velocity, as predicted by the inverse square law. Both perihelion and aphelion also increase with the distance from the Sun. One curious feature is the 'negative' axial rotation in Venus, Uranus and Pluto; both Venus and Pluto also display undue delay in the rotation period; explanation of this follows in the Discussion section.

Table II presents the orbital parameters of Jupiter and its known satellites. Jupiter's was chosen as a prototypical planetary system but Saturn's and Uranus' systems follow a similar pattern but are not shown here for the sake of brevity (these were reported in ref #17). Neptune's details are incomplete at present. All of them confirm the accuracy of the inverse square law as it applies to these planets and their satellites as well. Two interesting findings in this table are the 'synchronicity' (Synchronous rotation, which means the axial rotation period and the orbital period are the same) of the large satellites that are closest to the gas giants and the 'reverse rotation' of the 'lesser' satellites that are farthest. The synchronicity can be understood if one considers that the proximity to the mother allows the free and unhindered gravitational influence to be transmitted to these satellites. Further, not only does this mean the gravitational pull and the centrifugal force imparted by the spin of the mother to the satellites induce them to orbit faster, closer they are to the mother, but also hints at the mother body's ability to actually spin the satellites faster on their axes, the closer the satellites are to the mother. As these satellites are continuing to spin on their axes, this is the only likely explanation for this interesting finding. The explanation for the second phenomenon ("reverse rotation", which means the axial rotation of these bodies is opposite to that of the mother planet) is less straight-forward. Since all of these satellites also exhibit large orbital inclination (it is unknown if this means also large tilts of their axes), one could deduce that, similar to the planets with axial tilts of over 90 degrees (Venus, Uranus and Pluto), the axial rotation is still counterclockwise but the upside down orientation of their North poles give the illusion of rotating in an opposite direction.

Table III lists the closest major satellites of the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus and the earth's own moon. All of them orbit their respective mother planets in a synchronous manner. The axial tilts of these satellites of the gas giants are not available for review but that of our moon is only 6.7 degrees. NASA's website does indicate that the orbital inclination of these bodies is less than 2 degrees, with only an odd satellite displaying orbital inclination higher but most of them are still below 15 degrees. It is not known if the axial tilts will parallel the orbital inclination. It is to be stressed that all are situated close to the mother body. Thus, a large gravitational influence from the mother body must have a major role in this phenomenon (synchronicity). This phenomenon is explored below and in the Discussion.

Shown in Figures 1a-1c are the relationships between the distance of the major (also closest) satellites from their respective gas giant central bodies and the speed of their axial rotations. This finding has major implications in the phenomenon of synchronous rotation of these satellites, and bolsters the idea put forward in this paper that spin of the mother bodies has major impacts on the behavior of their satellites, besides the effect on their orbital velocities. The mother bodies actually augment the speed of the axial rotation of the synchronously rotating satellites. The NASA's website did not provide similar details about the major (synchronously rotating) satellites of Neptune.

Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of a gas giant and three of its closest, synchronously rotating major satellites, with the hypothetical gravitational force-field emanating from the gas giant, and interacting with the corresponding gravitational waves of the satellite bodies. It depicts how the dominant gravitational pull from the mother planet both makes the satellites orbit faster, the closer they are to the mother and in the same direction as the mother's axial spin. It also illustrates how the same force-fields from the mother tug on the leading edge of the satellites, thus making the satellites spin on their axes faster and in the same direction as the mother's axial rotation. This sequence of effects is behind the phenomenon of synchronicity; the closer the satellite, the faster the orbit and correspondingly faster the axial spin.

Table IV compares the planets with the most pronounced axial tilts (Venus, Uranus and Pluto) with two "typical" planets, the Earth and Jupiter. The former three planets have 'negative' rotation (axial rotation opposite to the Sun's) and, the solid planets (Venus and Pluto) also have considerable delay in the rotation period. A reasonable inference from these observations is that, the increased axial tilt makes these planets' axial rotation compete with the gravitational/rotational influences from the mother (Sun) and thus, a considerable delay in their axial rotation occurs. The reason for lack of delay of the axial spin of Uranus is unknown but one plausible explanation may be that since it is a gas giant, despite its increased axial tilt, the axial rotation is not slowed. Or, perhaps, for the axial rotation to slow down, the tilt may have to be much higher, quite possibly higher than 100 degrees.

Figure 3 explains how the excessive axial tilt (177.4º) of Venus leads to the inordinate delay in its axial rotation and to 'negative rotation'. The dominant gravitational pull from the Sun, in concert with the Sun's axial rotation determines the orbital velocity of Venus. However, since Venus is essentially tilted upside down, and thus giving the spurious appearance of clockwise axial rotation, its advancing edge experiences a 'negative rotational influence' from the Sun, (instruction to spin in the same direction as the Sun's axial rotation, which is counter-clockwise). This leads to conflict and the considerable delay in Venus' axial rotation (-5832.5 hours) as well as the apparent "negative axial rotation".

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

The statistical analysis associated with this research stems from the special relationships between the gas giants and their major satellites. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was calculated and the results are given below.

Correlation between the Planets and their Moons

In the statistical analysis, the independent variable, distance from the mother was compared to the dependent variable, orbital period (or rotation period) and the correlation coefficients were calculated. The data values for the earth and three gas giants and their moons are shown in TABLE III and plotted in the associated Figures 1a - 1c.

When the data for the independent variables, orbital distance of the moons for the three gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, were compared to the dependent variables, orbital period and then subjected to the correlation calculations, the correlation value of r = 0.9959, 0.9893, and 0.9962 respectively as indicated in TABLE Y. As Figures 1a-1c show this is an extremely strong positive correlation and indicates strong statistical support for the hypothesis that the variables of distance from the mother and rotation period (or orbital period) of the major satellites of these three Gas Giants are related.

TABLE Y
COMPARISON CORR.
DISTANCE FROM JUPITER VS. ORBITAL PERIOD OF THE MOONS 0.9959
DISTANCE FROM SATURN VS. ORBITAL PERIOD OF THE MOONS 0.9893
DISTANCE FROM URANUS VS. ORBITAL PERIOD OF THE MOONS 0.9962

 

DISCUSSION

The major finding presented in this paper is the close relationship between spin (both the axial rotation and the orbital movement) and gravity. This finding bolsters the idea that spin and gravity work in tandem and their complementary relationship is crucial for the orderly movements of all celestial bodies. Considering the fact that spin, which is exhibited by all elementary particles as well as large bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies, and the fact that even the generation of charge requires spin, one could make the case for spin being the most important fundamental property in nature. Also, since spin is exhibited by fundamental building blocks as well as the largest entities in the universe, one could argue that it is the one unifying force between the infinitely small and the infinitely large.

The findings reported in this paper and their interpretations explain the observed phenomena in the solar system better than Newton's or Einstein's ideas. The former suggests that the planetary motion is due to the combined effect of gravity and Newton's 1st Law of motion. Einstein teaches that the satellites are situated at their locations due to a 'space-time warping' effect from the mother body (2). Both of them ignore the fact that all satellites orbit the mother bodies, close to the ecliptic, in the same direction as the axial spin of the mother at diminishing orbital speed, the farther away the satellites are from the mother, and that all of which lead to order in the solar system. Hubble's finding of increased red-shift of light from distant galaxies and his interpretation that there was initially a "Big Bang" (3) and, the subsequent teaching of an "expanding universe" (4-16) also ignore all the axial rotational and orbital movements of the celestial bodies. In the following sections, the current author explains in detail how spin and gravity can account for all the rotational and orbital movements.

DIMINISHING ORBITAL VELOCITY WITH DISTANCE FROM MOTHER BODIES:

The diminishing orbital velocity of the satellites depending on the distance from the mother body can only be explained by the inward pull of gravity being counter-balanced by an equal and opposite centrifugal force of some sort, emanating from the mother body. Newtonians ascribe this effect to obeying his 1st law of motion. However, how will this effect explain the direction of the orbits matching that of the mother body's axial spin, the orbital velocity diminishing depending only on the distance from the mother and all the satellites being situated around the ecliptic of the mother bodies? Einstein's "warping of the fabric" of "space-time" by the gravity of the celestial bodies will only help explain why other bodies might be situated where they are situated, but cannot explain why all bodies are constantly in motion, rotate on their own axes and orbit a larger neighbor at only around the ecliptic and with a diminishing orbital velocity, the farther away they are from the mother bodies.

The increase in orbital speed in satellites that are close to the mother bodies has the important consequence of increasing the centrifugal force to counter the increased gravitational pull. Otherwise, the close-by satellites will simply crash into the mother, rather than remain in orbit. The mother body controlling the orbital direction of the satellite bodies has the equally important function of maintaining an orderly system of orbits.

DIMINISHING SPEED OF AXIAL ROTATION WITH DISTANCE FROM THE GAS GIANTS IN SYNCHRONOUSLY ROTATING SATELLITES:

Information in sufficient details on the satellites exhibiting synchronous rotation was available for the major satellites of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. These show clear evidence for a 'rotational influence' from the gas giants to these satellites. The diminishing speed of axial rotation of these satellites, depending only on the distance from the mother strongly suggests such an effect. The standard 'default' explanation in cosmological teaching, of 'tidal forces' cannot even begin to address this crucial finding. It is to be noted that, in 'normal' rotation, which is the pattern of axial rotation with non-synchronously rotating bodies, this effect may not apply; obviously, the distance alone might mean a much diminished effect from the mother. It is not known for what purpose this effect (augmenting the speed of rotation) that the mother body has on its nearest neighbors. However, as illustrated in Figure 2, this increased speed of axial rotation may simply be a by-product of the increased orbital speed.

SATELLITES ORBIT CLOSE TO THE ECLIPTIC:

From the time of formation of the proto-stars, to the fully developed solar systems, and the satellite systems of the planets including the rings and ring systems, within the solar system, the lesser bodies align themselves close to the equatorial region (the "ecliptic"). In fact, one does not find satellites orbiting the mother bodies at random orbits, unlike the 'electron clouds' that scientists claim the orbits of the electrons around the nucleus are. One could suspect the electrons also take up an 'equatorial' location for maintaining their orbits as well, as was suggested by Neil Bohr. The vast majority of the galaxies are spiral or elliptical and their component stars are also situated around the equatorial location of the galaxies. Clearly, this arrangement seems to be fundamental and probably also participates in imparting order in the universe and its component systems. The question to be answered is how? If one applies the principles enunciated in this paper, one could conclude that there is enhanced gravity around the mid-portion of a planet, a star or a star system which we call galaxy and, it and the spin of the body will direct the orbits of the satellites to this location. These are yet more examples of gravity and spin working together to impart order.

"SYNCHRONOUS" AND "REVERSE" ROTATION OF PLANETS AND SOME OF THEIR SATELLITES:

A scrutiny of the Tables will reveal a curious relationship between the axial tilts of the satellite bodies and the presence of 'synchronous' rotation, ordinary rotation or a 'reverse' rotation of the satellites. In the case of the planets, (Tables I and IV) the three that have axial tilts larger than 90 degrees display 'reverse' or 'negative' rotation; these are Venus, Uranus and Pluto. This phenomenon means the direction of the axial rotation of these bodies is counter to the direction of rotation of the parent and all the other bodies. The reverse is true for those bodies that have negligible tilts of their axes (less than 1 degree, Tables II & III); the closest large satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are examples. Those bodies that have axial tilts between these extremes have 'normal' axial rotation. The question is why? It is believed that the explanation lies in the effect the mother bodies have on their satellites' axial rotation itself by the spin, emanating from the dominant body. The explanation for the synchronous rotation is given in a prior paragraph and it clearly attests to this belief; the close relationship between the distance of the satellites from the mother and the speed of axial rotation of the satellites strongly supports this assumption. In the case of the 'reverse' rotation, since the axes of the bodies are tilted sufficiently, the net effect is that the mother bodies' influence, again through the combination of gravity and spin is opposite to that of the daughters'. Thus, a slowing of the satellite's axial rotation occurs, as well as a suggestion of rotation in the 'reverse' direction; it is as though the mother body is instructing the satellite to rotate in one direction but since the satellite's axis is tilted by so much, the satellite's own tendency competes with the mother's instruction and thus is slowed. As was stressed by this author in a prior article (Physics Essays, 26:2, June 2013, Ref# 17) this is a particularly telling phenomenon; it attests to the fundamental nature of the direction of rotation of the bodies. One could conclude that the normal axial rotation is counter-clockwise, relative to the North Pole, in all bodies and all systems.

Earth's only moon displays the same synchronous rotation as the closest satellites of the gas giants. Situated at 384,000 Km from the earth, the moon orbits in the same direction as the mother's axial rotation. Curiously, during all of its orbits, through the phases (which depend on the shadow cast by the earth during the moon's transit) an observer from the earth only sees one side of the moon. Now, how is that possible? Since the moon is also spinning on its own axis, while also orbiting the earth in a very close range, it behaves like the closer large moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The moon's axial rotation takes 27.322 earth days, while its orbital period is 27.3217 days. This is a very special relationship between the moon and the earth at present and it depends on the distance between the two bodies at this moment in time. As the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, this special relationship will change steadily. Solar eclipses will slowly change from being complete to one with a complete ring of sun showing around the moon, sometime in the future.

MAINTAINING THE SHAPES OF BODIES AND MAINTAINING ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE:

This interplay of gravity and spin applies to the behavior of matter at the smallest, as well as that of the grandest. The effect on the matter at the grandest (planets, stars and galaxies) is to maintain their motion in space only in one direction and at specific velocities, both of which help maintain order in the universe; otherwise, if all bodies were to orbit at random the bodies will be constantly colliding with one another. There are several other phenomena in the universe that this combination can help explain. One is the shape that large bodies such as stars and planets assume. When such bodies form, the gravitational pull of matter that make up these bodies, compresses this matter from every direction and the bodies assume a roughly spherical shape. However, all these bodies are not totally spherical; they bulge somewhat around the equator, making the circumference around the equator more than that through the poles. This is due to the centrifugal force exerted on matter by the axial spin of the body itself. In fact, this effect is what counter-balances the incessant inward pull of gravity in stars, rather than the usual belief that the nuclear fusion is responsible. Otherwise, the shape assumed by stars might look more irregular. This idea is dramatically reinforced by the shape assumed by a star that rotates on its axis at extremely high speed (the star is "VFTS 102" nick-named "Burger Star", (18) which is located 160,000 light years away, in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of Milky Way Galaxy. It rotates on its axis at 1 million miles per hour!). The extreme degree of bulging at the equator displayed by this star is a testament to this shearing force imparted on the body at the equator, by the extreme rapidity of its axial spin. Another good example of the complementary effect of the inward push of gravity and the counter-balancing effect of axial spin is the shape attained even by bodies that do not ignite, like the planets and their satellites, which also become almost spherical but with slight bulge in the equatorial regions.

SPIN IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF MATTER:

All bodies, from the infinitely small elementary particles to the unimaginably large, the stars and galaxies themselves spin on their axes. It is proposed that all bodies that are freely floating in space are able to exhibit this phenomenon, at least in part due to the frictionless nature of their surroundings, the vacuum and near zero gravity in the vicinities the bodies find themselves in. Even the extremely fast pace of the axial spin of the planets (for example, Jupiter rotates on its axis at 45,213.5 Km/hr) and stars (our sun rotates on its axis at 7,182 Km/Hr) is possible because the bodies are in relatively friction-less vacuum of space, which also renders them weightless and thus the natural tendency to spin is displayed. The most extreme example of the ability of bodies that are empowered with fast-pace spin, in frictionless conditions is that of the neutron stars (19). Neutron stars are remnants of large stars that are left over from supernova explosions, after most of the mass has dissipated and the remaining electrons, protons and neutrons have fused together to form city-sized spherical bodies. Such bodies exhibit extreme gravity and magnetism but, of most interest to us is their ability to rotate on their axes at rates of dozens to hundreds of times per second. The recently discovered star ("VFTS 102" and nick-named "Burger Star") and referred to in the previous paragraph is another good example of this phenomenon.

CONCLUSION:

The finding of mother bodies' contribution to the speed and direction of the orbits and even the speed of the satellites' axial rotation offers compelling evidence for the importance of the fundamental property of matter to spin. In fact, not only does spin cooperate with gravity to impart order in the solar system, without this crucial property, it is hard to imagine the various planetary and satellite motions. Indeed, an application of the manner of the intimate interaction between gravity and spin is sufficient to explain the origin of motion in the proto-stars and the planetary disk systems, and other areas in the universe such as the ring systems. As galaxies are congregations of star systems, the same properties can be expected to drive these systems as well. It seems appropriate to assign a vital function for spin in the solar system and the universe, and not simply discount it as an incidental finding.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

I am deeply indebted to Ms. Rosie Gonzales for her excellent secretarial assistance and to Mr. Chamel Raghu for help with the figures. Sincere gratitude is also due to Dr. Lloyd Taylor for the many helpful suggestions, for providing statistical analysis of the data and for the construction of Figures 1a – 1c.

REFERENCES:

1) Inverse Square Law, Stars and Galaxies, 82-3, Michael A. Seeds, Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA 1999
2) A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Random House, N.Y., 1920
3) E. Hubble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 15, 168 (1929)
4) G.F. Smoot et al, Astrophys. J. 396, L1-L5 1992
5) A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23:2, 347 (1981)
6) A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett B. 389, (1982)
7) A. Albrecht. & P.J. Steinhardt, J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220-1223 (1982)
8) S. Perlmutter et al. Astrophys.J. 517, 56 (1999)
9) A.G. Reiss et al. Astron. J. 116, 1009-1038 (1998)
10) R. P. Kirchner, Science 300, 1914 (2003)
11) P.J. E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. Eng. Sci. 361, 2497 (2003)-
12) J. Bardeau, P.J. Steinhardt. P.J. & M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 679-693, (1983)
13) A.A. Starobinskii, Lett. B117, 175-178 (1982)
14) S.W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B115, 295-298 (1982)
15) E. Harrison, Phys. Rev. D1, 2726-2730 (1970)
16) A. Guth & P. Steinhardt, Scientific American, 116-18, May 1984
17) P.K. Raghuprasad, Physics Essays, 26:2, 331-38, June 2013
18) Dufton et al, Astrophys. J. Letters, 2011
19) T. Nakamura, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 81:5, 1006-20

TABLES AND FIGURES:

TABLE l

SELECTED PLANETARY FACTS SHEET


Mercury

Venus

Earth

Mars

Jupiter

Saturn

Uranus

Neptune

Pluto

Mass

(1024Kg)

0.330

4.87

5.97

0.642

1,899

568

86.8

102

0.0125

Diameter

(Km)

4,879

12,104

12,756

6,792

142,984

120,536

57,118

49,528

2,390

Density

(Kg/m3)

5,427

5,243

5,515

3,933

1,326

687

1,270

1,638

1,750

Distance From sun

(106Km)

57.9

108.2

149.6

227.9

778.6

1,433.5

2,872.5

4,495.1

5,870

Orbital Velocity

(km/sec)

47.9

35

29.8

24.1

13.1

9.7

6.8

5.4

4.7

Orbital Period

(days)

88

224.7

365.2

687

4,331

10,747

30,589

59,800

90,588

Perihelion

(106Km)

46

107.5

147.1

206.6

740.5

1,352.6

2,741.3

4,444.5

4,435

Aphelion

(106Km)

69.8

108.9

152.1

249.2

816.6

1,514.5

3,003.6

4,545.7

7,304.3

Gravity

(m/s2)

3.7

8.9

9.8

3.7

23.1

9

8.7

11

0.6

Axial Tilt

(Degrees)

0.01

177.4

23.4

25.2

3.1

26.7

97.8

28.3

122.5

Rotation

Period (h)

1,407.6

*-5,832.5

23.9

24.6

9.9

10.7

*-17.2

16.1

*-153.3


*negative rotation = axial rotation opposite to that of the sun's

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

 

TABLE II

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

421.6

1.769138

S

0.04

Europa

1,560.8

670.9

3.551181

S

0.47

Ganymede

2,631.2

1,070.4

7.154553

S

0.21

Callisto

2,410.3

1,882.7

16.689018

S

0.51







B) ‘Lesser’






Metis

20

128

0.294779

S

0.06

Adrastea

13x10x8

129

0.298260

S

0.03

Amalthea

131x73x67

181.4

0.498179

S

0.40

Thebe

55x45

221.9

0.6745

ND

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

2.0

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

147.0

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

2.0

22,930

23,040

23,097

723.9 R

762.7 R

715.4 R

ND

ND

ND

165.0

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

165.0

Isonoe

Aitne

1.9

1.5

23,220

23,230

725.5 R

730.2 R

ND

ND

165.0

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

4.0

23,620

23,660

743.6 R

746.4 R

ND

ND

151.4

165.5

Megaclite

Sinope

Hegemono

Aoede

Kallichore

2.7

14

3.0

4.0

2.0

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

2.0

2.0

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

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 April 19, 2013

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

TABLE III

SYNCHRONOUS* ROTATION IN EARTH'S MOON AND THE

MAJOR SATELLITES OF THE GAS GIANTS^

Planet

Satellites

Diameter

( km)

Distance from Mother Δ

(103 km)

Orbital

Period

(Hours)

Rotation+

Period

Orbital Velocity (km/sec)

Earth

Moon

3,476.2

384

655.2

S

1.023

Jupiter

Io

Europa

Ganymede

Callisto

3643.2

3121.6

5262.4

4820.6

421.6

670.9

1070.4

1882.7

42.456

85.224

171.696

400.536

42.5

85.2

171.7

400.5

17.3

13.7

10.9

8.2

Saturn

Mimas

Enceladus

Tethys

Dione

Rhea

Titan

Hyperion

Iapetus

416x394x382

514x502x496

1076x1056x1052

1126x1122x1120

1530x1526x1524

5150

360x266x206

1492x1492x1424

185.52

238.02

294.66

377.40

527.04

1,221.83

1,481.1

3,561.3

22.618

32.885

45.307

65.686

108.42

382.69

510.638

1903.924

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Uranus

Miranda

Ariel

Umbriel

Titania

Oberon

480x468.4x465.8

1162.2x1155.8x1155.4

1169.4

1577.8

1522.8

129.39

191.02

266.30

435.91

583.52

33.923

60.489

99.46

208.94

323.117

S

S

S

S

S

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND


* Synchronous Rotation (S) = Rotation period is the same as the orbital period

^ Neptune's Satellites are not included as the details about the rotation are unavailable

Δ Distance from Mother = Semimajor Axis

+ Rotation period is available only for Jupiter's satellites. However, since all of the other satellites listed in this table rotate "synchronously," for them the orbital period was used instead, for rotation period.

ND = No Data Available


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

fig 1a

fig 1b

fig 1c

fig 2

TABLE IV

COMPARISON OF PLANETS WITH NEGATIVE ROTATION*

(VENUS, URANUS, AND PLUTO), TO EARTH AND JUPITER


Venus

Uranus

Pluto

Earth

Jupiter

Mass

(1024Kg)

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/

fig 3