My Astronomy Musings


I will jot down below the observed phenomena in the universe and link them to my thought processes and which culminated in my current views of the Cosmos:

1) All freestanding objects in nature have a tendency to spin on their axes. This includes the Smallest units such as the electrons and nuclei of the atoms, to planets and their satellites, to the largest units, the stars and the galaxies.

2) All of the celestial bodies and the known spiral galaxies rotate on their axes in a counter-Clockwise direction, as observed from the “North Pole”

3) The large clouds of dust that are destined to form solar systems already exhibit this rotation. This is conveniently attributed to “conservation of the angular momentum”. These formations organize into disks, which already rotate in this counter-clockwise direction.

4) Once fully organized, such solar systems (here I am extrapolating from our experience with our solar system) obey the well-known “Inverse Square law”. This means that the speed of orbits of the satellite bodies is determined by the distance from the mother body. This is regardless the size or composition of the satellites; planets and their satellites behave similarly. Clearly, the mother body is responsible for this. However, the mutual attraction alone will not explain the orbital motions as, by itself this will lead to all bodies falling into the mother body. Since the orbits are almost always in the same direction as the axial rotation of the mother body, the mother’s axial spin has a definite role to play. Thus, when one applies the concerted action of the pull by gravity and the spin of the mother body, through the well-known phenomenon of the ‘centrifugal force’ of rotating objects (similar to a person spinning with a ball attached to the end of a tether), the system is established. The faster the spin (axial rotation) and the stronger the pull (size of the mother body), the stronger the counter-balancing centrifugal force.

5) In the planetary system in our solar system, the large moons that are closest to the mother Planets (e.g.: our moon, the “Galilean” moons of Jupiter, and similar moons of the other gas giants) exhibit negligible axial tilt, and they rotate synchronously with the mother. Those satellites that are situated farther out exhibit more axial tilts and when these are more than 1 degree, (?) but less than approximately 90 degrees, they rotate non-aynchronously. Those smaller and smaller satellites that are situated far away from the mother planets, and exhibit tilts over 90 degrees rotate negatively.

6) The negative rotation is also exhibited by the three planets (I am including here, of course, the ‘Dwarf’ planet, Pluto along with Venus and Uranus). All of them also have more than 90 degrees axial tilt.

7) Synchronous rotation is not shown by the closest planets of the solar system but I am not sure if the other solar systems contain actual planets that exhibit synchronicity with the parent star(s). Perhaps this is the case with the “binary star systems”, which are actually more common than single stars.

8) My problems with “Big Bang and the expanding universe”: Since all bodies spin on their Axes and orbit their parents, all the way from the atoms to the mighty galaxies, I feel convinced that the movements of whole galaxies will also be in a circumferential fashion. It is counter-intuitive to imagine otherwise. Why should the component systems that form galaxies behave one way and the whole galaxies behave differently? What about the red-shift phenomenon? I think this can be explained in the following way: the galaxies are actually moving through the universe, in a circumferential fashion but the red shift of light from such far away objects gives us the false impression that they are moving radially, away from us. Otherwise one should observe blue-shifting of galaxies that are approaching us. How about the “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” (CMBR)? I think it is preposterous to suggest that the radiation that we measure here, close to our tiny planet is the same everywhere else in the infinitely vast universe! As recent observations have found, this radiation is likely arriving from our Sun’s own neighborhood of the Milky-way Galaxy (which itself is a tiny galaxy compared to the infinitely large universe).

9) The case of the Neutron stars: How does one explain the extreme speeds of the axial rotation of these remnants of large stars? Some of these have been known to spin at over 600-700 times per second! I think this is a crucial proof of the fundamental property of matter to spin, since each neutron star behaves like a nucleus, albeit, a rather large one.

The current cosmological teaching would have us believe that this is simply the increase in speed of rotation of the dead star, analogous to an ice-skater bringing her arms down close to her body and aiding the acceleration of her spin. Once again, the scientists ignore the obvious and the importance of the fundamental property of matter to spin.

10) My paper entitled “Planetary spin-orbit attributes in the solar system and their wider implications “ (Physics Essays 26, 2 (2013)) touches upon several of the ideas mentioned above. The findings reported in the paper “Synchronous “ and “Negative” rotations in the solar system explained” expand upon some specific subjects dealt with in that paper. The observation of increased speed of axial rotation in the synchronously rotating nearby satellites can be explained by the same logic as above. The stronger pull exerted on the closer satellites, coupled with the faster orbits will lead to a stronger tuck at the advancing edge (or leading edge) of the satellites. This will thus lead to faster axial spin, directly related to the closeness to the mother body. I am not sure if the “Tidal locking” mechanism can explain this particular phenomenon; it could explain simply the satellite being held stationary, with the same face presented to the mother. In my explanation, the same face is presented because of the faster spin, commensurate with the faster orbits.

11) The roles spin and gravity play in the generation and maintenance of the shape of all celestial bodies: The shape attained by celestial bodies has been attributed to the combined effects of the inward pressure exerted on the body by its own gravity, counter-balanced by the outward pressure of the fusion reaction. To start with, this explanation will certainly not apply to the planets and most of the satellites, as they are also almost spherical in shape, but they certainly do not make fusion reactions. While inward push of gravity can explain by itself the globular shape of celestial bodies, the slightly wider girth around their equatorial plane, compared to their pole-to-pole dimensions cannot be accounted for by gravity alone. I propose that this is due to the fact that the ‘counter-balancing’ force is the axial spin of the bodies, which imparts a centrifugal effect on the body globally, but with an accentuated effect around the equator.

12)Other areas where the axial spin of bodies can be invoked to explain some other phenomena in the universe: How very large bodies such as Jupiter are made to orbit by sun from such great distances is explained in some detail in the article (Physics Essays 26, 2 (2013)). Briefly, all freestanding bodies such as planets and stars are essentially weightless as, where they are situated in the deep space, is almost devoid of gravitational influences (other than the ones from the dominant body in the vicinity) and an almost complete vacuum is prevailing. Thus, they are all essentially like fluff, no matter how big they are, in terms of mass. In order to understand this, one needs to free oneself from the earthbound influences and experiences. Another commonly observed phenomenon is how electromagnetism is generated in the earth and other spinning bodies. If one takes the example of the earth, crucial to this property are the molten iron in the outer core (the inner core is thought to be solid iron) and the rotating mantle and outer crust, which are both solid. I believe, the molten iron remains static because of its fluidity and thus the mantle and crust with all the matter that is rotating around it, completes the conditions for generating electricity. This then is another area where the intrinsic properties of matter, of spin and gravity work in unison for a useful purpose. A proof for my suggestion is the absence of magnetism in Venus; here the extremely slow axial rotation of this planet fails to satisfy the conditions necessary for generating electromagnetism.

13) Magnetism’s role in both proper alignment of the planets (and their satellites) and in keeping the bodies at their respective places in the ecliptic. In our solar system, with rare exceptions, magnetic polarity closely parallels the geological axis; the striking exceptions are Venus, with its absent magnetism and Neptune, with its North Pole buried deep into its mid-section. The magnetic polarity is, of course created by the bodies rotating on their axes and thus generating the magnetism. The curious fact is that once the magnetism is generated, the magnetic axes also probably help in maintaining the axial orientation of the bodies. However, what I am proposing in this section is that, the magnetism also helps locate the neighboring bodies at appropriate distances from one another; since the larger bodies generate more electromagnetism, they will be situated correspondingly farther apart. Herein comes another phenomenon one notes in nature, to help proper functioning; like poles repel and unlike poles attract. Thus, since the North-South orientation is maintained in the vast majority of the satellite bodies (planets and their satellites) both poles of the bodies behave just like bar magnets and repel the neighbors on each side. This same property can explain why all planets and their satellites align themselves (almost) neatly along the ecliptic. This prediction can be checked by scrutinizing the known data published by NASA or other space agencies. If I am correct about this hypothesis, one can speculate why the celestial bodies generate electromagnetism.

14)The role of this magnetism and the magnetic lines in the axial orientation of the satellites of
the gas giants. Magnetic lines are depicted as running from the South to the North Pole in arcs, all around the globe(s). As one moves outwards from the bodies, these lines are depicted as weakening and being spaced wider apart. However, they remain as closed loops. However, I suspect that if one follows these lines farther and farther out from the mother planets, these lines cross over and thus change the polarity. This, I believe is what makes the far-out small satellites increasingly become tilted and, eventually, all of the most peripheral ones become inverted and thus begin to display negative rotation. This can also be proven or disproved by actually evaluating the polarities of these peripheral satellite bodies and by determining the magnetic pattern in the vicinity.

15)Where Einstein and Newton went wrong: I have issues with many of the teachings of both Newton and Einstein, as they relate to Gravity. Newton’s idea of ‘universal gravitation’ holds true everywhere in the observable universe. However, this force alone cannot be invoked to explain the ubiquitous motions of celestial bodies. Adherents of Newton’s universal gravitation explain the orbital motions as follows: The dominant body in the system (a star in the ‘solar’ systems or a planet in the case of planetary systems, which include a planet and its satellites) influences the smaller bodies in its sphere of influence through gravity, in a predictable fashion, as postulated by Newton in his ‘Inverse square law’. However, as I explained in an earlier section, without the complementary effect of spin, this gravitation alone will not explain the orbits of the smaller bodies around the mother bodies in an orderly fashion and in the same direction as the mother body’s axial spin. Einstein postulated that gravity from a dominant body ‘warps’ the ‘fabric’ of space and the dependent bodies are thus situated at their respective locations. While superficially this idea sounds interesting, it completely ignores the facts that such bodies rotate on their own axes and orbit the mother bodies in a defined direction and at predictable speeds. I question the very notion of Einstein that gravity is simply an ‘acceleration’ similar to the effect that objects inside a free-falling elevator experience during such free-falls. It demeans the exquisite natural phenomenon of mutual gravitation of matter. I believe, in the realm of gravity, there are no solid bodies, only force fields of different strengths. The larger bodies wield larger fields and smaller bodies have correspondingly smaller force fields. When a perturbation occurs in these inter-connected force fields, instantaneous re-adjustments take place. Thus, without gravitation having to traverse space at incredible speeds, it does impart its influence instantly!

16) Oddities in the solar system: Several phenomena in the solar system have not been explained adequately or not at all, in current cosmology. Some examples are, the negative and incredibly slow axial rotation of Venus, the aberrant precession of the Perihelion of Mercury and the oddball Triton. The latter is a large moon of Neptune; it seems to orbit Neptune in a ‘clock-wise’ direction (which means its motion is opposite in direction to Neptune’s axial rotation) and this is not exhibited in any other body in the solar system. I will try to explain each phenomenon below:

  • a) Venus’ negative rotation: The almost upside down orientation of Venus on its axis has been explained as due to some collision with some unknown objects in Venus’ remote past. However, other interesting and unique features such as the absent magnetism, the negative axial rotation (direction of rotation opposite to the normal rotation of other solar system bodies) or the extremely slow pace of axial rotation have not been explained at all! However, if one uses the confluence of axial rotation and the mutual gravitation in the manner I have discussed, it is not at all difficult to explain all of these findings. It is true no one knows why Venus is almost upside down in orientation. However, since it is upside down, its inherent tendency to rotate on its axis in a counter-clockwise fashion, it will appear to be rotating in the wrong direction; hence, the term ‘negative rotation’. The reason for the extreme slowness of rotation is that, the mother body (the sun) with dominant gravitation, is coaxing Venus to rotate also in the counter-clockwise direction. Thus, Venus’ inherent rotational preference is interfered with and the rotational rate severely slowed. Since speed of axial rotation is needed for generation of magnetism, it is not surprising that Venus does not display any magnetism.
  • b) Aberrant precession of Mercury’s Perihelion: Calculations made according to Newtonian universal gravitation fail in predicting this curious finding. Einstein made some calculations according to his “Space-warping” by Sun’s gravity, as predicted by his General Theory of Relativity and came up with values that were closer than Newton’s. However, it is still not equal to the actual values. I suspect the reason for the odd phenomenon is that Mercury being made largely of iron and it being so close to a large and intensely magnetic body (the Sun), the large influence on it by the Sun’s magnetism needs to be incorporated in any calculation of the precession of Mercury’s Perihelion. This is truly a unique situation in the solar system.
  • c) Triton: This is a major moon of Neptune. It is situated close to the mother body and exhibits several unusual attributes. First, it orbits the mother in a clockwise direction. It also rotates on its axis opposite to the usual direction of most other satellites in the solar system. No one has been able to explain its aberrant behavior. I explain them this way: I believe this satellite is held in one place by the strong gravitational pull from Neptune but also from an unknown planet in the vicinity. Thus, since it is remaining stationary, against the anticlockwise axial rotation of Neptune, it gives the illusion of orbiting in the opposite direction. The satellite’s axial rotation in the clockwise direction could be similar to Venus’; this means it is also tilted upside down but is actually rotating in the proper direction.

Responses From


Contact Us or Leave Comment