Introduction to SpinningUniverse.com

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

     Most readers would probably find the notion of a "Spinning Universe" totally unacceptable, and that disbelief is entirely understandable.  They might ask: "How can the infinitely large universe rotate on one axis?  And what forces would drive such a coordinated motion?  What evidence are there to make such an extraordinary assertion?"  There are two competing answers to these questions.  First, everything in the universe is rotating on its axis and orbiting some object or other; this applies to the infinitely small (fundamental particles) and the infinitely large (the galaxies), as well as all freestanding bodies that lie in between.  Therefore, one can reasonably make the assertion that it is a "Spinning Universe".   The other explanation is embodied in the ideas put forward in this website.  It starts with the notion that, under proper conditions, all freestanding bodies rotate on their axes, and all smaller bodies orbit a neighboring large body in the same direction as that body's axial rotation.  With this idea, I am discarding the notion that all galaxies are flying apart in a radial direction, as is put forward in the current cosmological teaching, the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe; in its place, I am  proposing that the galaxies move circumferentially, in the counterclockwise direction; this motion is what will give the illusion of the universe rotating in one direction.  This will be explained in more detail later in this Introduction. The spontaneous axial rotation, I believe, is a fundamental property of matter, much like the other four established forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces.  In this website and in my published articles listed in the left margin, I explain how the axial rotation and mutual gravitation, combined with the centrifugal force generated by the orbital motion, in the weightlessness of deep space lead to all motions in the universe.  The above explain the motion mechanics more satisfactorily than both Newtonian mutual gravitation, even when combined with his First law of motion, and Einstein's "Curvature of Space".  Both their ideas fail to account for the axial rotations of bodies, and it being only in the counterclockwise direction, the orbital motions of satellite bodies also being in the counterclockwise direction, or the strictly ecliptic location of all satellite bodies.  The following paragraphs will present data that support the above statements and why I make the argument that it is time to modify the "Standard Model" of cosmology, by giving the axial rotation of bodies essential functions, rather than regarding this "conservation of angular momentum" as a passive phenomenon, with no function in the universe.

     In this introduction, we present material derived from published data in astronomy literature, as well as from the websites of NASA, ESA and other international agencies.  Such data had already been distilled into several papers I have published; some of the cardinal such findings will be presented later.  But, before I take the reader to such data,  let me quote the introductory paragraph of a book chapter I wrote recently: "The crucial findings that help build our arguments are, how the speed of the solar system planets' axial rotations are linearly related to the bodies' masses, how the axial rotation speeds of the synchronously rotating large, close-in satellites of the gas and ice giants depend positively on the sizes of their respective  mother bodies, and how the larger the stars and even the galaxies are, the faster they rotate and also faster they move radially in space.  All these findings teach us that axial spin of celestial bodies is an inherent, autonomous property, akin to the established fundamental properties of matter, the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism.  Further, we propose that this axial rotation of bodies is the basis of their motion mechanics and how such motions remain perpetual.  When we consider the fact that all satellite bodies orbit their mother bodies in the same counterclockwise direction as the mother bodies' axial rotation, it is obvious how all motions are organized to bring order in the universe.  We recognize also that for this fundamental property of matter to function, coordination of such motions with mutual gravitation, centrifugal force and weightlessness of the bodies is essential.  This understanding thus eliminates the need for invoking many of the postulates in modern cosmology, such as black holes, dark matter, dark haloes, negative energy etc. When the galaxies move across space circumferentially, as is proposed in my papers and in this chapter, such motions will give the illusion of the universe spinning on its axis".

       The phenomenon of synchronous rotation of the large, close-in satellite bodies of the gas and ice giants of our solar system help us understand the salient principles of my ideas.  This interaction between a mother body and a satellite can be put in simple terms as if the mother grabs the satellite and make it orbit in response to the mother's axial rotation.  Clearly, the mother's instruction to the satellite to orbit is transmitted through the collaborative interactions between the mutual gravitation and the intrinsic axial rotation of the mother body.  However, since the satellites are also rotating on their axes, how do mother bodies influence the speed of rotation of the satellites?  A simple "tidal locking" mechanism cannot explain this.  I believe, what happens is that the advancing front end of the satellites experience a tug from the attracting pull from the mother, while the satellite is made to orbit, and accentuating the satellite's own inherent axial rotation.  The closest satellites will experience stronger tug and thus not only do they orbit faster, their axial rotation is faster, the closer they are to the mother. This is shown in the schematic representation in Figure 2, below, and in more detailed explanations elsewhere in the Introduction and in the published papers.  Also in this Introduction, I'll be dealing with different aspects of such cooperative interactions between these two fundamental properties of matter, and provide data to support our assessment.  I'll begin by  providing a glimpse into the enormous role played by the mass of a celestial body in its ability to rotate on its axis.  Data pertaining to the mass/axial rotations of the regularly rotating planets of the solar system (Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) are given as representative of the normal axial rotations of most celestial bodies, in Figure 1 below; Mercury, Venus and Pluto are not included in that figure as they have unique peculiarities in their axial rotations.  We have given our explanations for their unique circumstances in the paper entitled, " Spin: Ubiquitous, Fundamental, Purposeful: Its Complementary Interactions with Gravity", which is posted on this website. (please click on the link given on the left margin of this page). 

      Given in the paragraph directly below this paragraph is a comparison of the speeds at which our solar system planets and their satellites rotate on their axes and compare those values with how fast the stars and especially the galaxies rotate on their axes. These findings, I believe, both emphasize the fundamental nature and ability of mass of a body to influence the speed of its axial rotation, in all congregations of matter; then, when we combine the effects of this axial rotation with mutual gravitation and the counteracting centrifugal force, in the weightlessness of deep space, the ingredients for generating spontaneous motions of all celestial bodies will at once become obvious.  When the reader examines the data below, remember, the speed of the smaller bodies, the  planets and satellites is in kilometers per hour, whereas that of the largest bodies, the stars and galaxies is in so many kilometers per second!  Here below is that data:

      The satellites of the major planets of the solar system rotate on their axes at meager 9.33 to 269 km/hour, while their respective mother planets rotate between 867 and 45,255 km/hour.  The stars on the other hand, rotate at astonishing speeds between 0.1 and 610 km/second and the galaxies rotate on their axes at even higher rates between 210 and 23,368 km/second!  Thus, we find that the larger the body, the faster the rotation. The take home message from these comparisons is that in freestanding celestial bodies, their axial rotation speeds are positively related to their masses, and without regard to the physico-chemical make up of the bodies.   I hope all readers will agree with me that this is counter-intuitive, but if the mass of a body gives it the ability to rotate on its axis as well as exhibit gravitational pull, it is not surprising that larger mass will gift it with both larger pull of gravity and increased speed of axial rotation. As described later in this Introduction, since the larger a body or a congregation of bodies (such as galaxies) is, the faster it rotates on its axis and faster it moves in space (essentially without the hindrance of weight, in the weightlessness experienced by all bodies in deep space; this includes the stars and galaxies). Thus, there is no need for manufacturing unprovable objects and properties, such as black holes, dark matter, dark matter haloes, negative energy, etc. to explain why the stars and galaxies move in space. Just by being larger, these bodies acquire the ability to spin on their axes and move in space faster, as elegantly exhibited by the "super-spirals", which are much larger than our Milky Way galaxy, and they spin much, much faster; again simply by being more massive.  (Remember, nobody is invoking the power of the imaginary "black holes" in the case of stars in their own exquisite axial rotation rates).  

     Before I move on to my detailed explanations, I wish to take the reader to some more background information.  My intuitions came decades before the facts were unearthed by my search for answers.  And, almost everything that I discovered by my search only supported my ideas, and often offered even more material to build a coherent hypothesis.   Here below I present the nuggets that I unearthed from scouring the astronomical literature and NASA's website, and my own observations and conclusions.  The numbered items mentioned below and the figures and tables that follow will clearly show that mother bodies' gravitational pull on their satellites, combined with their axial rotations both initiate the orbital motion/direction and speed of the satellites, and make such motions perpetual.  Since both mutual gravitation and the axial rotation are inherent and fundamental properties of congregations of matter, and the observations of increasing speed of axial rotation the larger the bodies are, quite akin to the increased gravitation of larger bodies, and almost all bodies both rotate on their axes and orbit in the counterclockwise direction, all support my contention that celestial body motion mechanics are not random occurrences or the result of a remnant of a past event or events, as suggested by the "conservation of the angular momentum" teaching in astronomy.  Now, the Nuggets:

  1. Matter at all levels, from the tiniest elementary particles to the mightiest galaxies, spin on their axes.  This attests to the fundamental nature of spin.
  2. The larger the body, the faster it rotates on its axis. (see figure). This attests to the autonomous and fundamental nature of spin, quite similar to the increase in gravity that larger bodies have. If, on the other hand, such axial rotation is due to a "conservation of angular momentum" one would expect the speed of rotation to be slower in larger bodies, or, at least all bodies would rotate at the same speed.
  3. All bodies rotate on their axes in the counterclockwise direction; this assures order in the movements of bodies, and avoid chaos.
  4. All satellites orbit mother bodies in this same counterclockwise direction; i.e: follow the mother's axial rotation.  This clearly suggests that the mother bodies control the direction of the movements of their satellite bodies; again this assures orderly movements of the bodies.
  5. The satellites that are closest to the gas and ice giants of the solar system rotate "synchronously"; the satellites that are farther out exhibit non-synchronous or normal rotation, and the farthest tiny satellites, all of which are excessively tilted on their axes, rotate negatively. (see table) These features also hint at the dominant role played by mother bodies in determining and controlling the satellite bodies' orbital and axial rotational motions. Please check our published paper entitled: "Synchronous, nonsynchronous...." that is posted at the left margin of this page.
  6. The closest satellites that are rotating synchronously, rotate on their axes faster, the closer they are to the mother bodies. This is in addition to the faster orbits with proximity to mother bodies.(see figures and table).  This fascinating finding underscores the dominant influence that mother bodies have on the lesser bodies' motion mechanics. The traditional explanation of the synchronous rotation, of a "tidal locking" mechanism will not explain this effect the mother bodies have, on the axial rotations of satellite bodies!  Again, please check our paper, "Synchronous, nonsynchronous..." that is posted as a link at the left margin of this page.
  7. The satellites' orbital speeds and their axial rotational speeds are influenced positively by the size of the mother bodies, again in the gas and ice giants' closest large moons (see figures and tables of (6) above).  Thus, the larger the mother body, the faster it rotates on its axis and this effect is then imparted to the satellite bodies!  This finding alone will argue against the well-established notion of "conservation of the angular momentum", as such an effect should be equal in all bodies.
  8. All stars also rotate on their axes in the same counterclockwise direction; they also rotate faster, the larger the star is. (see table IV).  This is the issue the scientific community has not been able to explain and thus they conjure up ideas such as "black holes", especially to explain rotational and motion phenomena in galaxies.
  9. All stars move within the galaxy, also in the counterclockwise direction, and the larger the star, the faster it moves. (see table IV)
  10. All galaxies rotate on their axes in the counterclockwise direction, and they rotate really, really fast!  Also, the larger the galaxy, the faster it rotates. (see table V and figure 5).  This observation is dramatically demonstrated in the significantly increased speed of axial rotation of the "Super Spiral galaxies".  Please check our published paper entitled, "Pivotal role of spin:....", also presented as a link at the left margin of this introductory page.  Here again, the astronomy scientific literature is at a loss to explain how the large units such as spiral galaxies are able to rotate so fast on their axes, and conjure up ideas such as "Super-massive black holes", and  "Dark matter", and lately (to explain the exquisitely rapid rotations of the Super Spirals), the notion of "Dark Haloes".  We explain this as an extension of the ability of congregations of matter to spin on their axes, essentially, in this respect the galaxies, which contain billions of stars, behave as one coherent body; the larger the congregations, the faster the spin.  That simple! Of course, one needs to understand that all these motions are possible only because all bodies exist in locations in deep space with almost zero gravity and weightlessness, and total vacuum, both of which assure a friction-free milieu. 
  11. (Here I speculate, with some evidence at hand): The galaxies also move in space in the counterclockwise direction and the larger the galaxy, the faster it moves. 
  12. The exquisite properties of the neutron stars, the odd behaviors of Venus, Mercury, Uranus, Triton(a large moon of Neptune) and others all offer useful information to bolster my ideas about the cosmos.

       The figures and tables presented below are from my recently published article entitled, “ Pivotal Role of Spin in Celestial Body Motion Mechanics: Prelude to a Spinning Universe”.  This and other articles are posted in this website; please click on the links in the left margin of this page to open them.

        Figure 1 below clearly shows that the speed of axial rotation of the regularly rotating planets in our solar system is directly and positively related to the sizes of the bodies.  The clear inference is that such motions are inherent, and an autonomous property of matter and not due to any "conservation of angular momentum" as taught by current cosmology.  Otherwise, the larger bodies should rotate slower and the smaller bodies rotate faster, or at least all of them rotate at the same speed, the speed that they were rotating at the start of their formation!

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

(Synchronously Rotating Satellites)

 

                         PLANETS

 

SATELLITES

 

MASS
(1024 Kg)

AXIAL ROT. SPEED
(Km/hr)

 

DIST. FROM MOTHER
(103km)

MASS*

ORBITAL SPEED (Km/hr)

1) Mars

 

0.642

867

Phobos
Deimos

9.38
23.46

10.6
2.4

7,695
4,868

2) Earth

 

5.97

1677

Moon

384.4

0.073

3,679

3) Uranus

 

86.8

9,310

Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon

129.9
190.9
557
436
584

0.66
13.5
11.7
35.2
30.1

23,923
19,844
16,821
13,110
11,320

4) Neptune

 

102

10,231

Naiad
Thalassa
Despina
Galatea
Larissa

23.2
25.2
27.7
37.2
48.8

0.002
0.004
0.02
0.04
0.05

43,350
42,129
41,045
37,836
35,238

5) Saturn

 

568

17,775

Mimas
Enceladus
Tethys
Dione
Rhea

185.5
238
294.7
377.4
527

0.379
1.08
6.18
11.0
23.1

51,684
45,471
40,879
36,036
30,531

6) Jupiter

 

1899

45,255

Io
Europa
Ganymede
Calisto

421.6
670.9
1070
1883

893.2
480
1481.9
1075.9

62,382
49,613
39,103
29,531

 

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

        Data presented in this table were adapted from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet and related pages.  Only for the moon was actual value derived from the NASA’s website; all other values were calculated from the values for the orbital parameters posted at the website.  For calculating the orbits of the small satellites, where only semi-major axes were provided, they were used; since all satellites’ values were thus affected, we accepted that limitation.  
*The masses for all of the planets and earth’s moon were x10 24 kg and for the satellites of Mars were x 1015 kg; for Jupiter’s moons were x 1021 kg; for Saturn’s, Uranus’ and Neptune’s were x 1020 kg

 

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

 

PLANETS

 

SATELLITES

 

MASS
(1024kg)

AXIAL ROT.
SPEED
(km/h)

 

MASS*

DIST. FROM
MOTHER
(103km)

AXIAL. ROT.
SPEED
(km/h)

 

MARS

 

0.642

 

867

 

PHOBOS
DEIMOS

 

10.6
2.4

 

9.38
23.46

 

9.33
1.25

 

EARTH

 

5.97

 

1,677

 

MOON

 

0.073

 

384.4

 

16.7

 

URANUS

 

86.8

 

9,130

MIRANDA
ARIEL
UMBRIEL
TITANIA
OBERON

0.66
13.5
11.7
35.2
30.1

129.9
190.9
557
436
584

44
60.7
38
23.7
14.8

 

NEPTUNE

 

 

102

 

10,231

NAIAD
THALASSIA
DESPINA
GALATIA
LARISSA

0.002
0.004
0.02
0.04
0.05

23.2
25.2
27.7
37.2
48.8

31.5
36.9
60.5
54.3
47

 

SATURN

 

 

568

 

17,775

MIMAS
ENCELADUS
TETHYS
DIONE
RHEA

0.379
1.08
6.18
11.0
23.1

185.5
238
294.7
377.4
527

51.6
44.5
40.8
36
30.7

 

JUPITER

 

1899

 

42,255

IO
EUROPA
GANYMEDE
CALLISTO

893.2
480
1481.9
1075.9

421.6
670.9
1070
1883

269.6
115.2
95.7
37.8

 

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

        Data in this table were adapted from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet and related pages.  Only for the moon was actual values derived from NASA’s website; all other values were calculated from the values for the orbital parameters posted on that site.  For calculating the axial rotation speeds, either using the ‘median axis radius’ given by NASA, or by calculating it from the data provided (for the small satellites, where their shapes are not spherical) were used to determine the circumference.  Since the satellites were synchronously rotating, for axial rotation period, the orbital period was used.  Then, the satellites’ orbital rotation was calculated from the two values. * The masses for satellites of Mars were x1015 kg; for moon it was x1024 kg, for Uranus’, Neptune’s and Saturn’s were x1020 kg; for Jupiter’s they were 1021 kg.

 

TABLE III
ORBITAL PARAMETERS OF SATELLITES OF JUPITER*

Satellites:

Radius
(Km)

Distance from Jupiter Δ
(103Km)

Orbital Period
(Days)

Rotation Period
(Days)

Inclination
(Degrees)

A) Galilean:

 

 

 

 

 

Io

1,821.6

421.8

1.769138

S

0.04

Europa

1,560.8

671.1

3.551181

S

0.47

Ganymede

2,631.2

1,070.4

7.154553

S

0.18

Callisto

2,410.3

1,882.7

16.689017

S

0.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

B) ‘Lesser’

 

 

 

 

 

Metis

30x20x17

128

0.294779

S

0.06

Adrastea

10x8x7

129

0.298260

S

0.03

Amalthea

125x73x64

181.4

0.498179

S

0.40

Thebe

58x49x42

221.9

0.6745

S

0.8

Themisto

4

7,507

132.02

ND

45.67

Leda

5

11,170

240.92

ND

27.47

Himalia

85

11,460

250.5662

0.4

27.63

Lysithea

12

11,720

259.22

ND

27.35

Elara
S/2000 J11
Carpo (S/2003 J20)

40
2.0
3.0

11,740
12,560
16,990

259.6528
287.0
456.1

0.5
ND
ND

24.77
28.2
51.4

Euporie
Orthosie
Euanthe
Thyone
Mneme

1
1
1.5
2
2

19,390
20,720
20,800
20,940
21,070

553.1 R
622.6 R
620.6 R
627.3 R
620.0 R

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

147
145.9
148.9
148.5
148.6

Harpalyke
Hermippe

2.2
2

21,110
21,130

623.3 R
633.9 R

ND
ND

148.7
150.7

Praxidike
Thelxinoe
Helike

3.4
2.0
4.0

21,150
21,160
21,260

625.3 R
628.1 R
634.8 R

ND
ND
ND

148.7
151.4
154.8

Iocaste

2.6

21,270

631.5 R

ND

159.7

Ananke
Eurydome

10
1.5

21,280
22,870

629.8 R
717.3 R

ND
ND

148.9
150.3

Arche
Autonoe
Herse

1.5
2
2

22,930
23,040
23,097

723.9 R
762.7 R
715.4 R

ND
ND
ND

165
152.9
164.2

Pasithee
Chaldene

1
1.9

23,100
23,180

716.3 R
723.8 R

ND
ND

165.4
165.4

Kale

1

23,220

729.5 R

ND

165

Isonoe
Aitne

1.9
1.5

23,220
23,230

725.5 R
730.2 R

ND
ND

165
165.1

Erinome

1.6

23,280

728.3 R

ND

164.9

Taygete

2.5

23,360

732.2 R

ND

165.2

Carme
Sponde

15
1

23,400
23,490

734.2 R
748.3 R

ND
ND

164.9
151

Kalyke

2.6

23,580

743 R

ND

165.2

Pasiphae
Eukelade

18
4

23,620
23,660

743.6 R
746.4 R

ND
ND

151.4
165.5

Megaclite
Sinope
Hegemono
Aoede
Kallichore

2.7
14
3
4
2

23,810
23,940
23,950
23,980
24,040

752.8 R
758.9 R
739.6 R
761.5 R
764.7 R

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

152.8
158.1
155.2
158.3
165.5

Callirrhoe

4

24,100

758.8 R

ND

147.1

Cyllene
Kore

2
2

24,350
24,540

737.8 R
779.2 R

ND
ND

149.3
      152.4

   

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

C = Newly discovered satellites S/2000 J2 to S/2011 J2 have orbital periods from 504 to 982.5; all exhibit reverse ‘motion’ and orbital  inclination from 140.8 to 165.  Numerous peripheral newly discovered unnamed 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.

 

 

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

 

 

TABLE IV

 SELECTED  PARAMETERS  OF  STARS  IN  SUN’S  NEIGHBORHOOD

STAR

DISTANCE
(Light Years)

RADIUS*

MASS*

RAD.VEL
Km/sec

ROT. VEL
Km/sec

1) Proxima Centauri         

4.24

0.154

0.122

-22.20

<0.1

2) Alpha Centauri A

4.37

1.22

1.1

-21.4

2.7+-0.7

3) Alpha Centauri B

4.37

0.86

0.907

-18.6

1.1+-0,8

4) Barnaard’s star

5.96

0.196

0.144

-110.6

<2.5

5) Wolf 359

7.86

0.16

0.09

+19

<3.0

6) Sirius A

8.6

1.71

2.063

-5.5

16

7) Luyten 726-8

8.73

0.14

0.102

+29

28.2

8) Ross 154

9.6

0.24

0.17

-10.7

3.5

9) Ross 248

10.29

0.16

0.136

-75.2

1.2

10) Ross 128

11

0.197

0.168

-31

N/A

11) 61 Cygni A

11.4

0.665

0.7

-65.9

N/A

12) 61 Cygni B

11.4

0.595

0.63

-64.4

N/A

13) Procyon A

11.46

2.05

1.50

-3.2

3.16

14) Epsilon Indi

11.87

0.732

0.754

-40.4

1.46

15) Vega

25

2.36 x 2.82

2.1

-13.9

20.48

16) Arcturus

36.7

25.4

1.08

-5.19

2.4

17) Aldebaran

65.3

44.13

1.16

54.26

3.5+-1.5

18) Beta Carinae

113.2

6.8

3.5

-5.2

145.7

19) Achernar

139

7.3 x 11.4

6.7

+16

250

20) Alha Arae

270+-20

4.5

9.6

0

375

21) Canopus

310

71

8

+20.3

9

22) Polaris

323-433

37.5

5.4

-17

14

23) Pleione

392

3.2

3.4

+4.4

329

24) Epsilon Aurigae

653-1,500

143-358

2.2-15

10.4

54

25) PZ Cassiopeiae

2810

1062

N/A

-45.68

45

26) Rho Cassiopeiae

~3,400

636-981

40

-47

25

27) VY Canis Majoris

~3,820

1420

17

41

300

28) KY Cygni

~3,600

672

25

N/A

N/A

29) UY Scuti

~5,100

755

7-10

+18.33

18

30) V382 Carinae

5,930

485

20

+6

57+-15 (?)

31)  V915 Scorpii

5436

760

N/A

+46

N/A

32) Eta Carinae

7,500

~240

120-200

-25

N/A

33) VFTS 102

164,000

N/A

~25

+228

610+-30

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

  • = Radius and mass are expressed as multiples of solar radius or solar mass
  • N/A= Data not available
  • The finding reported in this table that the sizes of the stars (if the radius  and mass of the stars as reported by the observers) conform, also have a positive relationship with the axial rotation speeds as well as their lateral motion in their mother galaxies, also support our notion that intrinsic, autonomous property of matter is what determines the motions of bodies in the universe. 

Table V

SELECTED PARAMETERS OF LARGE GALAXIES

Name

Distance
(LY)

Mass*

Size
(Diam.)
(LY)

No. of Stars

Helio-Radial
Vel (Km/s)

Galacto- Centric
Vel (Km/s)

1) 1C 1101

1.045 ±
0.073 B

N/A

4M

100 T (1014 )

23,368 ± 26

23,395 ± 26

2) 3C 348 (Hercules A)

2.1 B

1,000 *

1.5M

N/A

N/A

N/A

3) A2261 – BCG

3 B

10 *

1M

10 T (1013)

N/A

N/A

4) ESO 306 – 17

493 M

2.5 arc. Sec

1M

N/A

N/A

N/A

5) UGC 2885

232 M

463 K ly

800

1T

N/A

N/A

6) Comet 

3.2 B

3.8 x 108 M⊙

600K

N/A

3.4M

N/A

7) NGC 6872 (Condor Gal)

212 M

>1011 M⊙

522K

N/A

4,555

4,443

8) ESO 444 – 46

640 M

10,000 *

402K

N/A

14,061

N/A

9) Tadpole

 

420 M

N/A

280K

N/A

N/A

N/A

10)Andromeda

2.54 M

1.76  *

~220K

1T

-301

- 120

11) Milky Way

_______

1x1012 M⊙

105.2

250-500

210

N/A

LY= Light years    K= x1000    M=  Million      B= Billion   T= Trillion
N/A = Data not available
    ⋆ =  x Mass of Milky Way Galaxy
M⊙= x Mass of Sun

The data for this table were derived from our review of astronomy/astrophysical journals and various online sites, including nasa.gov, Wikipedia.org and others.   There is great paucity of data for the parameters we were particularly interested in (axial rotation speeds and radial velocity, vs mass/size of the galaxies).  We tried to select large galaxies and compare them with medium-sized ones such as our Milky Way Galaxy.  Apparently, the largest of the galaxies are also the farthest and clearly the availability of data is severely hampered by that fact alone.  Thus, on this table we are left with comparison of only a few galaxies (Nos.1,6,7,8 vs 10 & 11). 

Even with this sparse data, there is a good hint that the galacto-radial and helio-radial velocities are higher, the larger the galaxy is.  Taken together with the recent observation (5) of the “Super Spirals” rotating even faster, we can safely predict that future availability of accurate information will confirm our belief.

   With this background information, now let us get back to our theme: 


       The scientific articles entitled  "Planetary Spin-Orbit Attributes in the Planets and their wider implications" and  "Synchronous, Non-synchronous and  negative rotations: How Spin and Gravity Orchestrate Planetary Motions" were written by me and have already been published in peer-reviewed science journals.  The next in the series, called, "Spin: Ubiquitous, Fundamental, Purposeful: Its Complementary Interactions with Gravity"  and the final article in this series has also been published now and is called " Pivotal Role of Spin in the Motion Mechanics of Celestial Bodies:  Prelude to a Spinning Universe".  "My Astronomy Musings " was written by me as a primer for the readers.  The data presented in the paper entitled "Synchronous, Non-Synchronous and Negative Rotations: How Spin and Gravity Orchestrate Planetary Motions" clearly show the intimate relationship between the mother bodies' speed of axial rotation and the distance to the satellite in determining the rotational/orbital behavior of these satellites.  Thus,  the closest large moons of the gas giants display negligible or no axial tilt and they rotate on their axes and orbit the mother in the same time period ("synchronous rotation"). The crucial finding in this interaction is the increase in the speed of axial rotation of these satellites directly proportionate to the distance from the mother bodies (see Fig. 2b, above).  Those satellites that are situated farther and farther away from the mother, display proportionally increased axial tilts, and they do not display synchronicity.  The most peripheral bodies, with axial tilts over ~120 degrees, display negative rotations and also considerable delay in their rotation period.  This applies to all peripheral small satellites of the gas/ice giants.  Among the planets, Venus (axis -174) and the dwarf planet Pluto (axis -152) are the two planets that also show negative rotation.


      The notion of 'spinning universe' is just an extension of the observed axial rotation of the elementary particles, on through the motions of planets, their satellites, the stars and even the galaxies, and extending it to the larger universe. The only concept to understand is that the universe, which is made up of the galaxies with the seen and the unseen (the rest of the matter in the universe, which remains invisible), move tangentially, giving the illusion of the universe spinning.  It should be understood that it is the matter in the universe and not the void of space that spins.  To me, it makes no sense to accept the notion of rotating motions (the axial rotation and the orbits) of the infinitely small, all the way up to the galaxies, but beyond the domain of the galaxies, it is a radial motion outward. 

     Yet, this is what has been  proposed by the incredibly naive notion of a "Big Bang" followed  by  an  ever-expanding universe,  where  even  the  space and  all the objects are being made nearly at the speed of light for billions of  years!  The only 'evidences' put forward to support this notion are the red shift of light from the far away galaxies and the so-called "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" (CMBR) which is supposed to represent the remnants of the radiation left after the "Big Bang".  I question the use of red shift to prove that the bodies are travelling in a radial direction.  When dealing with objects at such unimaginable distances, the red shift might fail; movement of the galaxies in a circumferential direction may instead, actually produce the increase in red shifts.  The notion that the radiation measured around the vicinity of the earth and use that data to support what is happening all over the infinitely vast universe, is unbelievably naive.  Earth is just a tiny planet orbiting a mediocre star, which is but one of hundreds of billions of stars orbiting a rather ordinary spiral galaxy, which is one of billions (trillions, according to current estimates) of galaxies in the vastness of the visible universe.  How can the measurement taken around this tiny earth represent what is going on in the rest of the galaxy, let alone the whole universe?!  The truth is, as dictated by the fundamental forces of nature, the components of the universe  had always been spinning.  Just take a look at the formation of a solar system from the congregation of ordinary dust; the pull of gravity condenses the matter into the central mass which lights up as the star and a rotating disc forms (again, as a result of the collaboration of gravity and spin) in the equatorial region of the star, and this disk is destined to form the rest of the star system bodies.  This pattern repeats in all stellar systems and galaxies.  This understanding should at once dispel the common belief that all orbital/rotational motions originate in the stellar (solar, in our case) nebulae and the proto-planetary disk by a "conservation of the angular momentum" deal, is erroneous as well.  It will be impossible to accept that notion and then discover that the galaxies are also doing the same rotational motions.  How can a property that originated in a star's formation then go on to power the motions of the whole galaxy?!

     One may be excused if one questions how very large bodies are influenced by mother bodies from great distances, since gravitational attraction diminishes rapidly with distance.  A good example of this is the orderly orbits of the gas giants in our solar system, especially Jupiter.  Obviously, this sort of relationship is probably repeated in all star systems.  In order to understand this, one has to free oneself from our earthbound biases. All our understandings are influenced by what we see around us and these are dictated by earth's gravity, our atmosphere and other factors.  However, all bodies, the smallest meteorites and satellites, to the largest planets, and even the stars are situated in their own nooks in the void of space, which space sports some unique features.  First, all bodies are essentially weightless, since they are too far away from other bodies. This is so even though they still retain their respective masses and their own attendant gravity; thus the larger bodies will still influence the smaller ones in their neighborhood, as expected.  Secondly, they find themselves in an almost perfect vacuum and this makes their transit entirely frictionless.  Thirdly, the space around the bodies is intensely cold, almost near absolute zero; what effect this extreme cold has in the motions of bodies is not known.  These three special circumstances allow the bodies (the conglomeration of fundamental elements of matter) to display their natural attributes; hence the spontaneous and incessant axial rotation and the orbital motions around the nearest large body, all continue in perpetuity.

     While the major thrust of this website is to promote the idea of spin as having a central role in the functioning of the universe, other topics of interest will also be entertained in this website. I have already posted all my published articles dealing with Spin on this website.  Also posted is an article on why the sky is blue.  Please find the links to all of them at left margin of this page.

     We invite all readers to write their responses for consideration for posting on this website.