Rotations, Revolutions and Apparent Motions of Hea

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />Axiom 1. Rotation and revolution are interchangeable concepts between two bodies which are in relative motion while retaining the same distance. Neither is a privileged non-rotating or stationary body.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This initial axiom appears to be obviously wrong on more than one level. For example, consider bodies A & B spinning and orbiting. The absolute spin of A produces an oblate shape with respect to A's arbitrary spin axis, unique to A. The absolute spin of B produces an oblate shape with respect to B's argitrary spin axis, unique to B. And the proximity of A and B in their mutual orbit tends to induce a prolate shape in each body pointing toward the other.

Until this issue with the first axiom is resolved, it is difficult to muster interest in what follows from it. -|Tom|-

My statement about rotation/revolution being relative applies early on when investigating phenomena. The reason for relating early on is that once a standard is set, many subsequent definitions depend on that standard and alternative form of rotation/revolution becomes more obscure. As I indicated, the choice of rotations/revolutions depends on the view of all connected phenomena. For example, it is easier to understand other planets in orbits around the sun rather than orbiting earth with cycles upon cycles as became necessary for Ptolmey and prior to Copernicus. Thus earth’s spin overcame its statiponary central position. But relationships were still definable at Ptolmey’s time with the earth stationary, and the process could have continued. After the relation to other planets was redefined by Copernicus, the connection between earth and the sun in the form of gravity was introduced by Newton. Assigning much of our interconnectedness to gravity was a large step toward simplification.

If Ptolmey’s view had persisted, some cause for the sun/earth connection and for the earth/moon connection would have been found. Whatever it might have been, the constancy of separation requires some force which would be found and subsequently considered to be maximum where the sun is closest to earth along the equator. Thus any view of the relationship between sun and earth might use as argument that the common attraction causes the earth to measure larger at the equator and thus be oblate vs its own axis.

We search for simple answers that relate things overall. I believe pushing forms of gravity are a step toward simplicity as attraction has created too many unanswerable issues. The big bang and black matter are other concepts that make understanding more complex. I believe you, Tom, are addressing those issues, seeking simplification, and I believe my extension of pushing type of gravity does so also. I may have gone too far in including this first axiom as what follows in my laws is not dependent upon this axiom.

Paul Schroeder




paul schroeder

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />I believe my extension of pushing type of gravity [simpliifies] so also.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Can you say in simple language what your answer is to the most basic of all paradoxes about the rotation of galaxies: Why don't spiral arms "wind up" as galaxies rotate? -|Tom|-

Thank you for a responding with a challenging question.

I do not choose the galaxy center as a point of reference. It does not create the apparent galaxy spin and so it does not cause arms to wind up. The center does not provide sufficient impetus to concern us.

Imagine initially a line of stars leading straight out from the galaxy center. I have each star causing counterclockwise revolution relative to itself on the next star further out from center. Thus the arms are created by a series of gradual counterclockwise shifts along the whole line. Each star can be viewed as orbiting its nearest inward star and so, the shift process continues over time. Also, there is greater shifting as one looks further from the center.

When summing a sufficiently large series of shifts, subsequent shifts ultimately exceed 90 degrees from the original line. At some shift angle stars begin angling back toward the galaxy center. Thus the arm ends. At the end stars may head inward, continue in a perfect orbit of the center or possibly depart. At arm ends, stars may continue increasing their angle and pass back along the lower – core side - of the arm. Sol is located core side on its spiral arm Orion.

Stars in the outer (not core side) original line of galaxy arms revolve counterclockwise relative to the center per my description. I may be at irreconcilable odds with current findings of clockwise revolution. But I have possible reconciliation ideas. In any case, since I have the opposite revolution direction vs the center there would be no thought of winding up.

Paul Schroeder






paul schroeder

I may need to need to shed more light on my view of galaxy rotation. There are a couple question points I have not addressed that help reveal my vision. For the following please draw or imagine a straight line of 6 stars. Now we will have them revolve around each other by 30 degrees each. Starting with star one, star 2 is now 30 degrees left of the original line. Star 3 is 30 degrees left of the line connecting stars 1 and 2, and thus 60 degrees from the original line. Star 4 is 30 degrees left of the line connecting stars 2 and 3 or 90 degrees from the original line, ie perpendicular. Star 5 is 120 degrees and star 6 is 150 degrees. You might now visualize that we are drawing a 12 sided figure, assuming all distances between stars are equal, and star 12 would land on star 1. Discussion of modifications to address the errors in this picture provides the arm picture for galaxies.

First of all, if I had reversed the paper on which I drew the line of stars, I would have started with left shifts from the other end of the line. I would create a similar picture but it would be inverted relative to the line, and incorrectly located. The conclusion is that choice of the center star from which to start is important. We can understand why, in that assuming star 1 to be at the center of the galaxy means its potential motion is restricted by the numerous nearby stars. So it is more likely that the revolutions will be more pronounced the further you go from center.

The second issue is the ultimate return of the end star to the beginning star spot. For a second example, if we just visualized a series of 1 degree orbital shifts, the 360th star in line would return to the star 1 spot, drawing nearly a circle. We are looking for something more like a spiral diagram not an enclosed geometric figure. For an answer we extend the prior correction and realize that each star further from center gains more freedom of motion because of fewer neighbors. At each step from center, we can more freely apply the described revolution around its predecessor and have less interference from revolution motions relative to other nearby stars. More of the local revolution activity occurs as you go further out.

So we ultimately do have larger revolution shifts occurring away from center and the entire arm system exhibiting the same angular rotation velocities throughout. We can have the end line stars potentially curving back along the underneath side (core side) of the arm. This suggests the chain saw type of motion along a somewhat boomerang shaped arm that I had described earlier. The original line is continuously shifter outward by the line of stars returning toward center. A fuller description consists of my discussions of the dome, relative tilts, second focus points, etc. You can also get most of this revolution idea by simply noting that the further out your body is from center the more bodies are to one side (core side) than the other, all providing counterclockwise revolution drive to the body in question. This system is predicated for me upon my theory of pushing gravity particles following bent paths between rotating bodies. You may base it on whatever mechanism you assign as the source of all the counterclockwise revolutions and rotations occurring in our universe keeping bodies from gravitationally colliding or systems from collapsing.

Regarding clockwise, etc., I have gotten complaints about that view of space. I believe that this geometric view is easiest to understand, and is perfectly valid. A rotating body such as a planet rotates either clockwise or counterclockwise as viewed from the North Pole. Next, the solar system is pictured as a plane, which is a 2 dimensional construct. Thus the solar system is frequently pictured from the north ‘Z’ axis. Within that view, the individual bodies such as planets rotate counterclockwise, while the overall revolution of bodies around their local center of revolution is also counterclockwise. The local revolutions of its participants also are counterclockwise to a north observer of the Milky Way galaxy. This is regardless of tilt of the galaxy plane of revolution vs the plane of any solar system up to the point that the tilt exceeds 90 degrees.

Paul Schroeder


paul schroeder