Planetary Revolution And Rotation

THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLANETARY REVOLUTION AND ROTATION PERIODS

There comes a point in a new theory of the structure of the universe that conclusive proof must be shown that it is true. Einstein's two theories of relativity were proven by observations that gravity does indeed bend light, there is a discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury around the sun that can only be explained in relativistic terms, clocks operate faster in space than on earth and, the rotation of the earth distorts the orbit of a satellite because space is a fabric (known as "frame dragging" or the "Lense-Thirring Effect). These observations proved that postulates made in Einstein's theories were true in reality.

If any readers think that I have not yet conclusively proven my Theory of Stationary Space that I have been discussing throughout this blog, let's look at some more proof today.

It would be wonderful if there were a simple test that would prove whether the universe consists of matter composed of particles in three-dimensional space as is supposed in conventional science or whether matter is composed of strings and there are dimensions of space that we cannot see, one of which we perceive as time, as I am claiming.

Actually, there is such a test and it involves a simple aspect of planetary dynamics. I find that there is a major discrepancy in the basic laws of motion by which the Solar System operates and it proves that my model of the universe is the correct one.

Every school child knows that the planets revolve around the sun and that the further a planet is from the sun, the longer it takes to complete one such revolution. The earth, of course, requires one year to revolve around the sun. A satellite in orbit around the earth will move faster in a lower orbit than a higher one in the same way. The mathematical description of this was set down by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler that: The radius vector, a line from the sun to the planet, will sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.

Now here is the great discrepancy that I want to point out. Planets rotate as they are revolving around the sun, the earth takes a day to rotate. If planets move around the sun more slowly as they get further from the sun, then why do the larger planets rotate faster than the smaller ones? It seems to me that everything about our understanding of mechanics and the movement of astronomical bodies indicates that a larger planet should rotate more slowly than a smaller planet.

Yet, the complete opposite is true. On a large planet, the average atom in the planet must travel further to complete a rotation than in a smaller planet. So even if there is the same angular momentum per atom in the large planet, the rotation period will necessarily be longer. But in our Solar System, just the opposite is the case.

The earth requires 24 hours to complete a rotation while the giant planet Jupiter, with more mass than the rest of the planets combined, zips around in a mere 10.5 hours. Just why is it that rotation and revolution in the Solar System seem to be related phenomena but follow completely different rules? The orbits follow Kepler's Law but the rotations do just the opposite. If we exclude Mercury and Venus, the two planets closest to the sun because their rotation periods are clearly slowed by it's gravity, the larger a planet is, the faster it rotates.

If it was the increased gravitational force of the larger planets that caused the faster rotations, then a satellite in higher orbit should revolve faster than one in lower orbit because orbiting is basically "falling" around a spherical body in space and it has further to fall and thus to build up speed. Also, Mercury and Venus should rotate rapidly because the nearby sun's gravitational pull would speed up their rotation. In fact, how could gravity cause a planet to rotate at all, since it rotates around the center of gravity, meaning that the pull from all sides must be equal.

There is no evidence that matter striking with and joining a planet speeds up it's rotation rate, in 1908 there was a vast explosion in Siberia caused by an asteroid or comet but it had no apparent effect on the earth's rotation period. Maybe there is a factor at work here that we had not considered.

THE THEORY OF STATIONARY SPACE AND PLANETARY ROTATION PERIODS

Now, let's consider the model of the universe that I have introduced in my theory. I claim that matter in the universe is composed not of particles, as we perceive and that conventional science supposes, but of strings aligned mainly in one direction of space that we actually perceive as time.

Picture an astronaut in space well away from the earth's gravitational pull. Suppose the astronaut were to throw a handful of strings out into space and that the strings were attracted to each other by gravity. When two strings were pulled together, they would not line up side by side but would wrap around each other. The two strings would have a certain "wrap length", similar in concept to wavelength, in which the strings would be at the same position in the wrap relative to each other as they would be one wrap length away in either direction.

Now imagine successive strings being pulled into and wrapping around the first two strings. Each of the first two strings only had to wrap around one other string but the third string to join the bundle would have to wrap around two other strings. This means that the third string would have to bend at a sharper inital angle as it joined the bundle to be concentric with the first two strings. In other words, to fit into the wrap length.

Since the strings are in contact, there would be tension between the lower strings, closer to the center of the forming bundle, with their "leisurely" wrap length and the outer strings that joined later and had to bend at a sharper initial angle to join the bundle they were pulled into and had to expend more of their length for each wrap length than the lower strings.

As the bundle of strings grew, this tension between inner and outer strings would reach an equilibrium. The inner, original, strings would be "trying" to keep the wrap length the way it is and the new strings would be trying to shorten the wrap length. Thus, as the bundle of strings grew in size, it's wrap length would continuously get shorter. The outer strings would naturally seek a shorter wrap length than the inner strings and the friction between strings in contact would force both toward an equilibrium.

Now, suppose that the strings thrown out into space by the astronaut are actually the strings composing matter in my Theory of Stationary Space and our bundle of strings is actually a planet. As our consciousness moved forward along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains, we would look into space and see the bundles of strings that we refer to as planets, as well as our own planet under us.

But since we only see three of the four dimensions that we inhabit and perceive the other one as time, the planetary bundles of strings that we see would appear to be rotating because the strings composing their atoms are wrapped around the bundle. And as the planets that we see grew larger, we would perceive them as rotating faster and faster as their wrap length shortened, even though that violated the laws of motion that we were accustomed to in our familiar three dimensions.

Thus, I maintain that the reason our observation of planetary revolution and rotation differs so greatly when they should follow the same rules is that the matter in the universe is actually strings, as described in my theory. In the revolution of a planet around the sun or a satellite around the earth, the two are not in physical contact, the bundle of strings comprising the satellite or planet must bend at a sharper angle to wrap around the earth or sun when it is closer in order to wrap around it at a distance and go into what we perceive as orbit.

But when the original bundle of strings and the new bundle of strings are actually in contact, the rules reverse. When the bundle of strings comprising a rock from space collides with and joins a growing planet, it must bend at a sharper angle than those rocks that joined earlier and are lower in the planet, closer to it's center. This causes the tension described in the example above because, unlike the satellite or planet revolving around the sun, the two are in actual physical contact and concentricity must be preserved, that is the higher and lower strings cannot slide across each other.

The tension between inner and outer strings results in a continuous equilibrium that gradually decreases the wrap length of the strings comprising the atoms in the planet, causing us in our three dimensions to perceive that the planet is rotating faster as it grows in size.

So this is the test of my Theory of Stationary Space. If matter was composed of particles, as conventional science supposes, a planet should rotate more slowly as it grew larger from collecting debris from space. But if my theory is correct, the rotation of planets should follow rules of motion that are the opposite of the revolution of planets and satellites. Planets should revolve around the sun more slowly as they get further away but should rotate faster as they get bigger, and we can see that this is exactly what happens.