I’d like to ask my dear readers to be tolerant to me, as I’m not native English-speaker, so some assertions are repeated several times and different way in order to find a better method to express them clearly, and the most important - I’m not going to prove anything (as I have restricted proving abilities) to anybody, so read article if it gives you any pleasure…

This article is about gravity and space, but anyway I’d like to mention the basic theory I ground my assertions: this theory isn’t analyzed here in detail, but anyway I need to touch its essence briefly for general understanding of my ideas: According to me there was nothing before arising of the world (before “big bang”) and this universe presents itself separation of nothing into two equal opposite phenomena: theory of yin and yang, i.e. thorough universe (and every phenomena within it) is based on duality.

How many different kinds of rotation, revolving do we know?

1. Rotation of whirligig (example of attenuating rotation);

2. Rotation of el. centrifuge, which is turned on (example of permanent rotation), i.e. electrical motor (stator + rotor);

3. Rotation of the planet on its axis (example of permanent rotation); Rotation of the Earth is the example;

4. Rotation of satellites around the planets (example of permanent rotation) Rotation of the Moon around the Earth is the example;

5. Rotation of the planet around the Sun (example of permanent rotation); Orbital rotation of the Earth is the example;

6. Whirlpool (when rotational force isn’t centrifugal but is centripetal)!!!

What’s the difference among these different kinds of rotations?

For example: What’s the difference between revolving of whirligig and that of the Earth?

There are a lot of resemblances and differences:

----Both of them take place in environment of the ear, i.e. they both revolve “touching” the ear with their surfaces.

We know definitely that to make whirligig to revolve we must apply outer force to it and if force is applied permanently, whirligig will revolve permanently (like electrical centrifuge that’s turned on), but if outer force is not applied permanently - then whirligig’s revolving will be the classical example of attenuating types of them, i.e.

Main difference is that revolving of whirligig is attenuating (mainly because of frictional forces), but that of the Earth – permanent so in case of the Earth either:

1. There isn’t any frictional forces to slow it down, or

2. There is permanent prompting reason for revolving.

In case of Earth the ear doesn’t play the role of frictional force. Why?

1. How the Earth's surface preserves its linear speed above 460 m/sec on the equator if mentioned ear molecules have angular momentum ≈ 0, and then touching of “unmoved” ear and “moving with high speed” Earth’s uneven!!! surface must serve as frictional force to slow down the angular speed of planet…

Let nobody think that the friction between the Earth and its adjacent ear isn’t enough to slow down angular speed of planet, but the mentioned friction doesn’t exist and we can prove that with simple experiment: If we put out a hand from the window of train or car that’s moving with the speed, let’s say 100km/hour, we at once feel friction between ear molecules and hand’s surface, but when we stay unmoved, let’s say on the equator in non-windy weather, we don’t feel any friction between us and ear, but at the same time we know that the Earth’s surface moves with the speed above 1600km/hour, we also move with the same speed together with the Earth’s surface and absence of friction between us and ear molecules means that the ear also moves with the same high speed…

Or

2. If moving molecules of ear are placed in unmoved space, which’s neighboring the spinning planet, then how do they preserve the impulse the same as Earth’s surface has? that’s unbelievable (in result of their collisions among each-other they would loose impulse [at least part of them]),

3.But we see that all ear molecules in unison preserve the angular speed similar to that of the Earth, and it's obvious that it happens because the space adjacent to the Earth spins along with the Earth, i.e. they spin together:

so all ear molecules are “at rest” towards it (towards adjacent space);

Anyway if we assume that the Earth rotates in an empty space, and there is no frictional forces to slow it down, the question, what was the prompting reason for starting of planets’ revolving, remains unanswered, and the assertion that all planets within universe revolve on their axes and around each-other because of primary impulse given to them by big bang (and this impulse was of different direction and different size for each planet), seems to me illogical, because spin is a peculiar feature of all solid heavenly bodies within whole universe, so I think it demands another kind of explanation,

I.e. at starting stage there must have been prompting angular momentum for all solid planets to start revolving!!!!! (I.e. for each one separately and at the same time directed differently, of different size as well [according to the parameters of planet])

I’d like to attract your attention to one very peculiar difference: the much is the mass of whirligig the much outer mechanical force is needed to make it to revolve, as well as in case of el. centrifuge (the much is the mass of rotor, the higher voltage must we apply to stator for reaching the same angular speed of rotor) but just opposite we have in case of planets: (in all cases within solar system) the much is the mass of planet the less time is needed for its thorough cycle of rotation on its axis, i.e. the higher is angular speed of rotation on its axis for it

I'd figuratively call that phenomenon briefly - "paradox of revolving"...

The truth, the environments in which 1.the whirligig and/or 2.the Earth (planet, generally) revolves, substantially differ from each-other: the first takes place in the “spatial bounds” of Earth, the rotation of which (i.e. of any planet, generally) doesn’t take place within spatial bounds of “another heavenly body” (if we exclude Suns).

All indicated parameters are relative to their values to Earth:

I.e. the less is mass of planet the much is duration of a day in most of cases; they aren’t strictly inversely proportional to each-other but anyway

The much is the mass of planet the much is its angular speed of revolving on its own axis…

And that deserves explanation. Let nobody say that in the moment of “big bang” accidentally much force was applied to the planets, which had much mass. I think it wasn’t accidental but it was natural and I think just revolving of planets on their axes must be counted as autonomous event and we must seek its explanation at each planet locally (not far from it)

I.e. starting impulse for rotation can be counted as generalized feature for every solid matter – i.e. no solid body without starting rotational impulse on its axis...

and also, direction and size of starting impulse can be counted as local - autonomous event for each planet (with prompting local, and presently existing reason) …

Determining condition for revolving of solid body on its own axis is obligatory existence of centrifugal force, which must be applied to the center of body vertically to the axis of revolving and which is acting within the limits of body.

I repeat again that the main basis I’m formulating my arguments is that for starting of rotation there must have been starting centrifugal force for every planet, applied to centers of each of them without exception.

I’m tend to believe that the reason of the Earth’s permanent rotation on its axis isn’t absence of frictional forces to slow it down, but is some locomotive force, which exists permanently - acting within bounds of body.

In case of whirligig such force is made by human, applied to the axis of whirligig vertically to earth’ surface (i.e. along the axis of whirligig), but rifling, made at the angle ≈45° along the axis transforms mentioned force into centrifugal one, which’s vertical to the axis of rotation and is applied to the center of whirligig, so if we separate mentally whirligig into pivot (axis) and body, we can say briefly that active outer force applied by us to the end of axis forces body of whirligig to start revolving, i.e. revolving of whirligig can be counted as dependant (a result, an answer to influence), i.e. passive revolving. What we have in case of electrical motor? It consists of two parts: stator (static part) and rotor (rotating part). I won’t fall into detailed technical moments, but to say roughly the rotor’s rotation speed depends on a voltage of stator: the speed of given rotor is directly proportional to voltage, and despite some slight technical difference rotation of rotor is as well the example of dependant , i.e. passive revolving.

But which rotation is active? I.e. which one can be counted (or called) active rotation? I can say that any kind of rotations of solid bodies are examples of passive rotation, but anyway I’d call active the rotation made by influence of sun (i.e. forced by sun), i.e. orbital rotation of planets around the sun but how, we’ll speak about it another time, as this is another theme…

Is there centrifugal force which prompts the Earth to rotate? Surely it must be! Before we start to seek this force and its origin, let’s slightly change a theme:

1. If we throw a little pebble to revolving whirligig, the latter will cast it away.

-In case of the Earth we have just opposite: no need in throwing – things placed at some distance to the surface of it fall free centrally.

2. If we place little magnet close to revolving iron whirligig, the latter will attract it, the former will stick to it and continue revolving with it.

-The same we see in case of the Earth, so one can conclude that it happens because of attraction of these things by Earth.

3. But if we increase the angular speed of whirligig up to some critical one (when centrifugal force of revolving is more than attractive one between the magnet and whirligig) the magnet, which was stuck to the surface of whirligig, will be cast away.

-In case of the Earth as in case of any solid planet (even if we assume that things are attracted by it) we see, that the speed of it is less than critical i.e. less than the speed at which things are cast away…

If we assume that planets attract the matter, then anyway I wander, why that happens, that all planets revolve with the speed, less than critical (at which things placed on their surfaces must be cast away).

I.e. to say briefly: One main difference between whirligig’s and Earth’s revolving is that things placed on the surface of former, are cast away, but things placed on the surface of latter (and things risen from its surface as well), are falling (are striving) to the center of it, so one may conclude that there’s attraction between things (risen from the surface) and the Earth (It’s thought that otherwise things placed on the surface would have been cast away by Earth’s revolving, i.e. by applied centrifugal force of Earth’s rotation to them).

But I repeat again that increasing of mass of planet makes it to revolve faster, and the critical angular speed, at which things placed on the surface would be cast away increases for the planet with much mass … This last assertion speaks for attraction, because the much is the mass of planet the much is probable attraction of things by it according to existing physics, but just increasing of angular speed in this case seems not explainable by this mentioned physics – from where the planet with much mass takes the impulse to spin faster on its axis?

I.e. probable attraction between solid bodies isn’t the mechanism which can be the reason for planet’s revolving, and that means:

We should seek the mechanism, the explanation, which would solve told above paradox of planets’ revolving...

So, is there any other, different mechanism or are things actually attracted by each-other? Let’s assume this assertion in bold above for a while and proceed with discussion:

By which part of the Earth (by planets, generally) are things attracted?

And how is distributed attractive capability within body, i.e. which part of body attracts much, let’s say central or peripheral? Or

to set the question, what is the main purpose of attraction?

One can think at first that as things are falling on the surface, then the whole planet (thoroughly) attracts things, but we see that for some reason things are falling only centripetally, even when we dig up a well, we see that things are falling only to the bottom of it, even if we dig up a well of 9-10 km, anyway things are falling only to the bottom of it - to the center of Earth (in direction of the center of planet), so one can think that things are attracted only by the center of planet (and they aren’t attracted by the surface of it), so the center of the Earth attracts the whole matter of planet from all sides and also the matter placed beyond this environment (beyond of high dense medium by length of ≈6400 km) even things, risen from the surface… (I don’t think, that’s serious)…

Let’s change a theme slightly again to answer several questions set before us:

To the question – does the center of the Earth experience the press on it from other parts of it? we can answer that not only the center, but every part of planet, its every point experiences the press (we can easily prove it with simple experiment: let’s dig up two wells, the first – of 10 meters deep, and the second – of 1 meter deep; if we place scales on the bottom of each, then fill both of them up with the same ground we dug and weigh, we will see clearly that the first scales experience more press than the second one), all points of the Earth experience press, but only radially, centripetally and not from other directions, so

the center of planet experiences the most press;

it experiences this press from all possible directions to it, i.e. from the rest parts of the Earth towards it, so (from the point of view of press) the center of the Earth substantially differs from all the rest parts of the Earth.

Does this poor center really

1. Attract matter from all sides or

2. Does it experience press from all sides?

Believe me it’s not the same and we should bear in mind that in the second case arises the centrifugal repulsive force, which can serve as reason for revolving, and revolving is before us as fact, we can easily detect it, and facts are stubborn things (but explanations aren’t…)

How the center of the Earth replies to the press on it from all parts of planet (from all sides to it)?

It replies by repulsive centrifugal force (from the center to all sides) and the much is the mass of planet, i.e. the much is press on the center from the other parts of planet, the much is repulsive centrifugal force, i.e. the planet has more chance to spin with much angular speed. If the planet were unmoved, this repulsive centrifugal force would exist and would be equal to all possible sides (as adequate result of equal press from all sides to the center). This repulsive force gives chance to revolving of planet on its own axis (as any kind of centrifugal force, acting within the limits of solid body).

How the situation of unmoved planet differs from situation of spinning one?

Centripetal press from all points, placed on the equator of spinning planet lessens (because of existing rotational moment) and ultimately the center of the Earth experiences least press from equatorial points and the most press – from polar ones, i.e. polar press at spin-starting moment is almost equal for unmoving or spinning given planet, but equatorial press to the center is less for spinning one; After spin-starting the planet becomes bulging on the equator and concave on the poles, so anyway length of polar radiuses lessen to compare with unmoved planet and that means that polar press on the center anyway lessens (the truth, to a least degree)…

To say briefly, spinning of planet is the mechanism that gives the chance to the center of planet to lessen centripetal press on it.

Count as you like, but it’s unbelievable for me that the center of planet attracts the matter for the purpose of increasing of the press on it for subsequent lessening of the press on it with the mechanism of revolving…

I.e. increasing of press for lessening of press!

Kind of magic circle!!!!

I think that matter doesn’t attract matter, but within spatial (gravitational) limits of planet solid matter is striving centrally, i.e. pressing of matter happens to the center and why that happens, it needs another (different from the mechanism of attraction) kind of explanation and I think, the reason of it is space, adjacent to the planet…

Again, let’s slightly change a theme and return to medium, in which the atmosphere is placed, i.e. to space, adjacent to the Earth: We saw above that the ear adjacent (or’ rather - placed very close) to the Earth’s surface spins with the same speed as the Earth’s surface itself, i.e. with the speed more than 1600km/hour on the equator.

Does some distanced from it (from the Earth’s surface) part of atmosphere behave the same way?

Let's observe the behavior of a little white cloud: believe me, it's our great friend:

Choose a fine weather and look up to the sky. If you see a little white cloud on the blue sky you must be sure that its angular speed is almost the same as that of its shade on the surface of the Earth beneath the cloud, i.e. its linear speed is over 1600 km/hour (Over 460 m/sec) if the cloud is on the equator…

Who can say that the cloud (amount of water steam) is moving with such a high speed in unmoved space and doesn’t change its form (shape) for some period of time (for several minutes)? That’s unbelievable!!!

Or who can say that the cloud (amount of water steam) isn’t moving at all (in case if it’s placed in unmoved medium) and it isn’t falling behind to the surface of the Earth (I remind again that on the equator any point of the earth, spinning with the speed above 1600km/hour passes approximately 160 km in 6 minutes, 320 km in 12 minutes, 530 km in 20 minutes)

But this little white cloud in fine weather almost doesn’t move (and we can observe that with naked eye) relatively to the surface of the Earth for this period of time, i.e. it and its shade are staying at rest towards it (and towards neighboring little clouds as well), i.e. we have to acknowledge that the distanced part of space, adjacent to the Earth – part, where the little white cloud is placed for a while, is spinning with the speed of cloud, i.e. the space and little white cloud are spinning together (along with the surface of the Earth beneath them), i.e. the cloud is at rest towards the space and the surface of the Earth…

I.e. the space (i.e. just that part of the whole space of universe, which’s adjacent to the planet) is bound to planet and spins along with it, i.e. it inherits the momentum of the planet, too…

Yes, and in this case the cloud has the opportunity to stay unmoved relatively to the Earth and to its adjacent space, and at the same time to spin with the speed of the Earth’s surface relatively to the center of the planet, like a passenger in the car, who’s moving with the speed of the car relatively to the surface of the Earth, but is staying at rest relatively to the car itself, i.e. According to this analogy cloud is a passenger of the space-body (which’s unity of heavenly body with its adjacent space), i.e. the cloud is a passenger of space, which is spinning with the Earth together.