Gravity –is it attraction? Space – is it homogenous?

[zeroca]

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).

(See the scheme from wikipedia, mentioned parameters (interesting for us) are highlighted in red)

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…

So despite a lot of differences between both rotations mentioned in examples above, they can be counted as dependant motion. They both depend on outer forces and/but in both cases determinative is existence of centrifugal moment.

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.

[BREAK]


Animation above:
If we are looking at the spinning of the Earth form North or South Pole:
Each turn lasts for 24 hours...
Upper cloud:
"The cloud is a passenger of space, which is spinning with the Earth together"...
Nether cloud:
If the space hadn’t turned along with the Earth on the axis of it, the little white cloud in fine weather would have always moved to the west with the speed of over 1600km/hour relatively to the surface of the Earth, i.e. it would have fallen behind to spinning of the Earth with mentioned speed...
The plane of screen is counted as a plane of ecliptic, approximately.

And the most important thing:
Does the space (I mean again the medium, adjacent closely to planet), which spins with the Earth together (I can say figuratively – which is bound to the Earth) spread unlimitedly far, or up to some distance?

We can have some rough notion about it by looking at the Moon and acting with the method of exclusion:
As the medium adjacent to the Moon (one can say – the gravitational field of the Moon, but I would say – the space of the Moon) doesn’t spin with the Earth and spins with the Moon, (and at the same time touches the space of the Earth) that’s enough to assert that the medium, which’s bound to the Earth (space adjacent to the Earth) spreads up to some distance only, I’d add that even distance is the main characteristic criterion of it (but that needs proving)

As we mentioned above, it’s obvious that the space adjacent to the Earth spins along with the planet.
The second and the most interesting fact is that the space above the poles and the space above the equator spin differently.
The difference is shown in animation below:
The linear speed of the white cloud above the equator is more than 1600km/hour, i.e. over 460 m/sec, but of the white cloud above the pole is too low; I.e. the space, adjacent to the equator, (i.e. above-equatorial part of the space, adjacent to the Earth) moves with very high speed, but the above-polar part of it – with very low speed.



Let’s return to the assertion highlighted in red above and read it again:
The adjacent space is bound to planet and spins along with it…

Why is the adjacent space bound to planet?

1. Do they present a unity? Or

2. Is the space among planets homogenous or does it present amount, sum of autonomous spaces, (I would say - autonomous spheres) which differ from each-other in some parameters, and are parameters of these/those autonomous spaces somehow in relation with planet (e.g. does the size of this space depend on a mass of planet)?

3. Does the space adjacent to planet present a force? I.e. has it direction?

4. What is the main reason that the solid matter strives to the center of planet?

5. I.e. does anyhow the space, adjacent to planet contribute to striving of solid matter centripetally?

Very good hinting questions for me, but I’m not inclined to prove anything, because the first - I have restricted proving abilities and the second – generally nobody can prove anything to anybody, so I offer following parts as a conception:

I.e. my own explanation of this mechanism:
1. Space and body (I consider both of them as processes but not as a rigid events, i.e.
---space – as permanent expansion, happening within time, and
---body – as permanent contraction happening within time,
i.e. space as 3d-space-time and body – as 3d-body-time, i.e. as opposite events, opposite processes), i.e. first of them - permanent centrifugal expansion from some center up to some distance, and the second – permanent centripetal contraction to the same center. I.e. Body with its adjacent space is a unity, which we can call space-body…

Why space and body can present a unity?

There had been nothing before arising of the world and it was homogeneous, uniform. The best way to imagine homogeneity, uniformity of the universe is to figure it as an empty three-dimensional space without even single material point in it. But it's impossible in effect and is possible only in imagination (because the three-dimensional space doesn't exist on its own, but exists only as an attribute of movement, so it never is thoroughly empty, but only partially). The gravitation itself is always associated with body, which itself is associated with consolidation, or "thickening of substance". Arising of gravitation-that's the changing of homogeneity in direction of thickening; Just told above
process of thickening is bearer of exactly that quality of homogeneity, a loss, or rather a lack of which afterwards presents a cause of arising of anti-thickening-anti-consolidation,
and that's three-dimensional space=a lack of gravitation=a lack of gravity, and is called and felt by us as an "empty space".
As thickening is directed from all sides to one center, i.e. centripetally (and surely that should be so), its opposite process is directed centrifugally, i.e. from the center to all sides and by its nature it presents expansion...
(But maybe quite reverse-the initial was the process of expansion (rarefaction), which was followed (as a result) by consolidation (is taken for granted that in zero all processes are followed by their equal, but opposite ones), since the gravitation, we can say, is just the quality of the matter, that's is associated with inertia, passivity and accordingly must be a result of a sort of active process (in our case-of expansion), or both processes arose simultaneously, but in our particular case the consecution of rise isn't a matter of great importance.

1. Permanent centrifugal expansion (continuing within time) from the center determines a permanent centripetal concentration of matter (I mean the matter, which is placed inside this particular expansion) to the same center.



2. Permanent centripetal concentration of solid matter results in increasing of press on the center of planet from all sides, i.e. the center of planet is found in different condition in comparison with other parts of planet, as it experiences press from all consisting matter of planet radially from all sides to it.

Increasing of press on the center of planet from all sides results in increasing of repulsive force from the center of planet radially to all sides according to the Newton's well-known law, which states:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."




3. I.e. permanent increasing of expansion results in permanent increasing of centrifugal repulsive force (existed within bounds of planet), which results in spinning of body, i.e. spinning of unity, called space-body…



To say briefly in a popular language, the rotation of planet is the mechanism, which frees the center of planet from press of all consisting parts of planet on it, i.e. the center of planet “frees itself” from the press of concentration of matter from all sides with help of mechanism of rotation, as acquiring of angular speed lessens centripetal press on the center, i.e. the (permanent) rotation is passive process, conditioned by opposite (permanent) process of expansion, which makes rotate the matter, placed within the "bounds" of this same expansion.

I.e.:
1. Permanent spinning of solid body is a manifestation of permanent centrifugal force, acting inside of solid body.
2. This permanent centrifugal force is repulsive by its nature, i.e. is result of permanent pressure of consisting solid elements on the center of body (or, rather – result of permanent centripetal contraction, concentration, consolidation – call it as you wish).
3. And mentioned consolidation is the result of centrifugal opposite expansion up to some distance, which is called by me space bubble.

At starting stage expansion increases in size. That’s followed by stronger consolidation of matter inside this expansion; the consolidation itself develops into spinning, the angular speed of which increases up to the size, when this increase gradually holds back and finally stops further increase of expansion (i.e. further increase of size of expansion is stopped and at the same time angular speed of body becomes relatively stable)

I.e. when starting stage of mentioned above process is complete (when rarefaction-consolidation comes to final balance), i.e. when expansion becomes of relatively stable size because it, as a force, can't overcome anymore the inertia (i.e. mass) of opposite consolidation, which finally spins with relatively stable limitary angular speed (that is enough to restrain subsuquent increase of size of expansion), we have the situation we see now - unity: spinning heavenly body together with its space-bubble, called by me wholly space-body...
I.e. I'd like to emphasize definitely that increase of size of expansion and subsequent increase of angular speed of heavenly body ultimately come to balance, when size of first and the value of the second become relatively stable, as in case of any mentioned planet within universe...



The extent of filling up of each space-bubble depends on density of matter inside the “bubble”: the less is the density of matter, the more part of generated space is occupied by it, but the extent of space itself depends on the mass of planet.
If any little body with its own space is found within the bounds of space of heavenly body, i.e. within the bounds of “bubble” of heavenly body, its space (the space of little body) is summed up at once with the space of heavenly body peripherally and that makes little body to strive to the center of heavenly body (i.e. to strive centrally to sum up with heavenly body).

And that’s not attraction!!!
And planets aren’t attracted to each other, i.e. the matter of planet is striving to the center of its own planet (within the bounds of “bubble” of which it’s located), but not to the center of another planet, because the spaces of planets (the different directions of them) serve like a barrier between them, or rather, the adjacent spaces of two neighboring heavenly bodies serve as a shield against getting these bodies closer.



Let’s return again to the starting stage of world arising and to the question - what were prompting causes of spinning at starting stage? I realize soberly that mechanisms and analysis, produced by me might be wrong, but let’s proceed with logical chain:
As we mentioned above, permanent centrifugal expansion (i.e. space) determines permanent concentration of solid matter (placed inside of bounds of this space) to the same center; permanent concentration of matter to the center conditions increasing of centrifugal repulsive force, which exists within bounds of solid body and determines revolving of it.
Let’s assume that the universe consists of one body and this body is its smallest part, i.e. its elementary particle. Let’s conventionally call it atom.
If universe consists of one single atom, the adjacent space of which presents centrifugal expansion from the center to all directions ideally, but the atom itself presents centripetal concentration (consolidation) from all sides to the same center ideally, then in such case press on the center of atom from all sides is equal, then centrifugal repulsive force (acting inside atom) is equal to all sides as well.
In which direction will start atom to revolve?
The mentioned question could be answered: in direction at random choice, but one can argue about it, as in ideal situation there isn’t any random choices, i.e. there isn’t any such opportunity despite existing of repulsive centrifugal force, which is equal to all spatial sides. Anyway let’s put off analyzing this theme a little (we’ll return to this subject in a while).
In any case after starting of spinning, the first pair of “opposite” points of atom, which in the “moment of starting were unmoved”, become poles at once, but the first peripheral point of atom, which circumscribes a longest circle, becomes part of equator at once, as spin-starting point on the periphery has chance only to circle ideally, and because of absence of frictional forces proceeds spinning in chosen direction; and I won’t trouble myself with explanations as that’s too easy to prove.
I.e. if atom begins to spin it must spin on its axes, i.e. must have poles and equator.
Spin-starting real motive, real cause can be appearance, birth of the second atom.
1. If birth of the second atom happens within the spatial bounds of the first atom, then the bodies of both atoms will unite and they will have common space, and arising of heterogeneity (of disturbance) within the spatial bounds of first atom at once becomes the stimulus for spin starting.(The first animation)
2. The birth of the second atom outside the spatial bounds of the first atom will result in arising of two independent spatial elementary particles, joining of those is prevented by spaces with opposite directions, i.e. barrier for joining is different directions of atoms’ spaces, placed between these two particles. At the point of touching the spaces have opposite to each-other directions. Joining of particles in this case can happen only by applying of outer force, i.e. must happen splitting of adjacent spaces of particles after getting them at some critical distance under influence of outer forces, which in our examined case doesn’t exist. (The second animation)

In the second case arises new opportunity: rotating movement of both particles not only on their own axes but around each-other.



Let’s return to the moment of spin starting:
If the mechanism of spinning, produced by me is right, then let’s analyze, what changes occur after spin starting.
I.e. main question:
What changes occur after spin starting? (I.e. what difference exists between equatorial and polar parts of spinning body (from which part of spinning body the center experiences most/least press) and also what difference exists between the parts of the space bubble above the poles and above equator?)
The vertical press on the axis lessens from all sides, as all points of spinning body spin in planes, parallel to equatorial one (as centrifugal repulsive force is vertical to the axis, i.e. angular speed is vertical to the axis, i.e. it’s parallel to equatorial plane), i.e. the center of the spinning body (let’s say the center of Earth), frees itself somehow from press, which is vertical to axis, i.e. press on the center of the Earth is least on the equator, which spins with the speed of over 1600 km/hour, and is most on poles (variant D, E on the diagram). Mentioned difference makes spinning body to have distorted shape – it is bulging on the equator and is compressed on the poles (variant B on the diagram).
Even we can say that press on the whole equatorial plane within body is most (from both polar sides), as equatorial plane inside of body experiences press, which is vertical to spinning and so mentioned press doesn’t lessen in process of spinning.
I.e. briefly we can summarize:
1. If before spin starting the center of body experienced press from all sides of body equally (variant A on the diagram),
---after spin starting, the press on the axis of rotation lessens in direction, which is vertical towards axis, i.e. the center of body experiences most press from direction of poles, and least press - from equatorial direction, i.e. to say otherwise:
The equatorial plane within body experiences most press from all rest parts of body (i.e. from both opposite parts of body - from both polar directions), but the meridian plane within body experiences least press from both opposite parts of body (vertically to axis of rotation).
Accordingly, changes concern the space bubble of body, i.e. changes concern the space, adjacent to body (which spins along with the body):
Here I’d like to emphasize again that if inner part of boundary of the space bubble is pushing, concentrating solid matter inside it to the center, outer part of space bubble attracts solid matter, placed outside of its bounds (i.e. space bubble of the Earth attracts the matter of the Moon, but space bubble of the Moon attracts the matter of the Earth).
As inner press on the center of body (inside of body) is most from polar sides, accordingly expansion of space bubble (outside of body) is most on the poles (at most stable parts of it), and least – on the equator (at most moving, rotating parts of it), according to the Newton's well-known law, which states: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.", i.e. inner-pushing capabilities of space bubble is most on the poles and least – on the equator, so accordingly - attractive (outer-space bubble-surface) capabilities of space bubble is most on the poles and least on the equator, i.e. attractive capabilities of the Earth’s space bubble (of its outer part is most on the poles and least – on the equator) (variant B on the diagram)



If we call free fall of solid body to the center of planet balance-saving, also expending of light with the speed of 300 000km/sec. balance-saving, as well, then which from below variants of spinning would be more balance-saving?

Please revise the situation above:
(the second variant in animation, when the space bubbles of atoms are touching each-other with their outer parts) -

[BREAK]
About ideal theoretical situations of two bodies, conventionally called atoms, i.e. let’s imagine that the universe consists of only two equal elementary particles, called conventionally by us atoms (spinning ones, in this particular example)
There are three pairs shown below:

1. - atoms’ axes are placed along the same line: atoms’ spaces touch each-other with polar parts).

2. - atoms’ axes are placed on parallel planes, i.e. their space bubbles touch each-other with equatorial parts.

3. - atoms’ axes are placed on perpendicular to each-other planes, i.e. the polar part of one's space bubble is touching the equatorial part of another.

Keep in mind told previously that attractive capability of the heavenly body’s space bubble (of its outer part) is most on the poles and least – on the equator.




Blue lines – space boundaries (i.e. the line, which shows the amount of ultimate points of spreading of particular space bubble);
Gray colored ovals are considered as atoms (or heavenly bodies).

Here are considered only basic variants (axes dispositions’ static examples), and only given examples of phases.

The first I’d like to emphasize is that if/when two solid atoms are close to each-other (i.e. solid atoms’ space bubbles are touching each-other), then these atoms at once make a unity - stable unity, as space bubbles’ attractive outer-surface capabilities don’t let them (both atoms) separate from one-another without external intervention (influence), since main realization of outer-surface part of space bubble (of each atom) generally is attraction of solid matter placed within neighboring space bubble (as well as main realization of inner-surface part of each space bubble is concentrating centrally of solid matter, placed inside this particular space bubble).

I.e. let's bear in mind that two solid heavenly bodies together at once make a unity, and if there isn't any kind of outer intervention, then only kind of change that's expected is only position changing of its consisting bodies but not separation of them from each-other, i.e. not destroy of this unity...

I.e. both atoms together as the unity become stable system planet+satellite,
but how will they (each consisting heavenly body) dispose to each-other within this unity?
Let’s first analyze their behavior in case of two equal heavenly bodies, i.e. let’s analyze the ideal imaginable situation when the whole universe consists of two equal elementary particles – of two atoms:

As outer-surface attractive capabilities are highest at polar parts of space bubbles of each atom, and both of them try to realize these capabilities thoroughly, so each atom will always “try” to dispose the polar part of its space-bubble strictly towards attractable solid object, i.e. strictly towards direction of another atom's body, “trying” to touch the latter just with above-polar part of space-bubble, so one may think that both atoms will dispose to each-other with their polar parts (variant 1 on the diagram of 3 dispositions above).

But what disadvantage has the mentioned disposition?
When touching with their polar parts, each of both atoms’ space bubbles realize their attractive capabilities fully, trying at the same time to get another atom’s body closer, what ends with deformation (size-lessening) of above-polar parts of space bubbles of both atoms what leads to final distortion of bodies of both atoms. As distortion (size-lessening) of spaces happen along the axes of atoms, distortion (size-lessening) of bodies happens vertically to axes of rotation.
At the same time increases the repulsive force between both space bubbles at touching point, and increase of repulsive force contributes to further changing of mentioned disposition ...
I.e. the mentioned disposition of atoms is the process, which is directly opposite of having status quo of each atom, when they didn't present a unity, i.e. opposite of the process of starting of revolving (analyzed above), which ended with the spin of atom with its final deformation (bulging of bodies on the equator and concavity on poles+bulging of space bubbles on the poles and concavity on equator...)
So the mentioned variant (at first sight the most stable, the most strong theoretical unity) isn't balance-saving...



The disposition, when both atoms' axes are parallel to each-other, is excluded at once, as the main capabilities of outer-surface of polar parts of space bubbles (highest attraction) of both atoms (even of any of them) isn't realized,



Both atoms have the least attractive capabilities on the equator, so any equatorial point (i.e. equator thoroughly) is characterized with most escaping capability (escaping from attraction by another body's space bubble). Both atoms' space bubbles, touching each-other with equatorial parts, don't make stable unity and in both cases below (1.when bodies' spinning directions coincide and 2.when they are opposite )we have the similar pictures from the point of view of attraction:





Since escaping capabilities of each atom is highest in these cases, so position-changes happen easier, and any kind of position-change ends with following disposition below (diagram 2), because during escaping and subsequent position-changing processes, above-polar-attractive highest capabilities "demand" to be realized as well.
So the mentioned above variants (variant 2 on the diagram of 3 dispositions above) aren't as well balance-saving...
And attempt of any space bubble of any atom (of B in our particular case, but at random choice generally) will lead to following:



And will end with final disposition below:



At the same time the mentioned variant gives chance to orbital spinning of one body around another that lessens attraction of latter by former (i.e. lessens attraction of planet by satellite because of acquiring of angular moment), in our particular example of body A by satellite B, the mentioned variant has greatest balance-saving "abilities"... In our particular case shown below planet spins with more angular speed than satellite:



But how will change the picture in case of two unequal bodies?
Which of four dispositions below would be more balance-saving?









Without analyzing these variants I'd say that I'm disposed for the variant 4

And in this case we have four different variants of spin:
1. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; the latter without orbital movement.
2. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; angular speed of planet is more than satellite's.
3. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; angular speed of planet is less than satellite's.
4. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; both heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions.

[BREAK]
1. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; the latter without orbital movement.



2. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; angular speed of planet is more than satellite's.



3. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; angular speed of planet is less than satellite's.



4. Spinning planet and satellite on their own axes; both heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions.



Without analyzing these variants I'd say that I'm disposed for the variant 2

All aforecited variants are ideal imaginable situations, when the universe consists of only two solid bodies, also the influence of Sun and analysis of mechanism of orbital movement of solid bodies around it are not considered.

[mkirkpatrick]

Absolutely excellent artıcle Merab my friend.wıll need to reread thıs several tımes.
rotatıon and spınnıng-the proverbial vortex-has always ınterested me.

Thank you for sharıng thıs wıth us.


kındest regards mıchael.

[zeroca]

Absolutely excellent artıcle Merab my friend.wıll need to reread thıs several tımes.
rotatıon and spınnıng-the proverbial vortex-has always ınterested me.

Thank you for sharıng thıs wıth us.


kındest regards mıchael.

Hello, Michael!

Article maybe isn’t excellent, at least I myself don’t think it is (easiest to imagine than to express), anyway it presents just my view, my certain belief on mentioned subject, but that’s approximately a fourth part of the whole article as I couldn’t upload the other pages; contacted Robert about it and surely we’ll do it soon…

Best regards,
Merab

[zeroca]

full version with animations at:

http://autorestore.ucoz.com/phys/f1.html

[mkirkpatrick]

full version with animations at:

http://autorestore.ucoz.com/phys/f1.html

Many thanks for the link Zeroca,where have you been all these years away? Glad to see you back anyway.

regards michael.

[zeroca]

Many thanks for the link Zeroca,where have you been all these years away? Glad to see you back anyway.

regards michael.

Hello, Michael!
Sorry for late reply,
I've been busy with my local tasks of earning family, house-fixing jobs... I'm longing for the time when participated in forum and periodically return to look through articles and posts to receive a pleasure anew but that happens seldom as I have to work like machine and pressed for time again...
Best reegards,
Merab

[BETTY3]

Interesting. Someone asked me if I thought Gravity had more to it than pull! Gravity isn't as complicated as everyone thinks. I believe Quantum Mechanics are just as responsible for this force as are the big forces in the Universe itself because all Quantum studies are, are micro-universes and they effect everything, do not seem to fit the genral laws of the Universe but that's because they are the foundation and cannot work at the same speeds or strength in forces but they do indeed match Universal law that has been long established. Einstein should've looked further into it. All he had to say was there was something to it but the theory was incomplete. He eventually did become interested but at that point his health was failing and he never had time to come up with one of his brilliant flashes.