As the previous posters wrote, the rotation is caused by the conservation of anglar momentum. This parameter can only be changed by external forces and it is theoretically possible that a stellar object is subjected to a force, which erases its angular momentum alltogether (although it is obviously very unlikely that the external force would have the necessary direction and magnitude to annulate the angular momentum). Just think of Uranus, which has a rotaiton axis about 90° to its orbit plane (likely caused by the collision with a protoplanet).

Also do not mistake tidal locks of rotation for a "lack of rotation". A tidally locked body is rotating at the same angular speed as it moves around its central body (or better their common barycenter). The tidal lock has simple reason: Gravity Gradient forces. Any book about astrodynamics should have something about this topic. A gravity gradient will cause a body (or usually a satellite) to oscillate around its axis. If this is not dampened this oscillation continues to occur. However the moon and e.g. other stellar bodies, which are close to their central bodies (usually most of the exoplanets), they have dampened this oscillation because they used to have molten material inside, which acted as dampener because of the differential rotation.

The moon still oscillates a couple of degrees.

In any case a magentic field of a stellar body is not necessarily linked to its outer rotation. Although of course, if it features a magnetic field, which somehow interacts with another one of a central bodies, this could create external forces that also alter its rotation.

So in general there is no reason why a stellar body cannot exist that is not rotating, although the probability of this is very small (see above). I doubt it can be formed without angular momentum, therefore I can only assume this scenario is only possible if it lost its momentum after creatioon through external forces (i.e. an impact).

In case of planets the rotation around its axis is not generated from the planet's internal forces, but by the conservation of angular momentum originating in the protostellar disk. During the gravitational collapse of an interstellar dust-cloud even a minimal initial rotation is increased due to the difference in the size of these objects - which ultimately can limit star formation: beyond certain angular velocity the raw material of stars and planets is expelled in outer space due to the centrifugal force.

This is the cause why a decrease in the radius of the orbiting planet leads to an increase in angular velocity. Or the speed of rotation measured in case of black holes: more than 98% of lightspeed.

However, in case of star's formation, there is a theoretical possibility of gravitational collapse without rotation. In this case protostellar disk is not formed, so this star would not have planets. I don't know if such a star was ever observed - and my bet would be : "no".

Artificial satellites are spun to be kept stable, if this is a problem it is 3-axis stabilized. How is it possible to have a controlled expulsion in outer space for planetary formation to set the planet spinning uniformly and not decaying as in Earth? I can understand the angular velocity being conserved due to gravitation, but for spinning around its axis how can the energy last for long after is expelled to outer space? Can we ever simulate a controlled expulsion ? The probability for man made simulations would be very low, while in the universe it seems to definitely occur.

The angular velocity (w) depends on angular momentum (L), mass(m) and radius(r)

w=L/m*r^2. The rotation initiated during the launch will not need further energy from your aircraft, it will spin due to the Noether-theorem (see simmetries). But is not this spinning which will keep (hopefully) your object in its path (see geostationary paths, escape velocity, gravitational constant, etc).

Using these reasoning controlled expulsions were realized by mankind - allegedly some representatives of this species even stepped foot on Moon.

Yes. In all senses of relativity. A well known example is the Earth's Moon. It does not rotate relative to the Earth. The Moon shows the same side to the Earth all the time. In Earth's gravity well, it does not rotate relative to the well. Relative to the Sun the Moon does rotate. Once every month or so. 12 times a year is the rotation rate relative to the sun, or so. Planets in orbit around a star, moons around a planet, or stray planets or stars do not have a reason via mathematics, general relativity or classical, to 'rotate'.

The Moon is not a 'dead' planet. Hmm, is it? No life on it.

Magnetic fields are considered to be generated by an internal iron core that is embedded in a molten sphere, and both core and sphere are rotating. Theory may include a non solid iron core. Due to lack of symmetry in the spinning materials' magnetic field, or the location of charged material, a current is created, that creates the magnetic dipole field.

Magnetic fields are not known to cause a satellite body to rotate. However, Jupiter's magnetic field discharges with violent lightning to it's closest moons, so powerful, it melts the side of the moon being hit, allowing a change in the shape of the moon, changing it's rotation (I recall locking it in place to face Jupiter always).

Note that I have written this as if the question was about any heavenly body, not just planets or stars.

A non rotating star would have different behaviours from from our Sun. Likely much different. Would it destroy itself? Or is such a star not able to form? There is no evidence of either. There have been found stars roving outside it's nearest galaxy. I do not think the rotation rate was determined.

Peter,

The Moon, which can be seen sometimes in the night sky is rotating around its axis. Beeing tidally locked to Earth, to spin once around its axis takes exactly the same time as making an orbital revolution around Earth. That is the cause why we can see allways the same face of the Moon. Spin is rotation around an axis inside the body and orbital revolution is rotation around an external point. The Moon is spinning around its axis, and is rotating around Earth, together they are rotating around the Sun, which is rotating around the big black monster in the galactic center and the whole pack is rotating with the Universe. It could be even more than that, but it's quite dizzying.

Do you have any information about a non-rotating planet?

"Planets in orbit around a star, moons around a planet, or stray planets or stars do not have a reason via mathematics, general relativity or classical, to 'rotate'."

Why do you disniss as reason to rotate the conservation of angular momentum?

András,

Good point, but our Moon, and some others are currently rotating because they are tidally locked to the body they orbit they do not otherwise exhibit and independent rotation. That is not to say they did not rotate before becoming tidally locked, and will not again, perhaps increasingly, as our Moon continuously recedes away from the Earth.

I think the fundamental issue involves the dynamics of collapse within a giant molecular cloud that produces an accretion disk and a protostar. As I understand, it is the gravitational collapse of gas that produces the initial rotation and centrifugal effects that produce the accretion disk. Further, the velocity of rotation increases with density as the protostar contracts... Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_type_stars.

As you say, throughout the development of a protoplanetary disk and accretion of planetary bodies, the established angular momentum must generally be conserved...

I should add that, in this view, it seems most if not all stars and planets must form as rotating bodies. Whether they can lose that rotation without collapsing their orbits is perhaps another question.

As the previous posters wrote, the rotation is caused by the conservation of anglar momentum. This parameter can only be changed by external forces and it is theoretically possible that a stellar object is subjected to a force, which erases its angular momentum alltogether (although it is obviously very unlikely that the external force would have the necessary direction and magnitude to annulate the angular momentum). Just think of Uranus, which has a rotaiton axis about 90° to its orbit plane (likely caused by the collision with a protoplanet).

Also do not mistake tidal locks of rotation for a "lack of rotation". A tidally locked body is rotating at the same angular speed as it moves around its central body (or better their common barycenter). The tidal lock has simple reason: Gravity Gradient forces. Any book about astrodynamics should have something about this topic. A gravity gradient will cause a body (or usually a satellite) to oscillate around its axis. If this is not dampened this oscillation continues to occur. However the moon and e.g. other stellar bodies, which are close to their central bodies (usually most of the exoplanets), they have dampened this oscillation because they used to have molten material inside, which acted as dampener because of the differential rotation.

The moon still oscillates a couple of degrees.

In any case a magentic field of a stellar body is not necessarily linked to its outer rotation. Although of course, if it features a magnetic field, which somehow interacts with another one of a central bodies, this could create external forces that also alter its rotation.

So in general there is no reason why a stellar body cannot exist that is not rotating, although the probability of this is very small (see above). I doubt it can be formed without angular momentum, therefore I can only assume this scenario is only possible if it lost its momentum after creatioon through external forces (i.e. an impact).

Volker,

Well put, but I don't think anyone indicated that tidally locked bodies were not rotating...

In the case of a truly tidally locked body, its rate of rotation is solely the result of its gravitational interaction (and perhaps some magnetic field interactions) with the primary body (and it's rotation) - now bearing little if any relation to any prior, independent, angular momentum, correct?

For example, if the giant impact theory of lunar formation is correct, it was once a planet with its own independent angular momentum resulting from its formation via accretion...

Is there anything like relative response time for a gravity force to be felt? Is it instantaneous? To make it clear whether the Galactic center will feel instantaneously if for some reason the Sun's mass changes considerably? The distance is as I understand is in light years.

Dear Sundaresan,

I started thinking about your second question.

So, your Institute plans to send from Earth in outer space a celestial body to form another planet?

("How is it possible to have a controlled expulsion in outer space for planetary formation to set the planet spinning uniformly and not decaying as in Earth?")

I hope this project is not related to a waste-management solution.

Could be more specific?

And you must not be indulgent. I have a well developed sense of humour!

@James: Yes correct. Due to friction in the not yet solid body of the ancient moon, the oscialtion dampened the rotation of the moon. Friction created heat, which was dissipated into space, i.e. energy was lost and the moon consequently reduced its rotation speed.

@Sundaresan: Those are very fundamental questions. Mass bends space-time but information can only spread with maximum speed of light (relativity theory). The loss of gravity (due to loss of mass, e.g. a super nova) would spread via gravitational waves (in theory, because directly these have not yet been measured). You might want to check this term at e.g. wikipedia for more complete description.

Volker, that could be a red herring served by Sundaresan.

Actually they want to go mine-digging the cheese the Moon is made-of. They will synchronize the mining activity with a lunar eclipse. And if they will progress in the shape of a crescent moon, the only way we could observe their activity would be to observe the decline in lunar gravity. That is why he is asking about the response time to gravitational changes!

Don't play all your cards!

@András Györfi

Controlled satellite injection into orbit by man is controlled min mini expulsion if we can use the word. Universe formed by expulsion considering the enormity which we are talking about; my question was how an orderly thing has unbelievably happened?

When humans try to explode any thing say a meteorite for that matter can ever any orderliness prevail?

@Volker Maiwald ·

I agree with you that my question was fundamental. For that matter all philosophies are fundamental and we like to talk about it again and again mainly because it is wonderful and there is a lot to understand more and it is made more beautiful if common folk and lesser intellectuals are made to understand.

Creation and its origin; theories will be coming and going and every time it can be convincing to great mathematicians and physicists but the real truth is hidden somewhere. Ancient texts on vedantic literature more than 2000 years back have referred to the evolution of the universe from space, air fire, water and the earth and then the living species.The univers was defined as a changing entity called Jagat. It also portrays pictures of the universe as a huge disc rotaing from the pivotal point with a picture of a Godly figure shown. Now the scientific community has shown many things similar to these concepts.

Gravity being the central scientific theme of the universe, I only wonder how the suns rotation and for that matter millions of stars are revolving around the galactic center which is millions of light years away. How is gravity effects extending so far, hence is gravity felt instantaneously was my question.

Sundaresan,

You stated:

"... I only wonder how the suns rotation and for that matter millions of stars are revolving around the galactic center which is millions of light years away. How is gravity effects extending so far, hence is gravity felt instantaneously was my question."

IMO this is a common misconception. While stars in more approximately spherically distributed elliptical galaxies, to great extent, each independently orbit a dense galactic center, in the planar disks of spiral galaxies stars and other discrete objects do not independently orbit any central galactic bulge (even where they exist). The disks of spiral galaxies self-gravitate - objects primarily gravitationally interact with all their neighboring objects. Only collectively do they rotate around their center of mass.

This property of loosely bound galactic disks contrasts with both rigidly bound solid disks, whose rotation curves linearly increase as a function of radial distance from an axis of rotation, and effectively independent planetary systems, whose rotation curves diminish as a function of their radial distance from the center of mass - nearly coincident with a dominant stellar mass.

In the Milky Way, hundreds of billions of luminous stars, non-luminous planets and other bodies, along with obscuring gas & dust clouds, collectively rotate - not as a centrally bound planetary system or a solid disk, but as a loosely bound disk in which the gravitational force available at small radii can be communicated throughout the disk by each network binding. In this way, gravitational potential - and its resulting rotational velocity imparted to disk objects - does not diminish as a function of radial distance but remains generally flat throughout the disk.

The relatively high velocity peripheral objects are not expelled due to centrifugal effects because they are not bound only to some central object or even a center of mass - they are each structurally bound to millions if not billions of neighboring masses, including the dense gas and dust clouds of spiral arm structures.

I hope this explanation might appeal to your sense of reasoning. Please also see the brief, informal essay loaded to my profile and especially its formal references.

Dear All, it is necessary rotation motion for planets and stars,.

One can get much more information in this web link:-

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/NorthStar/Unit3/unit3_sub1.htm

Mohammad,

are we in kindergarden?

@James Dwyer

Thanks for the painstaking explanation. and I will try to understand.

@Ulrich Mutze

Generally the ignorant do not tread on the wise man's toe. They stay forever ignorant. Ignorance of a person reflects in many fields other than one practices. If world knowledge sharing is done in isolated pockets then the beauty of this great universe will always be hidden. I believe this Cosmos is very sacred and I am very sure there are a lot more things to understand. The wise have gone miles ahead about in their own selected path from kinder garden to research no doubt, but the kindergarden stuff is common to all the wise and the ignorant. It seems to me just as religion is strongly preached and is sacred I am finding that scientific knowledge is also treated no different .At least religion seems to be more easily understood though many don't follow , but for science many people want to follow but is not easily understood.

@Mohammad Ayaz Ahmad ·

Thanks for the site, though it would sound primitive for a genius like you I am really grateful for coming down and reaching me.

James,

that is the light version.

There is a dark version also.

If you intend to combat the theory of dark matter, you have to deal also with gravitational lensing due to DM, the angular fluctuations in CMB spectrum which sustains the Lambda - Cold Dark Matter model (see WMAP results) and explains the Lyman-alpha forest.

Below you have an image with a 3D map of the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with the Hubble Space Telescope

@Mohammad: Your link does not contribute anything new, sorry. What is in there has already been stated here although in a more profound and mathematical solid manner. Under the above stated exceptions it is not mandatory for a planet to have an angular momentum. And I doubt that a children's website can shed light on this.

@Sundaresan: You wrote:

"Gravity being the central scientific theme of the universe, I only wonder how the suns rotation and for that matter millions of stars are revolving around the galactic center which is millions of light years away. How is gravity effects extending so far, hence is gravity felt instantaneously was my question."

Gravity is not the central scientific theme. It is one of four major forces. Quantum mechanics are just as important, although on a much smaller scale. To understand the universe completely we also need to consider all forces and effects. Which is still a daunting task, because we are far away from understanding the universe completely.

As mentioned before gravity affects (or better is an effect of) the bending of space-time (see relativity theory of Einstein) and it extends by the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous. Changes in mass extend in the form of gravitational waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Generally I think one should not mix metaphysics with science. While the origin of the universe is still obscure (i.e. its cause) and likely ever will be, because we cannot see "before" the big bang, its functions and effects can all be desrcibed using scientific methods. It works by natural laws, not by spiritual effects.

András,

Re., 'combating dark matter', I attempt to limit my argument to its simplest galactic inference, fundamentally derived solely from the conflict between expectations based on planetary system rotational dynamics and observations of large spiral galaxies (containing >100 billion stars, plus likely as many smaller non-luminous objects).

It is this discrepancy (the galaxy rotation problem) that historically established the requirement for universal dark matter in the late 1970's - more than 30 years ago. Since that time, many thousands of researchers have published papers confirming the inferred existence of dark matter throughout the universe and considering its possible nature. Moreover, nearly all physicists, as I understand, are now being educated as youths about the presence of dark matter in the universe. Millions of dollars have been invested in efforts to detect it. I certainly don't expect to be able to counter all of those efforts and long term investments!

If I can accomplish anything, it might be to encourage others to reconsider the foundational galaxy rotation problem. I'm unfortunately not capable of providing a rigorous analysis to support my arguments, so my results will be limited. For these reasons I think it best if I restrict my comments to the rotation of galaxies, especially here.

So I do not attempt to argue that no dark matter exists or has existed in the universe, only that its presence in (particularly spiral) galaxies may not be necessary to explain the properties of spiral galaxy rotation. If I can only encourage others to rigorously reexamine the perceived galaxy rotation problem, I will have been successful.

In the meantime, I have made some general comments about weak gravitational lensing evidence for dark matter recently (now 3 days ago - Nov. 24) at https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_the_study_of_galactic_rotation_curves_should_one_go_by_the_Dark_Matter_Model_or_the_MOND_theory_and_why. There is also some strong gravitational lensing evidence against dark matter within elliptical galaxies - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6896 or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236143811_Gravitational_lensing_evidence_against_extended_dark_matter_halos?ev=prf_pub.

Data Gravitational lensing evidence against extended dark matter halos

@Volker Maiwald

Thank you sir very much.

I will not say spiritual effects, it is only spiritual insight. Great scientists are great philosophers and thinkers and so are spiritual seekers with no religion in it and have also expressed their intuitive findings (available in bits and pieces) , just as modern scientists are doing now. Unfortunately it has become a thing of distant past. Who knows the very distant future generations may call us ancient in their time frame, but the wheel of time is constantly rotating and would perhaps reveal the same picture to see after many many years.

James,

I salute your honest and correct standpoint.

May the better hypothesis win!

Regards,

András from the Dark Side

To me, studying effects caused by rotating stellar object is worthwhile. Based on my model, spin frequency of an object might be essential in gravitational interaction. There is many potential examples, for example Venus's thick atmosphere due to low spin frequency which causes smaller gravitational interaction.

Spin frequency of galaxy might explain also galaxy arm's anomalous behaviour.

The two adiabatic invariants, namely, the magnetic flux and the angular momentum will not allow the formation of a non-rotating star. The gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud leads to the formation of a protostar that is surrounded by an accretion disc. The transfer of the angular momentum between the protostar and the inner regions of the accretion disc establishes the final rotational period of the star. The interaction of the accretion disc with the magnetosphere of the protostar significantly influence the acquired rotation. It would be a real miracle if all these interactions result in the production of a non-rotating star.

The planets are formed by the accretion of planetesimals. The hits received by the accreting planet from the numerous planetesimals will determine the rotation of the planet. The interaction of the accretion disc with the protoplanet would also influence its rotational period.

@S. Sahijpal

Is it a coincidence that moon's rotation is same as that of earth? Is it possible to mathematically evaluate the same with the physical theories as of now?

The moon's rotation is tidally locked with the Earth as a result of which the moon's near side has been always facing us. The tidal locking was perhaps established right during the formation of the moon around 4.5 billion years ago. This is supported by the major geological differences between the near side and the far side. With reference to Earth, the moon appears to be almost non-rotating. However, with reference to an independent observer in space the moon rotates about its axis in ~27 days that is identical to its orbital period. This is almost like as if you hold a child with her arms and perform a pirouette. The child's face is always facing you even though she rotates around her axis to an independent observer. Watch the illumination on her face due to direct sunlight. (A medical advise would be essential in case you really want to perform this demonstration with a child. Generally, the elders don't allow us to do this...)

The physics of gravitational tidal force is well established within the regime of Newtonian theory of gravity (no need of general theory of relativity at least for moon). Please refer to some standard book on planetary science. The gravitational tidal interactions are considered to be responsible for heating and melting of the interiors of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.

@S. Sahijpal

If tidal locking is so strong can't moon have influence on living species?

Sundaresan,

Do you mean as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides#Biological_aspects ?

The lunar tidal influence is felt by Earth in the form of body tides as well as tides in seas and oceans. The tides in sea can influence the aquatic life near seashores due to the slight periodic change in the sea levels. However, I do not think that the biological life is directly effected by gravitational tidal force due to moon on life. This is due to our smaller physical dimensions over which the tidal influence can not be felt until and unless we are in a very strong gravitational field. In case you are standing in the vicinity of a black hole, the gravitational tidal force acting between your feet and head will stretch your body like a noodle until it is torn apart .

Most of the anticipated influences of moon on life are probably due to the moon light, in the form of lunar phases. For example, the coral reefs definitely respond to full moons.

See e.g.,

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.in/news/2007/10/071019-coral-spawning.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-19/study-shows-coral-spawn-on-full-moon/703510

There have been speculations on the correlation of lunar phase with humans. However, various studies conducted so far do not show any correlation.

See e.g.,

http://www.livescience.com/7899-moon-myths-truth-lunar-effects.html

@S. Sahijpal ·

Most of our mathematical formulations are got from the elemental or particle level and stretched to the global analyses/ results. Similarly Tidal forces can be similarly treated. Life variations and requirements may not require really strong forces to govern its functions. A very tall coconut tree sucks ground water and produces pure mineral nourishing water. Can man simulate an experiment such as this which works day in and out?

Experiments have shown that beans seeds sprout only during the moonlight. If we keep it covered that is dark in the night the seeds will not sprout. This is the experience of a farmer of course not documented, but definitely finds mention in the earlier scripts.

"Most of our mathematical formulations are got from the elemental or particle level and stretched to the global analyses/ results. Similarly Tidal forces can be similarly treated."

Reply:

No, this is not true. In the case of gravity it is the other way round. The tidal interactions can be understood in the framework of the Newtonian theory of gravity as well as the General theory of relativity. We don't start from quantum level in either of these two theories.

"Life variations and requirements may not require really strong forces to govern its functions."

Reply:

The laws of electrodynamics essentially govern all the interactions that defines life.

Life is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions involving elements like C, H. O N, P, S, and trace amounts of other elements. In fact, the vitual perception of world through over photo receptors (eye; in animals) is also due to electrodynamics. The gravity of Earth, however, defines our mascular and skelton strength, and may be metabolism. You change the gravity, the corresponding effects will be felt. As I mentioned earlier the lunar tides will not bring such changes.

"A very tall coconut tree sucks ground water and produces pure mineral nourishing water. Can man simulate an experiment such as this which works day in and out?"

Reply:

The chemistry of life that evolved on this planet over 3.5 billion years or so acquired this capability by itself due to the essential need of survival. Yes, man can definitely do this by synthesizing all the compounds, drugs and mineral rich suppliments. You can get them from market. Our entire modern technology is an undisputed example of how we can run all the machine, of course with proper maintaineance. Anyway the biological systems have to also work on their maintaineance.

Experiments have shown that beans seeds sprout only during the moonlight. If we keep it covered that is dark in the night the seeds will not sprout. This is the experience of a farmer of course not documented, but definitely finds mention in the earlier scripts.

Reply:

I cannot specifically talk about sprouting. However, as I mentioned earlier that their is no explicit direct link between moon and life. The implicit link between the two things is due to the adequate moon light on some specific nights of a month. You have to further address this aspect to a marine biologist.

I would like to mention in the end that the distance between the moon and the earth has not been constant. The moon is slowly moving away from us. This is happening at the cost of the rotational velocity of Earth around its axis, an outcome of the conservation of the angular momuntum of the total system. The Earth's spin has slowed down gradually over the billions of years. This would have certainly influenced the EVOLUTION of life on Earth but definitely does not influence life as such on local temporal scales in an explicit manner. You can address this query to a paleobiologist.

@S. Sahijpal

Thank you very much for the strong scientific reply.. It is this aspect that sustains new inventions no doubt.

All the same the greatest scientists were all deep thinkers got their secrets from the blue, intuition we call it and all physicists and mathematicians have done a wonderful job so far.

Life I think is more than chemical reactions. I think it is high time we create live reactions sustaining by itself as normal live things do

Spin motions of planets/stars are gained during their orbital motion about each other. See http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0029  

Magnetism of cosmic bodies are induced by their linear motion and free-floating atoms in calm fluids near their surfaces.See http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0038

Nainan

In the simplest form the answer is yes.  The likelihood if it is on the order of 1/infinity that it could happen.  This does not mean however that this type of thing could not be forced to happen.  Gravity, magnetism, rotation, electrodynamics are all well known and could be used to change this type of thing.  It of course is not in our realm of doable with the limited technology we have today.  

Also realize that rotation is always a matter of your relative position and motion to the body at question.  This means that no matter what the body is doing you could place yourself in motion to have that body appear to be still or rotating even if it is not.

Thought allows us the ability to imagine a situation where anything could be in motion with respect to us. 

What part of this comment did you vote down?

I know that the actions of the down vote are anonymous..  However I would like to know why my last comment which is well within the excepted science of today, was voted down. 

I reserve the down vote for comments that are not scientific or intellectual in nature but just stabs at others.  My concern here is that down votes should not be just because you do not like something or someone.  Have the courage to tell me I am wrong.

If I have pointed out something outside of science or incorrect in this forum I except a rebuttal from someone that knows better than I do. 

The down votes can be taken back as can the up votes.  This is a scientific forum not a popularity contest.

Usually down votes I think are done if it goes against ones strong views  cemented which is   learnt and understood over the years.The Cosmos is a free subject and whatever we all have learned and studied is through great scientific  people spread out in various countries and periods of time and there can be no continuous connection as we are dealing with a  time  factor in light years.

I think you are correct.  The feeling that I have is that there is a large misunderstanding of some of the models of the Universe and there are some things that have been said to be true that in any logical mind cannot be true but are still promoted as fact.

The biggest example of this is the big bang.  Any one that has a logical mind would have to say why is this model of the Universe still being used.  IF as a researcher I were to tell people that this was the model and this is how many unresolved issues it has and here are the patches that have to have been put on it to make it even close to working I would be fired and told to go and get a job selling used cars as the story telling is only for sales not for research and science.

But here we sit 100 years after the model of the big bang was proposed by a priest and physicist and still no closer to true understanding.  It is sad that we must live in a world that still believes in essences and spirits that control the minds of many.

Also if strong views are not at least based on truth and logic then one is going to make bad chooses on what to believe or not.  Strong opinions have no place in science if they can be shown to be wrong.

I am not trying to be mean here but I see this all the time in the sciences the one place that I thought was going to be void of this kind of trouble.  Where are the logical minds.  I know that not all my ideas are correct but I have good reason to believe that they are not all wrong.

I am a spiritual person but I do not believe in magic.

The initial question expresses a strange presupposition. If we take into consideration the possibility for the planet not to rotate what is then 'its axis'? The general motion of a rigid body in space is quite intricate (if it deviates from rigidity as is know for our earth, things become not simpler). The analysis leading to Poinsot's construction of the most general force-free motion is not easy to grasp but there are many  youtube videos which nicely show these tumbling motions that are possible. Anyway, the fact that the angular moment is a constant vector by no means  implies that there is something like 'the rotation axis' (of course, at any instant of time there is an instantaneous rotation axis).

I think that there is more to the rotation that is currently known.  In some of the work I am doing right now I am exploring this motion and its effects.  It is not without question if there could be life on the planet if there were not the fields around it created by the magnetic moment that deflects some of the radiation from the sun. 

@George E. Van Hoesen.

I am with your views totally,and this is one of the reasons I intuitively feel a rethinking has to be made rather than carry on over the leftovers of the Greats and aired by the newer up risen and rising ones. This comment is only valid when we talk of macros beyond our or human reach.

There is one very big flaw in our theories just as we are trying to explain the origin of life and the human mind and the real mechanism behind it.

Can it ever be possible to create from nothing the entire universe with so many light year tonnes of material? We all know that  mass is conserved, energy is conserved which are scientifically true and none living can deny. How then such an event has happened? Still many many galaxies are being formed as told by ongoing reports and publications can be true or thought off as we are all  millions of light years away from a happening and   scientific thoughts are expressed with   conviction and perhaps approved by  established bodies. 

We live and see with our minds, the light which allows to see this beautiful world, strangely working  in a perfect order beyond our grasp. This little mind of ours working independently most of the time and in cohesion with others at required occasions  is like a molecule in this universe  which is trying to fathom the entirety. Conviction is a big word  said with authority and is more a social cause on this topic of interest.

But we all know our minds have the capacity to feel and know about the infinite  though not grasping its entirety and it finds its best expressions arising from deep intuition an asset to all and  is done with a lot of humility and of course  with world knowledge. It is a lovely exercise just as  young innocent children together appreciating and wondering a nice spectacle. One child in every lot will rise to do greater things more revealing.

The concept of Totality, the Total mind is yet to strike our scientific community from which our little minds work. Mind plays great tricks,  and  is put into reality with proper knowledge sought from learning, experience and finally intuition.

Hello,

This discussion reminds me of a very similar conversation that began in 1912 when Arthur Schuster wondered if the magnetic moment and the angular momentum of the Earth were related, see,

Arthur Schuster; A critical examination of the possible causes of terrestrial magnetism; Proceedings of the Physical Society of London; Vol 24; 1911; pp. 121-137.

In 1947, P. M. S. Blackett decided to revisit this question in light of new experimental data on the magnetic moment and angular momentum measurements of the Earth, the Sun, and the star 78 Virginis by Babcock, see,

P. M. S. Blackett; The magnetic field of massive rotating bodies; Nature; Vol. 159; May 17, 1947; pp. 658-666.

Blackett's Nature article contains a very detailed bibliography, if anyone is interested in the backstory of Blackett's contention that there might be a fundamental relationship between the magnetic moment and angular momentum of massive bodies, see the first equation in his paper for this relationship.  Blackett's conjectured relationship generated quite a bit of discussion and new experimental measurements, which continued on the pages of Nature magazine till, at least, 1949 and maybe beyond.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

Answer is provided in attachments.  Electrons in particles rotate along with the rotation of planets.  So, magnetic field is generated. This is a novel idea provided in attachments.

Article Rotating Bodies Do Have Magnetic Field

Sundaresan,

I do not understand why someone would vote down my comment. 

Thank you for your thoughts on this.  We as scientists know so little about the real world yet we pretend to know so much.

George V.

@George E. Van Hoesen 

Strangely I find people who are more knowledgeable and recognized by society through awards or equivalent recognition seem to get locked on the things learnt and are not comfortable on any deviations. This is OK for any experiments or knowledge gained on specific topics of research which are well defined and assumptions perfect and such stand will make people to learn better.

Anything  more subtle and also involves   this Earth   and the Universe, light years etc people should have an open mind otherwise it is a suppression of thoughts.

While rotation helps stability and the atmosphere around it gets charged due to the rotation, magnetic field existing and many more there is a strong link to life under favorable conditions. If one models our earth sans rotation where are we? Can the earth with its rotation revolution and the effects of sun and moon be ever simulated? If we cannot do this how much will we understand the other heavenly bodies.? Simply reporting sporadic events and findings only give a glimpse of the wonders of the universe. There is something fundamentally lacking on the present research. Einstein becomes popular later and great people can be counted on fingers over the centuries. The rest  though they do pioneering work on selective areas  the world practically lives on the works of these great men .

Hence negative marking can be brushed aside. I had my own personal experience on a very important technical work which is  better not disclosed in this forum but now stands vindicated and working very well  in spite of many who criticized it sharply and opposed it. Conviction born of intuition and spirit is more important.

W.F.G. Swann and A. Longacre, An attempt to detect a magnetic field as the result of the rotation of a copper sphere at high speed, Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 206, Oct 1928, No.4, p.421-434

This is one among the articles which provides experimental evidence of existence  of magnetic field for rotating non-magnetizable bodies.  THE EXACT THEORETICAL ANSWER has been provided  in attachments of  my earlier answer.

@Sundaresan Muthuswamy,

I agree with your assessment.  I have had similar things happen to me.

When I was younger and in grad school at a time before we knew that there was a massive black hole at the center of our Galaxy I brought a proposal to my Physics professor that stated that there must be a black hole at the center of most if not all spiral Galaxies.  I showed him the dynamics that made it almost impossible not to be there.  

I laughed at me and told me to stop working in areas that I had no idea about the dynamics and the workings of and leave that to the professionals that understood such things.  He said I way stupid if I thought that idea could be the way it is.

It was not more than 2 years later that I was reading in a journal that they had discovered that there must be a black hole in the center of our Galaxy.   I was excited and mad all at the same time.  I never talked to him about it again.

This is however why we do not not move faster at discovery and advancement in science.  If people of science would understand that a theory is just that and fact is subjective not objective then maybe just maybe we could get more and better theory with understanding being the base.

My favorite thing that Socrates said is:

  "Learning was first and foremost a process of discovering what it is we wrongly thought we knew, of first exploring ignorance before going on to knowledge. Merely adding bits of wisdom to a mass of foolishness will not make people wiser.

It will only increase the danger of their Ignorance."

I bring this up because the work in Super conducting super colliders is without any real understanding of the energy content of an atom.  We are making the assumption that we know all there is to know about the atom and yet we know vary little and what we do know is based off a model that we build before the understanding of the atom even having a Neutron in the center of the atom.  

In the work that I have done over the last decade or so I have seen some indications that the amount of energy in the center of the atom could be as much as 25 times the amount of energy that is thought to be there. 

If this is even close, then the work that we are doing in colliders is based off bad information and the first time we reach the speed of light in that situation could create a chain reaction that could melt the collider and all of its work as well as all of the people that are with in hundreds of miles of the facility. 

Science can not close their eyes and blindly move forward when the results are so dangerous.  I have been working on a new model of the atom that shows how this energy is put together differently than the energies that we know about.  The problem is that I know that this is vital work before we loose much of the science we have but I have not lab to prove this of money to independently research this.

I just hope that someone else sees what I have seen and heads it off as my talking about it is making me look bad because more educated scientists "Know Better".

I hope that understanding and knowledge are not just left to the supper educated as they do not have a lick of common sense in some matters.

We as a scientific community needs to lift our heads up and stop the head down approach to discovery.

More on topic.  The star that you are speaking of is the Schwarzchild model of a star.  In World War I Schwarzchild was on the battlefield and read Einsteins paper.  His realization was that as the mass got grater and greater it would reach a point where it could no longer support the weight and could not even allow light to escape the surface of the planet or star.  He used a metric of Einsteins equations that showed this body not rotating and this is now called the Schwarzchild radius.

This in my opinion is almost not possible as the body gets bigger and bigger.  We have to start from the beginning not some where in the middle as this metric does.  

In my model of the universe there are some things that happen which are real and end up with a Universe that looks just like the one that we see today.  This is why I like to go back to this model to start the conversation.

If we start with just matter randomly distributed in a regions of space some things happen that lead us to the conclusion that it is vary hard to have a body that is not rotating or is moving about a body that is rotating.

These regions of space would have two parts of the matter that were closer to one another and would fall together by gravity, as they fall together the thing that you should realize is that with respect to the path that they follow to fall together there is only one change in an infinite number of changes that they will fall together so perfectly that there is not rotation.  As this mass gets bigger and bigger we see that the rotation increases.   So in the universe if we look into the sky what we see is things that are rotating.  This is not hard to see.  We are rotating. The sun is rotating.  We are rotating, the moon is rotating around us we are rotating around the sun  The Spiral Galaxies that are so numerous in the Universe that we see are rotating and on and on.  

The Universe likes things that rotate.  Can one get some that are not yes but even the moon which is not rotating with respect to the earth is moving around the earth and the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is moving around the center of our galaxy.  So it is hard to find things that are not rotating with respect to some other point.

George V.   

@George E. Van Hoesen 

Thank you so much for sharing your experience. First thing I must say you are an order higher on  the intellect I possess. I first hope someone will read who matters, but till then we cannot give up. We have to go on repeating on and on in different colors on the main substance till wisdom dawns both to us and the heard. It is a process, because truth is very exciting to the beholder that makes him desperate to share what is revealed. He knows that it is not his but it is  the voice and the intelligence of the inner  most self.

The strength and quality would of course depend on the purity of thought and purpose. This world and Creation is Crazy beyond cognition and surely the way it had been created would obviously have its own ways unimaginable to man. But it is  also strange how Nature allows discoveries to happen and man gets excited with his formulation and connects one to one with the result. Most of the formulations is far from correct though it allows one to have a convenient platform to explain  the inexplicable. Meaning that  crude formulations though looking mathematically complicated and elegant really do not quantify things exactly. This is a sort of cushion or indeterminacy built  by Nature which tolerates inaccuracies for seemingly proper functioning and motivating man.

It is similar to the hundred ways of explaining the God factor but still not understanding the Whole as true in philosophy and which is no less in Science.

@Sundaresan Muthuswamy,

Thank you.  I have always thought that our inability to explain things is because we want something magic to be real.  This being said there is a mathematical and scientific order that has to exist and does exist that can be shown in the terms of math and science.  This higher order is in a simple form (From Chaos Comes Order) This in my simple mind is the existence of a god and it is provable.  Therefore science cannot and should not question the existence of this order.  

If science did not have to fight about this issue they could concentrate on answering the real questions and not, "If There is a God of Not".  

We spend so much effort and time on issues that can not be resolved by fighting that we miss the idea that we should be fixing the worlds problems.  How to feed everyone, how to educate everyone, how to stop diseases, how to move all the people off this planet when it is time to do that..  and on and on to a list of unsolved problems that we as humans have to deal with in our lives and in our children's lives...

George V.    

A non rotating system is possible but unlikely. Since rotation can be plus or minus in any frame, exact zero is rare and probably unstable. Angular momentum is conserved with respect to a multitude of moving objects, which makes any situation transient even if long lasting.

@George E. Van Hoesen

Perfectly said.

 Sundaresan, thank you for asking this question. It is one of the most fundamental questions. No planet, star, galaxy or any cosmological structure can exist without spinning on its axis. When the reason will be known then we can truly say that we understand  our planet, star and the Universe as a whole.

@Jamel,

I would be really interested in knowing whether a human brain can be structured such that after having created the text of your note and after having thought about it once more, it can feel to have created something reasonable.