Why some celestial bodies are potent in having orbital bodies and not all?

Abstract

All planets have satellites as orbital bodies except for Mercury and Venus. No plausible reason is distinguishable from the existing dynamics of orbital bodies. Ultimately the phenomenon of having or not having orbital bodies is left to chance. There are more than 300 satellites natural satellites attached to different planets but interesting enough not a single satellite has an orbital body (say, sub-satellite). It is further interesting that more than 150 asteroids are known to have small companion moons, and some have two moons. Hence, one can’t attribute the mass factor of a celestial body for having an orbital body. It is seen the satellites don’t rotate with respect to their concerned planet. It is also seen the planets Mercury and Venus not having a satellite rotate slowly. Hence, one can infer that a non-rotating or slowly rotating celestial body can’t have an orbital body. The present orbital dynamics don’t have any bearing with the rotation of the celestial body; thereby it fails to predict the probability of having an orbital body. However, in the new fluid dynamics model a rotating celestial body has a spinning extra nuclear space structure that helps in changing the direction of centripetal velocity due to radial acceleration by gravity in tangential direction which enables conservation of angular momentum. An orbital body experiences centripetal force due to gravity and centrifugal force due to orbital motion. For stable orbital bodies the gravitational attraction is fully neutralised by the centrifugal force for which reasonable spinning velocity of space fluid is absolutely necessary. A non-rotating/ slowly-rotating celestial body can’t have an appropriate spinning velocity of its associated extra nuclear space structure, thereby the orbital bodies of a non-rotating celestial body experience a dominating gravity and is gravitated. It is for this reason the non-rotating or slowly rotating celestial bodies below a critical speed are not potent. The paper describes the fact with reference to a diagram. 

Keywords: celestial body, satellite and sub-satellite, rotating and or slowly rotating, orbital motion and revolution.

Introduction

Evaluation of the speed of rotation of orbital bodies about their own axis is beyond the scope of dynamics; ultimately it is left to chance. Further, there is no connection between revolution and rotation. But it is noticed; the satellites of all planets have one rotation per revolution. How can we justify this remarkable matching?

The state of rotation of an orbital body is expressed relative to distant stars whose influence on the orbital body is negligible. The sun being the primary interacting body in the solar system, the rotation of the planet needs to be characterized relative to the sun. Similarly, the planet being the primary interacting body in a planet-system, the rotation of satellites of a planet need to be characterized relative to the planet. It is well known that one hemisphere of the moon is always visible from the earth. Remaining on the earth we do not see the other hemisphere of the moon. Hence the moon does not rotate relative to the earth i.e. one face of the moon is always facing towards earth. When the moon makes one revolution, it makes one epicycle rotation per revolution with respect to distant stars. The earth being the nucleus of the earth-moon system has the scope to explain how one given face of the moon locked up with the earth. The preferential gravity may prevail due to local mascon (mass concentration) on the earth-facing side of the moon. On the other hand, characterizing the rotational motion of the moon with respect to distant stars doesn’t help to justify why the moon makes one rotation per revolution with respect to distant stars without significant gravitational interaction with distant stars. The phenomenon of one rotation per revolution is common to all satellites in the solar system without any exception. Hence, it cannot be a coincidence.

At present, a celestial body having or not having an orbital body depends purely on chance. No definite answer is available as to why Mercury and Venus do not have a satellite when all other planets have? It is also seen, not a single satellite has an orbital body (sub-moon) [1] even when many asteroids have orbital bodies. 

Discussion

Examining the facts of reality of the solar system, this author found a bearing that a non-rotating or slowly rotating celestial body is impotent to retain an orbital body. A rotating celestial body has a spinning extra nuclear space structure that influences the motions of the orbital body. Space is a physical medium unlike the Newtonian concept of empty space, therefore it has a role in the dynamics of the orbital body. The physical space is the interlinking medium among celestial bodies, therefore, plays a major role in the dynamics of orbital bodies. For a hypothetical celestial body of zero mass i.e. in the absence of gravity and the centrifugal force, the celestial body floats in the space fluid and moves with the space fluid, being suspended in it. But in reality an orbital body possesses mass and experiences both gravity and centrifugal force. Gravity of the central body causes the orbital body to produce centripetal acceleration and the centrifugal force produces centrifugal acceleration. But when centrifugal force becomes equal to gravity the celestial body floats in the space medium without centripetal or centrifugal acceleration. A floating celestial body experiences drag-force from the moving space medium which causes motion of the celestial body. The massive celestial body would require much longer time to approach the velocity of the moving space medium due to inertia of mass. 

The rotating sun has a spinning extra nuclear space structure that produces orbital motion of planets. Likewise, the rotating planet with spinning extra nuclear structure produces the orbital motions of satellites. When the orbital body approaches the velocity of adjacent fluid, the relative velocity becomes zero thereby both drag force and resistance to motion become zero. A non-rotating celestial body has a non-spinning extra nuclear space structure. If the non-rotating celestial body has an orbital body then the orbital body will experience resistance to orbital motion from the stationary space fluid and would slow down the velocity of the orbital body. Under the reduced orbital velocity, gravity would dominate over the centrifugal force which would cause centripetal acceleration of the orbital body and ultimately would fall on to the central gravitating body in a spiral path. Hence, any non-rotating celestial body with non-spinning extra nuclear space structure is impotent in retaining an orbital body. The celestial bodies rotating at slow speed have a slowly spinning extra nuclear space structure that renders almost the same effect as the non-rotating celestial body. The non-rotating satellites with respect to their planet and slowly rotating Mercury and Venus don’t have an orbital body which establishes the fluid dynamics model of the solar system.

For a dominating gravity the orbital body would have centripetal acceleration and for dominating centrifugal force it would have centrifugal acceleration. When gravity is equal to centrifugal force the net acceleration in radial direction becomes zero under zero gravity condition. Mercury and Venus have slow rotation about their axes and all satellites don’t rotate with respect to their planet, therefore, the associated extra nuclear space structure does not spin. Thus, any external body captured by the non-rotating or slowly rotating orbital body would lose its speed in a non-spinning extra nuclear space structure and ultimately meet the central body by gravitation. It is for this reason they don’t have any orbital body. The effect of spinning and non-spinning extra nuclear space structure may be examined from the fuel consumption of artificial satellites in retaining the satellite in specific orbit while orbiting eastward and westward.

It is interesting to note that even some asteroids are potent in keeping orbital bodies of their own as they have appropriate rotational speed about their own axis. More than 150 asteroids are known to have a small companion moon (orbital body), and some have even two moons [2]. Table-1 shows the slow rotation period of Mercury and Venus for which they don’t have satellites. Table-2 shows the list of some asteroids that have an orbital body. 

Table-1[3]

                0

                2

                146

                  17.2

                27

                  16.1

Table-2[4],[5],[6],[7]

Moon Name

Year of Discovery

4.63

Dactyl

1993

Galileo spacecraft team

Petit-Prince

1998

W. J. Merline et al.

Romulus

2001

M. E. Brown, J.-L. Margot

Remus

2004

4.84

S/2001 (107) 1

2001

2009

6.65

5.38

Cause of one rotation per revolution of satellites

All satellites are seen to have one rotation per revolution. Different theories are proposed to justify this. The much talked about the 1:1 spin-orbit resonance for all satellites has the weakness that the synchronization at other whole number spin orbit ratios are also feasible. Thus, the feasibility of 1:2, 2:3, etc. cannot be ruled out. The fact that all satellites of all planets have a 1:1 spin-orbit ratio casts doubt on the existing hypothesis/theory. The invariant 1:1 spin-orbit ratio is feasible only when there is stronger attraction of the planet to a specific hemisphere of satellite where other spin-orbit ratios are ruled out. 

The dynamics of rotation and the dynamics of revolution don’t have a visible bearing to establish one rotation per revolution. The satellites of a planet are housed in the extranuclear space structure of planets, thus having direct interaction with the planet. Therefore, it is necessary to express the rotation of satellites relative to their respective planet. Examining the rotation of the moon with respect to the earth, one given face of the moon remains always facing towards the earth implying the moon does not rotate with respect to the earth. This is not the case only for the moon of the earth. All satellites don’t rotate with respect to their planet. The features of the earth moon system are known in greater detail therefore the author has analysed the earth moon system for one rotation per revolution of the moon. If one face of the moon always faces the earth then one has to look for stronger preferential attraction from the earth facing hemisphere of the moon than that of the far side of the moon. Gravity is the only known interaction among celestial bodies. Stronger gravitational attraction implies greater mass concentrations on the earth facing hemisphere of the moon. We notice a large number of circular Maria on the earth facing hemisphere (Fig.1).