The Reason Why Planets And Moons Move In The Same Direction
Wang Taihai
Abstract:
The main features of our solar system are that the planets all circle around the sun in the same direction, so as do most of their moons, and the planets all lie more or less in the same plane of the sun’s equator. For centuries scientists have tried to find a theory for the solar system origin that can explain these features. Any theory that could not explain these features were usually rejected. But by force analysis, the author of this article found that these main features are not the reflection of the origin of our solar system as most theories hypothesized but are the results of its movement mechanism. The author found that if a planet does not circle in the plane of the sun's own rotation and circle the sun counterclockwise, it will not be stable and its course will be deflected. The moving pattern of our solar system determines these main features. Only in this moving pattern can the solar system survive.

Key words: the Sun, the Origin of the Solar System, the Coriolis Force

Up to now, theories for the origin of our solar system have tried to explain its main features that the planets all revolve around the sun in the same direction, so as do most of their moons, and the planets all lie more or less in the same plane of the sun’s equator. Most theories can explain these features well but can’t adequately explain some other chemical or physical phenomena. In this article I would prove that these features are not the reflection of our solar system origin but the results of its movement mechanism.

By force analysis, we will find that whatever direction an alien celestial body intrudes upon our solar system, if it is captured by the sun or by a planet it will keep changing its orbit till it circles in the same direction and in the same plane as the already existent planets and moons do.

To simplify the discussion, let’s take a look what will happen if the moon is not circling around the earth as it does now. (Let's call the direction in which all the planets circle around the sun counterclockwise. The opposite moving direction to the sun is clockwise.)

First, let’s suppose the moon’s orbit around the earth is vertical to the plane of the earth’s orbit and the direction is clockwise.



Because the earth/moon system is moving around the sun counterclockwise, the vertically moving moon will be deflected by the Coriolis force(1) and its orbit around the earth will tilt rightward since it is clockwise and will become counterclockwise around the earth eventually. The Coriolis force will continue deflecting the moon until its orbit overlaps the plane of the sun's equator. Ultimately the moon will circle the earth counterclockwise in the plane of the earth’s orbit as it almost already does now.

Now, let’s suppose the moon’s orbit around the earth is vertical to the plane of the earth’s orbit and the direction is counterclockwise.



As illustrated above, the moon will be deflected by the Coriolis force and its orbit around the earth will tilt leftward to become counterclockwise around the earth eventually, too. The Coriolis force will continue deflecting the moon until its orbit overlaps the plane of the sun's equator completely. Ultimately the moon will also circle the earth counterclockwise in the plane of the earth’s orbit.

Then, what if the moon was captured but clockwise by the earth right in the plane of the sun's equator? By force analysis, we can see that in this situation either the moon will collide with the earth or its orbit be distorted to be counterclockwise.

We know, when the moon moves around the earth, it’s also moving around the sun. Between the moon and the earth, their masses, gravitational force, distance and the moon’s relative orbit velocity to the earth must meet the Newton's law of universal gravitation and the circular motion principles. On the other hand, between the moon and the sun, their masses and motion parameters must also meet the Newton's law of universal gravitation and the circular motion principles. The relative orbit velocity of the moon can be calculated with the following formula.



Where:
V -the relative orbit velocity of the moon
F -the resultant force that dominates the moon’s motion
R -the distance between the moon and the sun or the earth
m -the mass of the moon.

Now, to simplify the problem, Let’s take four representative points A,B,M and N in the moon’s orbit for analysis. When the moon is at point M or N, its relative orbit velocity to the sun is the same as that of the earth. As the moon moves clockwise further to point A, its relative orbit tangential velocity to the sun increases to the highest. Yet at point A it gets opposite forces from the sun and the earth. So at point A, the moon gets the minimum resultant force (F) and it has a minimum distance to the sun (R), too. According the above equation, the moon should have a minimum relative orbit velocity to the sun (V). But its actual value is the highest.



When we take point B for analysis, we can also find the inconformity where the moon should have a highest relative velocity to the sun but the actual value is the lowest.


From the above analysis, we can see if a moon runs but clockwise around a planet, its orbit would not be stable. By further analysis we can see its orbit will be elongated to a narrow strip by and by and the collision possibility between the moon and its planet is very high or is inevitable.

So however a moon comes to be captured by a planet, the moon can only move stably around the planet counterclockwise, as the way our moon is moving around the earth.

The above analysis accounts not only for the orbit of the moons around their planets but also accounts for the planets’ orbit and the periodic comets around their sun. The principle is the same. The sun is running around the Milky Way Galaxy center at very high relative velocity. Any captured planet or periodic comet that doesn’t move within the plane of the sun’s equator will be deflected by the Coriolis force and be made run counterclockwise around the sun within its equator plane. So the main features that the planets all revolve around the sun in the same direction, as most of their moons do, and the planets all lie more or less in the same plane of the sun’s own rotation are not the result of the formation of the sun, it’s the result of the movement mechanism of our solar system.

Date: 2005-7-18
Notes:
(1).Coriolis force is a sidewise force exerted on a body when it moves in a rotating reference frame. It is a fictitious force because it is a by-product of measuring coordinates with respect to a rotating coordinate system as opposed to an actual push or pull.


The Contact information of the Author:
Mr. Wang Taihai
Wenzhou Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau of the People’s Republic of China
Address: Xingao Road, Aojiang town, Pingyang, Zhejiang, China 325401
Fax: +86 577 63638831
Email: wth@wz.ziq.gov.cn

PS
1.Some are suspicious of the Coriolis Force effect, and argued with me on Coriolis Force fiercely.So I reexplain my point in another way.

Take the second image for example.


Let’s see what will happen if the moon circles the earth freely around the earth polar orbit counterclockwise.

When the moon is right over the earth's north pole, its relative velocity (V) to the sun is the same as that of the earth because they are at the same orbit distance to the sun. Now the moon circles in, its centripetal force (F) to the sun is reduced. Why, because part of it is balanced off by the earth on the opposite side. On the other hand, its distance to the sun (R) is shortened now. Now let's use the formula



The F and the R are both reduced, but its velocity keeps the same as the earth's. So once the moon moves in between the Sun and the Earth, the moon will have redundant velocity and will go faster than the F and R need it. The moon will go ahead of the earth.

Track man knows this principle well in the track and field running game. The first running athlete always occupies the most inner track while turning rounds so that he can keep himself ahead of others.

Now the moon is in the inner track and with the same relative velocity to the sun, it will surpass the earth. Thus moon’s orbit changes.

When the moon is ahead of the earth, universal gravitation force of the moon-earth and the moon-sun will apply a resultant force that will slow down the moon, only when the speed of the moon is adjusted down by this can the V, F and R in the above formula be kept balanced.

2.I make a summary of what my article already provides and what my article is expected to provide, and what I can further provide so that we can classify my article to a proper category. I just don't want to disappoint all the visitors here.
-It provides a new idea(the Reason Why planets and Moons Move in the Same Direction) on an old topic.
-It provides a laconic deduction
-It provides a qualitative analysis

-It is expected to provide detailed deduction on the origin of the solar system, including how comes the sun, how comes the planets and their moons, what were they before they became balls...
-It is expected to reason all the ideas in a mathematic way
- quantificational analysis is expected.

-My specialty is not math, nor physics, nor cosmology. And my work is not in the research field. So it's not easy for me to present quantificational analysis if I get no help from other competent scholars. Aware of my this weakness , I deliberately chose the title for my article. I think my article can be considered as a complete thesis for the title I use(the Reason Why planets and Moons Move in the Same Direction) .
-If you ask me how comes the birth of the suns and its palnets and moons, it's out of the topic that I want to discuss. As Darwin told us the reason why polar bears are white, yet you censure him that he did not answer the question why there are white polar bears on earth. They are two different topics.
-In my reasoning, I must simplify all the complicated systems so that I can reason it with my brain, or I will have to recourse to the advanced theories or complicated formulars which are beyond my competence.
-So, what I have provided and that I would provide are all basically qualitative analysis. Just as Copernicus firstly found that the planets are circling around the sun. But he gave no equations to show how they do it.

I do hope my work can be further carried on by competent scholars in quantificational ways.

That's not what would happen if the Moon orbited Earth in a polar orbit. This is:

Within 10 years the Moon would begin to get torn apart after crossing the Earth's Roche limit. What was left would slam into Earth a few orbits later.

Simulation link:
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravit...les/kozai.html

Very well thought out. Any explanation for long periodic comets?

I sure hope they didn't spend millions to find that out, I mostly thought this was rather common knowledge. Nice to see it put out in print however.

__________________
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

Hang on folks, you are being duped. The argument is completely spurious, it contains no correct physics at all because it does not actually solve any equations of motion. If you do solve the equations, you will find that tilted orbits are perfectly allowable for long periods of time, and the coriolis force produces no such effect. What the coriolis force does do is quite the opposite-- it causes the Moon to stay in its same plane (relative to the stars) as the Earth orbits the Sun. Other effects can cause perturbations as well, but you can be sure that if the coriolis effect changed the tilt, the Moon's orbit would not still be tilted from the Sun-Earth plane (and it is, and has been, for billions of years). Small problem there....
(Oh, and the reason the objects are mostly in the same plane going around the same way is the conservation of the angular momentum during the contraction and formation of the solar system. In contrast to the above theory, this explanation holds up perfectly well to actual calculations.)
And welcome to the forum Chineson, but please note there is a section (ATM) for "against the mainstream" idea.

Exactly right Ken G.
This belongs here in the ATM section.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

emphasis added

Well, not only that, but if it were coriolis, then the planets south of the sun's equator would orbit in one direction and those north of the equator would orbit in the other!

(Sorry, just couldn't reisist. I'll be quiet now. )

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Duplicate threads merged and duplicate posts (or posts noting duplication) deleted.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Thanks for your discussion. My opinion:
1. To Tony873002:That's not what would happen if the Moon orbited Earth in a polar orbit.
What I want to say in this article is that this would not happen,either.
2.To Ken G: you can be sure that if the coriolis effect changed the tilt, the Moon's orbit would not still be tilted from the Sun-Earth plane (and it is, and has been, for billions of years).
We know that the Moon's orbit is still being changed, 4-5cms bigger in diameter a year.
To Ken GOh, and the reason the objects are mostly in the same plane going around the same way is the conservation of the angular momentum during the contraction and formation of the solar system. In contrast to the above theory, this explanation holds up perfectly well to actual calculations.)
We know that there are many doubts can not be explained by that theory. This is why I wrote this article.

Interesting article on Universe Today about a star system which has planets moving in opposite directions. Hmm?

Do the earth's inconstant Magnetic field affect orbit of the moon?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...neticfield.htm

Yes, another effect that is perfectly well understood and also has nothing to do with coriolis forces (it has to do with gravity from the tidally deformed rotating Earth). Don't you see that increasing radius also has nothing to do with what you were claiming, which is a changing tilt?

People have invented theories on the origin of the solar system to explain why no planets move in opposite direction. What I want to say is that all planets move in the same direction is not the result of the solar system origin.

But that does not mean the changing orbit has no connection with the coriolis force.

It doesn't have any correlation to the coriolis effect. It is perfectly well explained by the tidal forces at work between the earth and the moon. If you think otherwise, please show some explanation or data to show this.

You mean you want to say in the article that the conclusion I drew is wrong?

My explanation is in the above article.

No. I mean the phenomena we both referred to would not be stable. We can not see that phenomena happen is not because of its origin, but of its movement mechanism.

No. You misunderstood my article. Planets either south of the sun's equator or north of the equator would orbit in the same direction because of the coriolis force and would be drawn nearer by the coriolis force to the sun's equator until they are right in the sun's equator

Sorry to say that it has not been put out in print yet. I hope someday it would be, better by the Nobel Price Committee. And what I spent was just the time of typing. Not as much as you thought to be. ha ha!!

The rotation of the earth-moon over it center of mass won't change it's diection of rotation due to their rotation around the Sun .

We use that same idea for gyro guildance system.

You did a great paper, nobody understand you, that's what ATM is for.

Keep it that way.... have some humor.

Oh yes, Chineson, you have my hearty welcome.

Yes. Any rotating system has the property of a gyro. The whole resultant angular moment of inertia among the sun, the moon and the earth won't change. But for a individual, say the moon, would be changed because of their interaction among the three.

True, the argument that the changing orbit has no connection to the coriolis force emerges from solving equations that involve the coriolis force, or at least involve an understanding of what the coriolis force does. The coriolis force is responsible for preserving the angular momentum, so is quite the opposite as a force responsible for changing the tilt of an orbit. You miss this because you never actually solve any equations in your argument, a rather important step that your thesis does not include because if it did it would fall apart. This is the only relevant issue here. Even on the ATM thread, it is encumbent upon you to actually demonstrate your claims, not just assert them. Indeed, for this reason the ATM forum is the most difficult of all, because we can get away with asserting almost anything in the other forums so long as we have the weight of conventional wisdom (which originates from the work of thousands of investigations, not just one) behind us.

Yes, you are right on that I should demonstrate my opinion more clearly.

For the coriolis force effect on the moving bodies, you are right that it preserve the angular momentum. It's also this reason that the moon will change its orbit because its orbit around the earth does not overlap the sun's equator. Let's suppose the sun is very big, big enough to reach the orbit of the earth and the moon is not flying around the sun, but right rolling over the surface of sun. Since it is not in the sun's equator, the coriolis force will apply upon it, just as a north-south running river or a running train will be deflected by and by.

Tons of thanks for your this post!!!!!

Forget the 3 body motion, or any tital effect .....

You get corrioli if the earth-moon couple dance on top AND couple with the sun's own surface.

Not if the earth-moon flying freely "over" the sun.... no matter it's on equator or over it's pole.

Do the math... show the math.

No, you misunderstood a tongue in cheek post.

Note the (Sorry, just couldn't reisist. I'll be quiet now. ) tag line.

Check out the BA's book. It demtyhifies the old saw that water goes down the drain the other way south of the equator because of the coriolis effect.

sigh. Having to explain takes all the fun away.

Oh, welcome to the BAUT!

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

OK,Let me explain again what will happen if the moon circles the earth freely around the earth polar orbit counterclockwise.

When the moon is right over the the earth's north pole, its relative velocity to the sun is the same as that of the earth because they are at the same orbit distance to the sun. Now the moon circles in, its centripetal force to the sun is reduced. Why, because part of it is balanced off by the earth on the opposite side. On the other hand, its distance to the sun is shorten now. Now let's use the formula

The F and the R are both reduced, but its velocity keeps the same as the earth. What will happen then? The orbit will tilt. Need I explain more?

You certainly do need to explain more, especially the part where you actually need to be correct, which you aren't. If all we have is idealized gravity from the Earth and the Sun in this problem, and go into a co-orbiting reference frame so that the Earth is stationary, then what the coriolis force will actually do is cause the Moon's orbital plane to precess about the vertical, but its tilt will not change at all. Indeed, in the regular reference frame where the Earth is going around the Sun, the Moon's orbital plane wouldn't change at all, so when you go into the orbiting reference frame, it has to go around a little circle in one year. That's all the coriolis force does. If you doubt it, you need to actually do the calculation, not argue what will happen based on oversimplified equations that don't even apply in the situation at hand (granted, I'm not even doing that, I'm just "asserting" the solution, but I am also not claiming a new and bizarre explanation for why the Moon's orbit is in the ecliptic plane). What you should really do is carry out the calculation, and either discover I am right, or then have the capability to convince me I'm wrong, because you've actually solved the equations.