ional force by Newton follows:

“For here I design only to give a mathematical notion of those forces, without considering their physical causes. ?Wherefore the reader is not to imagine that by those words, I say where take upon me to define the kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to certain centers (which are only mathematical points); when at any time I happen to speak of centers as attracting, or as endued with attractive powers”. “You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me; for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know.” ( Newman, 2003 ).

In addition, Newton had said “he would not refute gravity as a motive particle is it didn’t hinder the motion of orbitals.”

Building a theory on an absence of influence by anything was necessary to build a world system and an absolute space theory. But in today’s world of technical detail knowledge, the absence of a source needs to be discarded in favor of an ongoing impetus.

Newton’s views competed with and overcame the whirlpool theories of Descartes as a source of orbital motion. The rotation velocities of Descartes’ whirlpool representation of motions of space itself couldn’t equal velocities in central spin experiments such as rotating fluids in a bucket nor if rotating within a fluid medium that extends to infinity. In neither example do the velocities or actions of the fluids simulate velocities as calculated using the formula of Kepler’s third law. These examples probably led to disinterest in Descarte’s model. What is needed and provided herein is a logical source of rotations leading to a different measure of central controlled whirling motions.

7. Orbiting

Our goal is to explain orbiting by explaining how a body rotating can cause motion for a second body. To get there we will suggest approaches, find the shortcomings, make corrections, and then try again.

Consider questions from inspecting Figure 1. Imagine first a 2 dimensional picture of 3 equatorial circles A, B and C. Circle A is larger. It spins counterclockwise and has lines radiating out from it. Assume the lines are attached to and rotate with the circle. The key question is what will the lines do when encountering matter in their path? They may

Call A the sun, B the earth, and C Mars.

Figure 1. Radiation exiting the sun.

1) not interact with the matter, they may

2) partially push on the matter, or they may

3) push and carry the matter along with them.

If they don’t interact with matter we have no orbiting so we will concentrate on the other 2 options.

Assume the lines to be massive so that they can push upon and carry with them anything they encounter in their path―(option 3). A line encounters and pushes circle B to the left, somewhat like the force we call centrifugal. This push will also cause motion by B angularly away from A as B rolls out further along the line. There is no retaining wall.

We can’t have the circle moving away from A in our analogy. Orbital motion essentially retains a body’s distance from the central body as it moves around. Our example produces a linear motion, and we need an attraction toward center as a partial offset. We need something to attract/push B toward A with exactly the right force to balance the leftward motion caused by the central body spin. This attraction is a centripetal force and we call it the attraction of gravitation. Let’s view gravity by reversing the direction of the lines so that they are now pushing radiation beams. These lines come from remote space and arrive at our circles. Imagine lines impacting circle B similar to those shown for circle A. No direction is primary for these lines so they arrive equally from all directions. Let’s call them pushing lines that create a force. Coming from all directions they balance each other out so the net force is zero unless some modification occurs unbalancing the net effect. We get the imbalance by defining a limit on the pressure of the lines from one direction. We do that by specifying there must be less lines coming from A than from elsewhere. So A must diminish or block the push of the lines which exit from its surface. There becomes a “net” attraction of B by A.

We have developed the beginnings of an external gravity system. Netting the sideways pushes with the attraction pushes in concert results in orbiting. But in the example given, the left pushing radiation beams will push any object around the center in the same time frame. If a second body such as circle C is located further than B is from A, it will travel faster but its rotational velocity will be the same. That assumes the pushing beams likewise dominate motion at all distances, that the original radiation lines retain the same leftward carry ability at all distances.

At this point we have orbital angular motion for B which corresponds with the surface spin of A. But this is not how orbiting works as we know that spatial objects do not retain their position in space over the same surface point permanently. In this example the period of revolution would be independent of the distance R. There does happen to be an example to this unusual relationship as the earth nearly retains its position over a point on the moon’s surface. This can only occur due to the moon being a minimal source of earth’s motions.

What we are seeking is a relationship between orbital motions that varies with depending on the distance from a central body―sun. This relationship has been quantified in a complex formula for the closest 6 planets by Kepler’s third law.

Kepler’s formula can be simplified to KT = R3/2 for each planet, where

T is the period of a full orbit cycle,

R is the distance of the center of the planet (B) from the surface of the sun,

(for elliptical orbits, R is the major axis.)

K is constant for every planet connecting their periods to a central body action.

We called the lines coming out of A radiation beams. As such they may logically be unable to push sideways if we assume they are like light which moves rapidly outward at the speed of C. Viewed from the side of its path a light beam has no mass. But we do know light creates some pressure upon impact. Light has waves that emulate a particle upon impact. Light is only considered massless if at rest. For our radiating lines to push, they must have some motion toward the mass being pressured. Radiation traveling at speed C is usually considered linear motion. If the waves bend a bit sideways a miniscule amount of their push can be in the lateral direction. One might call the sideways impact glancing blows. So any bending of the radiation line toward the impacted mass should provide motion to the mass.

We give this bending some attention here with Figure 2. The sun A on the left emits beams toward earth B on the right. Bending of the beam relative to circle B must occur given our definition that A is spinning relative to B. For a radiation line to move up against B it has traveled to our left. The bend up in Figure 2 serves as the leftward flow. That leftward motion L occurs while the beam moves

Picturing a gravity beam curving by the time it arrives at earth

Figure 2. Bent transmission beams.

outward at speed C. So L/C is the amount of sideways push delivered to B. This is a very small portion of the speed of light.

The tangential push of radiation can’t instantly cause the known motion of planets. It would take a long time to accelerate a static body in space to achieve a constant velocity. Nothing in this system could propel something like a manmade space ship into orbit. We can however imagine the natural gravity system’s tangential push being sufficient to retain existing motion of an orbital already in motion. A tangential push is simply not strong enough to accelerate a body to its velocity L. But once achieved, the motion can be perpetual the pushing is permanent.

We noted above radiating gravity beams exiting circle A carry and provide less pressure upon B than do uninhibited beams. This suggests that radiation arriving from multiple directions can carry differing forces or pressures depending on events along their paths. The forces vary especially for beams that had penetrated and exited a mass or for beams that had been bent by some action. These events modify the net pressure. Radiation lines/beams come from all directions toward circle B. Now if we move B further from A We note that the percentage of beams striking B which came from directly A decreases. Therefore the number of beams that are diminished by A and impact B is a lesser percentage of all beams striking B at any one time so that the gravitational attraction of B by A is less. Also the number of beams that are bent by A and impact B is a lesser percentage of all beams striking B at any one time so that leftward push of B by A is less.

The tangential push now depends on the distance from center in some form. The beams departing the central mass are only a portion of the beams striking all points on planet B. The portion diminishes as B is drawn further from A. The decrease is proportional to the amount of the circumference of the circle around B that A occupies. Thus the pressure that the beams from A to B impart decreases as the radius R increases since those beams occupy a diminishing portion of the circle of influence acting upon B.

As an orbital revolves in its circle, it retains its distance from the center and continues to receive the same percentage of its beams from the center, ie. from the sun. Those are the bent beams that can push sideways. We can now conclude that the revolution period for orbitals is dependant on the radius R from the central body’s surface. But we are missing something. If R were the factor common to the periods of planets then the velocities would all be the same and the period would be a simple function of the circumference.

The analysis here is limited to circular orbits for simplicity. One can extend the logical thought to elliptical orbits.

Our example has related equatorial circles and been performed in two dimensional space. Next we must consider that there is altitude and thus a third dimension involved in these bodies since they are globes rather than circles. The area of the surface of a globe is a function of R2 rather than just R. The measure for transferring an effect from the surface to some distant higher altitude point is to relate the sphere at that altitude to the sphere of the globe. That means the effect is diminished by R2. Brightness is one effect that is assumed to diminish by R2 and is used to determine relative distance of stars. Newton’s formula for centripetal gravitational attraction between bodies also diminishes by R2. For these to be correct, the effect itself must be circular on the surface and distributed equally around the globe. We assume that is true for both attraction gravity and stellar brightness.

Do gravity pushes bent by the sun diminish in the R2 form? Applying R squared would have the more distant planet losing speed faster and thus revolving even slower than it does relative to an inner planet. For Kepler’s formula ? KT = X; R2 doesn’t work as X nor does R. Kepler determined that KT = R3/2. We wish to determine the geometry this comes from. We do notice that a tangential push is not a circular radiating effect as is brightness. The tangential push can’t be the same at all altitudes of the globe as it decreases from the equator to the poles. So the bent gravity push is unlike direct outward radiation and fails rules for using R squared. In fact the tangential push reduces to zero above the poles. That reveals why orbitals rarely orbit spinning central bodies above higher latitudes.

The missing R1/2 component is composed of the rotation provided by all lines bisecting the sphere and exiting at latitudes other than 0, latitudes up to ±90 degrees. Consider that one of those lines exits at 45˚N latitude. This steeply angled beam would not directly affect any but very nearby large globes. Beams more nearly parallel to the plane, and which therefore may contact orbitals depending on their inclination, are the ones we have yet to consider. The total rotation effect applied to space is the net of these lines which range in effect from R to zero as the latitudes increase.

The general cause of revolutions dictated by the 3/2 power is as follows: Space is defined by X, Y, Z components―three dimensional. To affect all space by one event equally is represented as a cubic power. To affect all space by a diminishing radial event one uses a squared power. To affect a linear part of space takes a first power. And finally we can affect all space by an effect diminishing horizontally and then diminishing vertically. We arrive at a type of midpoint which in power geometry is a sq root. The mid point of affecting all space is the third dimension divided by the second power.

We try here to break the general rules into specific geometry. Beyond the net push sourced from the equator, it is necessary to consider the additional rotational push provided to orbitals by the rotation of the central body’s non-zero latitude beams of gravity. Prior to Newton’s contribution of mass, Kepler’s formula assumed orbitals to be geometric points. All non-equitorial penetrating beams intersect the equatorial plane somewhere. Some intersect it within the sun and some beyond the confines of the sun. We simply note here that that the intensity of the rotation circle emitted at non equatorial regions of the sun provide weaker orbital drive to orbital than do equatorial beams.

Picture 1 showed the equatorial circles on an x y plane. We viewed them from above which is positive on the z axis. This is an ideal perspective since we can view almost all rotations throughout the universe as being counterclockwise from this view. Now Figure 3 shows two circles on the x z plane which we view from the side on the y plane. The equator is drawn such that it bisects the sun here. We see beams that miss and fail to impact the planet. All beams that cross the equatorial plane inside the sun, outside the sun but prior to the planet, or beyond the planet do not provide rotational push. That leaves significantly few of the third dimensional beams that contribute. We can plot them by switching our reference point to the orbiting planet. We draw a X Z circle around the planet which includes the sun. Then the pertinent beams yield a vertical line containing those arriving from the north pole of the sun to the south pole of the sun. Switching reference point has related the two circles by R1/2.

We review by drawing the mentioned 3rd dimensional contributions. Figure 3 shows a vertical view of the sun as seen from the ecliptic. From this new picture we can see beams pass through the sun at different angles. Those of interest now enter the sun at one latitude and exit at a latitude that is closer to the equator. Beams passing through the sun toward a planet which are not flat to the ecliptic will also diminish as did our equatorial beams if these beams strike the planet. However another factor that diminishes total impact of these beams is whether they make contact with the planet or not. The upper line misses the planet entirely by passing over its North Pole. Had the planet been nearer to the sun the line would have impacted the planet. The lower line shows that beams may initially miss the planet, subsequently participate in the contact and would miss again if the distance R were greater. Again for beams angling toward the planet,

Figure 3. Gravity beams from the left enter the sun and exit in paths that may or may not impact a planet.

the sum of all their contacts will decrease with distance. For each line draw a right triangle with side one the radial line to the planet, side two the perpendicular line altitude of the solar latitude exit point, and the hypotenuse the beam to the planet. Variations in the radial distances will determine how many of the lines impact the planet. Each line is a factor of the sq root of its particular altitude. So the sq root of the altitudes, plus and minus, determine the tangential push effects of beams inclined to the ecliptic plane.

The factor that summarizes the impacts of these higher latitude lines is a measure of sq root of the suns vertical diameter. Then the sum of factors affecting an orbitals velocity, and thus its period of revolution is R (for equatorial lines) × 2R1/2 (for non-equitorial lines) and thus kR3/2. Ultimately the spatial flows calculated by these two factors merge together to provide the overall whirling of space.

(An odd side view is that Kepler’s constant K has the value of 5 for all planets. The only constant used for relating R to the circle of T would be pi. Since we have a circle and a sq root of same, perhaps the constant connects to pi + sq root pi. That is 3.14 = 1.77 or 4.91 which somewhat approximates 5.)

Consider the converse of the solar rotation causing orbital revolutions. In Newton’;s construction and in my analysis the actions of the planets participate as additioinal causes. The net gravity at planet surfaces affects the sun. As we know, Newton’s theory recognizes the planetary pull on the sun makes gravitation interact between two bodies with each applying force upon the other. For discussing planetary effects on the sun, the planet serves as the frame of analysis. The planets want to push the sun in orbit but by the time it has moved at all the planet has moved and its push direction changed significantly. There is orbiting by the sun but it is contained well within the sun. This shows the reverse interaction by revolutions with rotations where revolution causes rotation. The net result is that each planet causes a bit of rotation in the sun as their net gravity pushes on it. The sum of the push from all planets causes the solar 24 day rotation rate.

8. The Starting Altitude Reveals How Central Bodies Controls Revolutions

Though central body rotation causes orbiting, the smallest participating rotation is not the surface. In reality one would expect a direct connection between rotation rate of source with revolution rate of its orbitals. The revolution rate of the central body’s surface cannot participate in these calculations as its radial distance from itself is 0. Actually the surface cannot participate due to a counterclockwise rotation within its atmosphere. The apparent motion of the orbital would br a clockwise rotation of the orbital when considered by a point on the central body surface. Surface rotations are always faster than orbital revolutions.

Kepler’s formula works as well for moons of gas planets such as for Juptier or Neptune. Secondary orbitals such as moons incur lateral pushes of gravity beams from the planet. But there are also enhancing lateral pressures from the sun that must be eliminated. To determine the system starting point the solar lateral push contribution must be eliminated before the formula can work.

To understand this, consider winds on earth. Winds are partly caused by bent gravity beams from the sun’s rotation. This effect adds to the local earth’s body’s push of rotation. Winds flow toward the East, counter to earth’s rotation. They must be overcome which occurs at high altitudes where the earth rotation is not overcall by atmosphere flow. Moons can only exist beyond the lower altitudes where solar bent gravity beams offsets planets rotation. Wind and jet streams exceed the rotation of earth up to an altitude (somewhat beyond the geosynchronous altitude) at which point the atmosphere finally begins to rotate counterclockwise along with the earth rotation. Above that the atmosphere/aether will revolve slower than the earth’s surface does. Beyond their synchronous point, the tangential push by spinning suns or planets upon their orbitals decreases with orbital radius in conjunction with Kepler’s law. That synchronous region serves as sort of the base distance from which the central body rotation can match and satisfy the formula of planetary periods of revolution. Remember that orbital revolution rates must always less than their central body rotation rate. Earth has no set of orbitals that can determine exactly where above the synchronous point Earth’s rotation participates.

The sun also has a rotating atmosphere. So the starting point for planetary orbits begins near the helio-synchronous point. Solar atmospheric rotation results from the bent gravity beams from the planets trying to push the sun resulting in its rotation. That rotation will be greatest before it reaches the sun from each planet. Thus maximum solar region rotation is in the suns atmosphere. The resulting synchronous point may be near 11 solar diameters above the sun’s surface. Mercury and the other planets that follow the Bode law revolve beyond that radial distance.

9. Conclusion

What I have presented here is intended to match existing knowledge but invert the source concept and introduce the concept of pushing. To remain viable the system reacts similarly as attraction does to existing math formulae. Any potential modifications relate to the proportion of C that is offset by the small speed of central body rotations throughout space.

Besides that, do note that attraction gravity is a linear action. As such many concepts such as strong force and antigravity have appeared to describe what that gravity cannot describe. Pushing gravity covers action from all directions and limits the need for newer concepts. There are recent experiments with findings that conflict with attraction gravity but are compatible with pushing gravity.

I don’t believe there are any recent models suggesting the reason for R3/2 in Kepler’s third law. However Kepler himself was nearing this explanation with his prehensive force. The logic became apparent when the rotation of the sun became known and Kepler used it. Apparently afterward the logic became buried in Newton’s attraction gravity, inertia, and his calculus. Throughout the years many scientists and cosmologists have promoted pushing gravity models and all ignored the revolution of the sun.

A further interaction of revolutions with rotations is seen for interactions with equal sized bodies. Two such bodies drive each other by means of their escaping bent gravity beams. They revolve around a virtual central point. Essentially the orbits become 1/2 the size of solar system orbits. Then the period squared becomes 1/4 as much.

There are numerous physical relationships which are reanalyzed using the concept of External Gravitation ( Schroeder, 2010 , 2011a , 2011b , 2016a , 2016b , 2016c ).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Cite this paper

Schroeder, P. (2018). Central Body Rotation Drives Orbital Revolutions. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 6, 70-84.


  1. 1. Newman, J. (2003). Isaac Newton, Principia; in James Newman. The World of Mathematics, 1, 261. [Paper reference 1]

  2. 2. Schroeder, P. (2010). Gravity from the Ground Up. Proceedings of the NPA, 7, 498-503. [Paper reference 1]

  3. 3. Schroeder, P. (2011a). Get ‘Real’ about Gravity. Proceedings of the NPA, 8, 521-529. [Paper reference 1]

  4. 4. Schroeder, P. (2011b). Ignoring Newton’s Hints Brought Scientific Chaos. Proceedings of the NPA, 8, 521-529. [Paper reference 1]

  5. 5. Schroeder, P. (2016a). Infinity and Reality (The Universe Is Otherwise Part 2a). In D. De Hilster, R. De Hilster, & N. Percival (Eds.), Proceedings of the CNPS (2016) (pp. 178-182). The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. [Paper reference 1]

  6. 6. Schroeder, P. (2016b). Structure and Gravity (The Universe Is Otherwise Part 2b). In D. De Hilster, R. De Hilster, & N. Percival (Eds.), Proceedings of the CNPS (2016) (pp. 183-192). The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. [Paper reference 1]

  7. 7. Schroeder, P. (2016c). Infinity and Pushing Gravity Lead to Revelations (The Universe Is Otherwise Part 2c). In D. De Hilster, R. De Hilster, & N. Percival (Eds.), Proceedings of the CNPS (2016) (pp. 193-199). The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. [Paper reference 1]

Journal Menu >>