Akhenaten2

Michel - "duration = distance and infers motion" this is actually very profound and you deserve more recognition. Relativity theory does in fact require everything to be in motion otherwise it wouldn't exist. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMoontanman- "Time would be a fundamental dimension" - in my opinion this is just about the most profound piece of original thinking I have come across on this forum and much nearer to reality than you are being credited with.

Unfortunately, cosmologists are about as divided as everyone else on this subject. You have 2 choices - If you believe our universe started from nothing then it is still finite with nothing outside. If you believe there must have been something in which it could start then logically this must have been an infinitely large space in which our universe is a tiny bubble. Almost certainly not the only one.

A neophyte being someone who doesn't agree with you? Or dares to question accepted dogma?. You choose to defend yourself rather than answer the question? OK in Newtonian Physics a force GMe.Mm/r2 acts between centres and this might make it plainer. The moon is locked gravitationally so the situation is like a hammer thrower. The weight (moon) pulled round by the athlete (earth) applying the force via a wire. The weight is restrained from rotating about its own axis - but it clearly rotates about the athlete. Same situation! 2nd point - But telling them wrong info doesn't? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedanswers meant for Sisyphus:- point 1 - I'm afraid it does. point 2 - Yes, but not without high plasticity and rotation. Large accretion (without it building-in a rotation) is impossible in this universe. The early moon was much closer to the earth and if captured while still plastic (mostly molten) it would exhibit a much larger tidal bulge than it does.

Swansont - sorry can only post in short responses, Moon orbit and spin are not separate but 2 effects of gravity which everyone agrees is best described by GR. You can't just switch it off because it doesn't suit your argument. I gave the standard description of how GR views the orbit of a satellite and I am happy it is correct and applicable to this query. Do you consider that GR is not representative anymore? Akhenaten

Moontanman agree with second point -the almost spherical shape of the moon points to considerable rotation at that early molten stage. The capture of its rotation would have been some sight I guess and some vestige of that rotations arrest is still present as a tiny oscillation about its axis - continuing but fuelled now by interchange of tidal effects as you describe. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf this were possible, surely if it were suddenly freed from the earths' gravity (lets say exactly at full moon) it would simply continue parallel to the earth and its orbit, but 240k miles further out from the sun. It could not now change its orientation relative to the Earth as it is no longer "accelerated" or "pulled" from its current attitude in any way. It would of course pull ahead rapidly from the earth and soon go into an elongated elliptical orbit of its own around the sun.

Moontanman I wrote a full answer but lost it all before I could post so I'll just say yes is seems that way to us but unless GR is wrong it says we must view the orbit as a straight line in curved Space - in which case it does not rotate about its own axis other than a tiny residual oscillation from capture and reciprocal tidal effects.

I should relegate wormholes to the sci-fi scripts if I were you. They only arise because of glaring misconceptions about black holes, gravity and space-time; they aren't real - in any dimensions.

swansont I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with your answer. Relativity theory as you know it, requires bodies to follow a straight line in curved space. The moon follows its curved orbit completely around the Earth at all times gravitationally locked into the same attitude relative to the Earth. If you straighten out that orbit the moon will not rotate about its own axis. It actually rotates only about the centre of rotation for the Earth/Moon system. This moon rotation is a long-standing error of physics and should be taught correctly.

You both have a strange understanding of gravity and the way things work in general, but the answer is yes the gravitational effects from the object racing round the track, would be significantly increased because at that relativistic speed its mass would have increased perhaps half as much again. Regards

Gee thanks for your help

Why am I always logged out when I try to send my message? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOops wasn't that time Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedApologies to anyone who feels aggrieved at my first message, I was a bit frustrated after several failed attempts and still am. I'm trying to answer some of the comments, but not mastered it yet? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedjust spent an hour typing a response and its disappeared

Leader Bee, I think you are absolutely right to reject any explanation which uses 2 dimensional analogies to explain space-time and gravitational effects. It is this totally ill-conceived approach which has led to the many misconceptions flying around; like space bending, warping and folding - wormholes, time travel, singularities etc. All these are totally illogical and impossible in our dynamic universe and arise mainly from our incomplete theories and lack of understanding (particularly with regards to gravity) They are only the spurious "oddball" solutions to our mathematical equations, which scientists suppose must be allowable because they don't know of anything that will preclude them. But the universe "Don't do maths" - it simply creates shapes and forces, which we then try to duplicate mathematically. But clearly to resolve matters in line with pet theories, just as politicians put their own spins on their utterances, so mathematical solutions are "engineered" to back these up. You would'nt expect someone to come up with a new mathematical theorem which proved them wrong would you? Regards Akhenaten2 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBC_P I was very interested by this response which I found highly informative. I'm currently trying to understand all the possible contributing factors to the "Shapiro Time delay" causing an "apparent" spike in the orbit of Mercury. How can they be sure what amount is due only to time slowing near the suns gravitational mass? I'm a new boy - how do I post this new topic for general discussion?