Relativity acceleration paradox?

[EWright]

It is valid in reality. Look up inertial coordinate systems and so-called apparent forces.

 

This is the other problem with relativity theories. You all believe what you are taught and read in text books, rather than thinking of new solutions that need not rely on the absurd.

 

I'm reading quite bit on SR right now in order to try to gain a better understanding of it so I really can't look up your reference at this time. However, if you want to quote it or better explain your position here, I'd be very interested. Can you also explain how it would not alter the earth's rate of orbit around the sun? Oh wait, in order to do that the person falling has to have a force strong enough to move not just the earth, but the sun and all the stars by the same degree. I'm listening....?

[Tormod]

This would also cause the earth to move in its orbit to 'catch up' to the falling person and would therefore alter the length of time it takes the earth to move around the sun and would be detectable by precise measurements of the length of our year.

 

Your comment at the end is technically correct. But the mass of the Earth compared to the mass of the falling person is so huge that even billions of people falling towards the Earth would not make a difference in the Earth's orbit.

 

Even 1 billion people falling at the same time would probably not harm the Earth's orbit. They would weigh roughly 70 billion kilos (or 7 x 10^8 kilos). In comparison, comet Tempel 1 which was recently touched by the Deep Impact impactor weighs in around 2.5 x 10^14 (the maximum estimate). The Earth weighs about 6 x 10^24 kilos.

 

A very large object (like a brown dwarf) passing by the Earth could slingshot the Earth out of it's orbit. Falling people will not.

[Tormod]

This is the other problem with relativity theories. You all believe what you are taught and read in text books, rather than thinking of new solutions that need not rely on the absurd.

 

This is a science site. If you wish to disregard the scientific method, that is fine. But there is no need for arrogance and disrespect. Please observe our site rules.

 

"We" are fully capable of making up our own minds, thank you very much.

[EWright]

Your comment at the end is technically correct. But the mass of the Earth compared to the mass of the falling person is so huge that even billions of people falling towards the Earth would not make a difference in the Earth's orbit.

 

Even 1 billion people falling at the same time would probably not harm the Earth's orbit. They would weigh roughly 70 billion kilos (or 7 x 10^8 kilos). In comparison, comet Tempel 1 which was recently touched by the Deep Impact impactor weighs in around 2.5 x 10^14 (the maximum estimate). The Earth weighs about 6 x 10^24 kilos.

 

A very large object (like a brown dwarf) passing by the Earth could slingshot the Earth out of it's orbit. Falling people will not.

 

I am not saying that the person would alter earths orbit necessarily, although this would be the case if he fell from a polar position. If he fell from an equatorial position he would have to either speed up or slow down the earth's position IN its orbit, depending on if he feel behind the earth or in front of the earth in it's direction of travel around the sun.

 

Otherwise your statement is the same as saying that the person is falling and the earth did not move towards the person. If the earth moves, it position changes, period. And of course we all know this does not happen. Some people are just having trouble thinking outside of Einstein's box, but I'll get them there ;)

[Tormod]

Otherwise your statement is the same as saying that the person is falling and the earth did not move towards the person. If the earth moves, it position changes, period. And of course we all know this does not happen. Some people are just having trouble thinking outside of Einstein's box, but I'll get them there ;)

 

Some people are having trouble not spilling insults in every other sentence.

 

I said the Earth's orbit does change. But I also said you cannot measure it noticably.

 

But of course we all know that.

 

As for which direction the person falls from...I am sure Einstein would like to see calculations showing that a polar impact has a different gravitational effect than an equatorial impact.

[EWright]

This is the other problem with relativity theories. You all believe what you are taught and read in text books, rather than thinking of new solutions that need not rely on the absurd.

This is a science site. If you wish to disregard the scientific method, that is fine. But there is no need for arrogance and disrespect. Please observe our site rules.

 

"We" are fully capable of making up our own minds, thank you very much.

 

With all due respect, I do not feel that I was being rude in the above comment. I honestly feel that a big part of the problem with relativity theories are that they are so complex that we have little choice but to accept what they teach if we are to understand them. Once we've done that, we understand them in that context and have trouble thinking otherwise. Therefore there is little to no "new thinking" by persons actually trained in the field. And for those of us not trained in the field, we lack the language of physics to express any new ideas and therefore can not voice these ideas to the scientific community in order to introduce new directions in the focus of the field. Attempts by those in the field to challenge any aspect of relativity theories are then using relativity as they were trained in order to challenge those theories, and to interpret the results. This does no good because the theories will be proven because they are accurate in what the describe from the perspective that they describe them from, even if not in reality.

[EWright]

Some people are having trouble not spilling insults in every other sentence.

 

I said the Earth's orbit does change. But I also said you cannot measure it noticably.

 

But of course we all know that.

 

As for which direction the person falls from...I am sure Einstein would like to see calculations showing that a polar impact has a different gravitational effect than an equatorial impact.

 

No calculations are needed. I did not mean to imply that there would be a different gravitational effect and I did not make any mention of impact. I was refering to the direction the earth would have to be drawn in, in order to reach the person it is falling towards. An acceleration in the direction of it's poles would cause the earth to assume a new orbit that is slightly (even if immeasurable) higher or lower than the original orbit, where as an equatorial acceleration directly in front of or behind the earth in its orbit would cause the earth to advance or fall behind by the distance between it and the person at the start of the acceleration. A person falling at the equator from the direction of the sun, rather than the direction of earth's orbit, would then cause it to approach the sun by that degree... and the opposite is true if the person was falling from the side opposite the sun relative to earth.

[Tormod]

Attempts by those in the field to challenge any aspect of relativity theories are then using relativity as they were trained in order to challenge those theories, and to interpret the results. This does no good because the theories will be proven because they are accurate in what the describe from the perspective that they describe them from, even if not in reality.

 

I think you have a very ignorant view of how the astrophysical and cosmological communities work.

 

There is a reason for why popular science books and magazines use standard theories - and that is because it is the easiest way to explain things, and it is virtually impossible for writers and journalists to keep up with theories, because new theories are posted every single day.

 

You should, for example, read the Variable speed of light page at Wiki:

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

 

and a good book recommendation is Joao Magueijo, "Faster than the speed of light" (Perseus, 2003) which should hold enough speculation to last a long time.

[EWright]

I've considered the book you recommended, but am currently reading several others and my mind is feeling pretty 'full' to say the least. I have also avoided the book because I do not want it to influence my perceptions that I am still forming, since they may be similar. I have proposed my theory to one professor with several degrees in physics (including his PhD) who has read this book, and did not make mention of my idea corresponding to anything in it, so I assume (very assuredly) that it does not. He also said he could not dispute my theory, thought he did correct me on some minor points pertaining to my understanding of physics.

[EWright]

Seriously people, by a show of hands, how many of you actually believe the earth accelorates toward a falling object??

[Tormod]

I'd say nobody believes that.

[EWright]

It is valid in reality. Look up inertial coordinate systems and so-called apparent forces.

 

Apparently they do.

[Erasmus00]

With all due respect, I do not feel that I was being rude in the above comment. I honestly feel that a big part of the problem with relativity theories are that they are so complex that we have little choice but to accept what they teach if we are to understand them.

 

You do realize that several members of the physics community have created alternative theories to Einstein's. To date, all experimental evidence supports Einstein, not others.

 

As to the complicated theories, general relativity does indeed requires learning differential geometery, a rather difficult branch of mathematics. However, special relativity can be understood using only basic calculus. And anyone with the inclination to learn it has countless introductory textbooks to choose from. You never have to accept what they teach, if you are willing to put a bit of work into learning the math. And if you aren't willing to do the work, how are you going to formulate a theory of your own?

-Will

[Erasmus00]

I have proposed my theory to one professor with several degrees in physics (including his PhD) who has read this book, and did not make mention of my idea corresponding to anything in it, so I assume (very assuredly) that it does not. He also said he could not dispute my theory, thought he did correct me on some minor points pertaining to my understanding of physics.

 

Then propose your theory to us, and we shall see. If your theory is as revolutionary as you make it out to be, it should sway us. But why keep playing these silly games? "My theory answers this" doesn't mean much untill you are willing to demonstrate.

-Will

[GAHD]

I think the problem here is that Ewright is trying to describe what's actually happening, instead of what each observer feels. Relativity is kind of like a mind trick; it explains reality in counter-intuitive terms.

 

The earth isn't actually accelerating towards the person(at least not perceptibly) but from that person's POV their falling towards Terra is indistinguishable from the Terra falling towards them.

 

Also we all know the earth isn't expanding it's radius by 9.8m/s but the force of gravity is equivalent to that expansion.

 

Following so far? Good. Relativity uses a lot of metaphors in descriptions of reality, but make no mistake that the reality is still the reality. I assume Tomod cited that book because it explains color-shifts, another apparent change but this one based on different speeds of an emitter and a detector.

 

What you need EWright is to research a bit more on frames of reference, or better yet to read 'Relativity, the special and general theory' translated (unless you're lucky enough to speak German).

[Little Bang]

EWright, suppose you were in a space ship, say in the middle of one of the gaps between clumps of galaxies. You could see no stars, no points of reference, totally unable to determine your motion with respect to anything. All of a sudden you see another ship approaching your ship. Now from your frame of reference you will claim that the other ship is the one that is moving toward you, when in fact you can not predict which is the true reality.

[Tormod]

The earth isn't actually accelerating towards the person(at least not perceptibly) but from that person's POV their falling towards Terra is indistinguishable from the Terra falling towards them.

 

Exactly. Good point.