sci.physics.relativity

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news: @ :

.... big snip

> Yes, but how does the the object R or L
> do that, well that's why I used g12 = -g21,
> so we agree.
>
>> In other words, since GR considers the force of gravity to be a fiction
>> created to describe the distortion of space-time caused by mass,
>> attempting to mix 'forces' and relativity puts us in the realm of a
>> hybrid between Newton, SR and GR and muddies the waters, so to speak, a
>> bit but in any case I believe we will find that 'the force' or the
>> 'down hill direction' must always be perpendicular to the current
>> velocity vector for any object to remain in a circular orbit.
>
> On a turntable that spins faster and faster,
> so the circumferential speed is close to c,
> the notion of maintaining an orthogonal CS,
> where upon the notion of "perpendicular" can
> be defined, is gone. Realistic CS's are NON-
> Orthogonal. Your words "must always" do NOT
> apply in that physical reality :-).
> You can even use simple Length contraction
> from SR to appreciate that yourself.

A planet in orbit travels no where near c. Relativistic effects are
negligible in such cases.

A 'flyby' by the earth's orbit by someone traveling near c has no effect on
the actual angle.

We would need to be in a close orbit around the 'horizon' of a black hole
to achieve such a velocity.
I have no idea WHAT happens in a case like that, but I doubt anyone would
survive the tidal forces involved.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@ remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap