sci.physics.relativity

On Sep 15, 1:47 pm, bz wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" wrote innews: @ :
>
> .... 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.

No, it's not!

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

Do the math.

> 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 "

Well, rest assured, I do.

>in a case like that, but I doubt anyone would
> survive the tidal forces involved.
>
> --
> bz

Are we finished?.....I hope so......
Fun stuff.....
Ken