Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 20, 1:13�pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:10�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 19, 3:32�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:24�am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 17, 11:39�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Special relativity does not and can not describe a satellite's orbit,
regardless of your uneducated suggestion. You want to use GR, which
you also do not understand.

Sorry, Eric, go try to snow someone else. �All you are doing is trying
to tell me that because you went to school and took some classes, you
are better than me. �This is a legal argument used by Europeans. �Here
in the United States people have equal rights. �As far as mathematics
is concerned, there is no obligation for anyone to follow your
dictates. �If special relativity can be applied to motion in a
straight line, it can also be applied to motion in a curved line.
That is one of the applications of calculus. �I can remember that
much.

And there is the boundary between math and physics. For while a
straight line and a curved line can have some of the same applications
mathematically, physically they are quite distinct. An object in
straight line motion can be accelerationless and inertial. An object
in a curved line cannot possibly be inertial. Newton understood this
point enough to distinguish the first and second laws of motion.

Well, all right, but there is still experiment. �Scientists claim they
orbited a clock in a satellite and when they recovered it, it had run
slower than an identical clock on earth. �So there is some correlation
between Special Relativity and a curved orbit.

Some, but it's not as tight as you think. Oh, and there is that
General Relativity business, too.

�According to
scientists, a moving clock is slower than a stationary clock whether
it is orbiting or moving in a straight line.

Well, no, that's not quite what it says, though I'm sure it's put that
way in comic-book versions of SR.
What it does say is that a non-straight path through spacetime has the
shorter proper time than a straight path through spacetime. This is
precisely also why the traveling twin comes back younger. It doesn't
have anything to do with whether one is moving and the other is not.
That is precisely the misconception that the twin puzzle is aimed to
correct. The neophyte looks at the traveling twin and says, "But
motion is relative, and I can take the traveling twin to be still and
the earth twin to be moving, and then the rule that the moving twin's
clock runs slower doesn't work." And the moral of that little story
is: that's right, and that's because which one shows lower elapsed
time has NOTHING TO DO with which one is moving, so erase that from
your wee little mind.

Well, that is interesting, but I never did think much about the
twins. My equations indicate that according to the rotation of the
sun, they would both be the same age. The traveling twin would just
have a clock that registered less time than the clock of the one on
earth.

�So why nit-pick about it
unless it is just for the purpose of nit-picking. �My question was,
How does the circumfrence of an orbit relate to its altitude if there
is a distance contraction.

Well, that depends on which observer is measuring the circumference,
doesn't it?
I would not think so. The best way to measure the circumfrence would
be to measure the altitude, which gives the radius of the orbit. The
observer on earth could do it by bouncing a radar signal off of the
satellite, and the observer in the satellite could do it by bouncing a
radar signal off earth. What do you think the results would be?
The circumfrence of the orbit would be 2(pi)R in either case. My
belief is that they would both get the same radius, proving my
equations to be correct.

�For instance, the clock ticks fewer times
during an orbit than an identical clock on earth. �Supposedly, the
velocity is the same as seen from either frame of reference in
Einstein's equations.

Only for inertial reference frames, and this isn't the case here.
Again, you are taking a claim that works in a *particular* application
of SR and assuming that it should apply in all cases where SR is
invoked. That's a mistake you make a bunch.
Well, my equations indicate that an observer inside the satellite
would compute a faster velocity for the satellite than an observer on
earth because his clock is running slower. This brings us back to
Newton's idea about it. t'=t, but Newton thought that a clock in the
satellite would be running at the same rate as a clock on earth.
Experiment has proven that to be untrue, according to scientists,
showing my equation n'=t(1-v/c) to be correct, since there is no
distance contraction to be seen.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... slower than an identical clock on earth. ... precisely also why the traveling twin comes back younger. ... That is precisely the misconception that the twin puzzle is aimed to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... suggesting that he is stationary and the Earth is moving. ... The acceleration is finished .. ... explanation - that it is the traveler's clock, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... He can make those measurements, ... created by his rate of travel relatively to the earth ... what someone moving relative to you would measure. ... But you have to know that *your clock is not immune to your ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... slower than an identical clock on earth. ... it is orbiting or moving in a straight line. ... precisely also why the traveling twin comes back younger. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time dilation
    ... measurements of local properties of earth are affected by that relative ... clocks are NOT ticking over at a faster rate than they were before he ... then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled ... ticking over at the same rate as it was before he started moving he ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)