The effect of relativity on the orbit of satellites

[Larry1957]

What if the entire universe were moving at near light speed... and all matter existed in that small window of velocity where mass becomes too dense to accelerate further? I can offer 10 points that might support this notion in a video I produced to explain my thoughts.

Could I even be a little bit right on this?

 

Larry

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

We would prefer it if your argument was made on the forums rather than in a video. Many members do not have the time to sit through a 30 min video - whereas they could take a quick look at an introduction to your argument (along the lines of an abstract). Could you perhaps posts a summary of your ten points here? Thanks

I watched through to about 8 minutes in - you were talking about the "twin paradox" and absolute space. You seem to be confusing relative velocities with some form of absolute velocity. The twin paradox is not really a problem and can be well sorted in about 4 different methods - I think you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding Einstein and thus trying to solve problems that do not exist.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html'>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

[Janus]

What if the entire universe were moving at near light speed... and all matter existed in that small window of velocity where mass becomes too dense to accelerate further? I can offer 10 points that might support this notion in a video I produced to explain my thoughts.

Could I even be a little bit right on this?

 

Larry

 

I'm sorry, but all I see is yet another person that doesn't have a grasp on what Relativity is actually about and mistakes that lack of understanding for a flaw in Relativity. The correct reaction to finding what you yourself call such a simple flaw that it makes one wonder how it has been missed this long, is to consider that it is your own understanding of the theory that is in error and that the "flaw" is actually an result of your own misconceptions. ( as it is in this case. )

 

For instance, you talk about the spaceship moving "slower that the Earth" and thus reducing it mass further. This is a nonsense statement since it assumes such a thing as absolute velocity, which does not exist In Relativity. It seems to me that you are mixing in a few preconceptions of your own that are not a part of Relativity and it the conflict between these preconceptions and Relativity that is causing you a problem.

[John Cuthber]

"What if the entire universe were moving at near light speed"

From the point of view of a beta particle, it is.

So?

[Larry1957]

I'm sorry, but all I see is yet another person that doesn't have a grasp on what Relativity is actually about and mistakes that lack of understanding for a flaw in Relativity. The correct reaction to finding what you yourself call such a simple flaw that it makes one wonder how it has been missed this long, is to consider that it is your own understanding of the theory that is in error and that the "flaw" is actually an result of your own misconceptions. ( as it is in this case. )

 

For instance, you talk about the spaceship moving "slower that the Earth" and thus reducing it mass further. This is a nonsense statement since it assumes such a thing as absolute velocity, which does not exist In Relativity. It seems to me that you are mixing in a few preconceptions of your own that are not a part of Relativity and it the conflict between these preconceptions and Relativity that is causing you a problem.

 

 

I guess I couldn't get past the conclusion that regardless of an observer's speed and direction... that he's standing still and the universe is in motion around him. If someone is standing still, it's impossible to slow down. So Einstien says if we accelerate to near light speed that time, mass density and gravity change... but then if you slow back down to Earth speed they revert to normal. My question is, "how is it possible to slow from near light speed if you were standing still?" You'd have to decelerate. A further understanding of Relativity will make this contradiction go away?

 

"What if the entire universe were moving at near light speed"

From the point of view of a beta particle, it is.

So?

 

 

Thank you. So... I'm suggesting that the fact that we're traveling at near light speed is responsible for our mass density, and that only exists in a small window of velocity at near light speed. The 10 points I make near the end of the video support this idea.

[swansont]

I guess I couldn't get past the conclusion that regardless of an observer's speed and direction... that he's standing still and the universe is in motion around him. If someone is standing still, it's impossible to slow down. So Einstien says if we accelerate to near light speed that time, mass density and gravity change... but then if you slow back down to Earth speed they revert to normal. My question is, "how is it possible to slow from near light speed if you were standing still?" You'd have to decelerate. A further understanding of Relativity will make this contradiction go away?

All measurements have to be made with respect to a coordinate system, or reference frame. If you move, it is relative to something — you can't move relative to yourself. So any time dilation is observed be someone in another frame.

 

Once you add acceleration, though, all bets are off. While you can't tell if you are moving at constant velocity, you can tell if you are accelerating.