Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relative Motion (A Thought Experiment)
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 53 of 86 (128008)
07-27-2004 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tony650
07-26-2004 4:24 PM


Re: Center of mass
An orbit involves acceleration. Although relativity ensures you can never know whether you are moving or not (or, more profoundly, all fixed points are equal) you can still know about acceleration. On either the 'earth' or 'moon' you could know the other must be moving because it does not fall into you due to gravitational effects.
And what are they moving relative to? Wherever you choose as a fixed point.
In a very real sense, this is the same situation we have in the universe. Nothing is staying still, so we simply choose our fixed point and work from there - if we're dealing with the solar system we tend to pick the sun as the fixed point. If we're dealing with the motion of stars in the Milky Way, we pick it's centre as our fixed point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tony650, posted 07-26-2004 4:24 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tony650, posted 07-27-2004 12:45 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 55 of 86 (128040)
07-27-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by sidelined
07-27-2004 8:50 AM


It would not matter if they are tidally locked or not since without a background reference you could not say they orbit one another. You may be able to say that the body other than the one you are on was rotating as the surface view you had of it changed.
Yes, you can.
Acceleration can be deduced without a frame of reference, orbits are accelerational in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by sidelined, posted 07-27-2004 8:50 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by sidelined, posted 07-27-2004 9:42 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 86 (128043)
07-27-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by sidelined
07-27-2004 9:42 AM


Imagine you're in a car, cruising along the motorway (freeway in the US, I think?) at 85 mph. Although you're thumping along, you don't feel any motion. Now imagine you have to brake suddenly (some twat in a Passat cuts you up), you'll be thrown forward in your seat by the deceleration, and then as you get up to speed again when the idiot in the Passat gets out of your way you'll be pressed back in your seat.
Now, imagine doing the same thing but being blind-folded. Suppose for a second the car's so good you can't hear any wind or road noise, or fell any vibrations or bumping through the suspension. There's now no way you can tell the difference between travelling at 85mph, 40mph and being stationary. However as soon as your speed changes you can feel the acceleration acting on your body.
Einstein's theories extend this principle. There is no experiment you can perform that can distinguish between being stationary, and travelling at speed but you can tell the difference between constant speed and changing speed.
The same applies for your planets, although the forces produced will be tiny - they are still (theoretically) measurable.
You'd also be able to tell you're in orbit because it's the only way two gravitationally attracted bodies could be arranged such that the could appear not be approaching one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by sidelined, posted 07-27-2004 9:42 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 07-29-2004 11:50 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 60 of 86 (128357)
07-28-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tony650
07-27-2004 12:45 PM


Re: Center of mass
Scenario 1: In our hypothetical universe, an inhabitant of the "Earth" performs a test to detect evidence of motion and they find it. They therefore conclude that the Earth/moon system is in synchronous orbit.
Scenario 2: In our hypothetical universe, an inhabitant of the "Earth" performs a test to detect evidence of motion and they find none. They therefore conclude that the Earth/moon system is motionless; it sits fixed in its place.
It is impossible to find evidence of motion. You can only decide that you are moving next to a point you have decided to consider fixed.
What the earth/moon inhabitants can find is acceleration.
In relative terms, it can't be meaningfully said to be "rotating", correct? Ok, so I launch a probe into space, such that it orbits the Earth, at a constant altitude, at approximately 23 to the equator, completing one full orbit every 24 hours.
Wrong. It can be said to be rotating. It is only constant linear motion that you cannot talk about. Constant linear motion produces no forces.
(And don't worry about it; relativity makes no sense, much like Quantum theory).
This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 07-28-2004 09:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tony650, posted 07-27-2004 12:45 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by coffee_addict, posted 07-28-2004 12:35 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 67 by Tony650, posted 07-30-2004 1:42 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 66 of 86 (128896)
07-30-2004 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by sidelined
07-29-2004 11:50 PM


But we are talking here about a void where we have no background by which to judge two bodies as gravitationally in orbit about one another.
Doesn't matter. If the other body appears stationary compared to yours, and there is nothing holding it there, you must be in orbit. You don't have to see the motion to deduce that. If the two bodies were actually stationary they would accelerate towards one another and collide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 07-29-2004 11:50 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 07-31-2004 1:05 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024