1. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    13 May '12 18:22
    Without going into too much detail:

    My calculations show that if the earth is held as stationary, any object about 4.12529612e9 Km away that is directly above the equator at the same point every 24 hours is moving in an orbit around the earth at the speed of light, and anything farther away is moving faster. How is this dealt with?
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 May '12 18:58
    Originally posted by JS357
    Without going into too much detail:

    My calculations show that if the earth is held as stationary, any object about 4.12529612e9 Km away that is directly above the equator at the same point every 24 hours is moving in an orbit around the earth at the speed of light, and anything farther away is moving faster. How is this dealt with?
    In the same way as thinking about a pair of scissors 20 light years long and closing at a rate that will finish the closing in forty years so nothing moves faster than the speed of light but the place where the scissors cross moves faster than the speed of light. How is THAT possible? Same question.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    13 May '12 20:432 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    In the same way as thinking about a pair of scissors 20 light years long and closing at a rate that will finish the closing in forty years so nothing moves faster than the speed of light but the place where the scissors cross moves faster than the speed of light. How is THAT possible? Same question.
    From the frame of reference of the scissors, the meeting point would be moving along the axis of their meeting, at some speed s (although no matter would be moving along that axis, so there is no problem) but from the frame of reference of the meeting point, the scissors would be moving at the speed s, so matter would be moving at s>c.

    In both cases (yours and mine) there is no problem from the standpoint of one frame of reference, but the problem remains from the other standpoint, because one frame allows the speed of matter s<=c, the other frame requires s>c.

    I have heard that it has to do with rotatory motion being different than linear; there being no expansion of space under rotatory motion, but it still puzzles me.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 May '12 11:37
    Originally posted by JS357
    Without going into too much detail:

    My calculations show that if the earth is held as stationary, any object about 4.12529612e9 Km away that is directly above the equator at the same point every 24 hours is moving in an orbit around the earth at the speed of light, and anything farther away is moving faster. How is this dealt with?
    That's why relativity always talks about 'speed' and not 'velocity'. The relative speed is measured in a straight line between two objects and is either towards, or away from each other.
  5. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    14 May '12 15:561 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    That's why relativity always talks about 'speed' and not 'velocity'. The relative speed is measured in a straight line between two objects and is either towards, or away from each other.
    I'm not sure that explains it, but apparently there is empirical evidence that the frame of reference of an object cannot simply be taken to be stationary WRT the rotating object (that is, can't be taken to rotate with the object). For example, a pool of the surface of water located at and around one pole of a rotating sphere will tend toward the concave due to so-called centrifugal force, regardless of whether it is taken to be stationary to an observer who is going along for the ride. Since forces associated with rotation can be mathematically treated the same as acceleration due gravitational forces, I suspect that special relativity covers this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    14 May '12 16:15
    Originally posted by JS357
    I'm not sure that explains it, but apparently there is empirical evidence that the frame of reference of an object cannot simply be taken to be stationary WRT the rotating object (that is, can't be taken to rotate with the object). For example, a pool of the surface of water located at and around one pole of a rotating sphere will tend toward the concave due t ...[text shortened]... suspect that special relativity covers this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
    Sounds like you could make a telescope mirror out of that using mercury, it should assume a parabolic shape. Not sure how that would work with small spheres though.
    I think you are assuming Earth sized bodies with water at the poles, spinning.
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    14 May '12 21:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Sounds like you could make a telescope mirror out of that using mercury, it should assume a parabolic shape. Not sure how that would work with small spheres though.
    I think you are assuming Earth sized bodies with water at the poles, spinning.
    To become concave it needs a rim. Otherwise it just goes toward the equator. With enough water, it envelops the planet in an oblate ellipsoid(?) shape depending on gravity, size and rpm, I suppose.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 May '12 10:12
    Originally posted by JS357
    To become concave it needs a rim. Otherwise it just goes toward the equator. With enough water, it envelops the planet in an oblate ellipsoid(?) shape depending on gravity, size and rpm, I suppose.
    The earth as a whole is fluid enough that it is already an oblate spheroid.
Back to Top