When curved motion is equivalent to straight-line uniform motion?

When we look at our nearby surroundings and contemplate the curvature of earth, there is an intuitive sense that the world is measurably flat. Can any one observer ever detect the curvature of the planet surface such that the measured force attributes of curved motion is measured -- measured as a force that is?

We can see the masts of ships appearing on the horizon before the bulk of the ship, but this proves only a measured instance of "curvature", no real difference in the curvature of hills and valleys and mountains. Of course, we send people in orbit and they return with beautiful pictures of the "round earth". This is undeniable, but look at the difference to the observer on the surface of the earth, contrasted to the relatively extreme differences in energy state as measured by the orbiting objects velocity which is effectively zero on the surface even at "high rates of speed', as in the speed of sound 660 mph even.

Absent in all this are measured forces due to curved motion that at some point becomes measurably indistinguishable from straight-line motion. Take the numerically huge photon emissions from the sun surface. When we see the sun at the distance, it we always are aware of the roundness of the object. We draw the radiating outbound photon trajectory spectra and infer that no two photons ever move parallel from the source of radiation, the sun surface.

When we make measurements of the angle, between nearest neighbor radiating photons we must travel a very large distance to measure any angle between some arbitrary reference beam and another. The sun's surface area is approximately 10,000 times that. Or 100/1 using sides of a square. Even if the earth surface is adjacent to the surface of the sun, the radiation is immeasurable as other than parallel. If the sun were 109 cm on a side earth would be approximately 1 cm squared located 230 meters from the sun. All radiation is from the sun is measured parallel as must be the so-called gravity waves - boringly linear without a chance at recognizable space curvature. Some observers still talk about the accumulation of the force of gravity even at he huge inverse distance squared limitation on the force of gravity. Stars do not make recognizable changes in the earth positions wrt the rest of the cosmos.

A GPS satellite for instance in orbit at 30k km will have to travel approximately 1000 km before it sees a full 1 cm deflection from straight line motion, which is in the noise region as far as the measured orbit trajectory of the SAT is measured. The SAT deflections from gravity variations are far in excess of the deflected 1 cm in each 1000 km moved.

In short, the SATS are primarily as perfect inertial frames as any conceivable. Virtually all object motion on the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from straight-line motions. For the theorists that predict a space such that a traveler starting in one direction will orbit the universe in a straight-line and return to where she started without deviating from the straight-line, curved motion assuredly is described, but fondly held close to the bosom of Mamas SRT Nature.

Everybody knows the orbits of the planets are essentially circular orbital motion but along the trajectory of the stellar body, the motion is indistinguishable from straight-line motion. Only when huge distances are accumulated are there measured deviations form straight-line motion observable, but physical parameters other than the deflection form straight-line motion hides the deflections in "noise". The irregularity of the earth surface, mountains, valley, hills and dales, all operate to keep deviations hidden from averaging to straight-line motion.

I would like to see something from the special relativity crowd that would prove conclusively the GPS SATs for example are not qualified subjects as inertial frame such that measured forces can be determined that unambiguously impose non-inertial forces on the SAT motion. It is, after all, the forces seen in curved motion that are rejected from SR consideration, only.

The earth orbiting SATs experience no forces that maintain the altitude of the SAT, unlike an object in powered orbit around a point in space where the forces even at 30 k km radius can be determined, but for the earth orbit SAT, the curved motion forces are nonexistent.

Unless there is some intrinsic attribute of SR/GR that clearly shows that the forceless direction changes alone are sufficient to disqualify such motions as qualified candidates for SR/GR descriptions of their trajectories the standard should be established based on a flat earth centered structure [which it effectively is by default].

It is analogous to a model that it is the orbital motion of satellites maintain altitude by an appropriate velocity, not by a "balance of gravitational forces" but where the ""curvature" of the trajectory arises not from a balance of gravitational considerations, rather the maintenance of the conservation of angular momenta come into play to take the starring role (pun intended) in the stellar play constantly unfolding before our classical aye ayes.

I tend to an intuitive conclusion here that SR/GR characteristics/attributes that are claimed not to qualify SATS from SR inclusion, not for any real "curved" and non-inertial nature of the motion, but because other common SR effects that :"should be there" simply are not seen in SAT motion. The absence of the otherwise predictable effects are carefully hidden from scrutiny (silence is a workable cover-up, that otherwise are embarrassing and would appear prominently as questionable exceptions from inclusion in SRT. The SRT world placed in an inertial corner and forced to provide rationales why certain SR effects are not found in SAT motion are described by the don't look at me foot shuffling hesitant avoidance of the subject matter.


In my humble opinion, using a fairly tight adherence to recognized classical concepts steady instinctive linear motion adequately describes the measured motion of GPS satellites and most stellar orbital trajectories that are so apparent from casual observation. Geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you know that it isn't the conservation of angular momentum that keeps the satellite in orbit. Can you prove it is gravity? The forces aren't measured you know.
You really didn't read the paper James R. I made the point that a SAT in orbit at 30k km altitude will deflect about a centimeterr for each [500 km] 600m [correction made 4:00pm thursday] liinear travel. That isn't small scale now is it?
If you want to make comments James you shouldn't read the first couple of lines and think you read the paper. I think maybe this may be part of your problem understanding the reality of classical physics and the silliness of SRT.
Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I understand where you might be heading with this.

Although a satellite is orbiting in a curved path, you have identified it as an inertial frame of reference, primarily due to its zero-gravity state (actually a micro-gravity state). From there you challenge it to live up to the theory of relativity in its specialized sense, which is only suppopsed to apply to uniform translational motion.

I will not trivialize your paper by stating the obvious: that circles are not straight lines, no matter how large their diameter. Instead, I will concede, and say that I am not entirely convinced that even straight-line motion can live up to your expectations. It seems to me that the doppler effect would be the dominant phenominon when considering anything moving at relativistic speeds. Also, as I believe it was Heisenberg who originally observed, it becomes increasingly difficulty to even identify the location of such a thing.

I tend to think of SR as a very restricted model, purposely limited to phenomina that are nearly impossible to observe. The reason for this becomes more apparent as the theory unfolds into its more general application, GR. It certainly is not intuitive, but sometimes one must lay the most absurd foundation before a truly magnificent structure can be erected.

I very much enjoyed your paper, by the way. I believe that the difference between curves and straight lines is one of the most beautiful aspects of nature -- something to be pondered and appreciated, as you have done.

 

neddy B, you do have a way with words. You must be veddy English. First you break my heart by telling me that my paper didn't phase the very foundations of SRT in the slightest, then you praise my paper and I( sincerekly believed you when you said you enjoyed it.

It is certainkly true that the everyday lives of the blokes in the street are not aware of any SR phenomena occurring, even SR theorists. The experiments mentioned and quibbled over, muons, MM, eclipses, space ships are all fictional for all practrical intents and purposes. I cannot could do but think of I ispute any notion that insists my bes place ids here, there where ever tyheredispute your sheklving SR as a mere door topt he "real" stuiff GR, but again the effect is not readily apparent, even in GPS activities, GRE nmay be there , but it isn't obvious. The disputes regarding theinclusion of GR in the GPS system extend beyond the fact or not, of the truth of GR, aas the questions , or issues, seems mioist intense when discussiion whether there are actual GR structured alogithims embedded anywhere in the GPS system. Yes or no, the applicability of GR or not will not make or break many lives that I can predict, . I perhaps shouldn't be making public confessuons like this but the single most motivating aspects o\of SR/GR were t6hose in two areas, the limitations on the speed of light and the"twin paradox". By limiting the speed the light theoretically in a widely discussed scientific context can have severe social psychological affects. One doesn't hear the pedestriandiscussions usually, without some reference to "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light". Neddy B, the next time there is a clear day dark star filled night in 'er majesty;s Queendom, look up and check out the farthest star you can see, and ask yourself, or tell yourself, "you will never get there from here, not from 'er Majesty's Parlimentary Policy, but from the physical limitaion onthe speed of light. Thenearestr star is what, 7 ly away, which means any round triip to the nearest star is 14 years, plus the years of training and preparation, the starting accelrations, a year in orbit looking at the star, returning to terra firma, I say reaonably it will take a career lifetime for anyone to go to the nearest star and return. I do not see a substantial economic justuification for any large scale interstellar travle for the peoples on earth, First, because there isn't any public policy that is building on a massive public interstellar travel protocol, there isn't any scientific momentum and worst of all there is very little individual dreaming about going, at least for the late teenager and older. Women, girls are doubly not dreaming about it because of a general sexist bias that is endemic to our mutual space ship.WE have the cheapest of substitutes fictional accounts of what is all abiout out there. WHich is bizaar.

The twin paradox is in a way more mentally crippling the discussing of the paradox must by necessity include talk of eternal life. All one has to do is go fast enmough and one can live essentially foreever. Whatever the reality of the paradox,(personalluY I discount it as just more silliness), the mental harm comes form the tacit acceptance that this methiod of ectending life of the human is acceptable, while health practices, stress relieving, diet, pills, "chemistrty ressearch" prove "artificial" in some weird sense and therefore the practical real world activity becomes diluted by the huge numbers of methodologies advertised for extending the life span of ourselves. I can estimate that not too manypersons have been rushed tiot he local hospital with some acute attack of special relativity itis recently.

I have been unable to mask y distaste of SRT for many reasions, but the farther I go in this matter the more focussed i become ion the sheer scientific inadequacy iof SR /GR,
Now I ma not a s mathematically seift in the mathematics og SR/GR, but if there were some practical math intensive task that I necessarily had to perform,. I could do it but I am not inviting myself to years og SR/GR study just to see if I like it or not. I do not like it, I underdstand it, and it repels me. That public assets are supportingh SR/GR at any level of public contribution is not in my best interest. Neddy, that "some one must lay the most absurd foundationj before a truly magnificent structrure can be erected" is to put it mildly, galling. Neddy, I amd a student of some history and I have seen thr recorfs and history of so many gragic bloody disasters when massive numbers of people start believing in some truly absurd foundations. You know what mean here, I am sure.

I cannot see myself convinced to "study something that is taught upfront as counter intuitive, that I must surrender my understanding of "the classsical worlld" , to accept the counter intuitve as a signpost to the truth, as a road to the truth. the counter intuitive, to set aside the observed world, the learned world, which has been theroetically engaged in some form of warfare more or less consistently for the past century. The latest war we are told is of an indefinite duration, "we'll tell you when it is over" say the managers of the war, . Now terror is the relative enemy,and who is the one to complain loudly, about the current war on the people when the slightest clue of nonsupprt to the public policy can be seen as as a counterintuitve state of mind probably, at the very least, probably words uttered by a budding terriorist..
'The straight-line' discussion was indeed a challenge to one and all to prove the validity of SR or removing itself theoretically from any significant involvement that includes the slightest edifying of any state of the mind. The curved trajectory as far as I am able to discern is fair game for any legitimately offered dissident opinion.

One point the paper made was, that SAT in orbit at 30k meter can move such that 0n the average there is a 1 cm deviatiion form a perfect straight line every 600 meter of straightline to the horizon . From all the verbalizing I've done to day I feel drenched an unable to forcfully attempt to strip a SAT of broadcast powers just because there are forces acting on the SAt that probably impose deviations greater than a cm in each 600 to 1000 meter traveled, I really am not concerned that SR is conspiring to hijack the SAT GPS progtram. It is the ISTS that seem as moitivated in maintaining the "truth" of SRT as I am motivated in substituing a flat earth understanding as the current accepted model. I have , after all, some experience with SRists who do defend SR not unlke at all some average though committed priest defending the "faith". Now Neddy B, if you are interested in the absurdi as a food for magnificent structures of thought you ought to get few Rome's best bverbalists to discover what the magninificent structure of what exactklly attrracted them to the fold.] was.

On another subject entirely: Neddy , do you think it would be appropriate at this time in our mutual history to extend the defintion of "white collar crime", just slightly?

Geistkiesel

 

Wow, that was pretty deep. I admire people like yourself who insist on thinking for themselves and who are careful not to just follow the herd mentality. I like to consider myself as that kind of person as well.

When I said that even motion in a straight line might not live up to the expectations of SR, I was trying to allow for the possibility that the theory might be flawed. In other threads I have stated that the time dilation effects of SR might be an illusion. I like to think I have an open mind.

Unlike yourself, I do not find relativity theory to be harmful. I believe Einstein agonized over the use of the atomic bomb that he inadvertantly help create. Like yourself, I do find the current political trends to be setting some of the most dangerous precidents in history. But that is for a different forum, I suppose.

 

You do seem to have that better than most here.

On this we definitely disagree. The blind acceptance of relativity simply because it is promoted as being proven, even though "Counter Intuitive", does indeed directly restrict the thinking and couriosity of our future researchers. They have become impaired as to vision and understanding because they accept the "Impossible" and "Unproven" as being merely "Counter Intuitive Proven Fact".

Just look at how the Relativists here defend their turf. They rarely present facts but make fiat statements, expound dogma , appeal to authority,use a distorted list of facts or history and merely rely upon slander, false innuendo and drivel.

PS: "G", the nearest star is 4.3 lyr.

 

If relativity theory makes people learning-impaired, it is certainly not due to lack of interesting features. The theory is overflowing with implications that could keep the mind busy for hours on end. Blind acceptance would of course be the easy way out, and in that sense it may be the Achilles' heel of the lazy or unintersted mind.

As Geist says, it is actually not a very important concept in the every day lives of people. Neither are crossword puzzles, but people still enjoy doing them.

Non-relativists have their share of that as well. The most important thing is that we keep challenging ourselves to find better answers, and reach higher goals. If nothing else, this place is more amusing than any crossword puzzle.

 

Good post.

 

It is a fact that SAT, planetary, and virtually all stellar mass trajectories are immeasurably different from straight-line motion by the resounding absence of observed forces on the masses under scrutiny.

I am gleefully free of problems here. You are usinsg the rote defintion of inertial frames as first stated so many years ago. It is not the 'curvature' of motion that is being denied inertial frame status it is the forces attendant to curved motion that is cause for SR being rejected, the forces James R.

Then you should have some kind of experimental results that indicate the difference, though you of course have none, hence you are stuck with with a mere theoretical and unverified assumption aren't you?

I erred in the placment of decimal point above. I calculated that it takes 400km of linear orbit motion (not 400 meters) to deflect the SAT 1 cm, which is beyond any SR measurment and prediction potential. This is a deflection of .000025% ' Methinks you have the problem JR,

The relevance is in whether or not Sr/GR is aplicable to SAT motion description. GR gets rulled out by the linear reality of the motion and SR is excluded for its errors in prediction of the SAT motion . Errors in prediciton and failures to predict.

You are blindly inserting a definition of noninertial frames that includes curved motion. The defintion was intended to exclude observed forces on the refernce frame. In other words there was a physical reason for excluding curved motion in those instances where the curved motion resulted in observed forces on the m oving object. There I have said it in more than one way, and with an ecess of verbosity, but who would deny this poor man that which takes from his path but a bit of the loneliness?

Sure throw them into the pot. Motion on the surface of the planet is immeasurably distibnguishable from straight-line motion and as there is nothing moving within the geodesic defined world and is reference only, there is no measureable forces nor anything conceivable that is measured as an affect that does not hide the zero deflection forces (which are nonexistent anyway) in the very muddy noise.

Everybody does not admit that GR is needed [for anything] to analyze GPS time delays in full and you know this very well.
How can SR account for any GPS significance of noninertial systems of motion? It cannot and those SR predictions that cannot use GPS data that is referenced to nonrelative inertial refernces frames only darken the fog that is veiling SR and GR.As GR rests upon the foundation of SR this model too evaporates slowly into the all absorbing fog of 'where did SR/GR go? Has anyone seen them lately? Anyone? Well it did make for more than a few energetic discussions back in the 'olden days', huh?

I didnt say it was linear motion, So the SAT moves in a circle whose radius is so large the circumference is indistinguishable from straight motion from the absence of any measurable forces on the SAT due to the negligible and insignificance of the large radius of curvature. If we adopt the philosophy you suggest JR, then those relativity predicitons that an object moving in a straight-line in the universe will eventually return to the point from which it started in fact curved is therefore self-excluded by the very system that described the circumscribing travel of the universal photon. Yet we don't hear you telling us that the line is curved and therefore SR doesn't apply because the object is not moving in an inertial frame of reference.

The issue of 'confused 'vs 'seem confused' is not discussed below. So we all conclude you mean what you say so, "seem confused' is what we will use. This means by failure to incorporate an unqualified 'confused' into your discussion that with all logical and rational rigor you have denied any claim of 'confused' and by omission have discarded any such inference into the wasteabsket of unstated charges of mental aberration.
Thank you JR, if you only knew how many people have thought that I 'seem confused,' and have therefore also denied any unambiguous observation of mental states of aberration, you wouldn't be surprised would you?

You may be relieved to know that on that instance when a medical professional examined my head, well she didn't find anything either.

yes this could be, why doesn't someone do it. Hey James R I am givingh SR a chance top prove itself. Whatever the GPS systems uses in the"official" algorithims for position adjustments even the Sagnac Effect, which is not an effect restricted to cuirved motion in the slightest. It works like Sgnactested it but the evolution of the Sagnac Effect [thread=46658]has proved it utility and function in linear systems.[/thread]

The GPS reference frame is the ECEF and ECI frames of reference aren't they. WE do just fine withiout using GR of which the preferred, the used, the practical and best of all possible frames are anrthema.

That deopends which rationale of GR is used to squeeze it into application, doesn't it?

JR, take a look at the famous MacM GPS,Yuri, Pete et al discussions. Or show me from whatever source you have that GR is a critical function of GPS SAT functions.Not necessarily that it is incorporated , only that it is an exclusive predictor of phena.
geistkiesel​

 

FALSE. They would be wrong. If you apply SR to the relative velocity between orbit and the surface you get an incorrect time dilation. I thought you said you understood GPS and you have been trying to insinuate that I do not. Hmmmm.

Let me repeat once more since it is becoming apparent that you learn (if at all) by rote.

GPS uses orbit velocity relative to the earths center. That is a preferred local rest frame prohibited by SR. The correct time dilation is Gamma Effective= Gamma Orbit/Gamma Surface, not V3 = Orbit Velocity - Surface
Velocity.

Before you squawk I'll acknowledge here that GPS does not use gamma effective but only orbit velocity gamma. However the surface velocity results in less than a 1% differance.

But they clearly do not use SR or relative velocity between the surface and orbit.

I find it absolutely increadable that a professional can argue in one thread that SR is used in GPS and in another claim SR does not apply in curved paths (orbits).

 

I. am not being evasive here, but when looking at a SAT orbiting the eartyh from a distance such that the entire orbit is obvservable, I wouild say the SAT orbit exhibits attributes of elipsoidal and straight-line motion. Let me explain.

As the earth is moving through space in orbit around the sun, the earth, being slaved to the motion of the sun effectivly defining the earth motion pulling the earth (and the rest of the planets along), stretches the linear motion of the earth and SAT motion more or less in the general trend to defining a straight line. Look at the motion of the earth as first helical as it uses the sun as ot focal point. Yet the sun moving some 210 km/second and the earth moving 30 km/secong slightly off orthogonal to the sun motion, the helix, never closes on itself, so circular,(elliptical) trajectoruies are definitively excludes the earth and ergo SAT from motion in an ellliptical, or circular motion.

Now as I have made the point that the deflection from straight-line motion of the SAT due to its motion along the trajectory is on the order of 1cm for every 800 meters linear motion.
Therefore, I am saying that as far as one can measure from the frame of the SAT the SAT is moving in a straight lione. It is only much later when you put the data together do you arrive at the "curved" nature of the SAT motion .This motion is not detected moving with as a reaction any deflection forces that prodiced the mere inferred i deflection that ultimately smmed to a 360 degree completion of one earth orbit.
The answer to question # 1 is straight -line.
2.The orbit of a SAT with a 30 k km radius around a point in space will definitely require a force. For an earth orbit there is not any measurable force on the SAT though the inference that forces are applied to the SAT that maitains its altitude is fairly well wide spread and commonly believed by pedestrian sources. The actual data verifying the claim is nonexistent to my understanding. If we borrow a phrase from the current physics involving "nonlocaltity", tand "entanglement" , I would using the best and miost complete physics available to me, say the forces maintaining the trajectory of an earth orbiting SAT are not observed, and therefore I conclude the forces governing the SAT motion are observably nonlocal.


3.I have personably observed no forces on any SAT moving in orbit around the earth. Now there is a substantial force that generated, past tense, the tangential velocity that is crucial in determining the altitude of the SAT. But velocity isn't the force, momentum is the force when we see that the change of momentum of the SAT is what sustains the orbit.,

The velocity and momentum provided by the accelrating force of the rockets, seems to be sufficient for at least as a "force" capable of sustaining the trajectory of the SAT, with out the observed reaction to the force.. If we look at he matter from the perspective that the SAT velocity initially was necessary to adjust the SAT's motion "upward" as a payback to a system in a high state of equilibrium whose conservative nature that requires the imposition of velocity and momentum change in order to alter the poisiton of the SAT from planet surface to planet orbit.
persojally, I see the sustaining of SAT orbit is more a maintenhance of angular momentum in a very conservation potential wella system where relative location seems to make a big difference in the emasure of the energy requirements for the sustaining of that position. i can drive 100 mile easy as pie as long as the motionremains within a defianable olanar, near twi dimensianl volume defined morem or less byu thedurface of the planmet. But i would have a very difficult time moving a hundred miles as measured along any earth radial.

With repect to the definition of inertial frame that all curved motiion or any curved motion is sufficient for disqualification of a moving object as an an inertial all motion is nionminertial. But james R despite the observed rigidity of you maintenance of SRT, youare as inertiall y approximating as the next Newtonian. I would expect any one donnijng the robes of scientist can see the justified utilitiy in using the cincept of "close enough" as a substitution to a rote and irrationaly understood cojcept that teeny tiney deflections form straight line motion are imemasurab,e. Period.
To help you:

The data provided you from onservers maintaining a waych on the SAT orbitm had to be a long way away from the observer on the SAT that is maintianuing an updated version of his trajectoryu as a straight line.

Whatever you see in my refusal to just come out and say what you want to hear, I must tel you that the little enclosed line there that you are referring to as a "SAT" orbit is laughably incomplete and abstract. The reperesentation is much to small to be of any practicakl value as a rational and objectionless represntation of the SAT trajectory. The other main objection I have is that the model you show is a closed cirircle. I can hear the laughter starting to gurglle up from the depths of the funny bone factorries that are privy to this thread as I speak.

Now the specific question you asked, "What shape is a satellite orbit, geistkiesel?" In words its an elongated helix of 1.5x10^8 km radius of orbit, wher the orbit is stretched alont hewitha radius of approximately 1.5 x 10^8 kmr with a wave length of 210 x 312558465 = 6.6 x 10^9 km meters
.model.with frequency 1 /31558465 sec. As a help. the ratio of the radius to linear trajectory is .0227 meaning the earth motion vector is rotated from thje orthogonal to the ditrection of sun motion to an angle approximately 1.3 degrees off a perfect parallel with the moving sun.. The msghape of the satellite orbit is indistinguishable from astraight line and for sure it isn;t hat little circle you show us. Hey, James R, Ptolemy used the circle model for decribing stellar motion, if i was youi go get another physics book.

It isn't a close call . Your Ptolemaic physics is more than dated James R . There is no recognizable abstraction in your little circlel and the actual trajectory of the SAT.Your model is unacceptable to me for the al;cl of physical content approximating the true physical conditions .

 

Son'tlet James R throw you off track. He says whatever he thinks he can get by with just to be in disagreement.

He has repeatedly argued that GPS uses SRT and has also argued that SRT can't be applied to an orbit. Go figure.

I made the technical disclaimer that orbit is inertial because of tidal forces due to gravity. Orbit is not zero gravity, it is micro-gravity. The earth's gravity also creates compressional forces as it draws object toward its center.

But James argued it is inertial. I acknowledge that it is considered inertial because the forces are virtually non-existant.

He has argued for GR and the fact that gravity is not a force, nor are there forces inbalance in orbit, that orbit is curved time-space. Personally I would like to see the elliptical curved space. HeHe. If space is curved in a circle around earth then forces are required to cause the elipse to close since objects will have left the neutral curved circle.

Etc, etc.

Thanks for the compliment but actually 2Iq is the furthest ahead on this forum on GPS in my estimation. I'd contact Hatch except James R has already called him a Crackpot, when I referanced his work previously.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not sure you meant to say this this way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Where did I jump on any band wagon?

I read just fine do I really have to go back and post links to your posts? Are you denying:

1 - That you claimed GPS used SR? or

2 - Are you denying that you claim SR doesn't apply to orbits? or,

3 - When discussing SR you claimed orbit was inertial?

It will simplify the task of posting the truth here if you will identify which one,or all, you deny.

I believe I just said that.

Intersting how gravity is not a force but you then turn around and state:

In my english book that statement makes gravity a force.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!