Why does special relativity exclude gravity?

[D H]

Regarding, "the exception of the deception of men", the best example to the contrary I can think of is the story of Ptolemy. He mapped our solar system with predictive math so well, that I understand NASA still uses a version today for space shots

That is sheer nonsense.

Perhaps you are thinking of the use of geocentric coordinates for vehicles orbiting the Earth, selenocentric coordinates for vehicles orbiting the Moon, Saturn-centric coordinates for vehicles orbiting Saturn, etc. That isn't anything like Ptolemy's system.

and we our clocks and calendars.

And that too is nonsense.

 

[pervect]

I don't think it's quite nonsense, but I don't think "epicycles" are terribly significant, either.

Any path—periodic or not, closed or open—can be represented with an infinite number of epicycles.

This is because epicycles can be represented as a complex Fourier series; so, with a large number epicycles, very complicated paths can be represented in the complex plane.[23]

Wiki gives this amusing video as an illustration - the [23] above:

So since any path can be represented with epicycles the fact that we can represent orbits with them doesn't say much about the underlying physics.

 

[micromass]

So since any path can be represented with epicycles

I'm kind of doubting that, even if the path is continuous. But this is off-topic.

 

[Wes Tausend]

regarding, "the exception of the deception of men", the best example to the contrary i can think of is the story of ptolemy. He mapped our solar system with predictive math so well, that i understand NASA still uses a version today for space shots

that is sheer nonsense.

Perhaps you are thinking of the use of geocentric coordinates for vehicles orbiting the earth, selenocentric coordinates for vehicles orbiting the moon, saturn-centric coordinates for vehicles orbiting saturn, etc. That isn't anything like ptolemy's system.

and we our clocks and calendars

and that too is nonsense.

D H,

You have done me a great favor in removing a bad reference of mine just recently, so I don't know whether I dare continue here in good conscience.

If I have offended you, or disparaged NASA in any way, I apologise. The statement was meant to be, not nonsense, but striking... to illlustrate Ptomlemy's accomplishment as an early map-maker and demonstrate that, in math alone, Ptolemy did not differ much from the Copernicus system. IOW, the later intuitive Copernican geometry model is almost all the improved early difference from a math standpoint. Granted, the latest versions are much more accurate, but Copernicus did well for the naked eye.

When I read the NASA analogy long ago, it seemed self-evident, perhaps mistakenly, that a Ptolemy version (much improved) is still used today. My first thought was that, I'll be darned, a version of the crude Ptolemy math resides in my Meade "finder" telescopes. With a built-in standard clock and calandar, the low priced telescopes are capable of determining where Mars is in the sky on any given day and accurate enough to automatically capture the planet within the field of view. From there one can zero in on the planet more dead center, which is what I suppose corrective retro-rocket engines do on a similarily calculated pre-aimed space shot. It seems to me that the initial rocket aim need not be much more accurate than my simple "finder" telescope, as some sort of guidence system will be used for inevitable trajectory errors anyway.

My imagination is that Ptolemy mathematically mapped the heavens on the supposed inner two-dimensional sphere well enough to roughly predict where the two dimensional coordinates of, say, Mars would be on a certain day.

Hunters naturally lead their target intuitively. Ptolemy may well have dreamed that if he could only shoot an arrow with enough might to not fall to the ground, and know how long it would take to get to Mars, that he could aim the arrow at the very patch of sky that his math predicted Mars would coincide with during flight. The arrow would ostensibly arrive on that exact hour and day and therefore hit his target.

When we think of my suggested simpler portion of space shots, not involving more complicated temporary paths for escape or landing gravities, I believe the Ptolemy Arrow is essentially what we still do. I would embrace being corrected, as I am a NASA fan. My DVR is cluttered with video such as, http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/death-of-a-mars-rover/. It made me sad to see Spirit lose her fight and I am saving it to show my grandchildren.

Thanks,
Wes
...

 

[Wes Tausend]

I don't think it's quite nonsense, but I don't think "epicycles" are terribly significant, either.



Wiki gives this amusing video as an illustration - the [23] above:

So since any path can be represented with epicycles the fact that we can represent orbits with them doesn't say much about the underlying physics.

Thanks for the video, pervect. A bit of humor is always welcome, especially if it includes a lesson in science.

Micromass is probably correct, we have gotten way off topic and it is my fault. I was just taken by the concise answer that DaleSpam gave in #3, and how instinct and axioms are nearly everything in understanding science in it's most basic form.

Wes
...