If someone were transported out into empty space, idk like hundred of thousands of miles straight "up," would they fall into the sun? It would depend on their velocity right? If they were moving at an orbital speed e.g. similar to earths velocity, they would go into orbit. So to make them "fall" you'd also have to give them a huge rocket to deccelerate them...
But velocity is a relative thing. In order to say the earth is going so many miles per hour in a direction tangential to it's orbital path, one must picture the solar system with some kind of reference frame to measure distances upon.
Thus to justify the earth not falling into the sun vs some unlucky friend teleported and decelerating as described above, I must arbitrarily pick a universal reference frame, perhaps one where the distant stars (since they are so seemingly immutable..) are stationary upon my arbitrary frame, or at least dang near so. But distant stars being stationary doesn't seem to have anything to do with the physics of the earth, sun, and my unlucky friend... so why bother mentioning them? (I guess I just don't want them whizzing around my head at insane velocities? Umm never mind that)
Plus I remember reading somewhere that there is no universal reference frame. Perhaps that was in something to do with Einstein's theories, which I only have a vague notion of, so if you want to answer in terms of GR keep it simple please/ty.
So basically my question (s) is/are summed up as follows: Am I over looking something, or is that thought experiment kind of paradoxical? Is this one of the paradoxes that sparked the new theories of relativity? Can one planet being in orbit and another object, eg that thing we sent to investigate mercury, degenerate orbit from said mother planet, in terms of reference frames? Or is that a meaningless question?