|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FREELY FALLING LOCAL INERTIAL FRAME IN THE RELATIVITY CULT
Pentcho Valev wrote: The "freely falling local inertial frame" is a fundamental red herring in Einstein's criminal cult. Any time relativity hypnotists have to deal with evidence for variability of the speed of light they decla "Yes Einstein did say the speed of light was variable and it IS variable and we do know it is variable and we do know it can become greater than c=300000km/s but: LOCALLY the speed of light is constant". Since relativity hypnotists often omit "freely falling", zombies do not know about "freely falling" and repeat LOCALLY as often as necessary - see Dirk Van de moortel's insights involving LOCALLY in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a1bcc557fedc33 I am afraid relativity hypnotists will have to abandon the red herring called "freely falling local inertial frame" since ten years ago one of them, Steve Carlip, described the frame of reference that is really essential when the variability of the speed of light is dealt with: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...914329d47c551d "In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers." Since Steve Carlip does make comments in sci.physics.relativity, he may find it suitable to answer a question. Consider an extended version of the above quotation of his: Steve Carlip: "...if you measure the speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, the answer will, in general, differ from c. In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any *inertial* frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalization is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers." So Carlip if we have "a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity" but one that is very distant from the source of gravity, so distant that the gravitational field there is zero and the frame is virtually *inertial*, and if the source of gravity sends light towards this frame, does your conclusion still hold: "In such a frame, the speed of light can differ from c"??? Your brother hypnotist Tome Roberts once said in this frame the speed of the light received from the source of gravity would not differ from c but Roberts Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation and therefore is constantly lying. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GENEROSITY IN THE RELATIVITY CULT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 17 | July 25th 07 11:19 PM |
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | January 11th 06 06:38 PM |
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 11th 06 06:38 PM |
elsewhere brian a m stuckless wrote: alt.local.village.idiot,alt.mo-rons,sci.physics.relativity | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | October 15th 05 04:26 PM |
Apollo Inertial Navigation | SRG | History | 4 | December 3rd 03 10:57 AM |