🚀 go-pugleaf

On 26    , 02:47, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in
sci.physics:
> Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity
>
> Pentcho notes that one of the predictions of general relativity is
> that the speed of light is slowed in a gravitational field... and
> some how violates the postulate that the speed of light is constant
> in special relativity.

Fortunately Wormley Nature does not pay any attention to what you call
"the predictions of general relativity". This means that, objectively,
either the speed of photons varies with the gravitational potential,
or it does not vary with the gravitational potential. One of the two
assertions is true, the other is false, and Nature has already said
which one is true. Clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult know
Nature's verdict (the speed of photons DOES VARY with the
gravitational potential) but are reluctant to discuss it because, by
applying Einstein's equivalence principle, one can infer that, in the
absence of a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies with the
relative speed of the light source and the observer as well. Just a
matter of deduction that can be presented in this way:

(c'=c(1+V/c^2)) + (equivalence principle) --> (c'=c+v)

Pentcho Valev

> In GTR the rigid spacetime structure of SR is generalized. A. Einstein
> arrived at this generalization on the basis of his "principle of
> equivalence"--gravitation can be "locally" transformed away in a
> freely falling, non-rotating system. This means that on the
> infinitesimal scale, relative to a locally inertial system, that SR
> remains valid. Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity.
>
> Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
>    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>
> The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when
> there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as
> generation of gravitational waves are being ignored.  But of course
> there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when
> massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many
> applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives
> a completely self consistent description of the mechanics of
> accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics
> did.
>
> The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
> general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
> accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
> relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
> Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute.  In
> general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change
> general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
> space-time is always flat.
>
> See:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>
> I fail to see a conflict, Pentcho. When gravitational fields are important,
> general relativity is the tool to use. When gravitational fields are
> negligible, the speed of light is measured c for all observers. Let the
> data do the talking. There has not been an observation that contradicts
> a prediction of special relativity. The same holds true for general
> relativity.