🚀 go-pugleaf

On 15 Mar, 08:57, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 5:08 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 4:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > [...]
>
> > > You need to learn how to read more accurately. There is nothing in the
> > > quote from Carlip or the quote from Einstein that contradicts anything I
> > > said.
>
> > > This is subtle, and your simple-minded approach of extracting quotes out
> > > of context is woefully inadequate. One must UNDERSTAND what is written.
>
> > > Tom Roberts
>
> > Roberts Roberts I thought you were cleverer than Superior Brother
> > Steve Carlip:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread...
> > Superior Brother Steve Carlip, Aug 1 1997: "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."
> > Steve Carlip car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
>
> > Roberts Roberts in my view the last wisdom:
>
> > "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."
>
> > is EXTREMELY SILLY. What do you think? Do you find it EXTREMELY
> > CLEVER?
>
> Roberts Roberts I think Superior Brother John Baez is even sillier
> than Superior Brother Steve Carlip:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/285b377f...
> On February 23, 1994, Hartmut Frommert wrote in sci.physics:
>
> >Though the natural constant "c" which is usually called the vacuum light
> >velocity (or speed) can only be changed by re-definition of units (as any
> >conversion factor), the (actual) speed of (the propagation of) light
> >(photons !) is NOT constant, e.g. in a gravitational field (see any textbook
> >on elementary General Relativity).
>
> Superior Brother John Baez replied on Feb 24, 1994: "This is darn
> misleading. The speed of light is constant in GR, it's just that the
> spacetime the light is moving around in is a bit wiggly. Of course,
> one *could* think of it the way you suggest, but one would have to
> say, not just that the speed of light was different in a
> "gravitational field," but that all other laws of physics were
> different too, in a fairly complicated manner."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Would the speed of light be a non wiggly constant at the very edge of
the universe - bending around it?  (And hypothetically - if it's a
sort of constantly inverting doughnut with the outer skein being the
same as the inner bit?)