12 ms·

I'm not concerned with trust or consensus, those aren't scientific concepts. If anyone shows a logical inconsistency with GR, then it's invalid regardless. > b

I'm not concerned with trust or consensus, those aren't scientific concepts. If anyone shows a logical inconsistency with GR, then it's invalid regardless. > but "seeing whether the small region can be extended to a larger region" is not a test you can perform within the small region That law K doesn't apply in a frame falling through a horizon (a logical test within that frame, which is defined to be an inertial frame) indicates that physical tests can also show that the laws of physics differ between that frame and other inertial frames. The picture in the blog is an example of that. It's impossible to conduct a test where the cloud described there isn't splitting in two, unlike in some other inertial frame.

gjm11 13y ago
I agree that trust and consensus are not scientific concepts (well, except maybe in psychology or sociology, but that's not relevant here). But they are things it's reasonable for those of us who aren't expert theoretical physicists to take into account, when Some Guy On The Internet says all the professional physicists are wrong and he's found an internal inconsistency in general relativity. The "larger region" you need to look at to determine whether K applies is not small enough for the defining characteristic of the small region -- i.e., that spacetime curvature is negligible there -- to hold. The equivalence principle stops applying once you start considering regions large enough for spacetime curvature to be non-negligible within them.
- fargolime 13y ago
  Go ahead and take that into account, but hinge your conclusion on whether the logic's valid, if you wish to stay fully scientific. Frame X, in which law K is tested, is defined to be small enough that the spacetime curvature is negligible there. So it's definitely small enough. The test of law K is conducted wholly within frame X.

gjm11 13y ago

I agree that trust and consensus are not scientific concepts (well, except maybe in psychology or sociology, but that's not relevant here). But they are things it's reasonable for those of us who aren't expert theoretical physicists to take into account, when Some Guy On The Internet says all the professional physicists are wrong and he's found an internal inconsistency in general relativity. The "larger region" you need to look at to determine whether K applies is not small enough for the defining characteristic of the small region -- i.e., that spacetime curvature is negligible there -- to hold. The equivalence principle stops applying once you start considering regions large enough for spacetime curvature to be non-negligible within them.

fargolime 13y ago
Go ahead and take that into account, but hinge your conclusion on whether the logic's valid, if you wish to stay fully scientific. Frame X, in which law K is tested, is defined to be small enough that the spacetime curvature is negligible there. So it's definitely small enough. The test of law K is conducted wholly within frame X.