One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any
Rindler boundary. You're following a geodesic, and not "really"
You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating
mass and get the right answer. In fact, while you certainly /can/ apply
SR in an accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it
at all in non-flat space. The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which
you haven't got in a gravitational field. In general, while I don't
_think_ there is, I have no idea how you'd go about determining for sure
whether there's an event horizon due to acceleration when free-falling
in a gravitational field.
On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.
However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave
phenomena that doesn't seem to match up with his theory. In his
theory, he drops out wavelengths of EM background radiation that would
be filtered in the frequency domain due to the Rindler boundary which
moves closer to the object depending on acceleration. However, in the
time domain these waves would have to propagate the distances to the
discontinuity and back before any cancellations could occur. The
boundaries in question are huge distances away. For example, for a
free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be
changed to 10 light years away. The change in inertial mass induced
by an acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the
time to the discontinuity. That would mean that the object being
accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 should not know of the boundary for at least
20 years. If the object instantaneously experienced a change in
inertial mass, it would seem to violate causality by this theory.
I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this
understanding. Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com