>>You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and >>get the right answer.

## Advertising

ah relativity "they" have done the math wrong see: Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton | | | | | | | | | | | Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and showing the contradiction in the mat... | | | | I'm putting together unified field theory website now at: http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/ THISWEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO TALKS GIVEN ON UNIFIED FIELD THEORY AND RELATED PHYSICSUSUALLY GIVEN AT VIGIER CONFERENCES. HISTORY IS: EINSTEIN AFTER SAYING "GODDOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE" WAS SIDELINED BY MAINSTREAM PHYSICSCOMMUNITY, BECAUSE BY THAT REMARK HE WAS DISAGREEING WITH THE DIRECTION THATPHYSICS WAS TAKING IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SCIENTISTS THATTOOK UP EINSTEIN'S QUEST FOR UNIFIED FIELD THEORY SUCH AS BOHM AND THEN LATERVIGIER; THE NAME OF THESE CONFERENCES INVESTIGATING UNIFIED FIELD THEORY (ANDRELATED ISSUES) BEING NAMED AFTER VIGIER, IN HIS HONOUR. I TRACE UNIFIED FIELDTHEORY AS GOING BACK TO BOSCOVICH. NOW DR C Y LO SAYS HE HAS DONE THE EXPERIMENTSAND HAS THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. ON THE ISSUE IS EINSTEIN WRONG? DURINGINVESTIGATIONS ON THIS WE FIND THAT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT SOME THINGS ANDRIGHT ABOUT OTHER THINGS. THE USUAL VIEW PROMOTED IS THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHTABOUT RELATIVITY AND WRONG ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, WE FIND IT THEOTHER WAY ROUND - EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS (I.E. THAT IT HAD MANY PROBLEMS) AND HAD SEVERAL THINGS WRONG IN RELATIVITY. SOME OF THESE IMPORTANT TALKS ARE PRESENTEDHERE, AND THE PAPERS ARE BEING PREPARED FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE VIGIERCONFERENCE. PRESENTED HERE IS INSIGHT INTO - THE DIRECTION THAT PHYSICS SHOULD HAVETAKEN. On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 20:40, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote: 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" accelerating. 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> wrote: http://physicsfromtheedge. blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh- radiation-confirmed.html