In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

In article ,
Mitchell wrote:
In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.

Guess what? When G-0, GR reduces to SR.


--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity

Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...eleration.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/physic...eleration.html

"Mitchell" wrote in message
om...
In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.

Mitch Raemsch

You are an idiot.

Mitchell wrote:
In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.

Why do you think so?


In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

Why has GR passed all tests so far succesfully?


This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.

So far, the contradiction is only an assertion.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Mitchell wrote:
In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

Why has GR passed all tests so far succesfully?

Because it is only a limiting case. How do you like that?


This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.

So far, the contradiction is only an assertion.
Bye,
Bjoern

The assertion is derived from the Special Theory and is to
be applied to the General theory.
If you say no then you are admiting that matter moving at light
speed is no problem.

You have to be in denial to retain this belief. It's an error.
And I am pointing it out.

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls -

Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Mitchell wrote:

In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

Why has GR passed all tests so far succesfully?


Because it is only a limiting case. How do you like that?

A limiting case of what? In the limit of what going to what?



This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.


So far, the contradiction is only an assertion.
Bye,
Bjoern


The assertion is derived from the Special Theory and is to
be applied to the General theory.
If you say no then you are admiting that matter moving at light
speed is no problem.

Where does GR say that matter can move at light speed?


You have to be in denial to retain this belief. It's an error.
And I am pointing it out.

So far, all you have are *still* only assertions.


Bye,
Bjoern

Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Mitchell wrote:

In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

Why has GR passed all tests so far succesfully?


Because it is only a limiting case. How do you like that?


This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.


So far, the contradiction is only an assertion.
Bye,
Bjoern


The assertion is derived from the Special Theory and is to
be applied to the General theory.
If you say no then you are admiting that matter moving at light
speed is no problem.

You have to be in denial to retain this belief. It's an error.
And I am pointing it out.

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the thread "There is only one Gravity". It's there where they
recommend the site http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/undergrad.html .
There is even a site which doesn't rely that much heavily on math.
And if you got problems with the math i'am sure some people on this site
including me will help you. But stop posting **** and DO your homework!
mw

Marcus Wellpoth wrote in message ...
Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Mitchell wrote:

In GR falling bodies can reach light speed.
In SR this is an impossibility.
It has set the speed limit to below light speed.

Guess what? SR is right.
It's GR that must reconcile with SR.

Why has GR passed all tests so far succesfully?


Because it is only a limiting case. How do you like that?


This blatant contradiction must be seen for what it is:
an error.


So far, the contradiction is only an assertion.
Bye,
Bjoern


The assertion is derived from the Special Theory and is to
be applied to the General theory.
If you say no then you are admiting that matter moving at light
speed is no problem.

You have to be in denial to retain this belief. It's an error.
And I am pointing it out.

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the thread "There is only one Gravity". It's there where they
recommend the site http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/undergrad.html .
There is even a site which doesn't rely that much heavily on math.
And if you got problems with the math i'am sure some people on this site
including me will help you. But stop posting **** and DO your homework!
mw

I don't bother to do other peoples idea of homework. I'll do it my
way. I will not be blinded by education. It is a miracle attesting to
Einstein's genius
that he was able to survive his education.

But I'll tell you that there is a principle in Special Relativity that
needs to be applied to General Relativity. That is that matter cannot
reach
the speed of light by being accelerated. This has to apply to freefall
as well.
Freefall in GR reaches light speed in black holes.
I do not believe in today's black holes. They are the failure of GR
istelf.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

Mitchell wrote:

I will not be blinded by education.

...says it all