sci.physics

> nothing to do with light. See th efollowing ancient ut IMHO still excellent
> post by Tomn Roberts: /groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%...
> Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption"

I did point out to Tom Roberts later why he was wrong, and
how the "c" in GR comes right out of special relativity.
Apparently he had read some GR material,
and thought that because GR was based upon
Lorentzian geometry, it was not related to C, but
rather emitted C somehow. He was rather adamant
that "it is not logically possible to base GR upon SR".

As a matter of fact, the very first postulate of
GR is that the universal Reimannian manifold M is
locally Minkowskian. In other words, the very starting
point of GR (once the selection of mathematical
tools is out of the way) is that SR holds at every
given point in space and time. This postulate is
how the "c" gets into GR, it doesn't just appear as
a magical constant of space and time. GR is totally
based upon SR. (And that's why the GR experts
who add a second helping of SR into
Satellite Synchronization calculations to make
the calculations come out better, are
obviously into cheating.)

See / for
this old thread. Tom Roberts did not respond
to my comments and did not point out any
flaws in my reasoning. But neither did I ever
see any open retraction of his earlier understanding.

That's not how I would have behaved, so I must
admit that this gave me the idea we were not in
the same intellectual integrity category. When
my first attempt at explaining photo-electricity
using my theory turned out to be wrong, I immediately
and openly admitted to being wrong about it.
(And _therefore_ was able to arrive at the correct
explanation in short order, rather than clinging to,
and cringingly continuing to defend my earlier
incorrect explanation.)

Of course, in the intellectual integrity category,
we both are head and shoulders above those
who can merely display their ignorance by
depending upon nothing but rude comments!