Alt.morons
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Electric field instantly full of energy comming from its mass when bonding
Next: Tom Roberts is a Ranting Lunatic Bigot!
From: Jenny on 18 Feb 2010 17:10 On Feb 17, 5:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Once again, eric set follow-ups to his pers at alt.morons. > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > > a(t) is adimensional, whereas c(t) is a variable speed of light with units > > of speed. > Since c(t) = 1/a(t), this is a silly claim. ONCE AGAIN.. In natural units, c(t) replaces 1/a(t) and both are dimensionless - and speeed is dimensionless in natural unit. So c(t) has dimensions of speed. In standard units, c(t) replaces c/a(t) and both c(t) and c/a(t)are in units of LT^-1 - which are the dimensions of speed in standard units.So once again, c(t) has dimensions of speed. How many more times will you have to be told? > > Bedrock knows that, Jenny knows that, moderator knows that, Carlip knows > > that, everyone with a half brain knows that. The only idiot who continue > > saying that c(t) and a(t) are the same thing... is you > They represent the same thing. Why is this even an issue? Because they represent DIFFERENT things. a(t) represents a parameter for an expanding world in which c is a constant. c(t) represents the speed of light in a world in which c is a variable. If AS YOU CLAIM this is not GR, then a(t) and c(t) aren't even in the same THEORY, much less can they represent the same thing. That's like claiming that "t" in Newtonian mechanics (where it represents absolute time) is the same as "t" in relativity (where it represents a frame dependent coordinate). "t" and "t" are SPELT the same way, but CONCEPTUALLY they represent VERY DIFFERENT things. If you can't understand these very simple points, it's no wonder that you're afraid of/weren't allowed into grad school. Love, Jenny |