Reply to comment
David, stay away
December 19, 2007 by Gadfly, 1 year 46 weeks ago
Comment id: 26529
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
David, please don't even bother replying to Jim. You're right. There's nothing novel in his work, including his comment to me assuring that Einstein is safe:
He writes:
"If a gravitational field in the real world is 'uniform' it has no magnitude, or no detectible magnitude."
That seems to me a response of sorts to my earlier challenge to distinguish between these two possibilities for the frame of reference for an observer in the box:
(a) An inertial frame of reference in the presence of a uniform gravitational field of magnitude g;
(b) A non-inertial frame of reference experiencing a uniform acceleration of that same magnitude in the opposite direction.
Einstein's point was you can't distinguish them, and it seems Jim agrees after all. He just uses unconventional language and confusing terminology.
You made a great exit. No need for a curtain call!
This bite of realism brought to you by "Gadfly."