| MadSci Network: Physics |
Perhaps I'm not sharp enough to appreciate the full measure of your kind response, but my question was meant to go strictly to the "Equivalancy" of the "bent" light present in_both_rocketships. The "bending" in the accel rocket was presented to me ( 40 yrs ago ) as an " ah-Ha " moment for Einstein in formulating GR. Maybe it's just an example used_after_GR introduced, to help explain the acceleration implied by gravity ( in GR ). I'm assuming gravity & accel weren't just "pre- defined" as being Equivalant but, were instead,_observed_as having equivalant phenomena.
My question goes to the matter of observation: If accel were deemed equiv. to gravity ( at least in part ) because it seemingly "bent" light in a similar fashion- THEN isn't the apparent *angled bending* of light, observed under *constant velocity* conditions, a similar observation, worthy of an explanation to the layman ? Why is a rocket's *curved bending* under accel worthy of equivalance but, a rocket's *angled bending* under constant accel_not_worthy of some sort of equivalance or_explanation_ following the same logic through ?
( Maybe the "accel spaceship" example is a poor example in the way that the "bowling ball on the rubber sheet " GR example lacks validity without the_pre- presence_of gravity?? ) Thank you again for your time
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Physics.