One of the axioms of special relativity concerns on the value of speed of light measuread by a family of inertial observers. They must measure $c$.
Now, the global inertial frame is lost if the observer $\mathcal{O}'$ is accelerated (say in a constant proper acceleration movement). Therefore, the stationary observer $\mathcal{O}$ would make the usage of a rindler coordinate system to depict the movement of $\mathcal{O}'$ in spacetime. It is interesting to note that using rindler coordinates (specifically in a pseudo-paradox called bell's spaceship paradox) to define velocity, the one realize that the speed of light isn't $c$, but it can vary as: $c<0$, $c=0$, $c>0$. This of course is due to curvilinear coordinate system, and locally every observer will agree on value $c$ (since in a local portion of the accelerated world-line, we can see a straigth line and therefore a momentary inertial frame).
This question summons the very intuitive/layman reasoning behind the EP and the light beam. I can understand the reasoning behind the curved path of light seen by a accelerated observer in a ship and in a gravitational field. But I'm a bit confused about the following:
- the elevator represents the local nature of spacetime: it is the tangent space and threfore we are talking about special relativity.
- if even inside this local portion of spacetime the observer sees a cuverd path of light, this means that she could measure diferent values of speed of light just like in rindler coordinates
Therefore, the question is: if even locally the path of light is curved (considering the didatic picture of the EP) why every textbook on general relativity says that locally every observer should measure $c$?
In other words, if we are inside the einstein elevator, we are talking about small regions and short times, therefore we are inertial frames. Why we would see the path of light to be curved?