Then you are disagreeing with the theory of relativity, because what I've said is what the theory of relativity says. See below.
> The EP demands that the laws of physics in the skydiver's frame and frame X are the same
True.
> so what you say here should be the same for the skydiver
False, because there is no law of physics that says the r coordinate has to behave the same in every LIF. The r coordinate is a global coordinate, not a coordinate in the LIF; so as soon as you talk about the r coordinate, you are not just talking about the LIF, you are talking about the relationship between the LIF and a global coordinate chart. And there is no law of physics that says that relationship must be the same for every LIF. In fact that relationship is very different for the skydiver LIF as compared to the LIF that is falling through the horizon of a black hole. So any reasoning you do based on the assumption that that relationship is the same for both is simply wrong.
> Of course in the skydiver's frame you wouldn't use terms like "global coordinate chart"
As soon as you talk about the r coordinate, you are using a global coordinate chart, whether you realize it or not. So by not using such terms, you are failing to understand a key aspect of the scenario.
> as that would be unnecessarily complex.
It's (somewhat) complex, yes, but it's not "unnecessarily" complex. As I've said several times, understanding the proper relationship between the LIF and the global r coordinate is crucial if you want to correctly state what relativity says about this scenario. You and the blog post author have given excellent demonstrations of the mistakes you make if you don't have that understanding.
Then you are disagreeing with the theory of relativity, because what I've said is what the theory of relativity says. See below.
> The EP demands that the laws of physics in the skydiver's frame and frame X are the same
True.
> so what you say here should be the same for the skydiver
False, because there is no law of physics that says the r coordinate has to behave the same in every LIF. The r coordinate is a global coordinate, not a coordinate in the LIF; so as soon as you talk about the r coordinate, you are not just talking about the LIF, you are talking about the relationship between the LIF and a global coordinate chart. And there is no law of physics that says that relationship must be the same for every LIF. In fact that relationship is very different for the skydiver LIF as compared to the LIF that is falling through the horizon of a black hole. So any reasoning you do based on the assumption that that relationship is the same for both is simply wrong.
> Of course in the skydiver's frame you wouldn't use terms like "global coordinate chart"
As soon as you talk about the r coordinate, you are using a global coordinate chart, whether you realize it or not. So by not using such terms, you are failing to understand a key aspect of the scenario.
> as that would be unnecessarily complex.
It's (somewhat) complex, yes, but it's not "unnecessarily" complex. As I've said several times, understanding the proper relationship between the LIF and the global r coordinate is crucial if you want to correctly state what relativity says about this scenario. You and the blog post author have given excellent demonstrations of the mistakes you make if you don't have that understanding.