Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!jim
From: jim@ism780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Bangs, and a flame at brl-vgr!gwyn - (nf)
Message-ID: <188@ism780.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-May-84 00:21:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780.188
Posted: Mon May 21 00:21:59 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 22-May-84 07:44:05 EDT
Lines: 19

#R:kpnoa:-33600:ism780:20300001:000:1086
ism780!jim    May 19 21:21:00 1984

I quite agree with Mr. Sharp.  I think Mr. Gwyn has destroyed his credibility
with such a misrepresentation of the nature of GR.  The existence of
distinguished places (e.g., the tip of my nose) and distinguished events
(e.g., when I lost my virginity) are in no way inconsistent with GR, which
talks about the consistency of the laws of physics across reference frames.
If the standard explanation of the background radiation violates GR, then Mr.
Gwyn owes us a formal demonstration of this.  Any theory which is predicated
upon the assumption that modern physicists are not well grounded in the
fundamentals of relativity or that their results do not take into account
such fundamentals is false on clear evidence, and the theorist has indulged
in blatantly bad science.  If Mr. Gwyn cannot make his points through
statements of empirical observations and connecting logic, then I think he
should remain quiet, unless his only intention is to act as a gadfly to get
more knowledgeable physicists to provide us with informative analysis.

-- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)