Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!bpa!sjuvax!bhuber
From: bhuber@sjuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Bogus Physics
Message-ID: <2874@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 11:55:52 EST
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.2874
Posted: Thu Mar  6 11:55:52 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 00:45:25 EST
References: <2057@jhunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: bhuber@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Huber)
Distribution: net
Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA.
Lines: 60
Keywords: relativity, justifying assertions, name-calling

In article <2057@jhunix.UUCP> ins_adsf@jhunix.UUCP writes:
>...
>>> Motion is relative *only* when considering inertial reference frames,
>>> as determined by Lawrence transformations.
>...
>>> Put simplistically (as we must when posting to this newsgroup),
>>> if the universe spun around the earth, it would fly apart,
>>> and even nearby galaxies would be traveling faster than light.
>>> Similarly, the earth revolves around the sun,
>>> and the solar system revolves within our galaxy.
>>> These are not arbitrary conventions, they are facts.
>>> The amount of bogus physics in this newsgroup is astonishing.
>>>                       Karl Dahlke    
>
>
>    I don't intend to get involved in the evolution argument, but if the 
>universe would fly apart when rotating about the earth, it will just as
>surely disintegrate when rotating about the sun.  So that reasoning falls
>apart.  Nothing really rotates strictly about anything. 
>    It is correct that Einstein spoke about inertial reference frames, but
>a note to Mr. Dahlke:  name calling begins at home.  Refering to Lorentz
>transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge
>in this field is also "bogus".
>
>
>                        - David Fry
>                       ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_adsf
>                          Johns Hopkins University

What reasoning falls apart?  I fail to comprehend the (apparently)
extraordinary leap of logic that is required to reason from the specific 
proposition, 'the universe does not rotate around the sun' to the general
proposition, 'nothing ... rotates ... about anything'.  Fry owes us, at
least, an elaboration of this argument. 

I cannot see either that misspelling 'Lorentz' nullifies any of Dahlke's
argument, which should be judged on its own merits.

In fact, the relativity theories currently in vogue provide for an intrinsic
determination of 'inertiality' of any frame.  It is possible for an observer
to determine whether a frame is accelerated or not.  Knowing this, one can
easily determine, through observation alone, the rates of rotation of most
objects about other objects.  This is the subject matter of most modern
physics texts, so I refer you to them for elaboration.

As to name-calling, I read none of that in Dahlke's article.  It is only
natural that someone who is even modestly acquainted with modern physics
would become upset at the plethora of unsupported assertions that appear
in this newsgroup.  There is nothing the matter, per se, with being wrong:
having the opportunity to make mistakes is what learning and investigation
are all about.  Making an assertion without any support is to maintain
a position solely on one's personal authority.  Such a stance is rarely
illuminating.  

Fry's point is, I think, that this newsgroup could be used more constructively
were we a little more tolerant of error.


				Bill Huber