Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.physics
Subject: So Much For Absolute Rotation
Message-ID: <388@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 20:38:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.388
Posted: Thu Mar 13 20:38:58 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 02:21:16 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 78
Xref: watmath net.origins:2948 net.physics:3932

1.	In an article I posted about 27 years ago (it seems like it),
I made the statement:
> Motion is relative *only* when considering inertial reference frames.
> It is not a matter of mathematical complexity,
> the earth really does rotate.

Was the statement correct?  The answer seems to be a resounding *no*.
By incorporating artificial constraints (e.g. constant acceleration),
my severely emasculated model of general relativity lacked
the intrinsic beauty that is rightfully ascribed to Einstein's work.
I guess I should have taken that general relativity course in graduate
school.  Michael McNeil assessed the situation accurately:

> I imagine it must
> be the memories of all those undergraduate physics classes, where
> inertial reference frames were ground into our flesh, never to be
> forgotten, while terms like "special" (applied to what one knew) and
> "general" (applied to what one did not know) gradually slip away.  
> I *highly* recommend that people learn *more* about relativity!

If I ever get the opportunity, I will take you up on this.

2.	I also made the statement (referring to net.origins):
> The amount of bogus physics in this newsgroup is astonishing.

Was the statement correct?  The answer seems to be a resounding *yes*.
I need not defend this statement.  If you have read the newsgroup,
you know what I mean.
I am not talking about erroneous implications of general relativity,
I am talking about conservation of angular momentum, entropy, Newtonian
mechanics, and other first year undergraduate topics.
My mistake was to place both statements in the same article.
Well, I never said I was immune to bogosity.

3.	The format of the article was arguably inappropriate.
I violated my own rule, posting the article directly,
instead of waiting 24 hours.  Every time I post an immediate response,
I invariably regret it, to some degree.
My frustration at the amount of bogus science
in what could be an interesting newsgroup was not aimed at Ken Arrombee,
who, along with being right, simply deserves better.  My apologies to Ken.
Credibility requires months to establish, and minutes to distroy.

4.	I never expected such an uproar over a misspelled name!
Of course, this is a common net tactic.  Any grammatical, typographical,
or spelling error implies ignorance (when convenient).

> 			David Fry
> Refering to Lorentz
> transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge
> in this field is also "bogus".

By the way Dave, you misspelled referring :-).
Clayton Cramer (someone who usually posts reasonable articles)
even tried to rationalize this anti-spelling position:

> Misspelling "Lorentz" as "Lorintz", or "Larentz" would suggest that Mr.
> Dahlke has at least read something about "Lorentz transformations" but
> couldn't remember the spelling.  Turning it into "Lawrence" suggests he
> hasn't ever read anything on the subject -- just relying on what he heard
> on the radio or at a party.

Sounds like a pretty dull party to me :-).
Actually, I have "read" books on special relativity,
though it is not reading in the traditional sense.
People (and voice synthesizers) pronounce the various
Lorentz spellings identically, making them indistinguishable to me.
I make every effort to construct syntactically correct articles by using
Unix word processing tools, but homonyms and proper nouns are a perpetual
problem.  Since /usr/src/cmd/spell/list does not contain famous names,
the spelling error is quite understandable.
You need not post apologies, mail will do
(though I posted mine).

-- 
	The moon is more important than the sun, because
	the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it!
			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad