Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.origins
Subject: Re: Bogus physics reamplified
Message-ID: <12398@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 23:54:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12398
Posted: Fri Mar 14 23:54:18 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 22:41:16 EST
References: <368@ihnet.UUCP> <2057@jhunix.UUCP> <2874@sjuvax.UUCP> <446@3comvax.UUCP> <424@lanl.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 39
Keywords: general relativity, justifying assertions, name-calling
Xref: watmath net.physics:3935 net.origins:2951

In article <424@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:

>In article <446@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
>>Returning to Ken's original point, which started off this whole series
>>of articles, in the above reference Bertrand Russell writes as follows:  
>>
>>	But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and
>>	his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion
>>	is relative, and there is no difference between the two
>>	statements:  `the earth rotates once a day' and `the heavens
>>	revolve about the earth once a day.'  The two mean exactly the
>>	same thing, just as it means the same thing if I say a certain
>>	length is six feet or two yards.  Astronomy is easier if we
>>	take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth, just as
>>	accounts are easier in decimal coinage.  {Signet, pp. 13-14}
>
>Whatever Bertrand Russell's qualifications in mathematics are, no one
>would ever accuse him of being a great physicist.  One of the paramount
>features of General Relativity is that the laws of physics should
>appear the same in ALL reference frames.  In a reference frame which
>is fixed with respect to the average motion of the nearby stars, those
>stars all appear to be traveling with low (relatively) velocities.  In a
>'reference frame' which is fixed to the spinning Earth, the nearby stars
>appear to be traveling MUCH FASTER than the speed of light. (Consider A-

    This "faster than light" motion is merely conventional. It has NOTHING
WHATEVER to do with tachyons or real faster than light motion. Russell is
correct (almost) in his quote above. You are dead wrong. Try writing a rotating
coordinate frame in GR (not hard) and you will see.

>For the definition of 'frame' and 'local' I suggest you read the first few
>chapters of MTW ('Gravitation') again.  I just did - fascinating stuff!

    You need to do more than read it (we both have, apparently). You need
to understand it. Read it again, using your noggin.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
        Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet
    And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.