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!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: GR and rotation
Message-ID: <12546@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 23:18:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12546
Posted: Fri Mar 21 23:18:56 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 23:08:02 EST
References: <368@ihnet.UUCP> <2057@jhunix.UUCP> <2874@sjuvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28
Keywords: general relativity, justifying assertions

In article <557@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <12400@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>>...                                   The fact that Alpha Centauri is
>>seen moving slower than light in ONE frame means it moves slower than
>>light in ALL frames.
>
>This, of course, was EXACTLY my point.  Alpha Centauri IS moving slower
>than light in ALL frames.  Therefore, a coordinate system anchored the
>the Earth in NOT a 'frame' - which is what the Russell quote implies.
>Attaching vectors x0 - x4 to a rock and calling it a frame is NOT an
                   ^^^^^^^ and he built a crooked house, eh?
>application of relativity.

What is this?  Your argument to prove that attaching vectors etc. ... does
not lead to a frame is completely bogus.  You concluded that Alpha Centauri
was moving 9490 times faster than light in the rotating frame, which no
frame can allow, and therefore concluded it was not a frame.  But in the
rotating frame, your calculation does NOT show Alpha Centauri is moving
faster than light, and so you CANNOT conclude that the rotating frame is
not a frame.  Reread my article to see what your calculation does show.

For your information, a frame is nothing more than a coordinate system.
I think you might be confused on this point because Misner Thorne and
Wheeler never defined what a frame is in general.  Try reading some other
GR books for a change.  Or better yet, actually DO some GR instead of
yelping about it all the time.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720