Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: GR and rotation
Message-ID: <853@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 14:34:07 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.853
Posted: Sun Mar 23 14:34:07 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 05:18:17 EST
References: <368@ihnet.UUCP> <2057@jhunix.UUCP> <2874@sjuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 57
Keywords: general relativity, justifying assertions, name calling

In article <12546@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>>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.

I was expecting someone to nit-pit this!  I didn't want to exclude
anyone, so I gave the timelike dimension twice - once for the people
who put it at x0 and one for those who keep it at x4.  (:-)
>
>For your information, a frame is nothing more than a coordinate system.

When I mean 'coordinate system' I say 'coordinate system'.  I always use
'frame' as short for 'Lorentzian frame', and the geometry of spacetime is
locally Lorentzian everywhere.  I made this distinction pretty clear in my
first submission.  A rotating coordinate system is NOT a Lorentzian frame!
It is the lack of this distinction which I objected to in the Russell
quote, he implied that a rotating coordinate system was indistinguishable
from a non-rotating one.  Since this is not true (at least, you have yet to
give ANY evidence or documentation supporting that view), I objected.

>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.

I AM reading other GR books, MTW just happens to be the most complete.
I assumed that YOU didn't read or do GR since you never mention any
problems, references, research, or facts to support your view.  All
you have done so far is spout high sounding terminology without any
evidence that you understand it.  Unlike you, I have tried to keep
my submissions simple enough for the other readers of the net to follow,
and then leave references for people to follow it up in more detail.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I don't claim that you don't know the subject,
you just haven't given any evidence of it yet.  I'm not unwilling to
change my mind if presented with evidence and information instead of
rhetoric.

	You don't really know a subject unless you can explain it
	clearly in layman's terms.
					Charles Greeley Abbott
					Former secretary of
					The Smithsonian Institution

J. Giles
Los Alamos

P.S.  I don't plan to continue this discussion unless new EVIDENCE is
      presented.  If you can't stop yelping out rhetoric and begin a
      discussion in layman's terms, perhaps it's better to take the
      discussion off the net and just use email or not discuss it at
      all.

Note:  I have put 'name calling' back on the list of keywords to this
      discussion.  An ad hominem attack is the last resort of one without
      further valid arguments.  I'm sorry to see that Mr. Wiener saw fit
      to resort to it.