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: Bogus physics reamplified
Message-ID: <854@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 15:48:20 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.854
Posted: Sun Mar 23 15:48:20 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 05:19:13 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: 51
Keywords: general relativity, justifying assertions, name-calling

>In article <556@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>>Note: I have always said 'local reference frame', which in GR is ALWAYS
>>a Lorentz frame.
>
>It is?  Do you make this up as you go along?  Is it congenital?

The reference is: "Gravitation", Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973:
W.H. Freeman and Co., p.21:

	"STATEMENTS OF FACT
		... The geometry of spacetime is locally Lorentzian
		everywhere."

The emphasis is theirs.  There is, therefore a local Lorentzian frame
everywhere (actually, an infinity of them).  On page 23 the text goes on
"... these theorems [about spacetime] rise above all coordinate systems in
their content.  They refer to intervals or distances." "All coordinate
systems" here refers to the infinity of available Lorentzian frames which
you might select for computational purposes.  Any non-Lorentzian coordinate
system causes the theorems in question to be completely reformulated for
that system (mainly because the metric (a word which actually doesn't
appear yet) is no longer valid - intervals don't behave properly in a
non-Lorentzian coordinate system).

There seems little point in continuing a discussion with someone who can
only spout rhetoric and resort to ad hominem attacks.  If you can give
references, information, or understandable explanations which support
your view, then do so.  But quit playing meaningless word games with
terminology that does no more than muddy the waters of understanding.
And, certainly, if all you can do is resort to name calling, you shouldn't
even post your article.

>Bertrand Russell IS correct, and I wish you'd stop spewing your nonsense.
>You are worse than Ted Holden actually: even the non-experts can tell that
>he spouts gibber, but your misreadings of MTW might confuse a lot of people.

Bertrand Russell's remark implied that there was no difference between a
rotating and a non-rotating coordinate system.  Since this is NOT true, I
don't see how you can hold that he is correct.  But, on the off chance that
you have any EVIDENCE, I wish you would present it.  I, on the other hand,
have presented several ways to distinguish a rotating coordinate system
from a non-rotating one; I have given references; and I have refrained from
the use of jargon and terminology which would confuse the lay readership on
the net.  I have also (until now) refrained from ad hominem attacks.

Now, if you have ANY evidence which shows a rotating coordinate system is
indistinguishable from a non-rotating one - PRESENT IT.  Any other garbage
you put on the net I (for one) will ignore.

J. Giles
Los Alamos