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: Coordinate frames in GR
Message-ID: <1005@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 13:52:25 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.1005
Posted: Wed Mar 26 13:52:25 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Mar-86 08:00:20 EST
References: <438@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 16

In article <438@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cpf@batcomputer.UUCP (Courtenay Footman) writes:
>After several very bad articles on this subject, there have recently
>been some very good ones, especially the one that noted that the Earth
>does rotate, and that this is unambiguous because the geometry near the 
>Earth is a Kerr geometry.  However, I feel that the lack of significance of 
>coordinate frames should be stated forcefully.

Bravo!!  I have been trying to get this point across for some time now.  I
have confined my discussion to coordinate systems because it is easier to
explain that way.  But the bottom line is still - 'The Earth DOES rotate,
and this is UNAMBIGUOUS'.  There are some on the net who will take an
overzealous remark by Bertrand Russell at face value over the whole of GR -
and then accuse anyone who disagrees with them of ignorance!

J. Giles
Los Alamos