ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/02/86)
>> 1) According to Einstein, it's relative--there _is_no_such_thing_ as >> absolute rest. You _can_ say that the sun goes around the earth; the math >> is just easier the other way. >> Kenneth Arromdee > >Oh come on folks!!! The sun (universe) does not twirl around the earth!!! >Einstein never even implied such a thing. >Motion is relative *only* when considering inertial reference frames, >as determined by Lawrence transformations. >Rotation is definitely not an inertial reference frame. >It is not a matter of mathematical complexity, >the earth really does rotate. >Put simplistically (as we must when posting to this newsgroup), >if the universe spun around the earth, it would fly apart, >and even nearby galaxies would be traveling faster than light. >Similarly, the earth revolves around the sun, >and the solar system revolves within our galaxy. >These are not arbitrary conventions, they are facts. >The amount of bogus physics in this newsgroup is astonishing. > Karl Dahlke This originally started with a challenge to a creationist to provide examples of his statement that there are empirical propositions more established than evolution, and he responded by saying the earth goes around the sun. Would net.physics readers please tell me how accurate my response was, as far as physics goes? (I am not a physics major, and it is quite possible I was wrong). -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
ins_adsf@jhunix.UUCP (David S Fry) (03/03/86)
... >> Motion is relative *only* when considering inertial reference frames, >> as determined by Lawrence transformations. ... >> Put simplistically (as we must when posting to this newsgroup), >> if the universe spun around the earth, it would fly apart, >> and even nearby galaxies would be traveling faster than light. >> Similarly, the earth revolves around the sun, >> and the solar system revolves within our galaxy. >> These are not arbitrary conventions, they are facts. >> The amount of bogus physics in this newsgroup is astonishing. >> Karl Dahlke I don't intend to get involved in the evolution argument, but if the universe would fly apart when rotating about the earth, it will just as surely disintegrate when rotating about the sun. So that reasoning falls apart. Nothing really rotates strictly about anything. It is correct that Einstein spoke about inertial reference frames, but a note to Mr. Dahlke: name calling begins at home. Refering to Lorentz transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge in this field is also "bogus". - David Fry ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_adsf Johns Hopkins University -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Rien n'est beau que le vrai, le vrai seul est aimable." - Boileau
kendalla@orca.UUCP (Kendall Auel) (03/05/86)
In article <2057@jhunix.UUCP> ins_adsf@jhunix.UUCP (David S Fry) writes: >>> The amount of bogus physics in this newsgroup is astonishing. >>> Karl Dahlke > > I don't intend to get involved in the evolution argument, but if the >universe would fly apart when rotating about the earth, it will just as >surely disintegrate when rotating about the sun. So that reasoning falls >apart. Nothing really rotates strictly about anything. David Fry has just proven Karl Dahlke's point. The amount of bogus physics _and_ bogus logic in this newsgroup is sometimes unbelievable. ^ ^ /O O\ Kendall Auel | V | Tektronix, Inc. / """ \ / """"" \ /|\ /|\ -- -------------------------------------------- Kendall Auel <kendalla@orca> ^ ^ GWD Engineering /O O\ Tektronix, Inc. | V | / """ \ (503) 685-3064 / """"" \ M.S. 61-028 /|\ /|\ --------------------------------------------
bhuber@sjuvax.UUCP (03/06/86)
In article <2057@jhunix.UUCP> ins_adsf@jhunix.UUCP writes: >... >>> Motion is relative *only* when considering inertial reference frames, >>> as determined by Lawrence transformations. >... >>> Put simplistically (as we must when posting to this newsgroup), >>> if the universe spun around the earth, it would fly apart, >>> and even nearby galaxies would be traveling faster than light. >>> Similarly, the earth revolves around the sun, >>> and the solar system revolves within our galaxy. >>> These are not arbitrary conventions, they are facts. >>> The amount of bogus physics in this newsgroup is astonishing. >>> Karl Dahlke > > > I don't intend to get involved in the evolution argument, but if the >universe would fly apart when rotating about the earth, it will just as >surely disintegrate when rotating about the sun. So that reasoning falls >apart. Nothing really rotates strictly about anything. > It is correct that Einstein spoke about inertial reference frames, but >a note to Mr. Dahlke: name calling begins at home. Refering to Lorentz >transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge >in this field is also "bogus". > > > - David Fry > ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_adsf > Johns Hopkins University What reasoning falls apart? I fail to comprehend the (apparently) extraordinary leap of logic that is required to reason from the specific proposition, 'the universe does not rotate around the sun' to the general proposition, 'nothing ... rotates ... about anything'. Fry owes us, at least, an elaboration of this argument. I cannot see either that misspelling 'Lorentz' nullifies any of Dahlke's argument, which should be judged on its own merits. In fact, the relativity theories currently in vogue provide for an intrinsic determination of 'inertiality' of any frame. It is possible for an observer to determine whether a frame is accelerated or not. Knowing this, one can easily determine, through observation alone, the rates of rotation of most objects about other objects. This is the subject matter of most modern physics texts, so I refer you to them for elaboration. As to name-calling, I read none of that in Dahlke's article. It is only natural that someone who is even modestly acquainted with modern physics would become upset at the plethora of unsupported assertions that appear in this newsgroup. There is nothing the matter, per se, with being wrong: having the opportunity to make mistakes is what learning and investigation are all about. Making an assertion without any support is to maintain a position solely on one's personal authority. Such a stance is rarely illuminating. Fry's point is, I think, that this newsgroup could be used more constructively were we a little more tolerant of error. Bill Huber
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (03/07/86)
> a note to Mr. Dahlke: name calling begins at home. Refering to Lorentz > transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge > in this field is also "bogus". > > - David Fry So he didn't remember how to spell "Lorentz". That makes his knowledge bogus? I know many programmers that can't spell or construct grammatical sentences. They are still quite good programmers. How does lack of spelling knowledge relate to physics knowledge? -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/11/86)
> > a note to Mr. Dahlke: name calling begins at home. Refering to Lorentz > > transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge > > in this field is also "bogus". > > > > - David Fry > > So he didn't remember how to spell "Lorentz". That makes his knowledge bogus? > I know many programmers that can't spell or construct grammatical sentences. > They are still quite good programmers. How does lack of spelling knowledge > relate to physics knowledge? > -- > -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete) Misspelling "Lorentz" as "Lorintz", or "Larentz" would suggest that Mr. Dahlke has at least read something about "Lorentz transformations" but couldn't remember the spelling. Turning it into "Lawrence" suggests he hasn't ever read anything on the subject -- just relying on what he heard on the radio or at a party.
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (03/13/86)
>Misspelling "Lorentz" as "Lorintz", or "Larentz" would suggest that Mr. >Dahlke has at least read something about "Lorentz transformations" but >couldn't remember the spelling. Turning it into "Lawrence" suggests he >hasn't ever read anything on the subject -- just relying on what he heard >on the radio or at a party. So as I understand it, knowledge that I acquire by word of mouth, ie.: the radio, friends, a lecture by a professor; these sources are all "bogus". So all the stuff that's important is printed, like in books, magazines; like National Enquirer, etc. Aside from that, you are still making a conclusion about the poster of the article which may or may not have any validity. In fact, it sounds remark- ably like a put-down. Dave "Holler when you're hit!" Richards
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (03/13/86)
-- > a note to Mr. Dahlke: name calling begins at home. Refering to Lorentz > transformations as "Lawrence transformations" shows that your knowledge > in this field is also "bogus". > > - David Fry The hell it does. Think, Mr. Fry. Scientifically, even. By what plausible hypothesis could a person know his subject matter cold but make the blatant (hint: but homonymic) spelling error above? After all, we've all seen Lorentz's name in the literature so often... ...Or have we? Well, I won't keep you in suspense any longer, Dave. Mr. Dahlke, whom I know personally, is totally blind. If I were you, Dave, I'd feel mighty small right now, but who knows, it might just be a (no, stop Ken, don't inflict this pun on the world--you promised to use your skill only for good, never for evil--no, please!) Lorentz contraction. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Mar 86 [23 Ventose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/15/86)
>>Misspelling "Lorentz" as "Lorintz", or "Larentz" would suggest that Mr. >>Dahlke has at least read something about "Lorentz transformations" but >>couldn't remember the spelling. Turning it into "Lawrence" suggests he >>hasn't ever read anything on the subject -- just relying on what he heard >>on the radio or at a party. > >So as I understand it, knowledge that I acquire by word of mouth, ie.: >the radio, friends, a lecture by a professor; these sources are all >"bogus". So all the stuff that's important is printed, like in books, >magazines; like National Enquirer, etc. You don't understand the complaint then . Knowledge of relativity is not trivial, and somewhere along the line, if you are going to learn any, you will have to look in a book somewhere. "Lawrence" is just too wide of the mark. >Aside from that, you are still making a conclusion about the poster of the >article which may or may not have any validity. In fact, it sounds remark- >ably like a put-down. But it probably is valid and it is a deserved put down. Passing off as real knowledge something you don't really understand is annoying to those of us with real knowledge, and confusing to those of us who are just learning, and misleading to those of us who are just curious. Such cocktail party level knowledge should stay where it comes from. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720