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 /|\ /|\ --------------------------------------------
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.
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 *** ***