Re: Prefered frame of reference
From: Perfectly Innocent (perfectlyInnocent_at_as-if.com)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: William Elliot: "Re: Buoyancy"
- Previous message: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Jun 2004 22:11:43 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c9pj9k$l31$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
> Nevertheless, GR *also* has a principle of relativity, which *can*
> be still applied even in non-flat spaces - and that shows quite clearly
> that still no frame of reference is preferred (in the sense in which
> one originally meant "preferred frame" - i.e. the laws of nature in it
> are somehow different).
*Obviously* the principle of relativity for GR is only applicable
locally, not globally, so that tidbit is irrelevant. However, I see
the humor in declaring the laws of nature to be frame-independent and
then defining the laws of nature in a "preferred frame" to be frame
dependent. It's a clever contradiction.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
- Next message: William Elliot: "Re: Buoyancy"
- Previous message: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
