Re: Prefered frame of reference
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 06/07/04
- Next message: John T Lowry: "Re: Foucault at the equator"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- In reply to: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Next in thread: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Reply: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:41:08 +0200
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> 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.
What on earth are you talking about???
> It's a clever contradiction.
Which you apparently invented yourself out of thin air.
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: John T Lowry: "Re: Foucault at the equator"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- In reply to: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Next in thread: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Reply: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
