Re: [Phys-L] two very different "gravity" concepts

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/03/2013 09:14 AM, Bill Nettles wrote:
> I think of "local" as a term which demands that I know the frame of
> reference. I'm comfortable with local. Not saying John is wrong, just
> saying that I have a different opinion about the strength of that
> word (local)

That is a commendably clear statement of opinion about the meaning
of "local".  Thanks for that.

OTOH we may have to agree to disagree about what the meaning
"should" be.  Here's why:  To my ears, "local" is connected
to "location".  It cannot be equivalent to "frame dependent"
or "frame relative", because I can have multiple interpenetrating
inequivalent frames at the same location, at the same local
locale.

As a second argument leading to the same conclusion, to my ears 
"local" connotes a relatively /small/ locale, whereas a particular 
frame could extend for enormous distances, up to and including 
cosmic distances.

As always, I think authors should be allowed to define their
terms as they wish, within broad limits.  However, when an 
established word such as "local" is given a new definition, 
far removed from its ordinary definition, it tends to create 
confusion, and even if confusion is somehow avoided, it still 
creates a significant cognitive workload, insofar as the old 
definition must be unlearned.  Unlearning is always a problem.

One advantage of "framative" is that it can be learned without
any unlearning.