Re: operationally inertial frames

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, John Denker wrote:

> Why does one need to demonstrate that?  Suppose we have two frames
> accelerating relative to each other, and relative to the fixed stars.  So
> what?  The physics is the same in all of them.  We can have unphysical
> discussions about effects are due to gravity and what are due to
> acceleration, but who cares?  That would be, as the saying goes, "a
> distinction without a difference".  Or as another saying goes, "If you
> can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter."  So my suggestion is to call
> them all Newtonian frames and be done with it.

O.K.  I can live with this (in fact I essentially do!) as long as you
recognize that Newton himself would not agree.  By your definition freely
falling frames *are* Newtonian inertial frames.  The only way to rule them
out is to treat gravitational forces as real--not inertial--and to have
enough information to be able to calculate the total gravitational
force--not just that from the earth itself--on each particle.  You don't
have that information, so freely falling frames can not be ruled out.

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm