Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I'd understood what Dave Bowman was getting at, and was happy to see it
confirmed. I restate it just to check that I've got it right: When we take
the local surface of the earth to define our reference frame, instead of a
free-fall frame, the mg force appears, since we are accelerating in
space-time. The mg force is thus like the force that pushes me back in my
seat in the 747 accelerating down the runway. And both of these forces can
do work, even though we may choose to call them fictitious or inertial.
I also appreciate A.R Marlow's expositions, and would like to understand
better why he objects so strongly to this interpretation. *Is* it purely a
matter of definition? Presumably he does not want us to refer to forces as
causing accelerations unless measured in an inertial reference frame. This
makes him a pure centripetalist. Is this a personal preference only,
or is
there something in GR that makes this approach better? What becomes of the
concept of a "force" in GR?