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] |
It is generally acknowledged that the "source" of the gravitational
force is the gravitational field at the point in question.
believe otherwise then you adopt an action at a distance model.
Such models are cognitively troubling, and there is evidence that
they are unphysical. I have previously cited the ptroblem that
arises if one considers the source of the gravitational force which
acts on the Earth to be the Sun, without the intermediary agency of
the gravitational field.
What? If you are rotating with respect to the fixed stars and there is
If there is nothing in contact with the body then you are in an
inertial frame; you've got it! Why do you consider that to be
circular?
It was clear many decades ago that there is no absolute way to decide
whether you are in an inertial frame.
To whom was this clear? Please cite the enlightened source.
I have just explained exactly how to decide whether or not you
are in an inertial frame.
The only thing that is clear is that there is no *unique*
inertial frame without external reference. Of course the
comoving frame of the Hubble flow is a unique frame, but one
cannot detect the Hubble flow locally, within a closed
laboratory.