Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> > Gravity is *NOT* a force in GR theory, of course, and a body in free > fall follows a geodesic. I read the principle equivalence as implying gravity is either a force OR a geodesic path depending on the situation. It is a force (weight) when a body is subjected to an acceleration and a geodesic path when the body is in free fall. >Mauro Lacy wrote: > > Incidentally, that also shows why GR is so flawed: > > the equivalence principle, between inertia and gravity, is complete > > nonsense, because in inertia you have absence of forces, and in > gravity,> presence of forces(flux). In short: GR replaces the > gravitational> "force"(net flux towards the fourth dimension) It is more accurate to say inertia is the absence of an *applied* force, since inertia is defined as an *innate* force (of resistance to acceleration). Harry
