Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Apples Falling, Buckets Rolling, and Why Inertia Keeps Trolling: Inertial Motion is Not Natural Motion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read General relativity gives no physical content to inertial motion: geodesic motion is neither an approximation nor an idealization of how bodies actually move.

desk verdict A well-written, provocative reclassification of geodesic motion as a 'useful construct' rather than approximation or idealization; the approximation argument overreaches, but the paper is serious and refereeing-worthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14734 v2 pith:3NDELGYP submitted 2025-04-20 physics.hist-ph gr-qc

Nicola Bamonti This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phgr-qc
keywords inertialmotiongeodesicprinciplegeneralrelativityidealizationandapproximationnaturalself-forcetestbodyphilosophyofphysics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the geodesic principle—the claim that free bodies in general relativity follow geodesics—is neither an approximation of real motion nor an idealization of any possible system. Drawing on the distinction between idealization and approximation and on an analysis of four derivation strategies, it claims that every attempt to derive geodesic motion either presupposes a test-body regime, loses the body in the limit, or violates the field equations. The author proposes replacing inertial motion with a layered account of natural motion: extended, structured, and backreacting bodies require successively refined formalisms—spin and multipole couplings, tidal deviation, self-force, and full backreaction—none of which has geodesic motion as its base. If this is right, the Principle of Inertia has no explanatory role in general relativity, and inertia survives only as a useful formal construct.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the idealization/approximation distinction combined with the classification of geodesic-principle derivations into limit proofs and singularity proofs. The paper adds the diagnostic of off-shell failure: an approximating procedure violates the theory's own field equations, so it cannot track any admissible target system. Four theorems—Geroch–Jang, Ehlers–Geroch, Einstein–Grommer, and Geroch–Traschen—are used to show that geodesic motion fails as an approximation either through off-shell failure or pathological tracking, and fails as an idealization because the limit system either does not exist or does not bear the geodesic property.

What would settle it

Calculate whether a one-parameter family of exact, smooth solutions of the Einstein equations can be arranged so that a small body's center-of-mass worldline converges to a timelike geodesic while the limiting stress-energy remains a non-zero distributional source satisfying the field equations under Geroch–Traschen regularity. The Geroch–Traschen theorem says this is impossible, so exhibiting such a family—or any coherent limit system that retains a body—would refute the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that geodesic motion in general relativity fails to qualify as either an approximation or an idealization, and is best understood as a formal artefact of the theory's geometric structure, without real or fictitious instantiation. The Geroch–Jang theorem assigns geodesic motion to a curve only by placing non-zero stress-energy in a fixed background without dynamical justification; the Ehlers–Geroch construction recovers the geodesic only after the matter vanishes; the Einstein–Grommer strategy excises the body from the manifold; and the Geroch–Traschen theorem proves that no distributional stress-energy source supported on a curve can satisfy the Einstein field equations. Geodesic motion therefore has no referent among the theory's admissible solutions. In its place, natural motion is a hierarchy of dynamically admissible approximations: extended bodies with spin and structure deviate via the Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equations, tidal effects are captured by geodesic deviation, self-interacting bodies require the self-force formalism, and fully backreacting systems obey the non-linear Einstein equations. Each layer replaces geodesic motion rather than correcting it.

Load-bearing premise

The argument presumes that an idealization must be borne by a coherent limit system and that an approximation must track a real target system, and it treats test bodies as having exactly vanishing stress-energy; relax any of these and geodesic motion may be reinstated as a legitimate idealization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The geodesic principle cannot be derived from Einstein's equations; at best it is assigned to a curve under assumptions that already presuppose the test-body regime.
  • Extended test bodies with spin, quadrupole structure, or internal stresses deviate from geodesics, so inertial motion fails before backreaction is even considered.
  • Gravitational self-force formalisms such as MiSaTaQuWa, as made rigorous by the Gralla–Wald construction, are not corrections to geodesic motion but the first admissible layer of natural motion for backreacting bodies.
  • The FLRW dust model's geodesic Hubble flow is a symmetry artifact: averaging realistic inhomogeneous matter distributions generically yields non-geodesic effective flows.
  • A Principle of Natural Motion, tied to dynamically admissible approximation regimes rather than privileged trajectories, replaces the Principle of Inertia as the foundational statement about free motion in general relativity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: If the paper's standard is applied to other field theories, many point-particle idealizations may turn out to be off-shell artifacts rather than legitimate idealizations, since a structureless point source often cannot satisfy the full non-linear field equations.
  • Extension: The paper's layered hierarchy suggests a testable diagnostic for any proposed law of motion: if the trajectory is attributed to a curve rather than derived from a source dynamics, it may be a formal construct rather than a physical motion.
  • Extension: The argument could be carried into quantum field theory in curved spacetime, where field configurations rather than worldlines are fundamental; the same distinction between formal constructs and dynamically admissible motion may reappear without any privileged geodesic trajectory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that in General Relativity, geodesic motion—the standard relativistic counterpart of inertial motion—is neither an approximation nor an idealisation in Norton's sense, but rather a 'formal artefact' of the theory's geometric structure. It first reviews classical and relativistic formulations of the Principle of Inertia, diagnosing circularity or triviality. It then analyses four strategies for deriving the geodesic principle (Geroch–Jang, Ehlers–Geroch, Einstein–Grommer, Geroch–Traschen) via Tamir's taxonomy, concluding that each fails to ground geodesic motion as approximation or idealisation. The paper then surveys extended test bodies (MPD equations, geodesic deviation), perturbative self-force (MiSaTaQuWa, Gralla–Wald), and FLRW cosmology, and proposes a layered 'natural motion' hierarchy governed by a new Principle of Natural Motion.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make a significant contribution to the philosophy of spacetime and to longstanding debates about the status of the geodesic principle. Its strengths include a careful engagement with Tamir's analysis, a clear taxonomy of the four theorem-based strategies, an explicit and candid treatment of the Gralla–Wald scaled limit, and a constructive alternative framework. The paper also provides clean summaries in Tables 1–3 and states several definitions precisely. However, the central verdict depends on a nonstandard definition of test bodies and on a contestable reading of Norton's approximation condition; as it stands, the main conclusion is not fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, §6.1] The paper denies that geodesic motion approximates anything because, as stated in §4.2, 'at no point in the construction—neither in the sequence nor in the limit—does a real, dynamically admissible body follow a geodesic, even approximately', and it similarly dismisses the Gralla–Wald ordinary limit in §6.1 as 'pathological tracking'. This misapplies Norton's own definition: an approximation is an inexact description of a real target system, and it does not require the approximated property to be exactly instantiated at any finite stage, nor does it require a limit system that contains a body bearing the property. The Ehlers–Geroch and Gralla–Wald one-parameter families provide a real, non-zero-mass body at every finite parameter value whose worldline approaches a background geodesic as the parameter tends to zero, which is precisely the structure of a legitimate approximation. By demanding that the approximate statement be exactly true somewhere, the paper conflates approximation with idealisation; applied consistently, this standard would rule out virtually every approximation in physics. This is load-bearing, since the central claim that geodesic motion is 'neither approximation nor idealisation' rests on this argument.
  2. [§4.1] The paper stipulates that 'Strictly speaking, test bodies are systems with vanishing stress–energy' and then uses this definition to argue that Geroch–Jang particles, which have non-zero stress–energy in a fixed background, are not legitimate test bodies. This is a nonstandard definition: in the standard GR practice that the Geroch–Jang theorem is usually taken to capture, a test body has negligible but non-zero backreaction, and the fixed-background construction is understood as the limit of such bodies. Under the standard reading, the Geroch–Jang construction can be read as a legitimate idealisation, and the conclusion that geodesic motion has 'no real or fictitious instantiation' depends on the stipulative definition. The paper needs to justify this definitional choice explicitly or soften the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [§3.2, §7, Definition 11] Definition 11 (PNM v.1) states that a body maintains natural motion if and only if its motion is determined by no interaction other than gravity—the very biconditional that the paper diagnoses as trivial in PIN (v.4) at §3.2 and Table 1. The paper does not explain how PNM avoids the same triviality objection. If the phrase 'determined by no interaction other than gravity' is tied definitionally to the applicable approximation regime, then the principle either inherits the triviality or needs a substantive, independent account of that phrase. As written, the constructive principle repeats the defect it criticises.
  4. [§6.2] The FLRW discussion treats the geodesic Hubble flow as a 'formal artefact' partly because Buchert's averaging results show that inhomogeneous backreaction terms do not generically vanish. But FLRW with dust is an exact solution of the Einstein field equations, and the geodesic flow is derived from ∇_a T^{ab}=0 (eq. 11), as the paper itself concedes. The averaging results concern whether FLRW is a good coarse-grained model of our clumpy universe; they do not show that the FLRW model lacks a real or fictitious instantiation within GR. At most they show that FLRW is not the emergent limit of arbitrary inhomogeneous configurations, which is a different claim from the paper's 'no referent' conclusion. This distinction needs to be drawn explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1, §3, §7] The manuscript contains several typographical errors: 'An apple falled' (§1), 'a a body maintains' (Definition 9), 'yer uninstantiable' (§4), 'dybamical' (§7), and 'the Riemann tensor tensor' (§5.2). These should be corrected.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2] Table 2 classifies the Ehlers–Geroch failure as 'Type II failure: limit property and limit system disagree', but the text in §4.2 says the limit system exists but does not bear the geodesic property; these formulations should be reconciled so the table and prose use the same criterion.
  3. [§6.1] The notation in eq. (25) mixes abstract indices and coordinate-dependent quantities; the paper should state the index conventions and specify that the expression is schematic, as it does for eq. (26).
  4. [§5.2] The sentence about Cox and the 'counterfactual scaffold' could be misread as claiming that geodesic deviation equations are not derived from geodesics; the paper should clarify that the reference geodesic is a mathematical benchmark, not a physical trajectory, as it already does later in the same section.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete or informal, including 'Bamonti, N. (2023). What is a reference frame in general relativity?' and 'Bamonti, N. and H. Gomes (2024). What reference frames teach us about symmetry principles and observability. forthcoming.' These should be completed or marked clearly as forthcoming.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

PNM (v.1) verbally repeats the PIN (v.4) biconditional the paper calls trivial; the critical geodesic-limit argument is otherwise independent.

  1. self definitional [§7, Definition 11; cf. §3, Definition 7 and the gloss after it]
    "Definition 7. PIN. v.4 : A body maintains inertial motion if and only if its motion is determined by no interaction other than gravity. ... Definition 11. Principle of Natural Motion (PNM) (v.1):A body maintains natural motion if and only its motion is determined by no interaction other than gravity."

    Natural motion is introduced as the dynamical successor to inertial motion, yet its defining condition is identical to PIN (v.4). The paper had glossed that biconditional as entailing geodesic motion and called it trivial: 'the assertion that bodies move inertially when acted upon only by gravity simply reiterates the definitional content of GR's geometry.' Reusing the same phrase at Definition 11 does not derive a natural/inertial distinction; it stipulates the new concept by the old one. On the old reading PNM collapses into geodesic inertial motion; on a new reading the paper supplies no independent characterization, so the claimed displacement of inertial motion is partly definitional.

full rationale

The four-theorem analysis (§4) is not circular: Geroch–Jang, Ehlers–Geroch, Einstein–Grommer, and Geroch–Traschen are assessed against Norton's external approximation/idealization distinction, and the paper's negative verdicts about limit systems are supported by the stated theorems rather than by the conclusion. The MPD, geodesic-deviation, MiSaTaQuWa, Gralla–Wald, and FLRW discussions likewise rest on independent formalisms. The self-citations (Bamonti 2023, Bamonti–Gomes 2024, Bamonti–Thébault 2025) are peripheral to the geodesic-motion argument and do not carry its load. The skeptic's objection that a legitimate approximation need not realize its property at a limit stage is a substantive philosophical disagreement about Norton's definitions, not a circularity of the paper's derivation. The one genuine definitional/circular spot is the constructive principle: PNM (v.1) reproduces verbatim the PIN (v.4) biconditional that the paper had already diagnosed as trivial, so the positive 'natural motion vs inertial motion' contrast is stipulated rather than derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or new physical entities appear. The paper's novelty is interpretive: it adds a 'useful construct' category outside Norton's dichotomy and a Principle of Natural Motion. The central argument rests on philosophical premises about what counts as physical meaningfulness and on the correctness of cited theorem analyses.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Norton's distinction between idealization and approximation, including the requirement that a legitimate idealization has a coherent limit system bearing the limit property, is the correct standard for physical meaningfulness.
    Invoked in §1 and deployed throughout §4. The conclusion that geodesic motion is neither idealization nor approximation depends on accepting this taxonomy as exhaustive.
  • domain assumption A physically meaningful motion must be instantiable by a dynamically admissible solution of the Einstein field equations; anything else is a formal artefact.
    Stated in the introduction and §7; this is the criterion used to exclude geodesic motion, and it is a philosophical premise rather than a theorem of GR.
  • standard math The statements and interpretations of the Geroch-Jang, Ehlers-Geroch, Einstein-Grommer, and Geroch-Traschen results, as presented via Tamir (2012), are correct.
    The paper does not prove these theorems; it relies on them as background results. If one of these interpretations is wrong, the central argument loses support.
  • ad hoc to paper Test bodies are defined as systems with vanishing stress-energy.
    §4.1: 'Strictly speaking, test bodies are systems with vanishing stress-energy'. This definition is nonstandard and load-bearing for the critique of Geroch-Jang.
  • standard math The MPD equations, geodesic deviation, MiSaTaQuWa, and Gralla-Wald results are taken as correct for the regimes discussed.
    These results are cited as established technical frameworks for the 'layers' of natural motion; the paper does not rederive them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Apples Falling, Buckets Rolling, and Why Inertia Keeps Trolling: Inertial Motion is Not Natural Motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NDELGYP

@misc{pith2026250414734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Apples Falling, Buckets Rolling, and Why Inertia Keeps Trolling: Inertial Motion is Not Natural Motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NDELGYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14734}
}
read the original abstract

Inertia has long been treated as the paradigm of natural motion. This paper challenges this identification through the lens of General Relativity. Drawing on Norton (2012)'s distinction between idealisation and approximation and analysing key results from Tamir (2012) on the theorems of Geroch-Jang, Ehlers-Geroch, Einstein-Grommer, and Geroch-Traschen, I argue that geodesic motion -- commonly treated as the relativistic expression of inertia -- fails to qualify as either. Rather, geodesic motion is best understood as a useful construct -- a formal artefact of the theory's geometric structure, without real or fictitious instantiation, and excluded by the dynamical structure of General Relativity. In place of inertial motion, I develop a layered account of natural motion, which is not encoded in a single "master equation of motion." Extended, structured, and backreacting bodies require successively refined dynamical formalisms that systematically depart from geodesic motion. This pluralist framework displaces geodesic motion as the privileged expression of pure gravitational motion, replacing it with a dynamically grounded hierarchy of approximations fully consistent with the Einstein field equations. Inertial motion thus emerges not as the universal default of motion under gravity alone, but as a formal construct that stands apart from the pluralistic framework in which natural motion is genuinely realised.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. (2016, Feb). Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Phys. Rev. Lett.\/ 116 , 061102

    2016

  2. [2]

    (2018, May)

    Amaro-Seoane, P. (2018, May). Relativistic dynamics and extreme mass ratio inspirals. Living Reviews in Relativity\/ 21\/ (1)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Arnowitt, R. et al. (1960, March). Canonical variables for general relativity. Physical Review\/ 117\/ (6), 1595--1602

    1960

  4. [4]

    (2023, January)

    Bamonti, N. (2023, January). What is a reference frame in general relativity?

    2023

  5. [5]

    Bamonti, N. and H. Gomes (2024). What reference frames teach us about symmetry principles and observability. forthcoming\/

    2024

  6. [6]

    Bamonti, N. and K. P. Y. Thébault (2025, June). In search of cosmic time: Complete observables and the clock hypothesis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\/

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    (2009, October)

    Barack, L. (2009, October). Gravitational self-force in extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Classical and Quantum Gravity\/ 26\/ (21), 213001

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Heisenberg, and T

    Beltrán Jiménez, J., L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto (2019, July). The geometrical trinity of gravity. Universe\/ 5\/ (7), 173

    work page 2019

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Blagojević, M., F. W. Hehl, and T. W. B. Kibble (2011, November). Gauge Theories of Gravitation: A Reader with Commentaries . IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS

    2011

  2. [10]

    Bridgman, P. (1936). The Nature of Physical Theory . Dover Books and Science. Princeton University Press

    1936

  3. [11]

    Brown, H. R. (2005, December). Physical Relativity . Oxford, England: Clarendon Press

    2005

  4. [12]

    Brown, H. R. and J. Read (2016, May). Clarifying possible misconceptions in the foundations of general relativity. American Journal of Physics\/ 84\/ (5), 327–334

    2016

  5. [13]

    (2001, August)

    Buchert, T. (2001, August). On average properties of inhomogeneous fluids in general relativity: Perfect fluid cosmologies. General Relativity and Gravitation\/ 33\/ (8), 1381–1405

    2001

  6. [14]

    Buchert, T. and J. Ehlers (1995). Averaging inhomogeneous newtonian cosmologies

    1995

  7. [15]

    Mourier, and X

    Buchert, T., P. Mourier, and X. Roy (2020, March). On average properties of inhomogeneous fluids in general relativity iii: general fluid cosmologies. General Relativity and Gravitation\/ 52\/ (3)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Caldwell, R. R. (1993, November). Green’s functions for gravitational waves in frw spacetimes. Physical Review D\/ 48\/ (10), 4688–4692

    1993

  9. [17]

    Cartan, E. (1922). Sur une généralisation de la notion de courbure de riemann et les espaces à torsion. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris\/ 174 , 593--595

    1922

  10. [18]

    Curiel, E. (2019). Singularities and black holes. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy

    2019

  11. [19]

    DeWitt, B. S. and R. W. Brehme (1960, February). Radiation damping in a gravitational field. Annals of Physics\/ 9\/ (2), 220–259

    1960

  12. [20]

    DiSalle, R. (2020). Space and Time: Inertial Frames . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\/ ( W inter 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

    2020

  13. [21]

    Dixon, W. G. (1970, Jan). Dynamics of extended bodies in general relativity. i. momentum and angular momentum. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences\/ 314\/ (1519), 499--527

    1970

  14. [22]

    (1992, April)

    Earman, J. (1992, April). World enough and space-time . World Enough and Space-Time. London, England: MIT Press

    1992

  15. [23]

    Earman, J. (1995a). Bangs, crunches, whimpers and shrieks : singularities and acausalities in relativistic spacetimes / John Earman . Oxford: Oxford University Press

    1995

  16. [24]

    Earman, J. (1995b). Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes . Oxford University Press

    1995

  17. [25]

    Earman, J. and M. Friedman (1973, September). The meaning and status of newton's law of inertia and the nature of gravitational forces. Philosophy of Science\/ 40\/ (3), 329--359

    1973

  18. [26]

    Ehlers, J. and R. Geroch (2004, January). Equation of motion of small bodies in relativity. Annals of Physics\/ 309\/ (1), 232–236

    2004

  19. [27]

    Einstein, A. (1916). Hamilton's Principle and the General Theory of Relativity . Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )\/ 1916 , 1111--1116

    1916

  20. [28]

    Einstein, A. (1922). The Meaning of Relativity . London,: Routledge

    1922

  21. [29]

    Einstein, A. (1934). On the method of theoretical physics. Philosophy of Science\/ 1\/ (2), 163–169

    1934

  22. [30]

    Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions . A Condor book. Bonanza Books

    1954

  23. [31]

    Einstein, A. and J. Grommer (1927). Allgemeine relativitatstheorie und bewegungsgesetz. Berlin: Preussiche Akademie der Wissenchaften\/ , 2–13

    1927

  24. [32]

    Gutfreund, and J

    Einstein, A., H. Gutfreund, and J. Renn (2015). Relativity: The Special & the General Theory . Princeton University Press

    2015

  25. [33]

    Fermi, E. (1922). Sopra i fenomeni che avvengono in vicinanza di una linea oraria. Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali\/ 31 , 184--187, 306--309

    1922

  26. [34]

    Gualtieri, and P

    Ferrari, V., L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani (2020). General Relativity and Its Applications: Black Holes, Compact Stars and Gravitational Waves . CRC Press

    2020

  27. [35]

    Fletcher, S. C. and J. O. Weatherall (2023). The local validity of special relativity, part 1: Geometry. Philosophy of Physics\/ 1\/ (1)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Galilei, G. (1638). Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences . University Studies Series. Macmillan Company (1913)

    1913

  29. [37]

    Geroch, R. and P. S. Jang (1975, January). Motion of a body in general relativity. Journal of Mathematical Physics\/ 16\/ (1), 65–67

    1975

  30. [38]

    Geroch, R. and J. Traschen (1987, August). Strings and other distributional sources in general relativity. Physical Review D\/ 36\/ (4), 1017–1031

    1987

  31. [39]

    Giulini, D. (2006). Algebraic and Geometric Structures in Special Relativity , pp.\ 45–111. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2006

  32. [40]

    (2016, October)

    Glick, D. (2016, October). The ontology of quantum field theory: Structural realism vindicated? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A\/ 59 , 78–86

    2016

  33. [41]

    Gomes, H. (2022). ``is spacetime locally flat??: a note

    2022

  34. [42]

    Gomes, H. (2023). Understanding the symmetries of physics. forthcoming\/

    2023

  35. [43]

    Gralla, S. E. and R. M. Wald (2008, September). A rigorous derivation of gravitational self-force. Classical and Quantum Gravity\/ 25\/ (20), 205009

    2008

  36. [44]

    Hehl, F. W., J. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y. Ne’eman (1995, July). Metric-affine gauge theory of gravity: field equations, noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance. Physics Reports\/ 258\/ (1–2), 1–171

    1995

  37. [45]

    Hensh, S. and S. Liberati (2021, October). Raychaudhuri equations and gravitational collapse in einstein-cartan theory. Physical Review D\/ 104\/ (8)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Hilbert, D. (1984). On the infinite , pp.\ 183–201. Cambridge University Press

    1984

  39. [47]

    Hu, Z. (2010). A modern view of the classical herglotz-noether theorem

    2010

  40. [48]

    Jacobs, C. (2024). How (not) to define inertial frames. Australasian Journal of Philosophy\/

    2024

  41. [49]

    Background independence in classical and quantum gravity

    James Read (2023, November). Background independence in classical and quantum gravity . London, England: Oxford University Press

    2023

  42. [50]

    (2022, August)

    Jia, D. (2022, August). What should be the ontology for the standard model? Foundations of Physics\/ 52\/ (4)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Jung, E. (2011). Impetus , pp.\ 540–542. Springer Netherlands

    2011

  44. [52]

    (1963, February)

    Komar, A. (1963, February). Positive-definite energy density and global consequences for general relativity. Physical Review\/ 129\/ (4), 1873–1876

    1963

  45. [53]

    Lyre, and A

    Kuhlmann, M., H. Lyre, and A. Wayne (2002). Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory . G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. World Scientific

    2002

  46. [54]

    Landau, L. D. and E. M. Lifshitz (1987, January). The classical theory of fields\/ (4 ed.). Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann

    1987

  47. [55]

    Lehmkuhl, D. (2014). Why einstein did not believe that general relativity geometrizes gravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\/ 46 , 316--326

    2014

  48. [56]

    Lehmkuhl, D. (2022). The equivalence principle(s). In E. Knox and A. Wilson (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics . Routledge

    2022

  49. [57]

    Malament, D. B. (2012). Topics in the foundations of general relativity and Newtonian gravitation theory . University of Chicago Press

    2012

  50. [58]

    Sasaki, and T

    Mino, Y., M. Sasaki, and T. Tanaka (1997, March). Gravitational radiation reaction to a particle motion. Physical Review D\/ 55\/ (6), 3457–3476

    1997

  51. [59]

    Thorne, J

    Misner, C., K. Thorne, J. Wheeler, and D. Kaiser (2017). Gravitation . Princeton University Press

    2017

  52. [60]

    Newton, I. (1687). Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica . London: Royal Society. Scholium to the Definitions

  53. [61]

    (1985, September)

    Norton, J. (1985, September). What was einstein s principle of equivalence? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A\/ 16\/ (3), 203--246

    1985

  54. [62]

    Norton, J. D. (2012, April). Approximation and idealization: Why the difference matters. Philosophy of Science\/ 79\/ (2), 207--232

    2012

  55. [63]

    (1951, October)

    Papapetrou, A. (1951, October). Spinning test particles in general relativity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences\/ 209\/ (1097), 248–258

    1951

  56. [64]

    Pauli, W. (2013). Theory of Relativity . Dover Books on Physics. Dover Publications

    2013

  57. [65]

    (1983, March)

    Penrose, R. (1983, March). Spinors and torsion in general relativity. Foundations of Physics\/ 13\/ (3), 325–339

    1983

  58. [66]

    Quinn, T. C. and R. M. Wald (1997). An axiomatic approach to electromagnetic and gravitational radiation reaction of particles in curved space-time. Physical Review D\/ 56\/ (6), 3381--3394

    1997

  59. [67]

    Read, J., H. R. Brown, and D. Lehmkuhl (2018, November). Two miracles of general relativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\/ 64 , 14–25

    2018

  60. [68]

    Ryden, B. (2016). Newton versus Einstein , pp.\ 27--48. Cambridge University Press

    2016

  61. [69]

    Sachs, J. (1995). Aristotle's Physics: A Guided Study . Masterworks of Discovery. Guided studies of great texts in science. Rutgers University Press

    1995

  62. [70]

    (2018, December)

    Samaroo, R. (2018, December). There is no conspiracy of inertia. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\/ 69\/ (4), 957–982

    2018

  63. [71]

    (2014, February)

    Sus, A. (2014, February). On the explanation of inertia. Journal for General Philosophy of Science\/ 45\/ (2), 293–315

    2014

  64. [72]

    (2012, May)

    Tamir, M. (2012, May). Proving the principle: Taking geodesic dynamics too seriously in einstein’s theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\/ 43\/ (2), 137–154

    2012

  65. [73]

    Teh, N. J., J. A. M. Read, and N. Linnemann (2024, July). The local validity of special relativity from a scale-relative perspective. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\/

    2024

  66. [74]

    (Ed.) (1965)

    Trautman, A. (Ed.) (1965). Lectures on General Relativity . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall

    1965

  67. [75]

    Trautman, A. (1967). Comparison of newtonian and relativistic theories of space time

    1967

  68. [76]

    Wald, R. M. (1984, June). General Relativity . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

    1984

  69. [77]

    Wald, R. M. (1993, Sep). Proposal for solving the ``problem of time'' in canonical quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. D\/ 48 , R2377--R2381

    1993

  70. [78]

    Weatherall, J. O. (2011, November). On the status of the geodesic principle in newtonian and relativistic physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\/ 42\/ (4), 276–281

    2011

  71. [79]

    Weatherall, J. O. (2016). Inertial motion, explanation, and the foundations of classical spacetime theories. In D. Lehmkuhl, G. Schiemann, and E. Scholz (Eds.), Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories , pp.\ 13--42. Birkhauser

    2016

  72. [80]

    Weatherall, J. O. (2019, August). Conservation, inertia, and spacetime geometry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\/ 67 , 144–159

    2019

  73. [81]

    Weatherall, J. O. (2020). Two dogmas of dynamicism. Synthese\/ 199\/ (S2), 253--275

    2020

  74. [82]

    Weinberg, S. (1972). Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity . Wiley

    1972

  75. [83]

    Wilkins, D. R. (2005). A course in riemannian geometry. Available at https://www.maths.tcd.ie/ dwilkins/Courses/425/RiemGeom.pdf

    2005

  76. [84]

    Wolf, W. J., J. Read, and Q. Vigneron (2024, October). The non-relativistic geometric trinity of gravity. General Relativity and Gravitation\/ 56\/ (10)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Woodward, J. and L. Ross (2021). Scientific Explanation . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\/ ( S ummer 2021 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.