So... was there any theoretical reason for which Einstein decided that gravitationally accelerated frames are equivalent, but not, say, electrostatically accelerated ones?
Printable View
So... was there any theoretical reason for which Einstein decided that gravitationally accelerated frames are equivalent, but not, say, electrostatically accelerated ones?
An electrostatic frame isn't accellerated, is it?
I'm not sure though. There're differences in the force. Matter can have different EM charges in relation to its inertial mass but there's a consistant ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass. Probably has something to do with that.
By electrostatically accelerated I just meant a particle accelerated by the field due to a charge, analogous to a particle accelerated by the field due to a mass.
I see what you mean about inertial mass. Didn't think of that, I guess you're right.
That's precisely it; Einstein postulated that inertial mass and gravitational mass were actually the exact same thing in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned