### Inertial frame

Classical mechanics |
---|

Core topics |

In physics, an **inertial frame of reference** (also **inertial reference frame** or **inertial frame** or **Galilean reference frame** or **inertial space**) is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.^{[1]}

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to measurements in another by a simple transformation (the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). In general relativity, in any region small enough for the curvature of spacetime to be negligible, one can find a set of inertial frames that approximately describe that region.^{[2]}^{[3]}

Physical laws take the same form in all inertial frames.^{[4]} By contrast, in a non-inertial reference frame the laws of physics vary depending on the acceleration of that frame with respect to an inertial frame, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by fictitious forces.^{[5]}^{[6]} For example, a ball dropped towards the ground does not go exactly straight down because the Earth is rotating. Someone rotating with the Earth must account for the Coriolis effect—in this case thought of as a force—to predict the horizontal motion. Another example of such a fictitious force associated with rotating reference frames is the centrifugal effect, or centrifugal force.

## Contents

## Introduction

The motion of a body can only be described relative to something else - other bodies, observers, or a set of space-time coordinates. These are called frames of reference. If the coordinates are chosen badly, the laws of motion may be more complex than necessary. For example, suppose a free body (one having no external forces on it) is at rest at some instant. In many coordinate systems, it would begin to move at the next instant, even though there are no forces on it. However, a frame of reference can always be chosen in which it remains stationary. Similarly, if space is not described uniformly or time independently, a coordinate system could describe the simple flight of a free body in space as a complicated zig-zag in its coordinate system. Indeed, an intuitive summary of inertial frames can be given as: In an inertial reference frame, the laws of mechanics take their simplest form.^{[1]}

In an inertial frame, Newton's first law (the **law of inertia**) is satisfied: Any free motion has a constant magnitude and direction.^{[1]} Newton's second law for a particle takes the form:

- $\backslash mathbf\{F\}\; =\; m\; \backslash mathbf\{a\}\; \backslash \; ,$

with **F** the net force (a vector), *m* the mass of a particle and **a** the acceleration of the particle (also a vector) which would be measured by an observer at rest in the frame. The force **F** is the vector sum of all "real" forces on the particle, such as electromagnetic, gravitational, nuclear and so forth. In contrast, Newton's second law in a rotating frame of reference, rotating at angular rate *Ω* about an axis, takes the form:

- $\backslash mathbf\{F\}\text{'}\; =\; m\; \backslash mathbf\{a\}\; \backslash \; ,$

which looks the same as in an inertial frame, but now the force **F**′ is the resultant of not only **F**, but also additional terms (the paragraph following this equation presents the main points without detailed mathematics):

- $\backslash mathbf\{F\}\text{'}\; =\; \backslash mathbf\{F\}\; -\; 2m\; \backslash mathbf\{\backslash Omega\}\; \backslash times\; \backslash mathbf\{v\}\_\{B\}\; -\; m\; \backslash mathbf\{\backslash Omega\}\; \backslash times\; (\backslash mathbf\{\backslash Omega\}\; \backslash times\; \backslash mathbf\{x\}\_B\; )\; -\; m\; \backslash frac\{d\; \backslash mathbf\{\backslash Omega\}\}\{dt\}\; \backslash times\; \backslash mathbf\{x\}\_B\; \backslash \; ,$

where the angular rotation of the frame is expressed by the vector **Ω** pointing in the direction of the axis of rotation, and with magnitude equal to the angular rate of rotation *Ω*, symbol × denotes the vector cross product, vector **x**_{B} locates the body and vector **v**_{B} is the velocity of the body according to a rotating observer (different from the velocity seen by the inertial observer).

The extra terms in the force **F**′ are the "fictitious" forces for this frame. (The first extra term is the Coriolis force, the second the centrifugal force, and the third the Euler force.) These terms all have these properties: they vanish when *Ω* = 0; that is, they are zero for an inertial frame (which, of course, does not rotate); they take on a different magnitude and direction in every rotating frame, depending upon its particular value of **Ω**; they are ubiquitous in the rotating frame (affect every particle, regardless of circumstance); and they have no apparent source in identifiable physical sources, in particular, matter. Also, fictitious forces do not drop off with distance (unlike, for example, nuclear forces or electrical forces). For example, the centrifugal force that appears to emanate from the axis of rotation in a rotating frame increases with distance from the axis.

All observers agree on the real forces, **F**; only non-inertial observers need fictitious forces. The laws of physics in the inertial frame are simpler because unnecessary forces are not present.

In Newton's time the fixed stars were invoked as a reference frame, supposedly at rest relative to absolute space. In reference frames that were either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, an important case being frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces, for example, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. Two interesting experiments were devised by Newton to demonstrate how these forces could be discovered, thereby revealing to an observer that they were not in an inertial frame: the example of the tension in the cord linking two spheres rotating about their center of gravity, and the example of the curvature of the surface of water in a rotating bucket. In both cases, application of Newton's second law would not work for the rotating observer without invoking centrifugal and Coriolis forces to account for their observations (tension in the case of the spheres; parabolic water surface in the case of the rotating bucket).

As we now know, the fixed stars are not fixed. Those that reside in the Milky Way turn with the galaxy, exhibiting proper motions. Those that are outside our galaxy (such as nebulae once mistaken to be stars) participate in their own motion as well, partly due to expansion of the universe, and partly due to peculiar velocities.^{[7]} (The Andromeda galaxy is on collision course with the Milky Way at a speed of 117 km/s.^{[8]}) The concept of inertial frames of reference is no longer tied to either the fixed stars or to absolute space. Rather, the identification of an inertial frame is based upon the simplicity of the laws of physics in the frame. In particular, the absence of fictitious forces is their identifying property.^{[9]}

In practice, although not a requirement, using a frame of reference based upon the fixed stars as though it were an inertial frame of reference introduces very little discrepancy. For example, the centrifugal acceleration of the Earth because of its rotation about the Sun is about thirty million times greater than that of the Sun about the galactic center.^{[10]}

To illustrate further, consider the question: "Does our Universe rotate?" To answer, we might attempt to explain the shape of the Milky Way galaxy using the laws of physics.^{[11]} (Other observations might be more definitive (that is, provide larger discrepancies or less measurement uncertainty), like the anisotropy of the microwave background radiation or Big Bang nucleosynthesis.^{[12]}^{[13]}) Just how flat the disc of the Milky Way is depends on its rate of rotation in an inertial frame of reference. If we attribute its apparent rate of rotation entirely to rotation in an inertial frame, a different "flatness" is predicted than if we suppose part of this rotation actually is due to rotation of the Universe and should not be included in the rotation of the galaxy itself. Based upon the laws of physics, a model is set up in which one parameter is the rate of rotation of the Universe. If the laws of physics agree more accurately with observations in a model with rotation than without it, we are inclined to select the best-fit value for rotation, subject to all other pertinent experimental observations. If no value of the rotation parameter is successful and theory is not within observational error, a modification of physical law is considered. (For example, dark matter is invoked to explain the galactic rotation curve.) So far, observations show any rotation of the Universe is very slow (no faster than once every 60·10^{12} years (10^{−13} rad/yr)^{[14]}), and debate persists over whether there is *any* rotation. However, if rotation were found, interpretation of observations in a frame tied to the Universe would have to be corrected for the fictitious forces inherent in such rotation. Evidently, such an approach adopts the view that "an inertial frame of reference is one where our laws of physics apply" (or need the least modification).

## Background

A brief comparison of inertial frames in special relativity and in Newtonian mechanics, and the role of absolute space is next.

### A set of frames where the laws of physics are simple

According to the first postulate of special relativity, all physical laws take their simplest form in an inertial frame, and there exist multiple inertial frames interrelated by uniform translation:^{[15]}

Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.—Albert Einstein:The foundation of the general theory of relativity, Section A, §1

The principle of simplicity can be used within Newtonian physics as well as in special relativity; see Nagel^{[16]} and also Blagojević.^{[17]}

The laws of Newtonian mechanics do not always hold in their simplest form...If, for instance, an observer is placed on a disc rotating relative to the earth, he/she will sense a 'force' pushing him/her toward the periphery of the disc, which is not caused by any interaction with other bodies. Here, the acceleration is not the consequence of the usual force, but of the so-called inertial force. Newton's laws hold in their simplest form only in a family of reference frames, called inertial frames. This fact represents the essence of the Galilean principle of relativity:

The laws of mechanics have the same form in all inertial frames.—Milutin Blagojević:Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries, p. 4

In practical terms, the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that scientists within a box moving uniformly cannot determine their absolute velocity by any experiment (otherwise the differences would set up an absolute standard reference frame).^{[18]}^{[19]} According to this definition, supplemented with the constancy of the speed of light, inertial frames of reference transform among themselves according to the Poincaré group of symmetry transformations, of which the Lorentz transformations are a subgroup.^{[20]} In Newtonian mechanics, which can be viewed as a limiting case of special relativity in which the speed of light is infinite, inertial frames of reference are related by the Galilean group of symmetries.

### Absolute space

Newton posited an absolute space considered well approximated by a frame of reference stationary relative to the fixed stars. An inertial frame was then one in uniform translation relative to absolute space. However, some scientists (called "relativists" by Mach^{[21]}), even at the time of Newton, felt that absolute space was a defect of the formulation, and should be replaced.

Indeed, the expression **inertial frame of reference** (

A reference frame in which a mass point thrown from the same point in three different (non co-planar) directions follows rectilinear paths each time it is thrown, is called an inertial frame.

A discussion of Lange's proposal can be found in Mach.^{[21]}

^{[25]}

- The existence of absolute space contradicts the internal logic of classical mechanics since, according to Galilean principle of relativity, none of the inertial frames can be singled out.
- Absolute space does not explain inertial forces since they are related to acceleration with respect to any one of the inertial frames.
- Absolute space acts on physical objects by inducing their resistance to acceleration but it cannot be acted upon.
— Milutin Blagojević:Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries, p. 5

The utility of operational definitions was carried much further in the special theory of relativity.^{[26]} Some historical background including Lange's definition is provided by DiSalle, who says in summary:^{[27]}

The original question, "relative to what frame of reference do the laws of motion hold?" is revealed to be wrongly posed. For the laws of motion essentially determine a class of reference frames, and (in principle) a procedure for constructing them.—

## Newton's inertial frame of reference

Within the realm of Newtonian mechanics, an inertial frame of reference, or inertial reference frame, is one in which Newton's first law of motion is valid.^{[28]} However, the principle of special relativity generalizes the notion of inertial frame to include all physical laws, not simply Newton's first law.

Newton viewed the first law as valid in any reference frame that is in uniform motion relative to the fixed stars;^{[29]} that is, neither rotating nor accelerating relative to the stars.^{[30]} Today the notion of "absolute space" is abandoned, and an inertial frame in the field of classical mechanics is defined as:^{[31]}^{[32]}

An inertial frame of reference is one in which the motion of a particle not subject to forces is in a straight line at constant speed.

Hence, with respect to an inertial frame, an object or body accelerates only when a physical force is applied, and (following Newton's first law of motion), in the absence of a net force, a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue to move uniformly—that is, in a straight line and at constant speed. Newtonian inertial frames transform among each other according to the Galilean group of symmetries.

If this rule is interpreted as saying that straight-line motion is an indication of zero net force, the rule does not identify inertial reference frames, because straight-line motion can be observed in a variety of frames. If the rule is interpreted as defining an inertial frame, then we have to be able to determine when zero net force is applied. The problem was summarized by Einstein:^{[33]}

The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration.—Albert Einstein:The Meaning of Relativity, p. 58

There are several approaches to this issue. One approach is to argue that all real forces drop off with distance from their sources in a known manner, so we have only to be sure that we are far enough away from all sources to ensure that no force is present.^{[34]} A possible issue with this approach is the historically long-lived view that the distant universe might affect matters (Mach's principle). Another approach is to identify all real sources for real forces and account for them. A possible issue with this approach is that we might miss something, or account inappropriately for their influence (Mach's principle again?). A third approach is to look at the way the forces transform when we shift reference frames. Fictitious forces, those that arise due to the acceleration of a frame, disappear in inertial frames, and have complicated rules of transformation in general cases. On the basis of universality of physical law and the request for frames where the laws are most simply expressed, inertial frames are distinguished by the absence of such fictitious forces.

^{[35]}

^{[36]}

The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a straight line.—Isaac Newton:Principia, Corollary V, p. 88 in Andrew Motte translation

This principle differs from the special principle in two ways: first, it is restricted to mechanics, and second, it makes no mention of simplicity. It shares with the special principle the invariance of the form of the description among mutually translating reference frames.^{[37]} The role of fictitious forces in classifying reference frames is pursued further below.

## Separating non-inertial from inertial reference frames

### Theory

**
**

^{[5]}

^{[6]}

The effect of this being in the noninertial frame is to require the observer to introduce a fictitious force into his calculations….—Sidney Borowitz and Lawrence A Bornstein inA Contemporary View of Elementary Physics, p. 138

The presence of fictitious forces indicates the physical laws are not the simplest laws available so, in terms of the special principle of relativity, a frame where fictitious forces are present is not an inertial frame:^{[38]}

The equations of motion in a non-inertial system differ from the equations in an inertial system by additional terms called inertial forces. This allows us to detect experimentally the non-inertial nature of a system.—V. I. Arnol'd:Mathematical Methods of Classical MechanicsSecond Edition, p. 129

Bodies in non-inertial reference frames are subject to so-called *fictitious* forces (pseudo-forces); that is, forces that result from the acceleration of the reference frame itself and not from any physical force acting on the body. Examples of fictitious forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force in rotating reference frames.

How then, are "fictitious" forces to be separated from "real" forces? It is hard to apply the Newtonian definition of an inertial frame without this separation. For example, consider a stationary object in an inertial frame. Being at rest, no net force is applied. But in a frame rotating about a fixed axis, the object appears to move in a circle, and is subject to centripetal force (which is made up of the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force). How can we decide that the rotating frame is a non-inertial frame? There are two approaches to this resolution: one approach is to look for the origin of the fictitious forces (the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force). We will find there are no sources for these forces, no associated force carriers, no originating bodies.^{[39]} A second approach is to look at a variety of frames of reference. For any inertial frame, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force disappear, so application of the principle of special relativity would identify these frames where the forces disappear as sharing the same and the simplest physical laws, and hence rule that the rotating frame is not an inertial frame.

Newton examined this problem himself using rotating spheres, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. He pointed out that if the spheres are not rotating, the tension in the tying string is measured as zero in every frame of reference.^{[40]} If the spheres only appear to rotate (that is, we are watching stationary spheres from a rotating frame), the zero tension in the string is accounted for by observing that the centripetal force is supplied by the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in combination, so no tension is needed. If the spheres really are rotating, the tension observed is exactly the centripetal force required by the circular motion. Thus, measurement of the tension in the string identifies the inertial frame: it is the one where the tension in the string provides exactly the centripetal force demanded by the motion as it is observed in that frame, and not a different value. That is, the inertial frame is the one where the fictitious forces vanish.

So much for fictitious forces due to rotation. However, for linear acceleration, Newton expressed the idea of undetectability of straight-line accelerations held in common:^{[36]}

If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will continue to move among themselves, after the same manner as if they had been urged by no such forces.—Isaac Newton:PrincipiaCorollary VI, p. 89, in Andrew Motte translation

This principle generalizes the notion of an inertial frame. For example, an observer confined in a free-falling lift will assert that he himself is a valid inertial frame, even if he is accelerating under gravity, so long as he has no knowledge about anything outside the lift. So, strictly speaking, inertial frame is a relative concept. With this in mind, we can define inertial frames collectively as a set of frames which are stationary or moving at constant velocity with respect to each other, so that a single inertial frame is defined as an element of this set.

For these ideas to apply, everything observed in the frame has to be subject to a base-line, common acceleration shared by the frame itself. That situation would apply, for example, to the elevator example, where all objects are subject to the same gravitational acceleration, and the elevator itself accelerates at the same rate.

In 1899 the astronomer Karl Schwarzschild pointed out an observation about double stars. The motion of two stars orbiting each other is planar, the two orbits of the stars of the system lie in a plane. In the case of sufficiently near double star systems, it can be seen from Earth whether the perihelion of the orbits of the two stars remains pointing in the same direction with respect to the solar system. Schwarzschild pointed out that that was invariably seen: the direction of the angular momentum of all observed double star systems remains fixed with respect to the direction of the angular momentum of the Solar system. The logical inference is that just like gyroscopes, the angular momentum of all celestial bodies is angular momentum with respect to a universal inertial space.^{[41]}

### Applications

Inertial navigation systems used a cluster of gyroscopes and accelerometers to determine accelerations relative to inertial space. After a gyroscope is spun up in a particular orientation in inertial space, the law of conservation of angular momentum requires that it retain that orientation as long as no external forces are applied to it.^{[42]}^{:59} Three orthogonal gyroscopes establish an inertial reference frame, and the accelerators measure acceleration relative to that frame. The accelerations, along with a clock, can then be used to calculate the change in position. Thus, inertial navigation is a form of dead reckoning that requires no external input, and therefore is immune to jamming.^{[43]}

A gyrocompass, employed for navigation of seagoing vessels, finds the geometric north. It does so, not by sensing the Earth's magnetic field, but by using inertial space as its reference. The outer casing of the gyrocompass device is held in such a way that it remains aligned with the local plumb line. When the gyroscope wheel inside the gyrocompass device is spun up, the way the gyroscope wheel is suspended causes the gyroscope wheel to gradually align its spinning axis with the Earth's axis. Alignment with the Earth's axis is the only direction for which the gyroscope's spinning axis can be stationary with respect to the Earth and not be required to change direction with respect to inertial space. After being spun up, a gyrocompass can reach the direction of alignment with the Earth's axis in as little as a quarter of an hour.^{[44]}

## Newtonian mechanics

Classical mechanics, which includes relativity, assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames. Newtonian mechanics makes the additional assumptions of absolute space and absolute time. Given these two assumptions, the coordinates of the same event (a point in space and time) described in two inertial reference frames are related by a Galilean transformation.

- $$

\mathbf{r}^{\prime} = \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_{0} - \mathbf{v} t

- $$

t^{\prime} = t - t_{0}

where **r**_{0} and *t*_{0} represent shifts in the origin of space and time, and **v** is the relative velocity of the two inertial reference frames. Under Galilean transformations, the time *t*_{2} − *t*_{1} between two events is the same for all inertial reference frames and the distance between two simultaneous events (or, equivalently, the length of any object, |**r**_{2} − **r**_{1}|) is also the same.

## Special relativity

value independent of its direction of propagation and its frequency, and also independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. This second assumption has been verified experimentally and leads to counter-intuitive deductions including:

- time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly)
- length contraction (moving objects are shortened in the direction of motion)
- relativity of simultaneity (simultaneous events in one reference frame are not simultaneous in almost all frames moving relative to the first).

These deductions are logical consequences of the stated assumptions, and are general properties of space-time, typically without regard to a consideration of properties pertaining to the structure of individual objects like atoms or stars, nor to the mechanisms of clocks.

These effects are expressed mathematically by the Lorentz transformation

- $x^\{\backslash prime\}\; =\; \backslash gamma\; \backslash left(x\; -\; v\; t\; \backslash right)$
- $y^\{\backslash prime\}\; =\; y$
- $z^\{\backslash prime\}\; =\; z$
- $t^\{\backslash prime\}\; =\; \backslash gamma\; \backslash left(t\; -\; \backslash frac\{v\; x\}\{c\_0^\{2\}\}\backslash right)$

where shifts in origin have been ignored, the relative velocity is assumed to be in the $x$-direction and the Lorentz factor γ is defined by:

- $$

\gamma \ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c_0)^2}} \ \ge 1.

The Lorentz transformation is equivalent to the Galilean transformation in the limit *c*_{0} → ∞ (a hypothetical case) or *v* → 0 (low speeds).

Under Lorentz transformations, the time and distance between events may differ among inertial reference frames; however, the Lorentz scalar distance *s* between two events is the same in all inertial reference frames

- $$

s^{2} = \left( x_{2} - x_{1} \right)^{2} + \left( y_{2} - y_{1} \right)^{2} + \left( z_{2} - z_{1} \right)^{2} - c_0^{2} \left(t_{2} - t_{1}\right)^{2}

From this perspective, the speed of light is only accidentally a property of light, and is rather a property of spacetime, a conversion factor between conventional time units (such as seconds) and length units (such as meters).

Incidentally, because of the limitations on speeds faster than the speed of light, notice that a rotating frame of reference (which is a non-inertial frame, of course) cannot be used out to arbitrary distances because at large radius its components would move faster than the speed of light.^{[45]}

## General relativity

**
**

^{[46]}

^{[47]}

There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating.—Douglas C. Giancoli,Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155.

This idea was introduced in Einstein's 1907 article "Principle of Relativity and Gravitation" and later developed in 1911.^{[48]} Support for this principle is found in the Eötvös experiment, which determines whether the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is the same for all bodies, regardless of size or composition. To date no difference has been found to a few parts in 10^{11}.^{[49]} For some discussion of the subtleties of the Eötvös experiment, such as the local mass distribution around the experimental site (including a quip about the mass of Eötvös himself), see Franklin.^{[50]}

Einstein’s general theory modifies the distinction between nominally "inertial" and "noninertial" effects by replacing special relativity's "flat" Minkowski Space with a metric that produces non-zero curvature. In general relativity, the principle of inertia is replaced with the principle of geodesic motion, whereby objects move in a way dictated by the curvature of spacetime. As a consequence of this curvature, it is not a given in general relativity that inertial objects moving at a particular rate with respect to each other will continue to do so. This phenomenon of geodesic deviation means that inertial frames of reference do not exist globally as they do in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity.

However, the general theory reduces to the special theory over sufficiently small regions of spacetime, where curvature effects become less important and the earlier inertial frame arguments can come back into play.^{[51]}^{[52]} Consequently, modern special relativity is now sometimes described as only a "local theory".^{[53]}

## See also

## References

## Further reading

- Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler,
*Spacetime Physics*, 2nd ed. (Freeman, NY, 1992) - Albert Einstein,
*Relativity, the special and the general theories*, 15th ed. (1954) - Henri Poincaré, (1900) "La théorie de Lorentz et le Principe de Réaction",
*Archives Neerlandaises*,**V**, 253–78. - Albert Einstein,
*On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies*, included in*The Principle of Relativity*, page 38. Dover 1923

- Rotation of the Universe

- B Ciobanu, I Radinchi
*Modeling the electric and magnetic fields in a rotating universe*Rom. Journ. Phys., Vol. 53, Nos. 1–2, P. 405–415, Bucharest, 2008 - Yuri N. Obukhov, Thoralf Chrobok, Mike Scherfner
*Shear-free rotating inflation*Phys. Rev. D 66, 043518 (2002) [5 pages] - Yuri N. Obukhov
*On physical foundations and observational effects of cosmic rotation*(2000) - 10.1023/A:1018867011142
- P Birch
*Is the Universe rotating?*Nature 298, 451 - 454 (29 July 1982) - Kurt Gödel
*An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation*Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 21, p. 447, 1949.

## External links

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
- Animation clip showing scenes as viewed from both an inertial frame and a rotating frame of reference, visualizing the Coriolis and centrifugal forces.

**
****
**