Reply to comment

David,

You wrote: “I say it again. Other than to point out that there are theories/models wherein all forces are handled via curvature (so all motions are geodesic), I have never tried to suggest that within a purely four dimensional framework (such as General Relativity) one would not be able to distinguish between the purely geodesic motions of pure gravitation (independent of whether the curvature is non-zero) and the non-geodesic motions caused by non-zero net ‘true’ forces.”

Then you’ll agree that the ubiquitous identification of gravitation with “true” force is based on non-empirical, non-four dimensional models which are routinely, implicitly, and illegitimately treated as givens.

“I recognize that you appear to think that [pseudo, or false forces] [are] distinguishable [from gravitation]. However, such distinguishability is illusory…”

I’ve tried to get you to describe one of these pseudo forces, assuming you’re referring to something other than the Coriolis, or centrifugal or centripetal “forces”, which can most definitely be directly attributed to true forces and distinguished from gravitation. If they are hypothetical, dependent on non-empirical, non-four dimensional or multiple-universe models, they don’t undermine or refute the empirical distinction between gravitation and force (and pseudo-force).