>Acceleration effects are not identified as gravitational fields in >Newtonian physics (which, as you now know, you didn't know); and >neither is that the case in SRT. In those theories acceleration is >"absolute", and no gravitational fields are caused by acceleration.
This is a topic for another discussion, but I'm talking about "pseudo-gravitational" fields, which crop up in both SR and Newtonian physics if you use accelerated coordinates.
>> I think it is because you have not made it very well. I still >> have no idea what your point is. > >Just study Einstein's paper carefully,
I want to know what *YOUR* point is. State it in your own words.
>In this thread, you pretend no less than that: > >- Newton was mistaken with his Space postulate (while you evidently >didn't even bother to read his arguments) >- you know better than Einstein what his own theory is about (Cranky)
That isn't cranky. 100 years of relativity development does give one a more complete perspective. I would say that a typical physics graduate student understands Newtonian physics better than Newton, and understands relativity better than Einstein. That doesn't mean that they are smarter than Newton or Einstein---it's a lot harder to invent a new theory than it is to understand or expand on an existing theory.
Anyway, I don't care to argue with Newton or with Einstein. They are not around to argue with.
If you have a point to make, make it yourself. Don't hide behind Newton or Einstein.