What you are asking for is impossible. Inertia is part of the postulates of relativity. It is not possible for any theory to explain it's own postulates. All it can do is use its postulates to explain other phenomena. All we can ask of any theory is for it to be "consistent and predictive".arindamsinha said:It seems an area where relativity theory seems to still have a gap - it may be consistent and predictive, but does not explain the physical principle behind one of the basic concepts it uses - the 'inertia' behind the inertial frame.
DaleSpam said:What you are asking for is impossible. Inertia is part of the postulates of relativity. It is not possible for any theory to explain it's own postulates. All it can do is use its postulates to explain other phenomena. All we can ask of any theory is for it to be "consistent and predictive".
I wasn't objecting to that part of your post. It is perfectly fine to look for more fundamental theories in which the postulates of less fundamental theories can be explained. However, the more fundamental theory will also have postulates that are not explained, even if it is a complete theory of everything. So having unexplained postulates does not constitute a gap in a theory and the only standard to judge theories is their being consistent and predictive. That is why I was objecting to the quoted part of your post.arindamsinha said:All I asked was whether there was some other credible theory that does explain inertia. I don't think that is asking for the impossible.