Dale
Mentor
- 36,445
- 15,172
I would agree with that view. There are no non-zero Christoffel symbols in an Anderson frame, hence no fictitious forces. So Newton’s first law is satisfied.
But I would still not consider it to be an inertial frame for that reason. There are Anderson-frame expressions for conserved energy and momentum, but they differ enough that I don’t think the second and third laws are useful in such frames.
But I would still not consider it to be an inertial frame for that reason. There are Anderson-frame expressions for conserved energy and momentum, but they differ enough that I don’t think the second and third laws are useful in such frames.