Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This formulation demonstrates the structural compatibility of active geometry and inertia in a geometric context, suggesting no preferred frame exists.
This work presents a structural formulation of an active geometric framework based on a dynamical tetrad–connection description of spacetime. A localized geometric object carrying an internal Lorentz frame is introduced, and its interaction with geometry is described through a covariant transport-mismatch variable. The framework is shown to be generally covariant, locally Lorentz invariant, and free of any preferred timelike structure. The paper establishes a consistency result rather than a physical proof: it demonstrates that active geometry and the absence of an ether are structurally compatible and that a local geometric interpretation of inertia can be formulated under explicitly stated assumptions. No quantitative law of inertia, inertial mass, Newtonian limit, or experimental predictions are claimed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serkan Kizilates (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: