# The Post-modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment

Subtitle: Newton’s Bucket Experiment and the Mystery of the Universe.

##### Introduction

In the Principia, Isaac Newton contended about the existence of absolute space by proposing one of the simplest and most puzzling experiments in scientific history. This famous experiment is called the Newton’s bucket experiment. He presented this experiment to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of absolute space, and thus absolute motion.

Now, where does inertia come from? What really is inertia? The nature of inertia is (now) very, very central to science and it is the cornerstone of the Newton’s bucket experiment. Today this famous experiment has three interpretations. The first is the classical interpretation, the second is the modern interpretation, and the third is the post-modern interpretation which can only be found in this great science blog.

This experiment is the cornerstone of our understanding of the universe and absolute science. Listen, if you can understand this experiment, you would have understood all things that concern the universe, even the true nature of the mind which I will expose to you in this blog and in my coming book on FORMS.

We shall be proceeding in this article from the classical interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment up to the post-modern interpretation. So, I would like you to avoid any distraction and open your mind to the new knowledge of the universe you are about to receive from the true interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment in this article.

##### Classical Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment

Let’s describe Newton’s bucket experiment which is diagrammatically represented below and which goes thus:

Hang a bucket filled with water by a rope, twist the rope tightly so that it’s ready, to unwind, and let it go. At first, as shown in A, the bucket starts to spin but the water inside, which as should be noted is a ponderable body, remains fairly stationary; the surface of the stationary water stays nice and flat. As the bucket picks up speed, little by little its motion is communicated to the water by friction, and the water starts to spin too as shown in B.

As it does, the water’s surface takes on a concave shape, higher at the rim and lower in the center . Now, due to the anticlockwise motion of the rope, the bucket comes to rest but the water keeps spinning and its surface remains concave as shown in C. At D the water stops spinning like the bucket.

While at first, with the bucket in motion and the water at rest, the water surface was flat, and now, when the bucket is at rest, the spinning water maintains a concave surface, indicating that relative motion is not responsible for the concave shape of the water surface.

Also, when both the bucket and the water moved at the same speed, thus representing the absence of relative motion, the water surface still maintained a concave shape. So the central question in Newton’s bucket experiment is:Why does the water surface become concave? Or in another fashion: Relative to what does the water move?

Newton concluded, even after extending this experiment to empty space, that the result was because every motion is relative to immovable absolute space. Newton held that absolute space exists objectively even in the absence of matter.

Historically, there was another camp of scientists led by Wilhelm Leibniz which contended against Newton’s thesis. They were of the opinion that absolute space does not exist and that inertia must have some other origin which Newton hadn’t realized.

According to classical physics, inertia arises because bodies move relative to immovable absolute space.Click To Tweet

This dichotomy in the origin of inertia and the existence of absolute space produced the two great philosophies of science. One is absolutism which was Newton’s position and the other is relationism which was Leibniz’s position.

Leibniz contended against absolute space and rather taught that space is relational. In simple terms, he held that space has no objective existence and that it is an arbitrary quantity used to specify the length between two bodies. So, in the absence of matter space is meaningless.

##### Modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment

Newton was able to temporarily quench the attack against absolutism by Leibniz and his camp through his proposed bucket experiment. However, the relational interpretation of the origin of inertia was to come from another scientist in another scientific era. This scientist would be Ernst Mach. In the 19th century, Mach proposed that inertia arises when a body moves in accelerated motion because of its relative motion with other bodies in the universe.

The modern interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment or Mach’s principle informs us that the inertia the spinning water experiences is because of its interaction with other bodies in the universe. This idea revived the relational view of space proposed by Leibniz and it enabled physicists to do away with absolute space which was criticized for not being perceptible.

This proposal by Mach is at the foundation of Mach’s principle. Einstein followed Mach’s principle in establishing the theory of general relativity (even though some insists that general relativity does not satisfy Mach’s principle).

According to modern physics, inertia arises because bodies move relative to other bodies in the universe.Click To Tweet

Mach’s principle, therefore, informs us that the water surface in Newton’s bucket experiment becomes concave because the water was spinning relative to other bodies in the universe. In other words, the spinning water becomes concave because of its interaction with other bodies in the universe. So, in the absence of other bodies but just the spinning water in the universe, the water surface will not become concave.

Mach’s principle implies that there is no such thing as absolute motion since the motion of any body can only be judged against the state of motion of another body in the universe or the distribution of matter in the universe and not absolute space.

This is contrary to Newton’s position which insists that absolute motion is real and that the true motion of bodies can be judged relative to immovable absolute space and not any other body in the universe.

These two opposite or contrary views of inertia are the bases for the two philosophies of relationism and absolutism.

##### Criticism of Classical and Modern Interpretations of the Newton’s Bucket Experiment

Before we proceed to the post-modern interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment, I will like to show you the lapses in the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment.

The first post-modern criticism against the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment is their lack of generality.

###### The Absence of Generality

Have you noticed that the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment explain only a case of accelerated motion? They explain the case when bodies are moved by an external action which is not gravity. We know that when bodies are accelerated by gravity inertia appears absent. Why? This is a very important question.

We have two experiences of accelerated motion. When we move due to an external action which is not gravity and when we move due to gravity. Now, both the classical and the modern in interpretations of the bucket experiment explain the first case and brush under the carpet the second case.

They don’t inform us why inertia appears absent when bodies accelerate due to gravity. This is very, very important. Both the classical and modern interpretations of the Newton’s bucket experiment are not holistic.

Now, even if inertia is assumed to be absent during free fall, we still must know the conditions in the universe that causes the mysterious appearance and disappearance of inertia during accelerated motion. In other words, for us to truly understand accelerated motion and the bucket experiment, we have to understand the underlying causes of our experiences of accelerated motion. Let me make my position clearer. If Newton insisted that bodies experience inertia when they accelerate because they are moving relative to or against immovable absolute space; now, when bodies accelerate due to gravity and don’t sense inertia, does it now mean that they are not moving against immovable absolute space?

Also, if Mach insisted that bodies experience inertia when they accelerate because they are moving relative to or against the mass distribution in the universe; now, when bodies accelerate due to gravity and don’t sense inertia, does it now mean that they are not moving against the mass distribution of the universe?

Both the classical and modern interpretations are silent about these questions. And if this is the case, can we still hold tenaciously to either interpretation? I would say NO.

###### The Absence of Discriminality

The major criticism against the classical and modern descriptions of the origin of inertia is that they discuss inertia and its relationship with bodies without discriminating between ponderable (non-charged) bodies and electrical (charged) bodies.

Listen, in the universe, there are two forms of matter, ponderable and electrical bodies, and it matters to discriminatingly discuss their respective experience of inertia.

Classical and modern physics fail to do this. The importance of this is that, if it had been properly done, it would have exposed us to an intuitive understanding of the atomic world, of which today we don’t understand.

###### The Absence of a Governing Principle

This is probably the greatest error in both the classical and modern interpretations of the Newton’s bucket experiment.

If you have studied absolute science, as is being taught in this blog, you would realize that both the classical and modern interpretations of the Newton’s bucket experiment have proceeded without the all-important principle that governs accelerated frames. This profound and fundamental principle is the principle of non-inertia, and it states that accelerated rest and accelerated motion are indistinguishable.

Now, imagine how wrong we will be if we proceed to describe inertial reference frames without the principle of inertia. Imagine. This is how wrong we are for proceeding to describe the Newton’s bucket experiment and by extension other accelerated frames without the principle of non-inertia.

Both the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment are majorly wrong because of the absence of this governing principle. This subsequently results in the grave error of general relativity which is founded on Mach’s principle or the modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment. In general relativity, the notion or concept of a straight line is replaced by the subtle concept called the geodesic. The geodesic is seen as a straight line in curved spacetime, and it is accepted according to general relativity that accelerated frames do not sense inertia when moved by gravity because they are moving in the shortest distance in curved spacetime.

General relativity tries to establish in accelerated frames the same conditions for uniform frames by informing us that since uniformly moving bodies moving in a straight line do not sense inertia, likewise bodies accelerating due to gravity move in a geodesic and do not sense inertia. This premise or gimmick, however convincing, is not really the truth about the universe.

In relative science, and especially in special relativity, we associate the non-sensation of inertia for uniformly moving bodies with the fact that they are moving in a straight line. This association constitutes the basis of the relative presentation of the principle of inertia. Likewise, general relativity proceeded to associate the non-sensation of inertia for bodies accelerating due to gravity with the fact that they are moving in a geodesic which is taken as a straight line in curved spacetime. Awkwardly, this association in general relativity does not constitute the basis of another principle like the principle of inertia.

Now, in absolute science, we associate the non-sensation of inertia for uniformly moving bodies with the fact that they are moving in uniform space which is orthogonal to uniform time. The orthogonality of uniform space and time for uniformly moving bodies constitute the basis for the absolute presentation of the principle of inertia.

N. B: According to relative science the principle of inertia states that rest and uniform motion are indistinguishable, but in absolute science, the principle of inertia states that uniform rest and uniform motion are indistinguishable. Please see this distinction.

And in absolute science, we associate the non-sensation of inertia for bodies moving due to gravity with the fact that they are moving in accelerated space which is orthogonal to accelerated time. The orthogonality of accelerated space and time for accelerating bodies constitute the basis for the principle of non-inertia.

The association of the non-sensation of inertia with motion in a straight line in special relativity and general relativity, and in general, relative science, constitute the linearity principle. While in absolute science, the association of the non-sensation of inertia with motion in orthogonal space and time in electrodynamics and gravi-electrodynamics, and in general, absolute science, constitute the orthogonality principle.

I want you to realize that the linearity principle constitutes the basis for the principle of inertia and general relativity in relative science. But in absolute science, the orthogonality principle constitutes the basis for the principles of inertia and non-inertia.

All the principles of relative science are spin-offs of the linearity principle. We have to re-base science on the orthogonality principle. The orthogonality principle is the prime principle in the universe. It is the mathematical language of the universe. All the principles of the cosmos emerge or are spin-offs of the orthogonality principle.

The principle of non-inertia which is absent in the classical and modern interpretations of the bucket experiment could not have been discovered or realized because both eras of physics are deeply rooted in the linearity principle, even Newton’s first law of motion proves this.

I want you to realize that the principle of non-inertia is an off-shoot of the orthogonality principle, and that the post-modern interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment which I will present shortly is proceeding from a very different scientific foundation that is profoundly simple and reassures us that we can understand all things that concern the universe.

##### Post-modern Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket Experiment

Echa and Science is about post-modern physics and I am about to inform you of the true interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment. Newton and Mach interpretation of the bucket experiment leaves a whole new spectrum of physics unexplored. This new spectrum which is deeply rooted in absolute science and which has to be investigated is what I refer to as gravi-electrodynamics.

The classical interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment is established within the conceptual framework of Newtonian mechanics, while the modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment is established within the conceptual framework of general relativity. Now, the post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment is established within the conceptual framework of gravi-electrodynamics.

In the beginning, the universe was created from these three essences: absolute space, absolute time and inertia. So, the most fundamental level of understanding of cosmic laws is concerned with the inter-relationship between these three fundamental essences, and this importantly defines the scope and concern of absolute physics Classical physics informs us that inertia arises because bodies move relative to or against immovable absolute space, modern physics informs us that inertia arises because bodies move relative to other bodies in the universe. Now, post-modern physics informs you that inertia arises because bodies move.

Post-modern physics informs you that inertia is inextricable from all motion. To move in the universe is to carry inertia. Inertia is the quantity of all motion. Inertia is as fundamental as absolute space and time themselves, and it does not arise due to motion relative to immovable absolute space as Newton had conceded or due to motion relative to other bodies in the universe. Inertia arises when bodies move relative to accelerated rest. Whenever there is motion there is inertia.

So,  what is important in the interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment is to investigate the conditions that cause bodies to sense inertia and the conditions that cause bodies not to sense inertia and not to investigate of the origin of inertia.

This alters the perspective by which we seek to interpret this experiment, for to investigate the origin of inertia is tantamount to investigating the origin of space and time. These three entities or essences are equally fundamental.

According to post-modern physics, inertia arises because bodies move relative to accelerated rest.Click To Tweet

Now, listen, whenever there is motion there is inertia, the state of accelerated rest is a state of zero inertia. This is very significant. Absolute relativity informs us that light and gravity are absolute because they are limits of inertia, so also is accelerated rest constituted by zero inertia which is a limit of inertia that is absolute for all accelerating bodies. Understand this as I further elaborate on the bucket experiment.

Zero inertia which constitutes accelerated rest is a real essence in the universe, and the proportion of inertia a body carries or senses is that relative to zero inertia or accelerated rest. Hold on to this because it will be significant in the next subsection when we shall be investigating the Newton’s bucket experiment in the ponderable and electrical universes.

The Newton’s bucket experiment brings the inter-relationship between these three essences to a focus and the conditions that cause bodies to sense inertia can be causally explicated by the principle of non-inertia which is the governing principle that applies exclusively to accelerating bodies.

Whenever there is motion there is inertia.Click To Tweet

Furthermore, the principle of non-inertia which governs accelerated frames is bounded within a gravi-electrodynamical framework. This is the conceptual framework necessary to completely understand the implications of the Newton’s bucket experiment in both the ponderable and electrical universes.

Now, to have an encompassing understanding of Newton’s bucket experiment, we must distinguish between ponderable (non-charged) bodies and electrical (charged) bodies. Ponderable bodies are bodies that exist in the ponderable universe, while electrical bodies are bodies that exist in the electrical universe. The context in which we discuss this experiment is very important in order for us to understand the operations of the universe.

The proper interpretation of this experiment has the potential to unlock the true mystery of the universe which I shall be revealing to you in this article. This realization is important, for it would become clear to you soon that the results of the bucket experiment for the electrical universe or in the atomic world is unique. You will soon have an intuitive understanding of the atomic world!

So, let’s begin by interpreting Newton’s bucket experiment according to the gravi-electrodynamical laws of the ponderable (non-charged or macro) universe.

###### Newton’s Bucket Experiment in the Ponderable Universe

Let me first of all state that the Newton’s bucket experiment as it is commonly interpreted are as it would happen in the ponderable (non-charged) universe. The Newton’s bucket experiment as we have been discussing in this article so far is as it would occur in the ponderable universe.

In the ponderable universe, the proper interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment must obviously be connected to the fact that you sense inertia when you accelerate due to an external action which is not gravity and when you free fall you don’t sense inertia.

Let us look at the line diagram below which shows us the gravi-electrodynamic nature of the ponderable universe. The centre point denoted as zero is the point of accelerated rest, and the bucket and water spin relative to accelerated rest which has zero inertia. In the above diagram, light is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of light, accelerated rest is the minimum resistance to accelerated motion.

Also, in the above diagram, gravity is the least resistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. I want you to understand that even though accelerated rest consists of zero inertia on both axes, it underlyingly has different essences on both axes. Be enlightened.

Let’s outline these two essences of accelerated rest in the ponderable universe:

1. On the axis of light, accelerated rest is the least resistance to accelerated motion.
2. On the axis of gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion.

Now, when bodies move, whether ponderable or electrical bodies, they move within the boundaries of the limits of inertia. Accelerated rest above is absolute for all accelerating ponderable bodies because just like light and gravity, it is also a limit of inertia (but in different ways on the axis of light and gravity).

Accelerated rest which possesses zero inertia is a real reference point in the universe for ascertaining the proportion or quantity of inertia a body carries.

Now, listen, when the bucket was spinning it was spinning in a gravi-electrodynamic universe. It was attempting by the accelerated velocity to offer greater resistance to accelerated motion than light c, and it was also attempting by the absolute acceleration a to offer lesser resistance to accelerated motion than gravity g

So the water molecules carry two distinct metaphysical quantities: the accelerated velocity and the absolute acceleration. The accelerated velocity is inextricably associated with light and the sensation of inertia, while the absolute acceleration is inextricably associated with gravity and the non-sensation of inertia.

To further reveal the principle, the sensation and non-sensation of inertia for the spinning bucket are both associated with the principle of non-inertia, and it must be stated that:

1. The sensation of inertia on the axis of light is related to the weak manifestation of the principle of non-inertia.
2. The non-sensation of inertia on the axis of gravity is related to the strong manifestation of the principle of non-inertia.

When the water spins in accelerated motion it moves in accelerated space and it can experience the principle of non-inertia weakly or strongly depending on whether the water spins due to an external action from the rope or due to gravity respectively. So, the Newton’s bucket experiment has two possible mutually exclusive outcomes in the ponderable universe.

For the first outcome depicted below and which depicts the common outcome of this experiment, because the water spins due to the external action from the twisted rope and not gravity the principle of non-inertia manifests weakly and the water molecules are not absolved of the sensation of inertia which causes the water surface to become concave. In the Newton’s bucket experiment the water surface becomes concave because of the weak manifestation of the principle of non-inertia.

However, for the second outcome shown below, when the water spins due to the action of the gravity and not the external action from the twisted rope, the principle of non-inertia would manifest strongly and the water molecules would be absolved of the sensation of inertia causing the water surface to remain flat. But this is not the outcome of the Newton’s bucket experiment for ponderable bodies. This second outcome informs us that when we free fall, we don’t sense inertia not because inertia is absent but because the principle of non-inertia prevents us from sensing inertia. The principle of non-inertia is to accelerated motion what the principle of inertia is to uniform motion. Nature is very meticulous.

In fact, we can state in a manner understandable within the domain of relative science that spinning water and other ponderable bodies senses inertia because light does not accelerate in the ponderable universe, and when they don’t sense inertia, they don’t because gravity accelerates in the ponderable universe.

###### Newton’s Bucket Experiment in the Electrical Universe

Interestingly, the Newton’s bucket experiment can provide us a better grasp of the consequences of the principle of non-inertia for electrical bodies. Hypothetically, if Newton’s bucket experiment is performed in the atom, taking that the bucket and the water are electrical bodies, the water surface would always be flat and never concave whether the water is at accelerated rest or spins in accelerated motion.

Let us look at the line diagram below which shows us the gravi-electrodynamic nature of the electrical universe. The centre point denoted as zero is the point of accelerated rest, and in the electrical universe, the bucket and the water spin relative to accelerated rest which has zero inertia. In the above diagram, light is the least horizontal resistance to accelerated motion; and on the axis of light, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion.

Also, in the above diagram, gravity is the least horizontal resistance to accelerated motion, and on the axis of gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion. I want you to understand that accelerated rest consists of zero inertia on both axis and it underlyingly has the same essence on both axis in the electrical universe. Be enlightened.

Let’s outline the only essences of accelerated rest in the ponderable universe:

• On the axis of both light and gravity, accelerated rest is the maximum resistance to accelerated motion.

Now, listen when the bucket was spinning it was spinning in a gravi-electrodynamic universe. It was attempting by only the absolute acceleration a to offer lesser resistance to accelerated motion than light ac and gravity g

So the water molecules in the electrical world would carry only one metaphysical quantity, which is the absolute acceleration. In the electrical universe, the absolute acceleration is inextricably associated with both the accelerations of light and gravity and the non-sensation of inertia.

To further reveal the principle, the pervasive non-sensation of inertia for the spinning bucket in the electrical universe is associated with the principle of non-inertia, and it must be stated that:

• The non-sensation of inertia on both the axes of light and the axis of gravity is related to the strong manifestation of the principle of non-inertia.

The diagram below depicts the Newton’s bucket experiment in the electrical universe. In the electrical universe, because both light and gravity accelerate, the bucket can only be spun by either the action of light or the action of gravity (and not a rope tied to the bucket like in the ponderable universe).

Now, for both cases, the water surface would remain flat. There is no condition in the electrical world when the water surface of Newton’s bucket experiment can become concave. In fact, we can state in a manner understandable within the domain of relative science, that spinning water and other electrical bodies in the electrical universe do not sense inertia because both light and gravity accelerate in the electrical universe.

These two different outcomes of the Newton’s bucket experiment in the ponderable and electrical universes bring to you a profound understanding of the universe. Let’s assume that you are performing the bucket experiment in your lab and the water surface becomes concave, you would think that it is concave in all domains. This is wrong. What you have failed to realize is that in the atomic world the water surface remains flat as the figure below shows. This is why I have stated that the atomic world is governed by the strong phase of the principle of non-inertia. There is never a condition where atomic or electrical bodies sense inertia, never. This is the true intuitive understanding of the atomic world that we have failed to grasp since the founding of quantum mechanics.

Likewise, when you are performing the bucket experiment in your lab in the electrical universe and the water surface remains flat when the bucket spins due to the acceleration of light, you would think that the water surface is flat in all domains. This is wrong. What you have failed to realize is that in the ponderable or macro world, the water surface is concave and not flat.

These two different outcomes are importantly connected to the fact that light travels at a constant speed outside the atom, but inside the atom, light begins to accelerate. The proper understanding of the Newton’s bucket experiment brings to light every mystery of the universe, even the exact nature of the mind which shall be coming soon in my book on FORMS.

I really want you to become an adept of absolute science, and when you get your own copy of you will have a better understanding of this experiment of which certain aspects are beyond the scope of a single article.

Thus, by comparing the two descriptions in of the Newton’s bucket experiment for ponderable and electrical bodies respectively, one can have an intuitive grasp of the distinction between macro and micro physics.

##### Comparing the Classical and the Post-modern Interpretations of Newton’s Bucket Experiment

It is obvious that though the classical and post-modern interpretations of the Newton’s bucket experiment are different, they however seek to uphold the existence of absolute space. In this section, I want to explicitly point out how different both interpretations are.

While the modern interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment which is conceptualized as Mach’s principle is more wrong than the classical interpretationt, it is however very useful when we want to further understand the principle of universal equivalence. This will be coming up in a future article. Mach’s principle can be seen as an early form of the universal equivalence principle.

Now, Newton asserted that inertia arises because accelerating bodies move relative to or against immovable space. This immovable space constitutes the rest frame in the classical interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment.

But in post-modern physics, inertia arises because accelerating bodies move relative to accelerated rest as an absolute state of motion in itself. Accelerated rest is the rest frame in the post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment.

Accelerated rest is absolute because it is a limit of inertia just like light and gravity. The zero proportion of inertia which constitutes accelerated rest is real in the universe. The inertia you sense when you accelerate is that relative to zero inertia which constitutes accelerated rest. So, if inertia arises because bodies move, then absolute space must be movable and not immovable as Sir Isaac Newton had supposed. We have to understand this. There is no such thing as immovable absolute space, what exists is movable absolute space.

It is in this realization of the movement or flow of absolute space and consequently absolute time when bodies move within the boundaries of the limit of inertia that we found the new conceptual framework of absolute relativity.

Now, like the classical interpretation of the Newton’s bucket experiment, post-modern physics informs us that in the ponderable universe and in the absence of other bodies in the universe, the surface of the spinning water would still be concave.

And in an insightfully generalized manner, in the absence of other bodies in the universe, the spinning water would still carry inertia, regardless of whether the surface is flat or not, so long as the water spins. This is because all moving bodies carry inertia. Understand this.

Furthermore, the classical interpretation of the bucket experiment is founded on the philosophy of absolutism, whereas the post-modern interpretation of the bucket experiment is founded on the philosophy of absolute relationism. You should recognize this distinction in the philosophical background of both interpretations.

My dear enlightened one, these premises of absolute science has led us to the unified field theory, and I want you to realize that our current crises in physics go way back to the foundation of (relative) science. We cannot repair this foundation. We have to set a new foundation for science and this foundation is absolute science. The current crises is a natural result of the fact that we have come to the end of relative science.

##### Summary

The importance of the Newton’s bucket experiment cannot be over-emphasized. The proper interpretation of this experiment lies at the heart of the true understanding of the universe. This article shows us the different interpretations of this experiment in classical physics, modern physics, and now in post-modern physics.

The post-modern interpretation of Newton’s bucket experiment tells us something profound. It informs us that the Newton’s bucket experiment is not centered on the origin of inertia but the cause of the sensation of inertia. (Inertia is the cosmic substance of all things, and it is as fundamental as absolute space and time themselves).

And as aforestated, this alters the perspective by which we seek to interpret this experiment, and it reveals to us the all-importance of the principle of non-inertia.

While we must appreciate the classical and modern interpretations of this experiment, we must realize that both interpretations lack an essential ingredient, which is the principle of non-inertia. Both interpretations sought to explain the experiences of accelerated motion without the accompanying or core principle that governs accelerated frames.

This is a wrong approach, and as have been said, this situation is like attempting to explain uniform motion without the principle of inertia. Post-modern physics reveals to us that accelerated frames, and thus the outcome of the Newton’s bucket experiment are governed by the newly revealed principle of non-inertia.

It summarily reveals that ponderable (non-charged) bodies are governed by the weak phase of the principle of non-inertia which is why in the ponderable universe the water surface becomes concave under certain conditions and under other certain conditions the water surface remains flat.

And it reveals that electrical (charged) bodies are governed by the strong phase of the principle of non-inertia which is why in the electrical universe the water surface remains flat under all conditions. Understand this, for this is the mystery of quantum mechanics.

All these results emerge from the post-modern insight that accelerating bodies or frames move relative to accelerated rest, and not relative to either immovable absolute space according to classical physics or other bodies in the universe according to modern physics.

This is a very important understanding which has as its background the philosophy of absolute relationism. I know this is an entirely new understanding of the bucket experiment and of the universe which is why I am here for you. Echa and Science will assist you to not only understand this experiment but to also understand every other mystery of the universe.

Finally, can we really exhaust this beautiful experiment? No, we cannot. Till the end of time, we shall discuss this simple and profound experiment, and we shall talk about it with this new understanding that absolute science reveals.

Till we meet again. 