In a recent paper I discussed Mach’s rejection of Newtonian absolute space and motion and the role of Mach’s principle in relating the fixed stars to the source of inertia. The importance of Mach in Einstein’s development of the theory cannot be denied even though he later abandoned Mach’s principle. One hundred fifty years earlier Bishop Berkeley had also rejected Newton’s notions of absolute space and motion. I discuss the reason why I did not include Berkeley’s criticism of Newtonian absolute space in my recent paper.

1.
R.
Newburgh
, “
Inertia forces, absolute space, and Mach’s principle: The genesis of special relativity
,”
Am. J. Phys.
75
,
427
430
(
2006
).
2.
E.
Mach
,
The Science of Mechanics
, 9th ed., translated by T. J. McCormack (
Open Court
, La Salle, IL,
1960
), p.
293
.
3.
Einstein: A Centenary Volume
, edited by
A. P.
French
(
Harvard U. Pr.
, Cambridge, MA,
1969
), pp.
66
79
.
4.
K. R.
Popper
, “
Berkeley as Precursor of Mach and Einstein
,” in his
Conjectures and Refutations
, 3rd ed. (
Taylor and Francis
, London,
2002
), pp.
224
236
.
5.
D.
Sciama
,
The Physical Foundations of General Relativity
(
Doubleday
, New York,
1969
), pp.
16
18
.
6.
W. A.
Suchting
, “
Berkeley’s criticism of Newton on space and motion
,”
Isis
58
,
186
197
(
1967
).
7.
G.
Berkeley
,
De Motu
, translated by A. A. Luce,
The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne
(
Nelson
, Edinburgh,
1951
), Vol.
IV
, Sec. 58.
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.