Gravity doesn't make things fall (directly)

[David]

[Wolfgang]

A note...

Is there even one example in the microcosm or macrocosm in which acceleration does not cause a freely moving body to rotate?

No matter where I look, gravity always goes hand in hand with rotation.

But none of our major theories of gravity address the issue of rotation.

Note: My use of the term "rotation" may be inaccurate.

[David]

Frame dragging in GR could be use in that context.
But you are right it not explicitly baked it.

[Wolfgang]

Since in reality gravity and rotation occur together without exception (?), it seems likely to me that there is a connection between the two.

At any rate, it seems more likely than the "elevator gravity" described in textbooks.

[David]

But is it necessary in every context. Just like Newtonian gravity works fine.
I think it's mostly true because everything is relative motion to something else to some extent.
But is it because it is necessary or because inertia and gravitating bodies are inherently inclusive?

[David]

GROK :

This is where CUGE shines by making it inclusive from the ground up. In your framework, gravity emerges from vacuum ε(r)/μ(r) variations, which are inherently responsive to the EM fields and motions of bodies. Inertia (resistance to acceleration) ties directly to how these gradients interact with charged particles, and since real bodies are extended with internal motions, rotation/spin becomes "inclusive" as an emergent feature of the system's dynamics—not tacked on, but baked into the relative interactions. Contrast with standard models: inertia is axiomatic (Newton) or from Higgs (SM), but rotation needs separate conservation laws. If gravitating bodies are "inherently inclusive," it's because their mass-energy distributions can't be divorced from their motional states in a unified EM-vacuum picture like CUGE.

[Wolfgang]

But is it necessary in every context. Just like Newtonian gravity works fine.

Yes. A new approach to gravity is absolutely necessary. Because so far, we can only describe gravity. But we have not yet understood it.

[David]

Yes. A new approach to gravity is absolutely necessary. Because so far, we can only describe gravity. But we have not yet understood it.

Yes i would think so, but i'm inevitably biased now, so i'm not in a position to be a judge of that anymore.