easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one.  We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it.  This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form.  It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.

We can now appreciate why that argument is not convincing, which we brought forward against the general principle of relativity at theend of Section 18.  It is certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a result of the application of the brake, and that he recognises, in this the non-uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage.  But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a " real " acceleration (retardation) of the carriage.  He might also interpret his experience thus:  " My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest.  With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time.  Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.”

IN WHAT RESPECTS ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CLASSICAL MECHANICS AND OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY UNSATISFACTORY?

We have already stated several times that classical mechanics starts out from the following law:  Material particles sufficiently far removed from other material particles continue to move uniformly in a straight line or continue in a state of rest.  We have also repeatedly emphasised that this fundamental law can only be valid for bodies of reference K which possess certain unique states of motion, and which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other.  Relative to other reference-bodies K the law is not valid.  Both in classical mechanics and in the special theory of relativity we therefore differentiate between reference-bodies K relative to which the recognised " laws of nature " can be said to hold, and reference-bodies K relative to which these laws do not hold.

But no person whose mode of thought is logical can rest satisfied with this condition of things.  He asks :  " How does it come that certain reference-bodies (or their states of motion) are given priority over other reference-bodies (or their states of motion) ?  What is the reason for this Preference?  In order to show clearly what I mean by this question, I shall make use of a comparison.