The Forgotten Mystery of Inertia

My following comment got rejected :D

"Taking the risk of sounding like a crackpot I will share some of my own thoughts on the subject - put together from bits and pieces I have stumbled upon.

It can hardly be argued that some knowledge is attempted hidden - mostly for the sake of power. And in my humble opinion, the mysteries of bodies in rotation is exactly one of those subjects.

This article is based on academic science and appropriately so, but when it comes to rotating bodies I don't think you will find the answer there - at least not in the post-Einstein era. You should at least go back to James Clerk Maxwell and his original 20 equations to get a hint of what's really going on. If Einstein himself was aware of the shortcoming of his theory or even put them there on purpose, is up for debate - leaving it to the reader to discover what's missing from the theory of relativity.

If one bothers to seek alternative sources of knowledge about rotating bodies, you will not be alone. And if you stick to it, you will find very interesting things indeed. Not only about rotating bodies themselves, but as to why some has determined it so important to keep the facts hidden.

Some events suggest that, at least in western science, the connection between rotating bodies and gravity was stumbled upon in the early post-war missile program when Wernher von Braun tried to put a rotating body on top of a rocket - believing that it would stabilize it.

There are of course scientists doing research into these things outside the constraint of normal academica and from time to time their findings find their way into the public domain. One example is experiments done by Dr. Bruce DePalma, which some are as simple as they are easy to duplicate.

For those of you curious enough to adventure into this field of alternative science, I wish you luck."

I think you are wrong, observers in different galaxies will agree on the inertial reference frame in which the background radiation is isotropic. The relative velocity between different galaxies will show up as different dipole components in the measured background radiation, but if you compensate for that, you should get the same inertial reference frame no matter from which galaxy you measured.

I'll admit to not being a physicist and to being easily confused by the subject, so I'll just use a silly little metaphor to check whether I'm thinking straight, and try to avoid terminology I don't fully understand (which, since I don't have a particularly strong understanding of even special relativity, means not using relativity terms at all):

Think of the universe as a rubber sheet over a table, being stretched in all directions. My understanding is that cosmic background radiation is on the rubber, stretching and moving with it just like all the matter is. If background radiation were on the table instead, there would be exactly one spot on the rubber that saw no motion relative to it, while spots very far away from that spot would see a huge amount of motion. If you went out far enough, you'd be seeing hard radiation from half the sky.

Or, as another view, though I find this one harder to think about, since here the expansion of the universe seems to confuse rather than clarify things: The background radiation you see at any given point is simply the photons radiated inward from a sphere of a very large radius centered on that point. Every point has its own such sphere, and if an observer sees a dipole component in its background radiation, it means that that observer is in motion relative to the average motion of the matter that those photons originally came out of.