Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion. I have to restate that simple definition by adding an imperative for our understanding of the cosmos. Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion relative to the aether. This is clarified in the physics classroom as, Inertia: tendency of an object to resist accelerations. to which I add relative to the aether. keeping in mind that acceleration means change of velocity or direction. +ve or -ve Thus we may write; inertia of an object = mass x acceleration, relative to the aether. So that we may establish true motion, and avoid the trap of different reference frames, the aether in which all matter is imbedded surrounds the earth and rotates with sideral time. Take a hypothetical radian vector from the centre of the world and project it to the fartherest star that can be observed. Let this be a fixed reference vector which is stationary relative to the aether and which rotates with the aether around the world every 24 hours. (nominally) Any object in synchronism with this rotation above the earth will have no centrifugal force, and must fall. Whereas any object on the world and not moving, that is at the equator, indeed the world itself, which includes the so called geostationary satellite, will experience centrifugal force because it is being cut by the rotating aether. based upon my amended definition above. Thus all of newtons laws work perfectly. We have merely changed the fixed reference from a fixed aether and a rotating world, to a fixed and stationary world with a rotating aether. Whats so impossible about that? What is so undesirable about it? Radio waves suddenly become possible and real waves again. You are aether with me or agin me. Philip. If all the stars etc are rotating with the aether, they have no motion relative to the aether, and thus no inertia, and no centrifugal force. They are for all intents and purposes relative to the aether, stationary.