Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.
This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.
Where in the heck do you get "his properties." Just because you are arguing against someone doesn't mean you think either side is valid, you are just showing that their side is more invalid.
Now please make an on topic observation or leave the thread, we don't care what you think of parsifal. In fact this stalking thing in this thread is getting boring.
Tl;dr go away
Read some posts by Parsifal. Then you might see the truth in what I'm saying, which in summary is that he just makes up new laws of physics/celestial objects to be inserted into discussions not for the purposes of logical debate or as a new idea, but because he likes to sidetrack, derail and foul up debates in progress..
If Bowler's observation that Parsifal's inertial frame of reference is unclear and vague is on topic, then my explanation of why this is is also on topic.
And I don't give a ha'penny jizz if you don't care what I think of Parsifal, you won't mind me explaining his trolling techniques to other board users then, will you?