Refer to the Rovelli paper mentioned in this discussion:
MP7: There is no absolute motion, only motion relative to something else, therefore the water in the bucket does not rotate in absolute terms, it rotates with respect to some dynamical physical entity. True. This is the basic physical idea of GR.
This is a much stronger claim than the one you pretended I was making, that GR agrees my selected Mach’s principle—rather, the pure relativity of universe is the basic idea of GR, not something simply shared between Mach’s principle and GR (like with your modulo 2 example).
And (Bayes FTW!) if no such requirement was known in 1971, but such a requirement was rigorously proved later, then it’s very strange that no one has brought up in this discussion the name of the mathematical physicist(s) who is justly famous for the proof.
Refer to the Rovelli paper mentioned in this discussion:
This is a much stronger claim than the one you pretended I was making, that GR agrees my selected Mach’s principle—rather, the pure relativity of universe is the basic idea of GR, not something simply shared between Mach’s principle and GR (like with your modulo 2 example).
I did—Barbour.