  Weyl’s plasticine example shows that the Leibnizian-Machian view of  relative motion, namely the view according to which all motion must  be defined as motion relative to bodies, is self-defeating in the  general theory of relativity. The fact that a stationary, homogeneous elastic sphere will, when set in rotation, bulge at the equator and  flatten at the poles is, according to Weyl (1924b), to be accounted  for in the following way. The complete physical system consisting of  both the body and the local inertial-gravitational field is not the  same in the two situations. The cause of the effect is the state of  motion of the body with respect to the local  inertial-gravitational field, the guiding field, and is not, indeed  as Weyl’s plasticine example shows, cannot be the state of motion of  the body relative to other bodies. To attribute the effect as  Einstein and Mach did to the rotation of the body with respect to the other bodies in the universe is, according to Weyl, to  endorse a remnant of the unjustified monopoly of the older body  ontology, namely, the sovereign right of material bodies to play the  role of physically real and acceptable causal   agents.[70] 