# Search results

1. ### I The Philosopher and the Physicist

Well, it's not even a correct description of a photon. So it means nothing.
2. ### I The Philosopher and the Physicist

That's indeed an interesting book. It shows why there was no Nobel prize for Einstein for his general relativty, namely because of Bergson's completely philosophical objections against Einstein's notion of time, which Bergson obviously didn't understand.

22. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

Is it more clear what I mean with the example of the Planck satellite I gave in #52?
23. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

I don't say that it is limited to actual physical constructions but that for any measurement there must be established a reference frame to be able to give positions and time of any (local) observer. Otherwise you couldn't use all your formalism to do physics and to establish that to a high...
24. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

That's the very point! I don't think that our mutual misunderstanding is about the math. That's standard, how to define a pseudo-Riemannian (Lorentzian) manifold introducing maps and atlasses, the corresponding coordinate bases for the tangent and cotangent spaces and all this. It's really...
25. ### Vector potential ##\vec A## in terms of magnetic field ##\vec B##

That's also a standard solution of the problem, but it needs the curl of ##\vec{B}##. The idea behind this is to use the ansatz $$\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A},$$ because of $$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0.$$ Then \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} (\vec{\nabla} \cdot...
26. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

So do you agree to my statements in #43 or not? Your statement is far from being clear let alone a clear definition of what you accept a frame of reference to be. As is clear from my statements in #43, a reference point of a reference frame in the there given sense, it's clear that it must be...
27. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

I can easily accept that, but my problem is that they never give a clear definition to begin with. I'll see whether, I can check the mentioned book as soon as possible.
28. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

I already admitted that time slicing/foliation seems to narrow to give a general definition of a reference frame. I only wanted a clear stated what's wrong with my much simpler standard definition I know from all GR textbooks of a reference frame using (local) coordinates as exemplified with...
29. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

Please give a clear definition of what a reference frame is in your definition. If you don't accept the standard definition as quoted from Wikipedia, I don't understand 1) at all, and 2) doesn't make any sense to me. Is there a textbook or paper, which describes what you understand as a...
30. ### I Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames

Ok, for me to understand this issue with the reference frames better, let's discuss Born coordinates and in which sense they can be used to define a reference frame. Let's use Cartesian coordinates. Then there are no coordinate singularities. Let ##(t',x',y',z')## be "Galilean coordinates"...