In G.R. we do physics in any kind of frame, inertial or not. To compensate for that, we get nice little Christoffel symbols in all our derivatives. And straight lines become geodesics.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But is there truly no way to distinguish between co-ordinate acceleration and "real" acceleration? Or is there no such thing as real acceleration, since we can always transform it away? Or is is that in a reference frame where we did transform the acceleration of a particle away, geodesics would no longer be straight lines? But if the curvature tensor's components all vanished, then weknowthat the space is Minkowski, and hence we can distinguish between these two types of acceleration.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I've made sense here. Is every question [posed above] answerable by a resounding "yes" or have I made a mistake somewhere?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Co-ordinate vs. true acceleration

Loading...

Similar Threads - ordinate true acceleration | Date |
---|---|

B Is it true that a rocket at light speed has infinite mass? | Dec 14, 2016 |

Do we have two sets of co-ordinate systems when space-time is bent | Apr 16, 2013 |

Absolute Space and Moving Co-ordinates. | Oct 15, 2011 |

Gaussian Co-ordinates-background and derivation | Nov 2, 2009 |

Co-ordinate transformation | Aug 15, 2004 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**