The discussion centers on the distinction between inertial and non-inertial frames in the context of Einstein's theories of Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR). It is established that while the laws of physics are consistent across all inertial frames, non-inertial frames introduce complexities due to their reliance on coordinate transformations that may not adhere to tensor transformation laws. The conversation highlights the importance of tensors in formulating electromagnetism and the limitations of applying these concepts outside their defined domains. Additionally, the role of reference frames in physical measurements is emphasized, asserting that physics fundamentally operates within defined frames.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of physics and their applications in real-world measurements.
This is my point. The choice of reference frame is dictated entirely by the physicist's convenience, not the measurement apparatus.vanhees71 said:Of course, you do not need to do that but you can as well conveniently stay in a fixed inertial frame,
Maybe what you mean is that defining an inertial frame by measurement suffers from the same problem as the one-way speed of light, that cannot be measured without assuming a previous fixed synchronization between two distant clocks, so assigning just one or two inertial frames to two objects spatially separated can then only be a convention(physicists convention), not something derived from measurement devices?DaleSpam said:This is my point. The choice of reference frame is dictated entirely by the physicist's convenience, not the measurement apparatus.