Speed of Light Always The Same?

[neopolitan]

Let's try again, keeping it simple.

Do you agree that when we are talking about an inertial observer, it does not make sense to use anything other than an inertial coordinate system?

Do you agree that by default we talk about inertial coordinate systems (for example in the second postulate, this is assumed)?

Can you give me an example where we would not use an inertial coordinate system (either by choice or as the result of coercion) in a scenario where we are discussing only inertial participants (participants in the scenario)?

cheers

neopolitan

 

[JesseM]

Let's try again, keeping it simple.

Do you agree that when we are talking about an inertial observer, it does not make sense to use anything other than an inertial coordinate system?

It would be kind of pointless to use a non-inertial coordinate system in this situation, although there'd be nothing technically wrong with using one if you just wanted to see how things worked out in it.

Do you agree that by default we talk about inertial coordinate systems (for example in the second postulate, this is assumed)?

Well, it's not just assumed, it's specifically stated that the two postulates are meant to apply to inertial coordinate systems. But yes, I agree this is the default in SR.

Can you give me an example where we would not use an inertial coordinate system (either by choice or as the result of coercion) in a scenario where we are discussing only inertial participants (participants in the scenario)?

There isn't any specific reason why you'd normally make that choice, but it is your choice, if for whatever idiosyncratic reason you wanted to analyze this situation using a non-inertial system then again there'd be nothing physically incorrect about it.

 

[neopolitan]

It would be kind of pointless to use a non-inertial coordinate system in this situation, although there'd be nothing technically wrong with using one if you just wanted to see how things worked out in it.

Well, it's not just assumed, it's specifically stated that the two postulates are meant to apply to inertial coordinate systems. But yes, I agree this is the default in SR.

There isn't any specific reason why you'd normally make that choice, but it is your choice, if for whatever idiosyncratic reason you wanted to analyze this situation using a non-inertial system then again there'd be nothing physically incorrect about it.

In light of that, can you explain why it was sensible of you to say that the speed of light being c is a consequence of your (human invented) coordinate system?

cheers,

neopolitan