And that is strangely weird. Because each time you go out at night, looking up at that starry sky, you expect your frame of reference to represent all others sky, unchanging and the same for all. That's what we grow up in, what we learn just by existing. and also what leads us to define repeatable experiments.
" What has been attempted here is to show that those equations do not follow from very unique or very surprising physical properties of the universe. Rather, they arise from the very simple notion that whatever mathematical "laws" you write down to describe measurements, your equations cannot depend on the origin or direction of the coordinate systems you define in the space of those measurements, or the space of the functions used to describe those laws. That is, they cannot reflect any privileged point of view. "
Which moves us, once again, to the idea of symmetries. where that one is extremely abstract.
It's about different viewpoints, aka 'frames of reference'. With each 'frame' becoming its own truth. Where it goes back to that there is no 'universally agreed on frame of reference' describing this universe. You need to get out of it to find one, and we can't get out of it. Not alive anyway :) and maybe not even 'dead'. Depending on how seriously you want to take 'information'. And of course, also depending on ones faith, beliefs in your soul, anima, or whatever you think may stay.
Information then? I called all kinds of radiation including 'visible' light information carriers, and that seems correct. But how they do it? That's a pretty good question if you think of those factions existing, light as particles or light as waves, or light as a duality of both.
Did you find it confusing? Read it again and look up what you don't get, or have meet before. In essence it moves 'energy' to symmetries and their behaviors.
energy as JP named it, is a coin of exchange. Nothing else
The intrinsic magnetic loop of moving charge is being represented by the flywheel. When the flywheel accelerates in the rest frame there is no flywheel rotation predicted.
When the flywheel accelerates in the moving frames then the rotation is being predicted. Does the conservation of the angular momentum hold?
No rotation in K frame, K'1 and K'2 rotations but in opposite directions. The rotation of the plates is absolute. If the plates rotate clockwise in K'1, then the plates cannot stay without rotation in K or rotate counter clockwise in K'2 frame. There is going to be only one frame that predicts true proper rotation.