`PositionManipulator` support for using a different base/world frame to express TCP poses.

**Describe the feature you'd like**
I would like the `PositionManipulator` class to have an optional constructor argument: `arm_base_in_world` (`X_W_B`). This would then internally be used by the class to transform all given TCP poses (expressed in `world`) to the frame the control box of the robot expects.

**Use cases**
For anyone not working in the base frame defined by the UR control box, this would save the effort of multiplying each `X_W_TCP` by `np.linalg.inv(X_W_B)` before calling e.g. `move_to_tcp_pose(X_W_TCP)`.

When using ROS-industrial compliant URDFs, you almost immediately run into this issue, because the URDFs define +X to be the direction the robot points towards with all-zero joints, while for the control box (and the stickers we've put on the bases) that is the -X direction. See the screenshot below for the difference.


Also, if we get a different brand robot in the future, we can easily reuse TCP poses by changing only the `X_W_B` in the constructors.

**Possible implementation**
We could add this functionality in a backward-compatible way by setting the default value of `robot_base_in_world` to `np.identity(4)`. Additionally we could add a similar helper functions as the `DualArmPositionManipulator` called `.transform_pose_to_arm_base()`.

We should probably also adapt the `DualArmPositionManipulator` class/constructor, because after this change, conversion from world to arm base is handled by each arm individually.