User talk:Rayclipper

Welcome!

Hello Rayclipper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin51 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity

Ray, thanks for responding to my reverts. The interpretation presented from the book seems to be essentially that which Lorentz proposed in 1904. Although this was, and remains, a valid interpretation of SR, it has fallen completely into disuse, particularly after the advent of the general theory.

Do you have any particular reasons for wanting a long forgotten interpretation, which applies only to the special theory, to be included in a modern article on the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Thanks for the response. Also thanks for helping out with rules. It seems almost like going through law school to find everything one needs to know. But of course, it's all sensible. In fact, I've meanwhile noticed that the book in question should perhaps not be referenced, due to not being the product of a major publisher.

No edit war was intended, simply reverted due to delay in a response. As far as the comparison to the Lorentz treatment of 1904, that's fundamentally amiss. I recommend you obtain a copy of this book. It simply sheds light on what Einstein's clock synchronization looks like diagrammed against an at rest reference frame. It also does not conflict with general relativity, rather simply suggests that the curvature of spacetime can, in principle, be understood as a curvature of space, with time fluctuation resulting from the path of light through curved space. The author respects the spacetime approach, both in the special and general theory.

Also, fundamentally different from Lorentz, no aether is incorporated, rather a discussion of how the need for stability of the atom implies length contraction in rigid bodies.

I also agree with the author that the standard treatment of special relativity does not properly deal with the resolution of the contradiction apparent in the clock paradox, such as the convoluted "jump in time" argument put forth by Taylor and Wheeler in Spacetime Physics. The author of Relativity Trail points out that since reunited clocks can show a time differential, they must have had actual clock rate differences while they were apart (assuming of course, the exchange of clock information, rather than an actual reversing of direction of a traveler, thus limiting ourselves to special relativity here). Makes perfect sense.

But to each his own.

-Ray Rayclipper (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you by any chance have any connection with the author of this book. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I don't know anything about the author. -Ray Rayclipper (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]