Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] geometry of spacetime (was: relativisitic mass ...)



Rauber, Joel wrote:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0504/0504110.pdf

Again, thanks for the pointer to this nice work.

I suppose that since I am on the same side as the author I had
some affinity for the argument and am guilty of a bit of proselytizing.

Right on. IMHO this is a topic where some proselytizing is needed.

====================

There are two competing approaches to special relativity:
-- the contraction/dilation approach, versus
-- the geometric approach.

The geometric approach has so many advantages -- in terms of simplicity,
power, elegance, and consistency -- that one wonders why anybody would
bother with the other approach.

My working hypothesis is that it is possible to explain the geometric
approach to anyone who has an ordinary high-school-level understanding
of geometry, trigonometry, and vectors.

My goal is to write up just such an explanation. I've been working
on this, with help from Antti Savinainen and some of his students.
You can judge for yourself how close I've come to this goal: Here
is a package of three papers:
http://www.av8n.com/draft/

Logically, the papers should be read in this order ...
http://www.av8n.com/draft/two-vector.pdf
http://www.av8n.com/draft/spacetime-trig.pdf
http://www.av8n.com/draft/odometer.pdf

... but the odometer paper is reportedly the easiest to read, and
is where the big payoff is ... so if you're impatient you can start
there and refer back to the other papers if/when necessary.

Comments are welcome. Feedback from any students who may be
interested would be particularly useful.