Talk:Special relativity
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rewrote
I have rewritten this page to cover the bare bones of relativity. I am considering how to "simplify" it some more. I see some big words in my explaination of the relativity of simultaneity that perhaps I can get away from. This is only a beginning, but at least it gets away from the previous presentation which did not separate the cause and the effect. -- en:user:ems57fcva 208.235.252.254 17:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More changes
I have added some math to what I did. I have also done my best to keep this prety much simple while adding enough math to give people a sense of what this is all about. Be advised that I may be up against the limits of what can be covered with simple english! However, I do hope that I have done a good job of encapsulating what relativity is about. --Ems57fcva 02:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
Transwiki:Special relativity for beginners is now available for merger into this article. Uncle G 10:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "moving clock, moving rod?"
I'm not too sure about it, but I remember my physics teacher saying it has to be "ACCELERATING".
(or relative moving..?) --203.214.59.174 11:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- naw, that's not true...accelerating would be under general relativity. The whole premise of special relativity is that if one cannot tell the difference between moving at a constant velocity and not moving at all. 68.79.203.191 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simple Template
I just went ahead and added the Simple template to the top of the article, because I think some real work could go into simplifying the language here. It's a great article, and I'm well aware that the subject matter requires some complexity and depth, but right from the first sentence of the summary, I think we're using bigger words than we need. I'll be back, of course, but I thought I'd start the process by adding the template. MBlume 12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree - and I didn't even see your template header before I read the article.
[edit] Forget the equations
To me it looks like it could be alot simpler if we just got rid of the equations and just right E=mc^2 to the same effect. Geeksluvpi 23:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
