Talk:Born coordinates

Work in progress

I had to interrupt my work on this but I hope to finish first version in 24 hours. I plan to add a discussion comparing radar distance in the small (the standard metric on the quotient space of Minkowski by the Langevin congruence; see Landau & Lifschitz Classical Field Theories) with radar distance in the large, compare with Märzke-Wheeler coordinates, and add some citations to some recent sources and some classic sources (since the literature is huge, I plan to focus on citing cite review papers which offer many further citations, rather than trying to enumerate all papers in this area).

I also plan to use this article to revise Ehrenfest paradox, similarly to how I used Rindler coordinates to support Bell's spaceship paradox.---CH 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just declared the first version basically done and removed the inuse flag. ---CH 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added two new figures, completed the discussion of the appearance of null geodesics in the Born chart, and added a new summary section. ---CH 04:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students beware

I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.

I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.

Good luck in your seach for information, regardless!---CH 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

focus

I would put the contents of the Summary section in the leading section, so people not interested in the details (or not able to understand them) can get an impression of the importance of the subject.

I would also add, if I kew about it, notes about the importance of the conclusions extracted in the summary section (since very few users have a grasp on relativity). --euyyn 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make this more easy to understand to average joe?

Currently it seems only people with already large understanding of math and other things like that can make sense of what the article is trying to say; is it possible to explain Born coordinates in a simpler way? --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction

I have made a change to the section Radar distance at the large, because I think the original statement was wrong. The radar distance between a ring-riding observer and the central observer is smaller for the ring-riding observer than for the central observer, not vice versa. The ring rider measures a shorter time, due to time dilation. Please check. -- krenska, 9:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article revised and reworked

The article was revised and completely reworked.

All formulae and calculations have been revised, reworked and fixed if necessary.

Several mistakes fixed. There where a lot, even serious ones (e.g., traces of inward bound and outward bound null geodesics and their formulae). All the corresponding figures have been fixed as well.

Summary has been moved and integrated into the introduction to give the urgent reader an idea on the topic and its complexity. Of course, this doesn't prevent the trolls (hard core or not) from exploiting the topic. --Karl Hilpolt (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

I don't agree an the classification of this article. Neither B-Class nor Low-importance seems appropriate. The Ehrenfest paradox is tightly connected to Born coordinates and has been controversially discussed for decades till today. --Karl Hilpolt (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]