Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 6

message: I see no basis for the claim that SR or GR are kinematic theories. The Twin Paradox resoundly disproves this claim. In fact, the name of the theory, "Relativity", is misleading insofar as it lends credence to the claim. green 12.30.216.138 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that that is something to be put into this article (possibly interesting for relativity). However, I vaguley remember that some people (maybe even Einstein) disagreed with calling the theory "relativity". If someone finds such a reference, it could no doubt be helpful for readers. I also vaguley remember having read somewhere that "spacetime" is very much "absolute" (maybe that was jansen?); and such a reference may be appropriate for this article when describing the absolute spacetime explanation of the Twin paradox. Harald88 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recall reading, but can't remember where, that Einstein preferred calling it a "theory of invariances". I think Minkowski named it "relativity" but I am not absolutely certain. green 12.30.216.138 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Relativity a Kinematic Theory?

message: The term "special relativity" is the name of a particular theory, not any theory. It's not generic. Hence, it is a proper noun and therefore should be capitalized. Also, SR predicts differential clocks rates. "Differential aging", which is explicitly stated immediately thereafter, follows from the differential clock rates. Please revert to what you edited. green 12.30.216.138 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Green - There are very explicit rules for capitalization in scientific journals.  What they state is that the names of theories (or rather the words in the names of theories) are not to be capitalized unless they are a proper noun or are derived from a proper noun.  "Special relativity" is just a noun, not a proper noun.  (The word "special" was capitalized in the previous sentence because the rule that the first letter in a sentence is capitalized takes precedence.)  Examples are general relativity, time dilation, and even the twin paradox.  Capitalization examples include the Lorentz tranformations, Minkowski metric, and Einstein tensor.  I also think that the term "differential aging" serves the reader better.  At the least, you and Tim should hash this out.  Often a resolution is found that satisifes both parties but which neither one thought of at first. --EMS | Talk 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the rules in scientific journals are as you claim, they are in error. A proper noun is the name of something specific. Why is "Lorentz transformation" capitalized? Because it is a specific type of transformation. Why is "time dilation" not capitalized? Because it refers to something non-specific -- what we find in GR or SR.  In any event, it's not an important issue. Wrt your other point, I made the edit partially in response to something you previously wrote on this mb. I give the reader credit for being able to think and chew gum at the same time. Thus, it is better imo to state that SR predicts "differential clock rates", as this is what it specifically does! But for those who find obscure the relationship of differential clock rates and aging, I linked the ideas directly in the text. Again, this is not an important issue and we can leave the text as is. green 12.30.216.138 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? "Lorentz" is capitalized because it's a man's name. Ditto for Minkowski, and Einstein. —wwoods 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see proper noun.  The gist is that while the names of people and places are proper nouns, the names of scientific theories are not. --EMS | Talk 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link does not necessarily imply what you attribute to it. green 12.30.216.138 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't speak for the link itself (as a theory can be considered an entity under the definition given there).  What I can tell you is the scientific journals have chosen not to consider the names of theories to be proper nouns.  --EMS | Talk 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuba

message: I can not decide who else is confused besides me! I make no progress and retire! ErNa 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion