Talk:Rindler coordinates

message: Looks my previous todo list somehow got wiped (did someone move the article but forget to move the talk page?), but I will try to reconstruct it.  This is an important article needed for many other topics such as Bell's spaceship paradox.  Rindler chart is an important example of a coordinate chart, and the Rindler frame is an important example of a frame field.---CH 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was my fault.  When I first edited this article, I merely tried to clean it up and didn't really check it for errors--such as the coordinate singularity.  Unfortunately I also propogated that error by introducing the term "non-singular" (Minkowski space is non-singular to begin with).  Anyway, did a major rewrite, will try to get around to truncated Minkowski space which introduces an artificial singularity at R=0. DonQuixote 21:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list wiped out 

message: In order to address various concerns, I have written a completely new version from scratch with entirely new figures, and have modified the todo list accordingly.  The new version currently focuses on elementary considerations.  In the future I may elaborate on the analogies between two Killing horizons: the Rindler horizon and the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole.
The old version is here.  Be careful, since this body of this article and the figures contain some mistakes and is generally misleading in various ways.  ---CH 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version of [[Rindler coordinates]]

message: I completely rewrote the May 2005 version, and had been monitoring this article for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning it to its fate.
As a courtesy, I have removed the "expert" items from the todo list.  I doubt anyone else will know how to implement the suggested improvements since this was mostly a note to myself.
See User:Hillman/Archive for the last version I edited.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.  Unfortunately, just before departing I became embroiled in a content dispute with  and .  I believe their edits of the related articles Bell's spaceship paradox and Ehrenfest paradox have turned factually accurate articles into gravely misleading and even mathematically incorrect articles.
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo list and student beware

message: I don't like the fact that a=1 in this article. Though permissible mathematically, it hides some of the physical content. CHF (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. In particular, it makes it hard to see why the Unruh effect should depend on a at all.--24.34.222.177 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: I think one should empahsize in the article, that what is meant by "motion in constant acceleration" is not what people are used to as constant 3-accelration. This is clearly seen from the path of the particle which is X=\sqrt{T^2+a} in the globaly flat coordintas. Where what people usually(newtonian) mean by constant accelration is motion of the type X=a*T^2 .The whole pardox part of the article is somewhat confusing and missleading. If I hold a string, and a car has the other end of it and starts driving at constant 3-acceleration - the string will brake!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rigidity/pardoxial property 

message: Just as a heads up, an old version of this page (not edited since 2006) has been nominated for deletion.  If you wish to comment, please do so here.  Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  old version nominated for deletion 

message: Does "motion in constant acceleration" mean that the rapidity increases linearly with time?  Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rindler coordinates are appropriate for describing the world (absent gravity) as seen by an observer undergoing constant straight-line proper acceleration. In this case, the rapidity, c \, \operatorname{arctanh} \left(\frac{v}{c}\right) \,, of that observer's motion (relative to a non-accelerating reference frame) increases linearly as a function of his proper time (not the coordinate time in the non-accelerating reference frame). JRSpriggs (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "motion in constant acceleration" and rapidity 

message: For some unknown reason, the following comment on this article was left on my talk page:
-- Dr Greg  talk  19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notion of distance" paragraph