<-- back to Relativity Trail          



I will happily send you a free copy, postage paid, of the second
edition of Relativity Trail if you send me your first edition copy.  
Just email author@relativitytrail.com for mailing information.
----------------------------------------------------------------



The second edition includes a four page discussion comparing the concept 
of "no gravitational center point", i.e., a universe of inflation, 
with our illustration of a finite euclidean universe with a singular
gravitational center point.  The directional uniformity of the appearance 
of our universe, based on red shifts and telescopic views, is explained 
in both contexts.  The conclusion, not presented in the main text of the 
first edition until late in the book, is that either model works as well 
as the other for the purposes of describing the general evolution of a 
space structure.


The free pdf file of Relativity Trail includes an explanation of mutually 
measured mass increase by parties of different inertial frames.
See home page.


Errata:


PAGE 11, PARAGRAPH 3 SHOULD READ:
"... so long as they continue to move apart at a uniform speed."


PAGES 29-30:

More emphasis on the following is needed on these pages:  
We don't for a second believe that communication between electrons
would route directly through the atom forth and back via the
nucleus.  That device is simply used to reduce the argument to two
vector components.  Actual communication between electrons would
be by way of virtual photon events between neighboring electrons
of the same shell as well as the neighboring shell; finally between
electrons of the inner shell and the nucleus.  The arrangement of
the sum total of these interactions sums up to the same situation
as the simple perpendicular - parallel consideration.  

If one thinks of electrons as simply popping in and out of 
existence, rather than shifting about, then the picture is a
bit more abstract.  But the relocation events would still be
considered to be restrained by light speed.  Also more abstract,
would be the use of waveforms.  In that case, it is the spacing
of peaks and valleys whose adjustments are constrained by light
speed.


PAGE 36, PARAGRAPH 5
As printed, it reads as follows:

"Thus, the POR holds true for mechanics for the very reason it holds
true for electromagnetics."

It would be better put as follows:

"Thus, the POR holds precisely true for mechanics for the very reason
it holds true for electromagnetics."

See bottom paragraph of page 22.


PAGE 51, DIAG 20:   There should be no arrow attached to the clock towers.


PAGE 59, AND REPEATED ON PAGES 84 AND 123:
It's inexplicable that we would simply write, "the party that changes 
frames will travel the greater distance over the round trip", when 
obviously, as our diagrams trivially show, it is only during the pursuit 
stage that K (or A) travels the greater distance, such as in the diagrams 
on pages 84 and 109.  The time contraction formula, being non-linear, 
naturally gives K the lesser recorded time over the "round trip" by 
virtue of the higher speed of K over the comparatively long pursuit stage 
(or, as in the case shown on page 55, a lesser total time for B by virtue
of his higher speed over the much longer out trip).  Therein lies the 
only relevant asymmetry.  The case wherein k reverses its direction
relative to a stationary K to complete the round trip needs no further 
clarification.  The misstatement, made with the just mentioned case in 
mind for page 123, was inserted in triplicate just before press time.



PAGE 94, PARAGRAPH 2 SHOULD READ:
"...in order to make the distinction between distance intervals..."


PAGE 94, BOTTOM PARAGRAPH SHOULD READ:  
"This explains his odd notion of simultaneity, wherein an observer will 
conclude that a pair of lightning strikes were simultaneous or conclude 
that they were not simultaneous..."


PAGE 104, SECOND PARAGRAPH SHOULD READ:
"If A and B clock rates were actually equivalent regardless of their
respective inertial frames..."



PAGE 125
Footnote added:
Note:  Some readers might be aware of experimental evidence 
regarding Earth's motion relative to the cosmic background 
radiation.  It is popularly interpreted as a measure of 
Earth's motion relative to the universe.  If true, then such 
structure must have evolved uniformly everywhere, and would 
be our best evidence for an area of physics that relativity 
cannot address.  It would also indicate a universe of 
inflation, which we'll leave for the reader to ponder.  
It is possible, however, that this structure is not uniform 
and we are measuring our motion relative to a local 
characteristic.



For any inquiries, contact author@relativitytrail.com