Talk:Special relativity/Definition

Theory of space and time? Or theory of motion? or?

"Theory of space and time" isn't really what it is, or arguably, it's not at all what it is. "Theory of motion" is more appropriate, as it really is about the effects of speed and it helps to distinguish from general relativity. We should compare different popular definitions and choose one of the most accurate, or a merge of two of the most accurate descriptions (To Be Done). Harald van Lintel (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Broader still, I think: famously, it has something to say about mass and energy, which are not included in either of the above definitions. Peter Jackson (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree; will look into it. Harald van Lintel (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A few more:

1. (Fundamental physics, Alonso&Finn): The laws of nature must be the same for all inertial systems. (I notice that this is insufficient, as this was already so for classical physics).

2. (University physics, Harris Benson): A theory of the behaviour of particles moving at high speeds. It led to a radical revision of our ideas of space, time and energy. (not too bad I would say)

How about this:

Theory of the effects of high speed motion. The theory is based on the postulates that all laws of physics are equally valid in all frames of reference moving at a uniform velocity, and that the vacuum speed of light from a moving source is always the same, regardless of how fast or slow the source is moving.

Or this one:

Theory of the effects of motion on observations of such things as distance, time, mass and energy. The theory is based on the postulates that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference systems, and that the vacuum speed of light is a universal constant, independent of the speed of the source.

Harald van Lintel (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)