https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=CarloPConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-06-09T15:17:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=965437Talk:Theory of relativity2012-03-02T23:51:11Z<p>CarloP: /* Neutrinos now obey speed limit */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''<br />
<br />
'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!---------------------------------- Comments go below this line ---------------------------><br />
<br />
== Mass depending on direction ==<br />
<br />
The article states:<br />
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''<br />
<br />
As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''<br />
<br />
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==<br />
<br />
The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)</div>CarloP