Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST) | ::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 03:20, November 29, 2009
Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. JacobB 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.
- The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--Andy Schlafly 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? JacobB 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--Andy Schlafly 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)