User talk:Nagateja95

Welcome!
Hello, Nagateja95, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Oh-my-God particle
The statements you deleted do not actually violate relativity. They do not state particles travel faster than light, just a very high fraction of the speed of light, which is allowed by Einstein. Kleuske (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have removed the statements once more. I assume based on the same (flawed) reasoning. Please discuss your objections on the talk page per WP:BRD. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am new to wiki. I thought that I can write about the edit after reverting. But back to the point, thing is that the speed of light remains the same in all the reference frames is the tenet of special relativity. The fact that anything massive (mass $m\neq 0$)can't move faster than a photon is merely is consequence of it. Hence, it would take the same time for photon to gain 1cm on any object in it's reference frame.
 * Once more, welcome to Wikipedia. You are right from the particle's FoR, but the comparison was made from a stationary FoR, not that of the particles. Also, it's better to raise points like this on the talk page, where others can chime in. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My main concern was around the point was that the use such pop-sciency numbers will just end up confusing laymen/amateurs visiting here.
 * Again... I appreciate your concerns and, again, I suggest you raise issues like this on the talkpage. Kleuske (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)