[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

I think you were a bit harsh when you said the following statement is utter
nonsense and with a motive to deceive.

 "If you insist that all objects have their rest length, then why not be
consistent and say that all objects have their rest velocity?"

I have not judged because I don't know what exactly is in his mind when he
made those statements.

Length cannot be defined unless , first we define an orientation along
which  length is to measured. Usually that orientation is defined with
reference to direction of velocity. And object at rest as you said is at
zero velocity (wrt own frame). So in which direction will you orient this
velocity of zero magnitude? Therefore I guess, that such an object at rest
will have many  lengths each in each direction.

Regards,

Tufail

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 16:25 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> Firstly, Tuffail, the measurement of c has been ongoing for hundreds of
> years now, and by plotting a line through these measurements, it is easy to
> see that c has slowed. This is from memory so don't quote me on the time
> scale. I am still searching for the original (to me) article.
>
> I really do not know what to make of Richard Muller's post on Quora -
> whether to laugh out loud or be outraged. He says he has "seen" this
> effect, then explains that he only inferred it.
> The rest of the article is also nonsense. Of course an object in its own
> frame cannot measure itself to be moving unless it measures that movement
> against another frame.
> RM "If you insist that all objects have their rest length, then why not be
> consistent and say that all objects have their rest velocity?"
> Utter nonsense, intended to deceive. Let's re-write that statement. "I do
> insist that all objects have their rest length, and I am consistent by
> saying that all objects have their rest velocity (ie zero) WHEN MEASURED IN
> THEIR OWN FRAME".
> RM "For a moving object, you measure its length by noting the position of
> the two ends simultaneously, and then you calculate the length of the
> object as the distance between those two points."
> There is an error in this statement before we even go into the truth of
> it. Einstein's length contraction et al, happens (if you believe that it
> happens) only when the object that you are observing/measuring is moving
> towards or away from the observer. Einstein's relativity deals with
> relative motion, which is movement to or from the observer. If the object
> being observed is in transverse motion, there is no relative motion, and no
> length contraction WRT the observer. This fact is very often ignored by
> relativists.
> That is not the only method of measuring the length of a moving object. I
> would use this method.
> Track the object, while measuring the viewing angle between its front and
> rear. If you know the distance, you know the length. If you do not know the
> distance, you have a comparative length for when the object stops and you
> measure the angle again.
> I will post this reply to Richard Muller also.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
> Date: 30/11/2018 17:15
> To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>, "General Physics and Natural Philosophy
> discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>
> Tom,
>
> Perhaps the present value of c is just  an asymptotic value. And in this
> context, the PRESENT could be as large as 10,000 years or more.
>
> 300yrs would be too small a duration, to detect a noticeable change,
> considering the age of universe to be as large as 14B LY?
>
> I agree with you on time dilation, but here(link below) Richard Muller is
> saying that he has himself seen the length contraction in labs:
>
>
> https://www.quora.com/Is-length-contraction-only-a-result-related-to-observation-or-a-real-contraction/answer/Richard-Muller-3
>
> I am sure many other will have similar experience/observation. And we
> cannot deny what we observe, irrespective of what we think and what theory
> we support.
>
> Tufail
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181201/d20b6b6a/attachment.html>