[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

No Tuffail, I don't think it was a bit harsh, it was reality. I notice that you haven't commented on my words, just on my way of putting them. An object with transverse velocity to me has no relative velocity (or very little to be absolutely accurate), so there is no length contraction et al from my viewpoint. True or false?Tom.



----Original Message----

From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com

Date: 01/12/2018 14:33 

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,
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 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181201/ca49d874/attachment.html>