[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

I did not commented on your words, because I don't know what you intend to
say. You said

Einstein's relativity deals with relative motion, which is movement to or
from the observer.

I am sorry, but  relative motion does not mean "movement has to be TO OR
FROM observer". It can be in any direction provided we are doing correct
vector maths.

And then you said "An object with transverse velocity to me has no relative
velocity"

Again I have to say that traverse velocity is also a relative velocity,
even as per high school level physics,

Perhaps, you mean something else, which I am unable to understand.

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 18:46 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> 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/20181201/4c7a1d07/attachment.html>