[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

K is not the position of the observer but it is the coordinate system of
observer's frame.

Still if you continue to insist that radial and relative would mean the
same thing, then I have nothing more to say,

Thanks for interacting :)

Regards,

Tufail

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, 21:51 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> Tuffail, perhaps I did not make myself clear because I stopped the
> quotation too soon. The quotation ends with :-
> "...the distance between the two points being sqrt( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 )) "
> The complete sentence is this, but I thought it was unnecessary to include
> it :- "...the distance between the two points being sqrt( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2
> )) . But the meter rod is moving with the velocity v relative to K."
> There you have it straight from the horse's mouth. The velocity is the
> relative or radial velocity. The velocity between the the observer and the
> observed.
> I also would refute that anything I have said, posted, or written, should
> be construed as belief in SRT (but I suspect you knew that!).
> The equations for objects moving at right angled are correct, but the
> equations for objects moving at other than right angles to the observer are
> rather more complicated, take a look here for the correct equations (which
> take into account the vectors you mentioned in an earlier email) :-
> http://alternativephysics.org/book/LorentzWrong.htm
>
> Tom.
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
> Date: 02/12/2018 16:14
> To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>
> Tom,
>
> I must say that:
>
> Yes you are right that rod is placed radially to the origin and one end of
> rod is kept at origin, in that paper which you quoted.
>
> But that is just a simple case for illustrating the concept, and deriving
> the equations. Otherwise in special relativity, length contraction is along
> the path of travel, not along the line of sight.
>
> Nevertheless, above statements does not imply that I may believe or not
> with length contraction/ time dilation.
>
> I am just saying from a neutral point of view, that  your arguments are
> not strong enough!!!,
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181203/1c3b93c8/attachment.html>