Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

[H Veeder]

Ok so there is a point of first contact after which the object begins
"growing" into the stationary frame. What happens after the point of first
contact doesn't shift the point of first contact.

Harry



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

>  The word "contact" is the problem because if you are in different frames
> the point of contact is actually a collision especially so if you are
> talking relativistic  vs stationary and the "angle of incidence" includes
> an object shrinking away from the luminal frame while growing into the
> stationary frame ... theres gonna be sparks :_)
>
>
>
> *From:* H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:54 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>
>
>
> Both frames are in sliding contact so it takes no time for the sprayer to
> leave behind a mark.
>
> I suspect there is a (hidden?) assumption in relativity theory that does
> not allow for instant communication at the sliding interface between two
> frames of reference.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
> I would think there is a Lorentzian conversion of the paint going from a
> near C frame to a stationary frame.. the tracks will appear  further away
> from the under carridge because the train is  displaced /shrinking away
> from the axis of spatial displacement  at an angle between time and the
> spatial vector. Never able to reach C from our perspective just get smaller
> and "slower" once past 45 degrees.
>
> Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>
> Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can
> an observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in
> his frame.
>
>
>
> This is an interesting thought experiment.  I'm curious how the people at
> physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

[Roarty, Francis X]

The word "contact" is the problem because if you are in different frames the 
point of contact is actually a collision especially so if you are talking 
relativistic  vs stationary and the "angle of incidence" includes  an object 
shrinking away from the luminal frame while growing into the stationary frame 
... theres gonna be sparks :_)

From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

Both frames are in sliding contact so it takes no time for the sprayer to leave 
behind a mark.
I suspect there is a (hidden?) assumption in relativity theory that does not 
allow for instant communication at the sliding interface between two frames of 
reference.
Harry

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote:
I would think there is a Lorentzian conversion of the paint going from a near C 
frame to a stationary frame.. the tracks will appear  further away from the 
under carridge because the train is  displaced /shrinking away from the axis of 
spatial displacement  at an angle between time and the spatial vector. Never 
able to reach C from our perspective just get smaller and "slower" once past 45 
degrees.
Fran

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder 
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can an 
observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in his 
frame.

This is an interesting thought experiment.  I'm curious how the people at 
physics.stackexchange.com<http://physics.stackexchange.com> would reply to it.

Eric

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

[John Berry]

Special Relativity has a real problem with instantaneous communication,
even when it must be possible as in this case.



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:54 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Both frames are in sliding contact so it takes no time for the sprayer to
> leave behind a mark.
> I suspect there is a (hidden?) assumption in relativity theory that does
> not allow for instant communication at the sliding interface between two
> frames of reference.
> Harry
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>>  I would think there is a Lorentzian conversion of the paint going from
>> a near C frame to a stationary frame.. the tracks will appear  further away
>> from the under carridge because the train is  displaced /shrinking away
>> from the axis of spatial displacement  at an angle between time and the
>> spatial vector. Never able to reach C from our perspective just get smaller
>> and "slower" once past 45 degrees.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can
>> an observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in
>> his frame.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an interesting thought experiment.  I'm curious how the people at
>> physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

[H Veeder]

Both frames are in sliding contact so it takes no time for the sprayer to
leave behind a mark.
I suspect there is a (hidden?) assumption in relativity theory that does
not allow for instant communication at the sliding interface between two
frames of reference.
Harry


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

>  I would think there is a Lorentzian conversion of the paint going from a
> near C frame to a stationary frame.. the tracks will appear  further away
> from the under carridge because the train is  displaced /shrinking away
> from the axis of spatial displacement  at an angle between time and the
> spatial vector. Never able to reach C from our perspective just get smaller
> and "slower" once past 45 degrees.
>
> Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>
> Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can
> an observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in
> his frame.
>
>
>
> This is an interesting thought experiment.  I'm curious how the people at
> physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

[Roarty, Francis X]

I would think there is a Lorentzian conversion of the paint going from a near C 
frame to a stationary frame.. the tracks will appear  further away from the 
under carridge because the train is  displaced /shrinking away from the axis of 
spatial displacement  at an angle between time and the spatial vector. Never 
able to reach C from our perspective just get smaller and “slower” once past 45 
degrees.
Fran

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder 
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can an 
observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in his 
frame.

This is an interesting thought experiment.  I'm curious how the people at 
physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it.

Eric