Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
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 francis.x.roa...@lmco.com 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 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
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
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.commailto: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.commailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.commailto: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.comhttp://physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it. Eric
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
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 hveeder...@gmail.commailto: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.comhttp://physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it. Eric
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 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
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
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 hveeder...@gmail.com 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 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
