>From a discussion in another group, I can say that the view of SR would be that what is simultaneous in the train frame would not be viewed as simultaneous in the track frame.
But the rotary argument is hard to fault. If a disk has a circumference of 100 units of length, and with length contraction is now 99 units of length to the rotating frame, but it now sees a 100 unit measure in the stationary frame to be only 99. So something that should fit around it in the stationary frame can't fit around it in the disk frame. No issues with simultaneity, and if you look at the disk from an on-top view you can simultaneously see every length unit marked must be contracted at once. Actually there is an issue as now the radius is not contracted so this view should not even be possible. It is entirely contradictory to rotate something under SR, SR must insist on time dilation and length contraction to be seen from both frames for light to be seen as C, except if it happens then a non-solvable paradox occurs with both time dilation and length contraction that would not occur with linear models where distance causes issues of communication delay, growing communication delay (Doppler) and as the paradoxical time accumulates in the twin paradox so does the degree to which non-simultaneity can account for it. But once all of those issues are removed with rotation or possibly vibration, none of those issues can account for he paradox, it is like handing the twins a set of instantaneous walkie talkies in the classic twin paradox. John On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be true if the problem of simultaneity across frames reference > were present, but the thought experiment is crafted to avoid that > possibility. > > > Harry > > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Harry, >> >> The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks. >> He would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would >> find the short version only. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm >> Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox >> >> A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis. >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing >> >> harry >> > >
