The length of track ( the number of railroad ties) under the train in the train's frame of reference is greater than in the frame of reference of someone at rest relative to the tracks. Since the train's paint sprayers are effectively touching the track they will have to leave behind marks with more track (more railroad ties) in between the marks then the marks left behind by the shortened train.
The paradox can be made to vanish by insisting the events be synchronized by sending signals first. Relativity says the signals will not be received simultaneously in both frames of reference so there will only be one set of spray marks although I am not sure what the distance between the marks will be at this stage. 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. harry On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:43 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > I guess I do not understand what you are referring to Harry. Each > observer has his own special view that is different from everyone else. > Anyone that resides at rest relative to the tracks would see the short > train as it passes. Why would you expect them to make two separate > observations? There is only one train moving past. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 3:23 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox > > 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 <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> 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 >> > >
