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 <[email protected] > 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:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:54 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 < > [email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> 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 > > > > >
