And lo on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:32:22 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:19:43 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> Though won't the double track also seem foreshortened?
>>>
>>> Yes, but the oncoming train will seem *more* foreshortened.
>>>
>>>> travelling so fast it'll just sail straight over the gap without  
>>>> falling far enough to get stuck.
>>>
>>> Not ... exactly. The problem isn't that he doesn't fall far enough.  
>>> The problem is that the bottom of the train starts falling before the  
>>> top does, kind of.
>>>
>>> And in that case, there are only two speeds involved (the track and  
>>> the train), rather than the three in Warp's original problem.
>>   From an outside observer's pov both trains are shorter then the  
>> double track so should pass without problem; I was trying to reconcile  
>> it with the traindrivers' view. The oncoming train is shorter, but so  
>> is the double track; so they should still collide?
>
> No, because the oncoming westbound train is coming at the eastbound  
> train faster than the tracks are coming at the eastbound train, so the  
> westbound train appears to be smaller than the siding as seen from the  
> eastbound train.

Check my later comments on how this could still mean they collide; I think  
I've got it now anyway thanks.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message