On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 8:31 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 15, 2024 at 6:20:47 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, December 15, 2024 at 5:41:54 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 11:01 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > * > What bothers me is the disagreement between frames about fitness or > not, and why the alleged lack of simultaneity resolves the apparent > contradiction. AG * > > > *In this thought experiment I think even you would agree that no matter > how fast or slow the car is going there will always be times when the front > of the car is in the garage, and times when the back of the car is in the > garage; so the question of the day is " Is there any frame of reference in > which those two events occur SIMULTANEOUSLY?" Einstein's answer is "yes", > provided the car is moving fast enough. And as proof that Einstein's answer > was correct, in this thought experiment, above a certain speed, there is NO > frame of reference in which there is a car shaped hole in the back door of > the garage. * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > No. Above a certain speed, since the car is length contracted from the pov > of the garage frame, the car will fit in the garage, and waiting some time, > then being in a different reference frame, it could hit the back door. AG > > > But the real question is this; if from the pov of the car frame, there is > a v such that the car never fits in the garage for this v and greater, why > is it claimed that lack of simultaneity between frames solves the problem, > since we're only considering simultaneity in garage frame where the car > fits? AG > Do you understand that when people talk about the relativity of simultaneity in the context of the car/garage problem, they are referring not just to events which are actually simultaneous in some frame, but also the fact that different frames can disagree about the time-ordering of events with a spacelike separation (i.e. neither event is in the past or future light cone of the other event)? The events A and B I was talking about earlier are not simultaneous in either the car frame or the garage frame (at least not with the numerical values for rest lengths and relative velocity given by Brent), but they happen in a different order in the two frames, and the relativity of simultaneity is key to understanding how that's possible, in Newtonian physics where all inertial frames agree about simultaneity there could be no disagreement about the order of any events. Jesse > eua > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c479509-2d32-4539-9c89-b675e51001bcn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c479509-2d32-4539-9c89-b675e51001bcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3Kiu2DXM7HgL2bQ9ycSo_RLJA2%3DOYRhNa1Cp-fqmpdYJg%40mail.gmail.com.
