On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 8:45:41 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 8:57 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: I On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 2:33:46 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/17/2024 9:25 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > Using Brent's initial condiitons, in the rest frame the lengths of the > car and garage are 12' and 10' respectively. There's no controversy > that the car doesn't fit because it's longer. Now set the car in > motion and use the gamma factor in SR, You must be miscalculating the factor sqrt{1-v^2} is less than one, so the moving car is shorter. *Yes. I should have used its inverse, so a moving car is shorter from the * *garage frame. My general point is that the results can be obtained without* *applying simultaneity* Only if you ignore the whole pedagogical point of the example which I pointed to in my comment earlier today, namely how both frame's perspectives make sense without implying a true physical contradiction (i.e. contradictory predictions about local events). Jesse This, in effect, was my original problem. I thought the differing results was contradictory and therefore a paradox. BUT we do get differing results, that's a fact, and it's only contradictory if the frames can be compared at the same time, but this seems a Newtonian pov/bias where time is universal, same in all frames. In addition, SR allows for different measurements in different frames. Isn't this length-only result nothing more than that? AFAIK, SR allows for a length-only result, and the alleged paradox is described in error as contradictory results about local events. I look forward to your reply. AG -- 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/a880e0c6-d622-4f9c-9da2-e26dc6c3e651n%40googlegroups.com.
