On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 11:08 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 > Yes, differing results about whether the car fits, but no differing results about local physical events, and those are the objective physical facts in relativity. > 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? > SR allows for different ways of assigning space and time coordinates to events in different frames, but there is no disagreement about what readings are seen on specific physical rulers and clocks when they are right next to some event, say the event of the back of the car passing the front of the garage. > 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 > SR allows you to answer the question "does the car fit in the garage according to such-and-such a frame" just by using length, is that what you mean by "a length-only result"? If so, when you say this might be "described in error as contradictory results about local events", would you agree that in order to explain *why* this is in fact an error we need to bring the relativity of simultaneity into the discussion, in order to explain how the difference of opinion about the car fitting does *not* actually lead to any differing predictions about local events? Jesse > -- > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a880e0c6-d622-4f9c-9da2-e26dc6c3e651n%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/CAPCWU3KcNx0xHspJ4D5prJraD9cDnJxoB4Q%3D3r-dEVCXBsn3Yw%40mail.gmail.com.
