On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2024 at 2:42:39 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 12/17/2024 11:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 10:16:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2024 7:52 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 6:57:28 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson
> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
>
> Yes, you look at it just in terms of lengths, which is what I did in the
> first pair of diagrams. But the relativity of simultaneity is another
> way to look at the same problem, which is what I showed in my last posting.
>
>
> *Another way, but not the only way. AG *
>
>
> We seem to be on the same page concerning use of length contraction to
> explain the
> differing results in the frames under consideration. But I remain unclear
> how the
> disagreement of simultaneity can also give the same results. For example,
> suppose
> from the pov of the garage frame, the car fits in the garage for
> sufficient v, with room
> to spare, but the front and rear end EVENTS do not Lorentz transform into
> simultaneous
> events in the car frame. Can't there be other ways for the car to fit,
> using another set
> of events which* are* simultaneous in the car frame? AG
>
>
> Sure. If the car's speed was just right, it would be the same length as
> the garage. Then in the diagram A and B would be at the same time in the
> garage frame the car would be just the right length such that the rear of
> the car entered the garage just as the front exited the garage. Since we
> know the car is 12 long and the garage is 10 long we can calculate the
> required speed from 10/12 =sqrt{1-v^2} which yields v=0.553 if I did the
> arithmetic right.
>
>
> That would be 0.553c. So, if the front and back events in the garage frame
> are simultaneous in the car frame AND in the garage frame,
>
> Nobody said that the events were simultaneous in the car frame. The car
> is contracted in the car frame. You keep throwing shit in problem just to
> keep it going. I'm starting to suspect you're just a troll.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *My question for you is this; when will you learn to read English? You act
> like an uneducated prick who can't read basic English. The consensus view
> in the physics community is that the solution to this problem involves
> disagreement about simultaneity. I don't see this as correct. For example,
> that's what Quentin wrote several times, mocking me, and that's what a link
> claimed, without proof, which someone posted. And even Jesse, if I read him
> correctly, claims that the result in one frame must be false if there's no
> simultaneity.*
>
What do you mean by "if there's no simultaneity"? What I said was that the
prediction of the two frames would disagree about local events (a genuine
physical contradiction) in an imaginary universe where both inertial frames
*did* agree about simultaneity (i.e. there is no relativity of simultaneity
like in the real-world theory of relativity) but where they still each
predicted objects in the other frame would experience length contraction.
Anyway, it'd be helpful if you'd go back to that last comment of mine and
answer my questions about whether you understand how classical space/time
plots work, and also whether you understand that in relativity you have to
use the Lorentz transformation on the coordinates of an event labeled in
one frame to find the "same event" in a different frame, with the result
that any *specific* pair of events on the front & back of the car that are
simultaneous in the car frame are non-simultaneous in the garage frame
(although in the garage frame you can find a *different* pair of events on
the front & back of the car which are simultaneous in the garage frame but
not the car frame, which is what Brent was talking about).
Jesse
>
> why is it claimed that the solution to the problem, whatever it is,
> depends on disagreements of simultaneous events, when there are none? And
> if we get different results for fitting in the garage, where, for example,
> the car never fits, is there anything about this result that implies
> something contradictory or paradoxical? 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/bfb34b77-b583-4a80-82c1-45ec7381c141n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bfb34b77-b583-4a80-82c1-45ec7381c141n%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/CAPCWU3%2BzBodMMj8heyBLDGcPwc1HFuabFkE%2BiEdFTHm7HRjdNg%40mail.gmail.com.
