On Saturday, December 21, 2024 at 5:00:13 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, December 20, 2024 at 3:35:05 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Why bother answering a troll ? He will never admit anything, will change what he says if he's cornered. His sole purpose and pleasure is trolling. You end a troll by ignoring it. Ignoramus as him and cosmin are better dealt with plain silence, that's all these shitty human beings deserve. http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/sr.html A famous "paradox" is trying to park a relativistic car in a garage: *From the point of view of the car, the garage has "Lorentz contracted", and the car will no longer fit. But from the point of view of the garage, the car is now shorter, and so will fit even better. The resolution of the paradox is that if the front end of the car stops simultaneously to the back end from one "reference frame", that will not be true in the other.* If both ends do not stop at the same time, the car changes length. (This has often been observed nonrelativistically, for cars stopped by trees or other cars. Quentin; believe it or not, I'd like to be done with this problem. And since IIRC you posted the above link, perhaps you will be so kind as to explain it to me. If I read correctly, the author claims there appears to be a contradiction concerning in which frame the car fits in the garage. It appears that from the pov of the car, it can't fit in the garage due to length contraction of the garage; whereas from the pov of the garage frame, the car fits easily due to the car's length contraction. "*The* *resolution of the paradox is that if the front end of the car stops simultaneously to the back end from one "reference frame", that will not be true in the other." * *I fail to understand the alleged resolution of the paradox. How does the failure in simultaneity solve the paradox? Is the author claiming that because there is a failure in simultaneity in the car frame, the car won't stop in the car frame, even though it stops in the garage frame? Seriously; please explain it if you can. TY, AG* *Quentin; FYI the model of the paradox you posted is seriously flawed because it assumes the car comes to an instantaneous rest when it fits in the garage. Obviously, in this scenario, the car and garage would instantaneously recapitulate the initial condition of the rest frame where the car doesn't fit because it longer than the garage. Consequently, the preferred scenario is to imagine the garage like a covered bridge with both ends open, and use a velocity of the car exactly large enough so the car perfectly fits in the garage as it passes through. Then, the front and back end of the car are simultaneous at both openings. This is how Brent modeled the problem, IIUC. And the alleged solution is that the simultaneity which is achieved in the garage frame, fails in the car frame. So, the question I pose for you and anyone here who is interested, is this; how, exactly, does the disagreement of simultaneity solve the paradox (of the car fitting in garage frame, but not in car frame when the car is moving at a sufficient velocity)? TY, 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/aad57dfc-57a8-4d62-9b97-1e490d9d470en%40googlegroups.com.
