On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 1:42:59 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 10:43:55 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 6:13 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 3:30:15 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 1:30:59 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 1:23:44 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/23/2024 11:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 11:03:36 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/23/2024 9:36 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 9:33:36 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: All you have to do is solve for the speed at which the Lorentz contraction is 10/12 so that the car is ten feet long in the garage frame. Brent I know that. What I don't know is which question you're allegedly answering. AG More important question; didn't you deny my claim that for a sufficient velocity the car either fits or doesn't fit, as an objective fact that the paradox seems to deny? AG If I was thinking clearly I did. An objective fact is not reference frame dependent. Brent Obviously, you guys can only speak in riddles, If you would ever solve one the riddles you might learn something. Telling you answer just leads to your saying you're not convinced and around it goes. so I have to assume you can't answer the underlying question; Or you might assume you just too dumb or stubborn to learn the answer. Brent You have no answer, just some plots pretending to be an answer. Just riddles upon riddles. AG Why I don't believe the gurus here have the answer; you'll note how easy it is to pose the question, and how easy it is to offer a proposed solution; namely, the disagreement about simultaneity. But that's obviously not enough. As Quentin's behavior exemplifies; the mere statement of the solution is hardly sufficient. One then needs an ARGUMENT connecting the alleged solution, to the construction of the problem; that is, the paradox. But Quentin is totally UNAWARE of this requirement, which his link fails to provide, and then he's perfectly satisfied with accusing me as a troll. You, Brent, allege the solution in your plots, which I admit I fail to see the connecting argument just alluded to. But if you really understood the solution, and pride yourself in your teaching skills of relativity, you could offer a text solution, which should be a relatively short paragraph. But that remains wanting. AG Reviewing how time transforms using the LT, it does appear that for a perfectly fitting car for which its time parameter is identical at its end points, time does NOT transform to identical time parameters of the car's end points in the car frame, since in the garage frame the spatial parameter of the end points differ in the transformation equation. I'm not entirely certain, but I think this establishes the disagreement concerning simultaneity between the frames. Now, to resolve the paradox, requires an ARGUMENT to, in effect, DECONSTRUCT the claim of a paradox depending on this disagreement. AG The argument is that both frames agree on all the local physical facts at the front of the car as it reaches the back of the garage--in my example they both agree that the physical clock at rest relative to the car there reads -15 and the physical clock at rest relative to the garage there reads 0. *If your clocks have different readings when the car reaches the end of the garage, are they not physical facts that disagree? How does a choice of which clock is canonical change this situation? I'm not an expert in SR, but I have read parts of books and articles about it, as well as studying it formally at universities, and I have NEVER heard any discussion of what's canonical for clocks. AG* Their only disagreement is the *convention* they each use about which physical clock to treat as canonical for the purpose of assigning an abstract time-coordinate to that location in spacetime. *What convention are you referring to? Einstein uses the same clocks in each frame, which are synchronized at rest, and then go out of synch when motion is initiated. He never refers to different clocks. And the LT has both clocks, whatever they might be, in its transformation equations, namely t and t'. I've never seen of any choice about which physical clock is treated as canonical. Any clock seems satisfactory. But even if your argument holds, it's not obvious how this would DECONSTRUCT the argument that the car fits in the garage in one frame, but not in the other. AG* Once one realizes that they agree about all local physical facts at each point in spacetime, *Is measured time the same in both frames? Of course not. Does this mean measured time is NOT a physical fact which is frame dependent? AG* and that in relativity local physical facts are the only "objective facts" about what happens in a given problem, the paradox is deconstructed--there is no actual disagreement about any objective facts here, just about conventions for defining abstract coordinate labels. Jesse *Is your analysis consistent with Brent's? Does he also refer in any way to canonical clocks as deconstructing the paradox? Do you know that the word "canonical", as the Canonical Gospels, refers to "lawful" or "accepted" or "authoritative"? When used in relativity, do you mean that clocks in one frame are not to be trusted, so we chose those in another frame which are trustworthy? 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/52ff9a3c-c877-430f-bec5-c19d53b66f5en%40googlegroups.com.
