Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 19:00, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:43:08 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 9:35 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> I'm not denying simultaneity. But I do see it as irrelevant in knowing > whether the car fits or not.* > > > *Irrelevant?! Regardless of how long or short the car is or how long or > short the garage is or how fast or slow an observer is moving EVERYBODY > will agree that there was a time when the back of the car entered the front > of the garage, and everybody will agree there was a time when the front of > the car left the back of the garage, and everybody will agree there was a > time where both of the doors on the garage were closed, BUT they will > disagree if those three events occurred simultaneously. Those who think > they were simultaneous events will conclude that the car fit in the garage, > and those who think the events were not simultaneous will conclude that the > car did not fit in the garage. * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > *Why cannot the car's endpoints be simultaneous without the car fitting? > After all, in any frame, all clocks can be synchronized to be simultaneous. > ISTM that the necessary requirement for fitting is the relative lengths of > the car and garage, and these lengths depend on the initial conditions, and > later on the car's speed, applying length contraction using the LT. I get > the same results as Brent just using length contraction and yet, according > to Quentin, I am downgrading the disagreement about simultaneity. The fact > is, it isn't needed to establish the apparent paradox. If you guys want to > blame someone, blame Einstein! AG * > AG, your arguments are so consistently absurd that they almost deserve admiration for their sheer stubbornness. Let’s go over your latest masterpiece of deflection and logical acrobatics. You cling to "the car’s endpoints can be simultaneous without fitting" like a badge of honor, completely ignoring that simultaneity isn’t some universal constant you can summon at will. In relativity, simultaneity is frame-dependent. This isn’t a minor point—it’s the very foundation of why observers disagree about the car fitting. By pretending you can define simultaneity universally, you’re either trolling or admitting you’ve never understood the first thing about relativity. Your obsession with "length contraction" as the sole arbiter of whether the car fits is equally laughable. Length contraction is frame-dependent—it only makes sense in the context of simultaneity. Without simultaneity, you don’t even have a consistent definition of where the car begins and ends relative to the garage. What you’re doing is like using a calculator without batteries and insisting it still works because you punched in the right numbers. Then there’s your line about "all clocks can be synchronized in a frame." Of course they can, but clocks in different frames cannot agree on simultaneity because of, you guessed it, the relativity of simultaneity. Ignoring this while smugly claiming you’re just "applying plane geometry" is the intellectual equivalent of proudly announcing you’ve solved a Rubik’s cube by peeling off the stickers. You’re not solving anything—you’re just ignoring the rules. Your continued invocation of Euclid in a relativistic discussion is like waving a wooden sword at a tank. Spacetime isn’t Euclidean, AG, and dragging Euclid into this doesn’t make you look clever; it makes you look desperate. Minkowski’s work replaced Euclid for a reason, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make you a contrarian genius—it just shows you’re out of your depth. And let’s not forget your attempt to blame Einstein, as if that somehow absolves you of the responsibility to understand his work. Einstein’s theory gave us the tools to explain exactly why your arguments fall apart. If anything, he’d probably be shaking his head at the lengths you’ve gone to avoid engaging with the basics. Your strategy is clear: avoid the actual physics, double down on irrelevant points, and act like everyone else is overcomplicating things. It’s not persuasive; it’s exhausting. Either address the role of simultaneity in determining whether the car fits or stop pretending you’re engaging with relativity at all. Right now, your arguments are a monument to bad faith and intellectual laziness. > *8ys* > > > -- > 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/176a6fe9-5d63-4a2c-ad37-d97957e71012n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/176a6fe9-5d63-4a2c-ad37-d97957e71012n%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/CAMW2kAqTeiV92u8BX4Zn5swZQkZ5wqDdoOgiZ7M4ePCdTbSayQ%40mail.gmail.com.
