AG, your response is an impressive cocktail of intellectual dishonesty, bad faith, and projection. If there were a prize for dodging the point while pretending to engage, you’d be the reigning champion. Let’s dissect your nonsense piece by piece.
You claim, "I never denied simultaneity is key when comparing events in different frames," yet your argument reeks of denial. You repeatedly push length contraction as if it exists in some magical bubble, completely independent of simultaneity. This is like claiming you understand cooking but insisting you don’t need heat to boil water. Length contraction and simultaneity are not separate players—they’re part of the same team. Denying this reveals either willful ignorance or outright trolling. Your gem, "A car which doesn’t fit could still have simultaneous endpoints," is a masterpiece of misunderstanding. Simultaneity is frame-dependent. In the garage frame, simultaneity makes the car fit. In the car frame, simultaneity makes it not fit. Pretending that simultaneity can somehow be universal shows you either haven’t grasped the basics of relativity or are just here to waste time with nonsense. Then we get to your "plane geometry metaphor." You claim it’s "just a metaphor," but you used it to downplay the centrality of simultaneity, as if we’re overcomplicating things. This isn’t me "failing to read between the lines"; this is you handwaving away a fundamental concept because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Backpedaling by saying "I won’t use metaphors again" isn’t clever—it’s just another way to avoid admitting you were wrong. And now you accuse Brent’s argument of being "circular" while clinging to your absurd belief that simultaneity is optional. Simultaneity isn’t a "boost" to length contraction—it’s the foundation that makes length contraction meaningful. Calling his argument circular while cherry-picking relativity to suit your whims is pure projection on your part. Your parting shot about "professional help" is as pathetic as it is predictable. Insults are the last refuge of someone who knows they’ve lost the argument. If your understanding of relativity were half as sharp as your snide remarks, this discussion might actually be productive. Instead, you hide behind straw men and false bravado because you know your position is indefensible. The problem here isn’t my supposed paranoia; it’s your inability to engage with the physics. You claim to accept the Lorentz transformations but treat simultaneity like an annoying add-on you can ignore. Until you stop pretending that your half-baked arguments are anything more than trolling, you’ll remain the poster child for bad faith debates. If you’re unwilling to actually address the physics, at least spare us the pretense of intellectual engagement. You’re not debating—you’re flailing. Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 19:29, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 8:27:06 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, you’re hiding behind "plane geometry" as if it operates independently > of relativistic principles, which is disingenuous. Let me make this > abundantly clear: > > 1. "Plane geometry" doesn’t bypass relativity > > > *I never thought it did. I was just using "plane geometry" as a metaphor, > that sometimes there's a simple answer to a question. In this case, the > core reason a car will fit or not depends on the relative lengths of car > and garage. Of course, if you want to compare events in different frames, > use of simultaneity is key. I never denied that. AG* > > > Plane geometry, in the context of special relativity, requires you to > respect the relativistic definitions of time, space, and simultaneity. You > cannot invoke a classical geometric approach while ignoring the fact that > in relativistic physics, spatial relationships are observer-dependent. > "Fit" depends not just on lengths but also on the relative timing of > events, which is frame-dependent. > > 2. Simultaneity is not optional in defining "fit" > > You claim simultaneity is unnecessary to define the necessary condition > for fit. Fine, I agree: the necessary condition is length contraction. But > defining the sufficient condition—whether the car actually fits in a > specific frame—requires simultaneity. > > > *I agree. That's what I have been asserting. AG * > > > In plane geometry, the sufficient condition is explicit: you compare > endpoints simultaneously. Without simultaneity, comparing endpoints is > meaningless, as the back and front of the car are in different places at > different times depending on the frame. > > 3. Your contradiction: events A and B being "simultaneous" > > You claim the car doesn’t fit in the garage frame and still say events A > (back of the car passes entrance) and B (front reaches exit) can be > simultaneous. This is self-contradictory because: > > In the garage frame, events A and B are simultaneous if the car fits. > > In the car frame, events A and B are not simultaneous due to the > relativity of simultaneity. > Your refusal to acknowledge this frame-dependent simultaneity undermines > your argument. > > > 4. The problem with your "plane geometry" excuse > > Invoking "plane geometry" while ignoring relativistic principles is not an > argument—it’s an attempt to sidestep the actual issue. Relativity modifies > the classical understanding of geometry because space and time are > interconnected. Pretending otherwise is either ignorance or bad faith. > > > *Your paranoia is surfacing again. I wasn't seriously invoking plane > geometry. Try reading between the lines. I won't use metaphors again, since > they go over your head. AG * > > > 5. Stop deflecting with accusations > > You’ve repeatedly accused me of paranoia, bad faith, and unfounded > accusations. These are attempts to distract from the fact that your > argument is incomplete and inconsistent. If you genuinely believe > simultaneity is irrelevant, provide a relativistically consistent > definition of "fit" that doesn’t rely on it. > > > *More paranoia. Sure, every argument on any subject is liable to be > incomplete, but when I know that clocks in any frame can be synchronized, > it seems logical that a car which doesn't fit, could still have > simultaneous end points. AG * > > > Final Note > > If you’re willing to admit that simultaneity plays a role in defining > "fit" across frames, we can have a meaningful discussion. > > > *I never denied that. Nor am I "hiding" behind plane geometry. I do assume > the three results of the LT are on equal footing, so it's legitmate to use > any one, or any combination, to establish some desired point. IMO, when > Brent uses disagreement about simultaneity as part of alleged resolution of > the paradox, he's just bolstering the case that the length contraction > argument can be strengthened. But it doesn't touch on whether SR is a > flawed theory. For that reason I referred to his argument as circular. AG* > > > If not, your repeated deflections only demonstrate that you’re unwilling > to engage with the core principles of relativity. Stop hiding behind "plane > geometry" and address the physics. > > > *Maybe you need professional help to cure you of your incess* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *ant paranoia? AG* > > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 16:20, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 7:57:43 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, your statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic relativity. > Let’s break this down clearly: > > 1. Defining "fit" requires simultaneity > > To say the car "fits" in the garage means comparing two spatially > separated events: > > Event A: The back of the car passes the entrance of the garage. > > Event B: The front of the car is at or within the exit of the garage. > > To determine if these two events occur at the same time, you need a > definition of simultaneity. In relativity, simultaneity is frame-dependent, > which means "fit" is frame-dependent. > > Without simultaneity, you cannot meaningfully compare these events to > declare that the car fits. > > 2. Ignoring simultaneity creates an ill-defined problem > > You say I’m "creating a condition for comparison." That’s not an added > condition—it’s a required step. Without simultaneity, there is no way to > decide if the events (back exiting and front fitting) happen at the same > moment. Dismissing simultaneity is effectively refusing to define what > "fits" even means. > > 3. Your logical error > > By claiming simultaneity isn’t necessary, you’re effectively asserting > that "fit" is absolute. However: > > In the garage frame: The car fits because events A and B are simultaneous. > > > *I am just applying plane geometry. If the car won't fit in garage frame, > events A and B, its endpoints, can still be simultaneous. AG * > > > In the car frame: Events A and B are not simultaneous, so the car doesn’t > fit. > > Your refusal to address this difference ignores the core principle of > special relativity: there is no absolute simultaneity. > > 4. Conclusion > > Your argument boils down to dismissing a foundational concept of > relativity. If simultaneity isn’t necessary, then "fit" becomes undefined > and meaningless across different frames. To claim simultaneity is > irrelevant while discussing events that are spatially and temporally > separated is to fundamentally misunderstand or ignore the physics. > > > *I don't think I'm ignoring anything. Simultaneity is necessary to compare > events in different frames, but not necessary to define the necessary > condition for fit. AG* > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 15:35, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:18:29 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Even chatgpt is tired. > > AG, your insistence on ignoring simultaneity while clinging to an > incomplete understanding of the problem is fundamentally flawed. Let’s > address the core of this once and for all. > > 1. Relative length alone is not sufficient to define "fit" > > Yes, the length contraction of the car in the garage’s frame establishes a > necessary condition: the car’s contracted length must be less than or equal > to the garage’s length for fitting to be possible. But relativity is not > classical mechanics—you cannot wave away simultaneity and declare that > "fit" is absolute. The sufficient condition for fitting depends on > comparing specific events, and that comparison is frame-dependent. > > 2. Simultaneity defines "fit" in relativity > > You’ve dismissed simultaneity as irrelevant, but it’s essential. To > declare that the car fits, you must determine: > > Whether the back of the car has passed the entrance at the same time that > the front is at or within the exit. > > > *No. Whether the car fits or not depends only on its length compared to > length of garage.. Plane geometry. AG * > > > In the garage frame, this simultaneity exists, and the car fits. In the > car’s frame, the sequence of events is different due to the relativity of > simultaneity. Ignoring this distinction is a failure to understand how > special relativity fundamentally works. > > > *I'm not denying simultaneity. But I do see it as irrelevant in knowing > whether the car fits or not. AG * > > > 3. Your claim about synchronized clocks is false > > > *It is not. You misread what I wrote and then think it's cool to call me a > troll. AG * > > > Your assertion that "all clocks in any frame can be assumed to be > synchronized" is blatantly incorrect in the context of relativity. > Synchronization only applies within the same frame, > > > *That's what I wrote. AG* > > > > and relativity explicitly demonstrates that different frames have > different notions of simultaneity. Pretending otherwise is either > deliberate trolling or a refusal to engage with the basic principles of the > theory. > > 4. The real issue > > This is not about "games" or "courtesy." The issue is your refusal to > engage with the central role simultaneity plays in defining the sufficient > condition for "fit." Length contraction is only half of the story. By > ignoring simultaneity, you’re oversimplifying a relativistic scenario and > then claiming it as a valid argument. It’s not. > > > *You seem to think invoking simultaneity is essential for determining fit. > But length contraction alone is obviously sufficient. Don't blame me. I > didn't invent SR. Apparently, you want to use simultaneity to further the > argument why frames disagree about fitting. AG * > > > 5. Conclusion > > Relativity is clear: simultaneity and length contraction together resolve > the disagreement between frames. If you insist on treating "fit" as an > absolute concept, you’re contradicting the very foundation of special > relativity. If this is deliberate trolling, then let’s end the discussion > here, because I have no interest in engaging further with bad faith > arguments. > > > *Try putting your paranoia aside. I haven't been treating "fit" as an > absolute concept; just applying plane geometry. If you want to compare > events in different frames, I have no objection, but it would be nice if > you would cease your unfounded accusations. AG* > > " > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 14:13, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Chatgpt is your friend, talk to it and convince it you're absolutely right: > > 1. "Fit" as a necessary condition based on relative lengths > > Yes, you're absolutely right that the problem often starts by asserting > the necessary condition: whether the contracted length of the car (from the > garage’s frame) is shorter than or equal to the garage’s length. However, > this necessary condition alone doesn’t resolve the disagreement between > frames—it just establishes whether fitting is possible. > > 2. Why simultaneity is essential to the sufficient condition > > To determine whether the car "actually fits" in the garage, we need to > specify when the comparison is made. That’s where simultaneity becomes > critical. For example: > > In the garage frame: At one specific instant, the back of the car passes > the entrance, and the front is still inside the exit. > > In the car frame: The back of the car passing the entrance and the front > reaching the exit are not simultaneous. > > Without simultaneity, the "fit" cannot be meaningfully defined because > it’s unclear what events we’re comparing. This isn’t about adding > unnecessary complexity but about adhering to how relativity defines events > across space and time. > > > *The fact is that simultaneity isn't necessary to determine if the car > fits. What you're doing is creating the condition for a comparison of > events, or fitting, between different frames.* > > -- > 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/4a2921fb-c061-4cb6-a03e-cbadeb31a3ben%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a2921fb-c061-4cb6-a03e-cbadeb31a3ben%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/CAMW2kAoHz%3DrC3-VicZpEz%3DX41oTDdk%3D%3D6V2gvyTsh8e7AoDYhA%40mail.gmail.com.
