On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 11:34:49 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
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. *All I can say is that I used length contraction to generate the paradox. I didn't need anything else. That's a fact! And I've stated many times that simultaneity is necessary for frame comparisons of pairs of events in one frame, to pairs in other frames. How did you miss that? Finally, I'd really like to know if endpoints can be simultaneous for, say, a car which doesn't fit. If so, how can endpoints be the final word on defining fitting? 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/00670205-f566-417f-a772-79eeeb6b87fcn%40googlegroups.com.
