On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 11:54:36 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 19:51, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : 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. *Truthfully, I am tiring of your incessant paranoia. AG * 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* AG, your ability to twist facts and misrepresent the argument is almost impressive. Let’s break down your latest attempt at deflection and bad faith logic. First, claiming, "I used length contraction to generate the paradox. I didn’t need anything else," is absurd. Yes, you can create a superficial paradox with length contraction, but resolving it requires simultaneity. Without simultaneity, you have no way to compare events across frames. Length contraction alone doesn’t explain why the car "fits" in one frame and not in another—it just sets up the con. *I never claimed to have solved it; just being able to define it. AG* Without simultaneity, you have no way to compare events across frames. Length contraction alone doesn’t explain why the car "fits" in one frame and not in another—it just sets up the conditions for the disagreement. Ignoring simultaneity while patting yourself on the back for creating a paradox is like setting a house on fire and claiming you invented arson. *Why do you keep ignoring what I stated about simultaneity? -- that it enables us to compare frames. Nor am I patting myself on the back. I just described how the paradox can be defined with length contraction alone. AG * Second, your repeated claim, "I’ve stated many times that simultaneity is necessary for frame comparisons," is nothing more than a smokescreen. You say you "accept" simultaneity but treat it like an afterthought—a nuisance you begrudgingly admit exists while refusing to let it do the heavy lifting that relativity demands. The paradox doesn’t just involve "frame comparisons"—it fundamentally hinges on simultaneity to define whether the car fits in a given frame. Length contraction without simultaneity is meaningless. You know this, but you keep pretending otherwise. *You really need to view some videos on this subject. They invariably start with the claim originating with length contraction. I did the same, and for some reason this triggers your paranoia. AG* Now, to your question about simultaneous endpoints for a car that "doesn’t fit." This is where you’re either trolling or genuinely lost. Simultaneous endpoints are always frame-dependent. In the garage frame, if the car fits, the endpoints align with the entrance and exit simultaneously. In the car frame, the endpoints cannot be simultaneous in the same way because of the relativity of simultaneity. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp—unless, of course, you’re trying to muddy the waters for fun. Your final jab, "If endpoints can be simultaneous for a car that doesn’t fit, how can they define fitting?" is yet another transparent dodge. Endpoints define fitting within a specific frame. *So car length and other lengths are irrelevant? AG* If you refuse to acknowledge that simultaneity is frame-dependent, then of course you’ll keep spinning your wheels on this question. But that’s not a failure of relativity—it’s a failure of your understanding. *Well, since I know that clocks can be synchronized in any frame, why is simultaneity frame dependent? Why can't the car in the car frame have sychronized endpoints. When I used length contraction, the car won't fit, and it seems to have no relation to simultaneity. AG * You’re not engaging with the physics; you’re playing word games to avoid admitting your argument is flawed. If you want to continue this debate, at least do the bare minimum of accepting that simultaneity is not optional or secondary—it’s the cornerstone of the resolution. Until then, your "facts" are just noise. *I didn't claim simultaneity is irrelevant. I am just not sure. You claim it is, but I don't understand your argument to my satisfaction. Did you ever make one, of did you just assume it's all so obvious that an argument is unnecessary? Yes, that's what I think you did. 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/ebddf58a-a0fe-4bbc-83b9-ddf13cf3dd9fn%40googlegroups.com.
