AG, your insistence on pretending to misunderstand basic physics while demanding "EXACT" explanations is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that defines you as a troll of galactic proportions. Let’s put this to rest once and for all and expose your nonsense for what it is.
The paradox arises because two frames disagree about whether the car fits in the garage. This disagreement is resolved by the relativity of simultaneity, which you’ve been dismissing, dodging, or deliberately misunderstanding throughout this entire discussion. In the garage frame, events A (the back of the car passing the entrance) and B (the front of the car reaching or being inside the exit) are simultaneous. Because simultaneity exists in this frame, the car fits. End of story for the garage frame. In the car frame, events A and B are not simultaneous. Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. In this frame, the car doesn’t fit. This isn’t hard to understand—it’s basic relativity. Your refusal to acknowledge this isn’t a misunderstanding; it’s willful trolling. And no, length contraction doesn’t "solve" the paradox on its own. Length contraction sets up the conditions for the disagreement, but without simultaneity, the concept of "fit" is meaningless because you need to determine when the car’s front and back align with the garage’s entrance and exit. Ignoring this and repeatedly asking "how does simultaneity resolve it" is just you wasting everyone’s time. You keep throwing in ridiculous statements like "why is simultaneity frame-dependent?" as if this is some unsolved mystery. It’s frame-dependent because space and time are intertwined in special relativity, a fact established over a century ago. If you don’t understand that, you’re not just out of your depth—you’re in the wrong ocean. And your question about "synchronized endpoints" is a perfect example of your trolling. Sure, the car’s endpoints can be synchronized in its own frame, but simultaneity in one frame doesn’t translate to simultaneity in another. That’s the entire point of the paradox. If you don’t get that by now, it’s not because it hasn’t been explained—it’s because you’re not listening. Let’s address your passive-aggressive nonsense about videos and paranoia. Yes, videos start with length contraction because it’s an easy way to introduce the paradox. But they always move on to simultaneity to resolve it, because length contraction alone doesn’t cut it. If you think stopping at step one is sufficient, you’re proving that you either didn’t finish the video or didn’t understand it. You’ve dragged this out by twisting arguments, misrepresenting points, and demanding "exact" explanations while ignoring the ones you’ve already been given. Here it is, laid out clearly, once and for all. If you still don’t get it, the problem isn’t relativity or my explanation—it’s you. Your trolling has been entertaining, but it’s time to pack it up. You’ve lost. Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 21:23, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 1:05:29 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, your responses continue to be a whirlwind of contradiction, deliberate > misinterpretation, and a refusal to engage with the actual issue. Let’s > address your points one by one, stripping away the obfuscation and false > humility. > > You claim, "I never said I solved it; just defined it." If by "defined it" > you mean reducing the paradox to length contraction while ignoring > simultaneity’s role in the resolution, then congratulations—you’ve defined > an incomplete problem. That’s like describing a game of chess while leaving > out half the rules. Sure, you’ve set up the pieces, but you haven’t > explained how the game works. This isn’t a contribution; it’s laziness > masquerading as insight. > > Your repeated insistence that simultaneity "enables us to compare frames" > while claiming it "seems to have no relation to length contraction" is a > glaring contradiction. Length contraction is derived from the Lorentz > transformations, which themselves depend on the relativity of simultaneity. > Without simultaneity, the entire framework of special relativity collapses. > Your statement is like saying you understand how to bake bread but don’t > see why yeast is necessary. You’re either trolling or have fundamentally > misunderstood the theory. > > Let’s address your incredulity about simultaneity being frame-dependent. > Clocks in a single frame can indeed be synchronized—that’s not the issue. > The relativity of simultaneity arises when comparing events across > different frames. The endpoints of the car, for example, are simultaneous > in the car’s frame according to its clocks, but in the garage frame, they > are not simultaneous. This isn’t an opinion—it’s a cornerstone of special > relativity. Your refusal to accept this makes it clear that your problem > isn’t with my argument but with Einstein’s theory itself. > > As for your sarcastic "Why can’t the car have synchronized endpoints?" > question—this is exactly the point! It can, but only in its own frame. The > whole disagreement about the car fitting or not arises because simultaneity > is not universal. You keep asking why simultaneity matters, yet every > question you pose demonstrates exactly why it’s central to resolving the > paradox. The irony is almost painful. > > Your remark about "videos on this subject" is amusing. Yes, they often > start with length contraction because it’s an accessible way to introduce > the paradox. But they don’t stop there. They move on to simultaneity to > resolve the disagreement. If you’re stopping at the first five minutes of > the explanation and claiming that’s the whole story, that’s on you—not me. > > Lastly, your "I didn’t claim simultaneity is irrelevant, I’m just not > sure" line is a masterclass in trolling. You simultaneously (pun intended) > deny rejecting simultaneity while arguing against its necessity. Pick a > lane, AG. Either admit you don’t understand the role of simultaneity and > ask questions in good faith, or stop pretending you’re engaging > meaningfully. As it stands, your goal seems to be deflection, not > understanding. > > The paradox can’t be resolved without simultaneity. Length contraction > sets the stage, but simultaneity defines the frame-dependent nature of > "fit." Until you accept this, you’ll continue to argue in circles, wasting > both our time. > > > *Since, IIUC, you claim (and claimed) that simultaneity resolves the > paradox, but never explained EXACTLY how it does this, I invite you answer > this key question NOW. Otherwise, there's no reason for me to continue this > discussion and be forced to respond to your abusive and unfounded > accusations. AG* > > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 20:36, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebddf58a-a0fe-4bbc-83b9-ddf13cf3dd9fn%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/6486dd95-5549-4165-be5a-2966873ed5fcn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6486dd95-5549-4165-be5a-2966873ed5fcn%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/CAMW2kAoQCuXb5xkJgQ%2B%2BRnQ3AwHWBywj%2BnrjD7Rg_SFW17Yy3w%40mail.gmail.com.
