AG, your backpedaling and constant twisting of words are as predictable as ever. Let me clarify what’s actually happening here because your attempts at misdirection are getting tiresome.
You keep pretending that your "if the frames agreed" argument is some profound insight. It’s not. Everyone understands that the frames disagree because of the principles of relativity, and that’s exactly what the LT predicts. You’re stating the obvious and then patting yourself on the back as if you’ve uncovered a hidden truth. Newsflash: you haven’t. Your suggestion that we should "consider the opposite" (the frames agreeing) isn’t helpful or insightful—it’s a straw man. No one is arguing that the frames should agree, and no one finds the disagreement "uncomfortable." The disagreement is the expected result of relativity and the reason why the paradox appears to exist in the first place. The role of simultaneity is to resolve the paradox by showing how the frames’ conclusions are internally consistent. Your assertion that "if the frames agreed, it would falsify the LT" is just you stating something obvious and acting like it’s profound. Of course, if the frames agreed, it would contradict the predictions of the LT. That’s why they don’t agree. This isn’t a revelation—it’s literally the framework of special relativity at work. Your attempt to dodge criticism with "learn to read well" is laughable. You’ve spent this entire discussion misrepresenting arguments, dodging points, and pretending simultaneity is irrelevant when it’s central to the resolution. Stop playing word games, AG. You’re not adding anything new—you’re just repeating the same tired distractions and congratulating yourself for being clever. You’re not. Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 08:58, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:50:37 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, your arrogance combined with your willful ignorance is genuinely > something to behold. Let’s break it down one more time, not because you > deserve the effort, but because your nonsense deserves to be dismantled. > > The so-called "paradox" exists because the two frames disagree on whether > the car fits. > > > *Why is this a paradox? Why must the frames agree? If it is a paradox, how > does simultaneity resolve it? I asked these questions to Clark because he's > more in a position to avoid emotions determining the answers. AG * > > This disagreement is a feature of relativity, not a flaw. In the garage > frame, the car fits because its contracted length allows it to align with > the garage’s endpoints simultaneously. In the car frame, the garage is > contracted, and simultaneity shifts, so the back passes the entrance before > the front reaches the exit. > > > *So the car fits, contradicting the prediction of the LT where the car's > length is longer than the garage. You've apparently proven what I have been > claiming all along. AG* > > > This difference isn’t a "false expectation" or a "non-problem"—it’s the > fundamental behavior of spacetime under the Lorentz transformations. > > > Your refusal to accept simultaneity’s role shows either that you’re > deliberately trolling or that you fundamentally don’t understand what > you’re talking about. Length contraction sets up the conditions for > disagreement, but it doesn’t explain the disagreement. Simultaneity > resolves it by showing why both frames arrive at different, yet internally > consistent conclusions. Ignoring simultaneity is like ignoring gravity > while trying to describe an orbit—it’s idiotic. > > You keep parroting that there’s no paradox, as if repeating it will make > it true. The paradox isn’t about some emotional discomfort with the > results; it’s about reconciling why the two frames disagree. Your > suggestion that "acknowledging the frames agree" would fix this is pure > drivel. > > > *I never made such a claim. I said if the frames agreed, it would be a > huge problem, as it would falsify the prediction of the LT. It would mean a > car longer than the garage could fit inside. AG* > > > If the frames agreed, it would violate the very principles of relativity > you claim to understand. That’s not insight—it’s stupidity wrapped in > smugness. > > > *Learn to read well. I never claimed the frames should agree; rather, if > you're uncomfortable that they disagree, you should consider the opposite, > which is clearly worse. AG * > > > Your constant attempts to downplay simultaneity while pretending to > understand the LT are laughable. Simultaneity isn’t some optional > detail—it’s central to how relativity works. You don’t like that? Tough. > Reality doesn’t care about your preferences. > > You’ve spent this entire discussion avoiding the actual physics, throwing > around insults, and pretending you’re the smartest person in the room. > You’re not. You’re just loud and wrong. If you’re so desperate to avoid > learning, that’s your choice, but don’t mistake your obstinance for > intelligence. It’s not. It’s just sad. > > > > Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 08:04, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:53:22 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *> There is no paradox to be resolved.* > > > *There sure as hell is a logical paradox if you only use length > contraction and ignore time dilation and the resultant disagreement about > simultaneity. The garage man took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the > garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car was entirely in the > garage. But the car driver also took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH > the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car had left the > garage. With just length contraction you have a profound logical paradox. > With length contraction AND time dilation you just have an odd situation.* > > > *What exactly is the paradox you allege? What is the odd situation you > allege? If the car had left the garage, what exactly is the problem you > find paradoxical or just odd? And if you use failure of simultaneity to > resolve these questions, what result do you get? ISTM you're on a slippery > slope with claims which have virtually no obvious content. As I see it, > there is no paradox, just a result you find uncomfortable. Why is it > uncomfortable? If you entertain what might be comfortable, you'll find > something worse; the failure of the LT to make a true prediction. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4843b688-21c4-41f0-be18-e00810da3e37n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4843b688-21c4-41f0-be18-e00810da3e37n%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqNC06y29Gr59pyGyELbFqcO3LdhLJmFcJSq7HFz%2B8gXg%40mail.gmail.com.
