On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, your attempt to twist this into supporting your nonsense is laughable, so let’s dismantle it piece by piece.
The disagreement between frames is not a contradiction. It’s a consequence of relativity. The frames don’t need to agree— *That's what I've been saying. No paradox because there's no requirement in relativity for the frames to agree. But earlier you claimed the following, that the car fits in the car frame; "In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts, so the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit."* that’s the entire point of the theory. The "paradox" is only apparent to someone who doesn’t understand why the frames differ. Simultaneity resolves the disagreement because it shows how the frames define "fitting" differently based on their relative motion. In the garage frame, simultaneity aligns the car’s endpoints with the garage’s endpoints at the same time, meaning the car fits. This is consistent with length contraction in this frame. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. *No. It means the car fits! AG* Both are internally consistent, and both follow directly from the Lorentz transformations. Your claim that this "contradicts the LT" is nonsense. The LT predicts exactly this: frame-dependent observations based on simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. There’s no contradiction because the LT explicitly accounts for the fact that events simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. Stop pretending that you’ve proven anything. All you’ve done is repeatedly fail to grasp the role simultaneity plays in resolving this so-called paradox. If you think the frames should agree, you’re clinging to a pre-relativistic worldview that has no place in this discussion. Your refusal to engage with the actual mechanics of relativity isn’t clever—it’s just ignorance on full display. Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 08:50, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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. 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. 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/87d5cd43-e4b7-49cb-ab8f-e3088577fbf1n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/87d5cd43-e4b7-49cb-ab8f-e3088577fbf1n%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/7014b434-e41e-44a0-9a15-c19b187c7dabn%40googlegroups.com.
