AG, your response is as confused as ever. The car does not fit in the car frame. In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts so that the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. That’s literally the definition of "not fitting." You’re either deliberately twisting this or you fundamentally don’t understand relativity. Length contraction sets the disagreement; simultaneity resolves it. Stop pretending you’ve uncovered some hidden truth—you haven’t.
Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 09:09, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7014b434-e41e-44a0-9a15-c19b187c7dabn%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/CAMW2kAp4w1_ZE2qMjE9jkCVS%2Bgb4oZwbSoB-29SA%3DkBsVUexPg%40mail.gmail.com.
