On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 2:12:49 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, your claim that the Lorentz transformations alone resolve the disagreement is fundamentally flawed. The LT does indeed underlie all relativistic principles, but simultaneity is not separate from the LT—it’s a direct consequence of it. Ignoring simultaneity while invoking the LT is like using a calculator but refusing to press the equals button. Length contraction, derived from the LT, explains how lengths change, but it doesn’t address the core disagreement: the ordering of events. That’s where simultaneity comes in. Without it, you can’t determine when the car’s endpoints align with the garage’s endpoints in any frame. Your "method" stops short of explaining the full picture because it omits the temporal dimension of relativity. Simultaneity and the LT don’t just have the same "ontological status"—they’re inseparably linked. You’re not using the LT fully if you ignore simultaneity. That’s why your method is incomplete and, yes, inferior. It’s not about preference; it’s about addressing the problem in its entirety, something you’ve repeatedly failed to do. *They do have the same truth value. You just don't like that I am not using simultaneity; that my use of the LT is insufficiently explanatory. The key problem with invoking simultaneity is that people claim it solves the problem, but rarely if ever indicate HOW it does that. Today was the first time you were actually explicit and tried to cover this gap. To your credit you've done that by indicating exactly how the disagreement is caused by the actual changes of the events in the car frame. If you have the time and interest, I'd like to know how this is done. AG* Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 10:06, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:52:11 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, your so-called "method" is inferior because it only provides half the picture. Length contraction alone establishes the conditions for disagreement but doesn’t explain why the frames differ in their conclusions. Simultaneity resolves this by showing how events are ordered differently in each frame. In the car frame, simultaneity ensures that the back of the car passes the entrance after the front leaves the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. Length contraction can’t explain this temporal ordering—it only tells you the garage appears shorter. Without simultaneity, your explanation is incomplete. Your insistence that length contraction alone resolves the issue is wrong. *To be clear, I'm using the initial conditions and the LT, the latter being as firm a principle in relativity as simultaneity. As I stated in my original claim on this issue, simultaneity and the LT have the same ontological status in relativity, that is, the same truth value. So, IMO, I have explained the apparent frame disagreement using a tried and true relativistic principle, the LT. You can prefer your method, but that doesn't make my method inferior in any way. AG* It’s like claiming you solved a puzzle with half the pieces missing. You’re not seeing the full picture because you refuse to engage with simultaneity, the very concept that ties the disagreement together. That’s why your method is inferior. Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 09:50, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:35:10 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, let’s clarify this once and for all since you seem intent on misrepresenting the argument. In the car frame, if the back of the car passes the entrance before the front exits the garage, then yes, the car fits in that frame. That is the definition of fitting—there is a moment when the entire car is inside the garage. If I wrote "before" earlier when describing the car not fitting, it was either a typo or a miscommunication. When the back passes the entrance after the front has already exited, that’s when the car doesn’t fit. This is obvious to anyone following the logic, but it seems like you’re more interested in twisting words than understanding the physics. *I am not interested in twisting your words. I think you had a typo which implied the car fits in car frame. So, with your correction, you showed with simultaneity why the car won't in car frame. ISTM, using length contraction alone, I established the SAME result, relying on the length initial conditions, the car's frame velocity, and the LT. Why is my method inferior to yours, as I think you would claim? AG * There’s no paradox. Simultaneity explains why the frames disagree, and the disagreement is entirely consistent with the predictions of relativity. Your attempts to confuse the matter aren’t clever—they’re just tiresome. Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 09:29, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:12:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, your response is as confused as ever. The car does not fit in the car frame. *Correct. We agree. AG* 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." *Sounds like fitting to me! AG * 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. *I'm not pretending. You wrote that the back of the car enters front of garage before the front of car exits back of garage. This seems to mean the car fits in car frame. Maybe you have a typo or a special definition. But that's what your statement seems to mean. AG* Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 09:09, Alan Grayson <agrays...@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/e1662630-39f5-49f0-8b62-8a131fb5744an%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e1662630-39f5-49f0-8b62-8a131fb5744an%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/21922c20-74b1-4bab-a596-b8f76754d095n%40googlegroups.com.
