Will you ever cease being an abusive prick? On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 2:35:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> AG, simultaneity resolves the disagreement by showing how events are > ordered differently in each frame. In the garage frame, the car fits > because the back passes the entrance and the front is still at the exit > simultaneously. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the back passes > the entrance after the front has already left the exit, meaning it doesn’t > fit. Length contraction alone doesn’t explain this—it just sets the stage. > Simultaneity, derived directly from the LT, is what resolves the so-called > paradox. Stop pretending it’s optional—it’s fundamental. > > > > Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 10:26, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> >> 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 [email protected]. >> > To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21922c20-74b1-4bab-a596-b8f76754d095n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21922c20-74b1-4bab-a596-b8f76754d095n%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/e05520b6-41fd-48fe-bcb7-570e65360e08n%40googlegroups.com.
