AG, will you ever stop being a troll?
Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 10:37, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e05520b6-41fd-48fe-bcb7-570e65360e08n%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/CAMW2kAoUVsTKnvGrCh%2Bt3soGo%2BeV29F1a3kGT3Tv1Wu9FH_iQA%40mail.gmail.com.
