On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 8:34:28 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 8:21:33 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 8:04:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> **if you believe in the LT, you can establish the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, so if you believe in SR, you have to conclude that if such pictures could be taken, they could NOT be simultaneous. AG * *Then what are we arguing about? * There are no pictures taken simultaneity, I've never seen such pictures, so what the F were you alleging about what I've seen? But if you believe in SR and the LR, you have to conclude the car won't fit in car frame. The problem with invoking disagreement with simultaneity is that the morons who assert it just say the words, as if that's enough, but rarely if ever do they do any calculation to prove the key point; the time change of events in the car frame which would show no contradiction, no paradox. AG At some point in this discussion I tried to use the Bird's Eye Observer to determine if the views from both frames were simultaneous, but I gave it up because I couldn't determine that such an observer (assuming the garage has no roof) could be distinguished from the garage observer. I think now that using simultaneity is necessary to show a paradox does not exist, but I never thought kindly on mere claims without proofs based on calculations. Using just the LT leaves open the possibility that SR and the LT are flawed. AG FYI, a while back, when the chief asshole claimed an analysis of simultaneity solved the problem, I repeated stated that merely writing that was insufficient, more must be done in order to prove something that showed no paradox. But all that asshole could do was to repeat the claim, several times. I have David Bohm's book on SR. I plan to see if he shows how the calculation is done. For any asshole who claims I am a troll, I have this to say; do you really think you're so important that I would waste my precious time proving anything to you? The one exception is you, Clark. I continue to ask about your ADDITIONAL POSTULATE to S's equation, that everything that CAN happen, MUST happen. Please; no BS that you answered this question many times. That would be a flat-out lie used in defense of the cult. AG *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* twa -- 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/32446711-e03a-445c-bf7f-515d4031bebcn%40googlegroups.com.
