You seem to suggest that for two spacelike separated events A and B, it A causes B, then under a LT, the image of B is the cause of the image of A in the transformed frame. I tend not to believe this, OR, maybe that's not what was implied. In any event, this was the cause of my question and I don't believe your plots will answer this question. AG
On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 12:39:18 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 11:45:43 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 10:03:22 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > On 1/12/2025 5:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 5:52:42 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > On 1/12/2025 8:38 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 11, 2025 at 8:48:21 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > On 1/10/2025 11:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:15 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *>>>If I believe in SR, then I can use length contraction to establish the > car won't fit in garage in car's frame.* > > > > *>> That depends entirely on what you mean by "the car won't fit in the > garage". In the above I've told you exactly what I mean by the term. What > do you mean? * > > > *> What do I mean; what any sane person would mean; that the car's length > is fixed from the pov of the car's frame when car is moving, but the > garage's length is shortened from an initial condition where it starts out > shorter. AG * > > > *That's all very nice but that's not what I asked. What exactly do you > mean by "the car won't fit in the garage" if it's not "the front of the car > is fully within the garage while SIMULTANEOUSLY the back of the car is also > fully within the garage"?* > > I think you meant "the car *will *fit in the garage." > > But there's been so much unproductive back and forth on this thread, which > I thought I had put to bed, that I'm going to try again and to make > everything even more graphic and explicit. Here's the spacetime diagram in > the reference frame of the garage (which we would ordinarily refer to a > stationary): > > > Here we see that the car, whose proper length is 10', traveling at 0.8c is > Lorentz contracted to a little over 6'. We start with the entrance open > and the exit closed and we see that we can close the entrance door before > we have to open the exit door because there is a brief period in which the > car is fully within the 8' garage, the red trapezoid. If the distances are > in feet then the times are in nano-seconds. So the exit door can stay > closed for about 2.5 nano-seconds after the entrance door closes, as > measured in the garage reference frame. For those 2.5 nano-seconds the car > is fully inside the garage. > > Now consider that same events in the car's frame of reference. Keep in > mind the technical meaning of "event" is a point in spacetime, not a > "happening" as in casual parlance. So points in the above diagram, like > "FRONT ENTERS" are events and the Lorentz transformation preserves events > but it in general changes their spacetime relation. Here is the Lorentz > transformation, point-by-point, of the above diagram. The two diagrams are > physically identical; differing only in being viewed from different states > of motion: > > > Specifically in this case the time order of "REAR ENTERS" and "FRONT > EXITS" is reversed. This is typical of space-like separated events: their > order is different in different reference frames. So from the car's point > of view there is a period of about 7 nano-seconds during which both doors > are open and so the car sails thru without hitting a door. > > Brent > > > When you write the time order of events is reversed, presumably in the car > frame, does this mean the rear of the car enters the garage before the > front enters (which is physically impossible)? If not, what do you mean? AG > > That's the sort of question that gets you a troll reputation. The events > are clearly labelled and the axes have time and position variables. If you > can't read the diagram you won't understand a written explanation any > better. > > Brent > > > As I was scrolling down to your reply, I was expecting a BS answer and > that's what I got. F the troll BS. When I worked at JPL no one questioned > my ability of reading plain English. But you know better. AG > > > In the car frame, the Front Exits and Rear Enters, in this order, so the > car doesn't fit. In the garage frame, the Front Enters and Rear Enters, in > this order, so the car fits, but the latter isn't the opposite of the > former, AFAICT. AG > > That's right. You can read the diagram! > > Brent > > > But what IS the "opposite" you referred to? > > > The "silly" question involved the suggestion of a violation of causality > if time is "reversed" for transformations of spacelike separated events. 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/3436a827-9dc2-42ce-af98-fb495ef04382n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3436a827-9dc2-42ce-af98-fb495ef04382n%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/002a88a4-0fd3-49ea-948d-ff4d6ec21853n%40googlegroups.com.
