On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 4:03 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 1:37:33 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 3:12 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 11:37:54 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:16 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 7:28:08 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12:52 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2025 at 10:24:41 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2025 at 8:45:32 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:24 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2025 at 4:46:07 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2025 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2025 at 12:54:57 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:32 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 26, 2025 at 9:02:01 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 10:23 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 26, 2025 at 9:13:54 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 1:54 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 11:25:53 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/25/2025 10:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/25/2025 6:34 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 6:47:22 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 8:07 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Monday, December 9, 2024 at 2:01:28 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > Nothing odd about dilation and contraction when you know its cause. > > But what is odd is the fact that each frame sees the result > > differently -- that the car fits in one frame, but not in the other -- > > and you see nothing odd about that, that there's no objective reality > > despite the symmetry. AG > > The facts are events in spacetime. There's an event F at which the > front of the car is even with the exit of the garage and there's an > event R at which the rear of the car is even with the entrance to the > garage. If R is before F we say the car fitted in the garage. If R is > after F we say the car did not fit. But if F and R are spacelike, then > there is no fact of the matter about their time order. The time order > will depend on the state of motion. > > Brent > > Jesse; it's the last two of Brent's sentences that I find ambiguous. What > does he mean? > > What about them do you find ambiguous? > > He's just saying that if there's a spacelike separation between the events > F and R (as there was in his numerical example), then you can find a frame > where R happens after F (as is true in the car frame where the car doesn't > fit), and another frame where F happens after R (as is true in the garage > frame where the car does fit). > > *What does he mean by "But if F and R are spacelike, then there is no > fact of the matter about their time order."? (What you wrote above?) * > > Brent writes > Yes. Just what Jesse wrote above. It means the two events > were so close together in time and distant in space that something would > have to travel faster than light to be at both of them. > > *More important I just realized that in the frame of car fitting, the > events F and R aren't simultaneous, so how does one apply disagreement on > simultaneity when one starts with two events which are NOT simultaneous? AG* > > Brent writes > That's why you should talk about events being > spacelike...the relativistic analogue of simultaneous. > > *I'd like to do that. BUT if the Parking Paradox is allegedly solved by > star**ting in the garage frame where the car fits, the pair of events > which define fitting are not spacelike since they occur at different > times! * > > You didn't read the definition of "spacelike" that I wrote above. You > want everything fed to you in tiny bites of knowledge which you forget > eight lines later, so the questions start all over again. > > Brent > > > *I read it, but didn't like it. Big difference. Maybe you should stop > trying to read my intentions. You may be smart, but reading my intentions > is way above your pay grade. How could two events with the same time > coordinate be referred as "so close together". Moreover, in all discussions > of solutions to the paradox, events that are simultaneous in one frame, are > shown not simultaneous in another frame. This being the case, the two > events of the car fitting in garage frame are simply NOT simultaneous! > Also, Jesse seems to be referring to different events than the ones you > refer to. So there's a muddle IMO. As a teacher, your preferred method is > to intimidate students. Grade now D+. AG * > > > Why do you think I am referring to different events? I referred to the > same events F and R that Brent did (F is the event of the front of the car > coinciding with the garage exit, R is the event of the rear of the car > coinciding with the garage entrance). > > If you don't like Brent's verbal explanation, I also gave you a > mathematical definition of "spacelike separation" in two recent posts on > the "Brent on Parking Paradox" thread at > https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/QgVdhXi3Hdc/m/KC2lIKyrDQAJ > and > https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/QgVdhXi3Hdc/m/FF7TpbG-DQAJ > -- "If you know the distance x and time interval t between the two > points/events in the coordinates of any inertial frame, to say they are > spacelike separated just means that x > ct (and an equivalent definition is > that neither point is in the past or future light cone of the other one)". > Since I explicitly referred to a time interval t between the two events, if > you had paid attention to that you would have known not to say "the pair of > events which define fitting are not spacelike since they occur at different > times". > > Jesse > > > *Yes, you defined spacelike separation, but without specific numbers for > events, one cannot automatically claim two events are spacelike separated. > Same goes for fitting in garage frame. I wasn't sure that all pairs of > events in garage where car fits are spacelike separated. And sometimes I > haven't caught up with your posts so I seem like I can't remember. And > occasionally I do forget what someone posted. AG* > > > I was responding to your statement "the pair of events which define > fitting are not spacelike since they occur at different times", one doesn't > need any specific coordinates to see that this statement is wrong because > it suggests spacelike separated events can't occur at different times. If > you hadn't read my definition or didn't remember it, fine. > > > *I meant above that I needed all the coordinate values to determine if two > events are spacelike separated; the time coordinates are not enough. AG * > > > I gave you both x and t coordinates for F and R in my last message, see > below. Or when you say "I meant above that I needed all the coordinate > values", is "above" referring to your original comment "the pair of events > which define fitting are not spacelike since they occur at different > times", i.e. are you saying that when you wrote that, what you really meant > was just that Brent hadn't provided the coordinates or R and F? Or would > you acknowledge that when you wrote that you were misunderstanding the > notion of spacelike separation? > > > I was referring to my original comment. I didn't misunderstand what > spacelike separation means. I don't recall what Brent posted. AG > > > Then why did you make the definitive sounding statement "the pair of > events which define fitting are NOT SPACELIKE since they occur at different > times", rather than something more open-ended like "you haven't given the > coordinates for the pair of events which define fitting, so although those > events could be spacelike separated you haven't given enough info to > demonstrate that"? > > > *I was left with the last recollection / impression when you gave an > example of simultaneous event which were spacelike separated.* > > > So when you made the statement "the pair of events which define fitting > are not spacelike since they occur at different times", you *were* thinking > that spacelike separation required the events to be simultaneous, even if > you corrected that error later? > > > *Yes. A long long time ago, on a galaxy far far away, I knew the > definition of spacelike separated. Later, in our discussions. temporarily > confused it with timelike separated. But when you used a sufficient > condition, that the events are simultaneous -- not the necessary condition, > that all coordinates must be applied, the former sufficient condition > temporarily stuck in my mind. Hence, my incorrect statement which I later > corrected. AG * > > > > * Then when I considered it further, I realized I needed all the > coordinates to make that assertion. As for Brent, as I recall, he didn't > give any coordinates, just the claim as an approximation. FWIW, the car > parking paradox reminds me of the S cat scenario, where S proved that a > superposition of alive and dead when the box is closed, cannot imply the > cat is alive and dead simultaneously. In a post here, I showed why a > superposition cannot be interpreted that way because of the infinitely many > bases for a system in Hilbert Space. In this problem, on relativity, > although I accept that different frames can make different measurement due > to relative motion,such as for E and B fields, the same car that can fit > and not fit, albeit at different times, seems a bridge too far. If I am > right, I can't say exactly what's wrong with relativity. It's a work in > progress. AG* > > > it seems like you're just coming up with an interpretation in retrospect > to avoid acknowledging you were wrong, > > > *I didn't use the word "wrong", but I clearly corrected my error. Why > isn't that enough for you? AG* > > > You seemed to be claiming you hadn't made an error at all in your original > comment, when you said above "I was referring to my original comment. I > didn't misunderstand what spacelike separation means". That was the post > that bugged me because it seemed like you were trying to say you understood > what spacelike meant all along, if you acknowledge you did misunderstand > what spacelike separation meant but later corrected the error, that would > be enough for me. > > > > *CORRECTION OF TYPOS IN CAPS:* > *Now I can't recall what "original comment" I was referring to.* > > > Just review that comment thread above, I had said: > > 'Or when you say "I meant above that I needed all the coordinate values", > is "above" referring to your ORIGINAL COMMENT "the pair of events which > define fitting are not spacelike since they occur at different times" ...?' > > And you replied: > > 'I was referring to my original comment. I didn't misunderstand what > spacelike separation means.' > > So, I assume the "original comment" was the one I had referred to where > you said "the pair of events which define fitting are not spacelike since > they occur at different times" > > > * I can say that all along I knew WHAT **s**pacelike separated means, > even if IT was temporarily subliminal.* > > > What was your understanding of what it meant? Your comment about timelike > separation below might indicate you still have some confusion about it, see > my reply. > > > > * In any event, you can and should be assured, that I am not trying to > deceive you or anyone, My time is too valuable to do that. Nor would I, > even if I had infinite time. AG * > > > > rather than accurately remembering/describing what you meant at the time. > (In general you never seem to acknowledge you were wrong about any > significant assertion you make concerning relativity, like with > your earlier claim the LT sometimes give different coordinates than what's > actually measured in a given frame, which you seem to have just dropped > rather than acknowledging any flaw in your argument) > > > *On that point, I am still not convinced the LT does what you claim. I was > planning to come back to that issue. I have to review why I thought that. > AG * > > > *I recall my doubts about your interpretation of the LT. It has to do with > length contraction and time dilation. The LT gives a result which isn't > reproduced in the target frame of the transformation. IOW, an observer in > the target frame doesn't notice (or measure) length contraction and time > dilation. AG* > > > But if you use the LT to transform into a "target frame" where an object > has a velocity of zero (like the rod in your earlier example), the LT > doesn't *predict* any time dilation or length contraction of the object in > that frame, that's what I told you repeatedly > > > *We agree. If the relative velocity is zero, the LT doesn't predict time > dilation or length contraction, but it does for velocity not zero. AG* > > > When you say "the relative velocity", the velocity of what relative to > what? When I said "a 'target frame' where an object has a velocity of zero" > I was referring to the velocity of the object in the coordinates of the > target frame, is that the same velocity you're referring to when you talk > about a "relative velocity" that can be zero or nonzero? > > > > > and then showed you explicitly with the numerical example involving the > rod at > https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/ykkIYDL3mTg/m/giZVF9PpDQAJ > which you didn't reply to. You just keep repeating the same false claim > about what the LT predicts without addressing the counterarguments or > giving any calculations or argument of your own as to why *you* imagine the > LT predicts time dilation or length contraction of an object in the > object's own frame (apart from some sketchy argument you tried to make > involving GPS satellites which I addressed at > https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/ykkIYDL3mTg/m/ximYgKzKDAAJ > ) > > > *In reply to your last question above; since you and others claim the LT > gives the results of what the target frame will actually measure, as > calculated from the source frame using the LT, I must include length > contraction and time dilation in those MEASUREMENTS. Numerical examples are > unnecesary in this case. AG* > > *When the relative velocity is not zero, the LT "predicts" time dilation > and length contraction, at least that's what every book or teacher of > relativity claims. But the target frame never measures this result,* > > > Again, if "relative velocity" means the velocity of the object in the > coordinates of the target frame, then if the object has a nonzero velocity > in the target frame (say a target frame where an object like a clock or rod > is moving at 0.8c), of course observers who are using *that* frame can > measure the length contraction/time dilation of the object, why would you > think otherwise? > > > *Because that's what every text and teacher of relativity say! An observer > in a moving frame as measured from a rest frame, does not perceive lengths > and times changed, whereas the observer in the rest frame using the LT does > observe this. There are formulas in SR to calculate these observations from > the pov of the frame doing the measuring. AG* > > > If on the other hand you are specifically imagining a "target frame" where > the object has zero coordinate velocity, i.e. the object's own frame (as > you were imagining in the previous discussion), then you are apparently > using "relative velocity" in a different way than I was, or maybe just > conflating different meanings without realizing what you're doing. > > > *I use v as in the gamma function. Do you know that that v is? The LT is > applied in a relative rest frame, observing a moving frame, and the moving > frame is what I call the target frame. In that frame, an observer cannot > measure or be aware of the time dilation and length contraction as measured > from the frame doing the measuring, which I call the source frame. You have > a different opinion that every text and teacher of relativity has. AG * > > > Let's just stick to your terminology of "source frame" and "target frame", > all the stuff about arbitrarily designating one frame as the "relative rest > frame" and calling the other the "moving frame" is the non-standard > terminology I've complained about which sometimes leads to verbal confusion > (for example in the earlier example with the Earth and the rod, if the > Earth has velocity zero in the source frame and the rod has velocity zero > in the target frame, it would be standard terminology to call the source > frame 'the Earth's rest frame' and the target frame 'the rod's rest frame', > so it can confuse things to try to designate just one of those frames as > 'THE relative rest frame'). And note that if we want to talk about the > length contraction or time dilation of some specific *object* like a rod, > we have to know the object's velocity in the source frame and the target > frame, there is no general rule that one of the two frames you use in the > LT has to be the object's own rest frame. Let's say we are talking about > measuring the length of a rod, and that v_rs is the velocity of the rod as > measured in the source frame, and v_rt is its velocity as measured in the > target frame. > > In your statement above about observers in the target frame not being > aware of the length contraction that was measured in the source frame, are > you assuming that v_rt = 0? If so, then my earlier comment can be rewritten > as: 'But if you use the LT to transform into a "target frame" where an > object has v_rt = 0 (like the rod in your earlier example), the LT doesn't > *predict* any time dilation or length contraction of the object in that > frame, that's what I told you repeatedly'. > > You responded with: 'We agree. If the relative velocity is zero, the LT > doesn't predict time dilation or length contraction, but it does for > velocity not zero. AG' > > But if "the relative velocity" in your comment refers not to v_rt but to > the relative velocity of the target frame and the source frame (the v that > appears in the Lorentz transform), then we are talking about different > things. And I definitely would *not* agree with a claim that the LT always > predicts we will observe length contraction of an object in the target > frame whenever the v that appears in the LT is nonzero: > > > *So the LT doesn't predict length contraction measurement in the target > frame.* > > > It depends on what specific object we are talking about, and what its > velocity is in the target frame. If we are talking about an object that has > v_rt = 0 in the target frame, it doesn't predict any length contraction of > *that* object in the target frame. > > * So what the hell are we arguing about? * > > > Your incorrect claim that there is a conflict between what the LT predicts > about the target frame and what is measured in the target frame. > > > *The LT doesn't do what you claimed it does; tell us, or PREDICTS, what > the target frame will MEASURE. AG* > > > That's just an empty assertion with no reasoning to back it up. If you > think my previous statement somehow supports it, you must have some basic > misunderstanding of what I wrote -- what I said was that for an object with > v_rt = 0, the LT predicts the object will have its MAXIMUM length in the > target frame, NOT be contracted, and measurements in the target frame would > match this prediction. If you think there is *any* scenario involving > inertial frames (not non-inertial coordinate systems like GPS) where LT's > prediction about the target frame doesn't match what's measured in the > target frame, please give at least some minimal details of what scenario > you are imagining (like the rod/Earth scenario), specifying the velocity of > the *object* in the target frame (like v_rt for the rod) separately from > the relative v between the two frames being related by the LT*.* > > > *All along you've claimed the LT predicts what is actually measured in the > target frame. Now you deny this* > No I don't, and I have no idea what previous statement of mine you could possibly read as denying it. > *claiming it's just my empty assertion without any reasoning to back it > up.* > What I am referring to as an empty assertion is your statement that the LT "doesn't do what you claimed it does; tell us, or PREDICTS, what the target frame will MEASURE." What I say is that it DOES predict what the target frame will measure. > * No way. I know what you've been claiming all along -- that the LT tells > us what is measured in the target frame. It does NOT! AG* > "It does NOT!" is an example of an empty assertion with no reasoning to back it up. I say it does, and I gave you a numerical example to back it up at https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/ykkIYDL3mTg/m/giZVF9PpDQAJ which you predictably ignored and continue to ignore. > > > > > if v is nonzero but v_rt = 0, so the target frame is the object's rest > frame, then the LT predicts *no* length contraction of the rod in the > target frame, instead it predicts the rod will have its maximum length > (called its 'rest length' or 'proper length') in the target frame. That's > what I showed explicitly with the numerical example of the rod whose length > EXPANDED when going from the source frame (where it had nonzero velocity > v_rs) to the target frame (where it had v_rt = 0, i.e. the target frame was > the rod's own rest frame) at > https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/ykkIYDL3mTg/m/giZVF9PpDQAJ > which you never responded to. > > Jesse > > > *When I asked Brent if the target frame of an LT measurement could detect > time dilation in its frame, IN THE TARGET FRAME, his reply was that it > measures ONE TICK PER SECOND; IOW no time dilation! Same presumably goes > for length contraction; not measureable in target frame. AG * > > > You'd have to specify the post so I can see the context, but I would > assume Brent was talking about a clock at rest in the target frame, i.e. > v_rt = 0. > > > *Yes. AG* > > So this would match what I told you above--if an object is at rest in the > target frame then THE LT DOES NOT PREDICT ANY LENGTH CONTRACTION/TIME > DILATION OF THAT OBJECT IN THE TARGET FRAME, so there is NO CONFLICT with > the fact that measurements of that object in the target frame will show no > length contraction/time dilation. > > > *But you claimed that the LT gives us what is measured in the target > frame, and I claimed it does not. Now you agree with me, but deny your > original claim.* > No, I don't agree with you on this and never have. You seem to have some major reading comprehension problems here, but what I have been saying over and over again (including in the comment immediately above that you are somehow misreading as supporting your assertion) is the combination of these two claims: 1. When dealing with a case like the rod which is moving in the source frame but where it has velocity v_rt = 0 in the target frame, what the LT predicts is that THERE IS NO CONTRACTION OF THE ROD IN THE TARGET FRAME, instead the LT predicts the rod is LONGER in the target frame than the source frame. 2. What will be actually measured in the target frame is that THERE IS NO CONTRACTION OF THE ROD IN THE TARGET FRAME, instead the rod will be measured to be LONGER in the target frame than the source frame. Assuming for the sake of argument that 1 and 2 are both correct, do you think they would indicate a conflict between the LT's predictions and actual measurements, yes or no? If you agree they don't conflict but you just think either 1 or 2 is incorrect, you will need to provide some REASONING, not just empty assertions that there is a conflict. It would help if you would follow my request in the previous comment: "If you think there is *any* scenario involving inertial frames (not non-inertial coordinate systems like GPS) where LT's prediction about the target frame doesn't match what's measured in the target frame, please give at least some minimal details of what scenario you are imagining (like the rod/Earth scenario), specifying the velocity of the *object* in the target frame (like v_rt for the rod) separately from the relative v between the two frames being related by the LT." Jesse -- 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/CAPCWU3LSm05%3DGaZKZ8a-NL2CgTAAvfiKjg9rG%3D%3Dc5ZSvtm%2BYjw%40mail.gmail.com.
