On Saturday, December 14, 2024 at 4:48:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2024 at 4:38:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le dim. 15 déc. 2024, 00:35, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : On Saturday, December 14, 2024 at 4:12:07 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le dim. 15 déc. 2024, 00:06, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : On Saturday, December 14, 2024 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/14/2024 9:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > Yes. In relativity measurements are generally not frame invariant, > such as the E and B fields in EM. But this case seems different. > Imagine two observers, one in car frame and the other in garage frame, > and they're both viewing the car passing through the garage, now open > on both ends. Ostensibly, the former sees the car fail to fit in the > garage, the latter sees the opposite. I don't believe a rigorous > definition of "fit" will resolve this contradiction. Now I have a > question for you and Brent concerning his plots. What EXACTLY did his > plots ostensibly prove? AG That an observer sitting at the center of the garage and using mirrors to simultaneously photograph both ends of the garage will, for a sufficiently fast car, get photographs showing both ends of the cat in the garage. Brent So, from the pov of the garage, the car fits in the garage; exactly my claim due to Lorentz contraction of car, from garage frame. I didn't need a plot to deduce this result. Now, from car's reference frame, the garage length shrinks due to Lorentz contraction, and for a sufficiently fast car, it won't fit since the car's length remains the same in this scenario. Conclusion; the frames disagree on whether the car fits. Is this a reasonable conclusion, given that the two observers are viewing the same phenomenon? AG Both observers don't share the same simultaneity plane... Even if true, and I'm not sure exactly what you mean, why does that matter in the situation I've described? BTW, this is how the problem is usually "resolved"; by appeals to lack of simultaneity with zero details or arguments. AG It's so tiresome, talking to you or cosmin feels the same, a big waste of time. I am seeking a real solution, not just some slogan thrown out by a BS artist. Thanks for nothing. AG FWIW, I am nothing like Cosmin. That is, I don't mind being proven wrong. But I try to be rigorous, so I don't accept hand-waving arguments at face value, and AFAICT that's all you offer. 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/b3bed6f1-763f-4719-a1d6-5255e8e7603an%40googlegroups.com.
