On 12/14/2024 3:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
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
Right, the two frames have different idea of "fits". The only thing
that's changed is you've stopped calling it a paradox and a contradiction.
Brent
--
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/dfd842f5-7780-4b8f-9f53-0ba75f22ec6f%40gmail.com.
