On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:16 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, December 16, 2024 at 3:42:33 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 12/15/2024 10:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > *So if front and back of car pass through front of garage in that order*, > that's not enough to affirm fitness and/or simultaneity? And if > simultaneity is ultimately affirmed, will ALL other frames have the time > order reversed? TY, AG > > C'mon Alan stop playing dumb. It's obvious that driving a car thru at any > speed (except "reverse") has the front and back of the car pass through > front of garage in that order (and also pass thru the back of the garage in > that order); it's a fact that arises because the front of the car precedes > the back of the car down the road. > > > *Actually, you're the one who's playing dumb. Or maybe you are dumb. Or > maybe you have poor command of English. Suggest you read what you wrote, > CAREFULLY! You claimed, and Jesse affirmed, that even when the car fits in > the garage, and the ends are measured as simultaneous, there are frames > where the two end events (front and back) are simultaneous, and frames > where they are not simultaneous. * > > But in *every* frame the front of the car passes thru the front the > garage before the rear; so ultimately affirming that means nothing except > the car is going forward, not in reverse. But you couldn't think a moment > and figure that out. Instead you rush to your keyboard to write so more > questions. > > Brent > > > This is pure shit. Why did Jesse understand what I meant, but it goes > totally over your head? You wrote that events simulaneous in one frame can > have their time order reversed in another frame. I took this as a general > statement, not necessarily referring just to cars. If you meant something > different, learn to write clearly. FU, AG > In my other response to you I was talking about the order of the events of the back of the car passing through the front of the garage, compared to the front of the car reaching the *back* of the garage--those events have a space-like separation in Brent's numerical example, so they can occur in different orders in different frames. But in the statement Brent was responding to, you said "So if front and back of car pass through front of garage in that order"--that would seem to mean the event of the front of the car passing through the front of the garage, and the back of the car *also* passing through the front of the garage, is that what you meant or did you miswrite it? The events of the front vs. back of the car both passing the front of the garage have a time-like separation, so all frames will agree on the order of those two events. Jesse > > > *So, it is logical to infer from your statement that there could be two > events in some frame, that might or might not be simultaneous, in the > absense of fitting. Physicists are not expected to be masters of language, > but your understanding of your own words doesn't meet grade school level. > 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/7ff50717-5421-4f42-872e-6f7bdcc9180en%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7ff50717-5421-4f42-872e-6f7bdcc9180en%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3JGLVG0ru-itvgBRnVrYMEpB1kYAd9H9pzan-N_VaCA-w%40mail.gmail.com.
