On Wednesday, December 18, 2024 at 3:44:01 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/18/2024 1:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, December 18, 2024 at 2:42:39 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 12/17/2024 11:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 10:16:51 PM UTC-7
Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2024 7:52 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at
6:57:28 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2024
at 2:33:46 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/17/2024 9:25 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Yes, you look at it just in terms of lengths, which is what I did in the
first pair of diagrams. But the relativity of simultaneity is another
way to look at the same problem, which is what I showed in my last posting.
*Another way, but not the only way. AG *
We seem to be on the same page concerning use of length contraction to
explain the
differing results in the frames under consideration. But I remain unclear
how the
disagreement of simultaneity can also give the same results. For example,
suppose
from the pov of the garage frame, the car fits in the garage for sufficient
v, with room
to spare, but the front and rear end EVENTS do not Lorentz transform into
simultaneous
events in the car frame. Can't there be other ways for the car to fit,
using another set
of events which* are* simultaneous in the car frame? AG
Sure. If the car's speed was just right, it would be the same length as
the garage. Then in the diagram A and B would be at the same time in the
garage frame the car would be just the right length such that the rear of
the car entered the garage just as the front exited the garage. Since we
know the car is 12 long and the garage is 10 long we can calculate the
required speed from 10/12 =sqrt{1-v^2} which yields v=0.553 if I did the
arithmetic right.
That would be 0.553c. So, if the front and back events in the garage frame
are simultaneous in the car frame AND in the garage frame,
Nobody said that the events were simultaneous in the car frame. The car is
contracted in the car frame. You keep throwing shit in problem just to
keep it going. I'm starting to suspect you're just a troll.
Brent
*My question for you is this; when will you learn to read English? You act
like an uneducated prick who can't read basic English. The consensus view
in the physics community is that the solution to this problem involves
disagreement about simultaneity. I don't see this as correct. For example,
that's what Quentin wrote several times, mocking me, and that's what a link
claimed, without proof, which someone posted. And even Jesse, if I read him
correctly, claims that the result in one frame must be false if there's no
simultaneity. So that's why I posed the question to you, an alleged expert
who teaches relativity. I am NOT a FUCKIN' troll! The only problem here is
that YOU cannot read plain English, despite being educated at a great
university. FU, AG*
*I read English just fine and reading what I wrote I see that I did not say
the events were simultaneous in the car frame. You just made that up to
keep this ridiculous thread going. Troll! Brent*
*No, you read English poorly; very poorly. And you can see that for
yourself by re-reading my comments above and below. I did not claim you
said anything about simultaneous events, except in the case of a perfect
fitting car where you described, using light signals, that the ends needed
to be measured at the same time to assure a perfect fit. Rather, I am NOW
asking something DIFFERENT, and if you were even a teacher of average
skill, you'd understand easily, and not resort to unfounded accusations. My
point is simple yet baffling. Why is it that using length contraction, I
can solve this problem easily; namely, that the frames disagree on the
outcome. Yet, the consensus view in the physics community is that
disagreement of simultaneity is the necessary condition to solve this
problem, and, as you state, you never invoked simultaneity except in the
special case I just noted, and even there, no disagreement of simultaneity
between the frames was used, or even mentioned? Several posters on this
very MB have claimed, and some even mocked me for not using disagreement of
simultaneity, which they claim must be used, to arrive at the correct
correct solution, So my question is hardly frivolous and has nothing to do
with wanting the thread continued. I conjectured that using the LT might
imply disagreement about simultaneity, but when I thought about a proof of
the LT I once studied, I don't recall such a breakdown as a necessary
condition for its derivation. So, since I consider you an authority on this
subject, as a physics graduate of the University of TX, Austin, one of the
best places to study physics in the US, I posed the question, to reap
nothing more than unfounded insults. AG *
why is it claimed that the solution to the problem, whatever it is, depends
on disagreements of simultaneous events, when there are none? And if we get
different results for fitting in the garage, where, for example, the car
never fits, is there anything about this result that implies something
contradictory or paradoxical? 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/70d411f8-a32d-43a9-95ff-4f91eba465aen%40googlegroups.com.
