On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 6:13 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 3:30:15 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 1:30:59 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 1:23:44 AM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 12/23/2024 11:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 11:03:36 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 12/23/2024 9:36 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-7 Alan > Grayson wrote: > > On Monday, December 23, 2024 at 9:33:36 PM UTC-7 > Brent Meeker wrote: > > All you have to do is solve for the speed at which the Lorentz contraction > is 10/12 so that the car is ten feet long in the garage frame. > > Brent > > > I know that. What I don't know is which question you're allegedly > answering. AG > > More important question; didn't you deny my claim that for a sufficient > velocity the car either fits or doesn't fit, as an objective fact that the > paradox seems to deny? AG > > If I was thinking clearly I did. An objective fact is not reference frame > dependent. > > Brent > > Obviously, you guys can only speak in riddles, > > If you would ever solve one the riddles you might learn something. > Telling you answer just leads to your saying you're not convinced and > around it goes. > > so I have to assume you can't answer the underlying question; > > Or you might assume you just too dumb or stubborn to learn the answer. > > Brent > > > You have no answer, just some plots pretending to be an answer. Just > riddles upon riddles. AG > > > Why I don't believe the gurus here have the answer; you'll note how easy > it is to pose the question, and how easy it is to offer a proposed > solution; namely, the disagreement about simultaneity. But that's obviously > not enough. As Quentin's behavior exemplifies; the mere statement of the > solution is hardly sufficient. One then needs an ARGUMENT connecting the > alleged solution, to the construction of the problem; that is, the paradox. > But Quentin is totally UNAWARE of this requirement, which his link fails to > provide, and then he's perfectly satisfied with accusing me as a troll. > You, Brent, allege the solution in your plots, which I admit I fail to see > the connecting argument just alluded to. But if you really understood the > solution, and pride yourself in your teaching skills of relativity, you > could offer a text solution, which should be a relatively short paragraph. > But that remains wanting. AG > > > Reviewing how time transforms using the LT, it does appear that for a > perfectly fitting car for which its time parameter is identical at its end > points, time does NOT transform to identical time parameters of the car's > end points in the car frame, since in the garage frame the spatial > parameter of the end points differ in the transformation equation. I'm not > entirely certain, but I think this establishes the disagreement concerning > simultaneity between the frames. Now, to resolve the paradox, requires an > ARGUMENT to, in effect, DECONSTRUCT the claim of a paradox depending on > this disagreement. AG > The argument is that both frames agree on all the local physical facts at the front of the car as it reaches the back of the garage--in my example they both agree that the physical clock at rest relative to the car there reads -15 and the physical clock at rest relative to the garage there reads 0. Their only disagreement is the *convention* they each use about which physical clock to treat as canonical for the purpose of assigning an abstract time-coordinate to that location in spacetime. Once one realizes that they agree about all local physical facts at each point in spacetime, and that in relativity local physical facts are the only "objective facts" about what happens in a given problem, the paradox is deconstructed--there is no actual disagreement about any objective facts here, just about conventions for defining abstract coordinate labels. 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/CAPCWU3%2B1QEysoR8rY2ADj1bWztYbdxrx8-DzCXMp81GQ7yq6jw%40mail.gmail.com.
