On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 11:04 PM Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 3:22 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 24, 2024 at 10:43:55 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> *What convention are you referring to? Einstein uses the same clocks in >> each frame, which are synchronized at rest, and then go out of synch when >> motion is initiated. He never refers to different clocks.* >> > > Are you talking about the 1905 paper? He does in that paper imagine > originally creating two rigid measuring systems at rest with each other and > then imparting a velocity to one relative to the previous rest state (in > section 3 starting at > https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/160 ), > Minor correction, the link for the first page of section 3 where he starts to talk about this should be https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/159 -- 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/CAPCWU3Kf87mOx2Yi5%2BhLeKTtgZPT%2BomNAVRR0NuDYZBPBFnjEg%40mail.gmail.com.
