On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 4:05:26 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/28/2024 3:45 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Do you know how the SR problem is stated, I mean really know? It's like this; you have a car and a *garage, with the car longer than the garage. Can you use SR to make the car fit in the garage? Well, of course. All that's required is to speed the car to a velocity which, from the frame of the car, contracts the garage sufficiently to get it to fit. * That's not even a correct statement of the paradox. You make the car fit the the garage *in the garage frame* by speeding the car up so the car is Lorentz contracted (I really liked the original tank trap version better). * Problem solved, or so it appears. The various self appointed experts and gurus have an allegedly better solution, but ostensibly somewhat more complicated. Instead of considering length contraction of the garage, they apply the disagreement about simultaneity to show the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but does fit from the pov of the garage frame. So, as you should be able to comprehend, both methods give the SAME result! So where is the paradox?* * Truly, it resides in the more-or-less unstated assumption, that there exists an OBJECTIVE reality which precludes this result; that the car fits in the garage frame, but doesn't fit in the car frame. * It's not only unstated, it's un-assumed and non-existent. It's no one's version of the paradox...much less "objective reality". Rather it is Grayson's imagined reality. Brent *According to Google, there's a paradox if the frames disagree about whether the car fits in the garage, implying there is an objective reality which resolves the parodox; namely, that the car fits in both frames. And I've found a video that proves just that. So your claim that there's no objective reality is pure BS. AG * *The "car garage parking paradox" refers to a thought experiment in special relativity where, due to the phenomenon of length contraction, a car traveling at near the speed of light appears to be shorter from the perspective of an observer in a stationary garage, potentially allowing the car to fit inside the garage even though it is normally too long, while from the car's perspective, the garage appears shorter and the car wouldn't fit; creating a seeming paradox about whether the car can fit inside the garage or not depending on the frame of reference.* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations. *But AFAICT, nowhere is there a proof about the status of this alleged objective reality, whether it exists or not, although SR does allow different frames to make different measurements. Is this paradox a departure from this general result? I don't know, but I'm working on this issue. I recall that Brent denied its existence, but since I do not understand his plots, I remain unsure of his claim. 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/e5d39ae7-6059-4f6a-a8f4-5ab156e8aac1n%40googlegroups.com.
