Le dim. 29 déc. 2024, 21:08, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 6:24:51 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > On 12/28/2024 5:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > *How about revealing YOUR version of the paradox? Cat got your tongue? AG * > > I've both explained it and diagrammed it. As Oliver Heaviside said, "I've > given you an argument. I'm not obliged to give you an understanding." > > Brent > > > *When I asked whether there's an objective reality, you denied it -- and > in one of your responses here you again denied it -- but it exists and > consists of the car fitting in both frames. Maybe you're suffering from > Alzheimer's onset. My intuition was correct, or possibly you don't > understand English as well as you think. Why would you expect me to study > your plots if you showed lack of understanding what a solution would imply? > AG * > How can you feel no shame being so stupid? > -- > 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/3a7af9ca-dbf8-404f-a5ff-aca92a48d5ban%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a7af9ca-dbf8-404f-a5ff-aca92a48d5ban%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/CAMW2kApxa1VuakNkVvK-W%3DZsBc2p4fwa1knm5yZ%2BcA-2LG%3DDBg%40mail.gmail.com.
