On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 1:24:50 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 5:10 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/29/2024 2:03 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 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 . They are just calculating the position of the ends of the car in the garage frame so it it is contracted. Brent Does it show the car fits from the car frame, which is the claim? Maybe this video is better. AG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q Do you watch these videos all the way through before posting links? In this one he says at 4:35 that "the solution to our paradox" is that while the doors are able to close simultaneously in the barn's frame with the pole inside, in the pole's frame the door closings are not simultaneous. After actually calculating the times in the pole frame using the LT, he says at 6:45 "Just think about what this means: the time that the back door closes is significantly before the front door closes. In other words, as the barn is moving towards the pole, the back door closes momentarily and then opens up immediately after. And when the back of the pole enters the barn the front door closes. So the closing of the doors that occurred simultaneously in one frame of reference does not occur simultaneously in the other frame of reference, and our paradox is resolved." Jesse *While it's obvious that the frames disagree on simultaneity, I don't understand why this FACT, which I've never disputed, **resolves the paradox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction. Moreover, even supposing it's true, meaning the car doesn't **fit from the pov of the car frame, it **just reasserts the paradox. OR, if it denies the paradox by claiming the car does fit from the pov of car frame, how does this interpretation supercede the fact that the LT clearly mplies the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car's frame (since the width of the garage can be made arbitrarily short using the LT, while the car's length remains unchanged)? I notice that in Quentin's summary explanation, he affirms the disagreement of simultaneity, but still concludes the car cannot fit from the pov of the car's frame; so, in effect, he just restates the paradox. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Brent does the same with his plots. I am quite willing to admit I have been mistaken and likely annoying to some in pursuing this issue, but the analyses presented fail to unambiguously link the simultaneity issue, to whether the car fits in garage from the pov of car frame, or not. If it does fit,** what's the basis and rationale for simply ignoring what the LT clearly implies wrt the car frame? Or if not, if it doesn't fit, how is this different from simply restating the paradox? TY, 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/113163d7-c70c-4714-8f3a-939c14f6ba70n%40googlegroups.com.
