On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 7:55:52 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 1:50:26 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: 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* *To paraphrase the famous words of a Mexican bandit; we don't need no stinkin' doors (on the garage). Clearly, since all clocks in any given frame are synchronized, the readings on clocks which are synchronized in the garage frame for a car perfectly fitting, or not, are not synchronized in the car frame. So, if the conclusion concerning disagreement of synchronization of any two synchronized clocks in garage frame, when compared to the transformed events in the car frame, yields the same result as invoking length contraction of the garage using the LT from the pov of the car frame, at least the results of length contraction using the LT, and disagreement of simultaneity, are not in conflict. But how this resolves the paradox has not been adequately argued. That is, applying the disagreement of synchronization, we reach the same conclusion as using length contraction that allegedly caused the paradox in the first place, and adds nothing to solving it. To summarize, the inclusion of doors on the garage proves nothing and is unnecessary, and applying the disagreement of simultaneity does nothing more than to restate the paradox. AG* *The simplest way to look at it is this; remove the garage doors, assume garage open at both ends, assume a perfect fit of car in garage frame, and use the front and back ends of car as the pair of simultaneous events in garage frame. Then note that they're not simultaneous in car's frame, and somehow infer (I don't know how) that the car will not fit in garage from pov of car's frame. Then falsely declare that the paradox has been solved, when in fact all that's been done is to get the SAME result when using length contraction from the pov of car's frame! This is expected since length contraction and failure of simultaneity both follow from the LT, so their results should be the same. But nothing's gained. It's just a restatement of the paradox. QED, AG* *Brent; with reference to my last comment above, is this what you did with your plots, and if not, how does it differ? 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/20584e70-b23c-4d17-9068-b3b084d938cbn%40googlegroups.com.
