On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 3:31:12 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/5/2025 9:02 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/5/2025 7:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> You claim there is no objective fact. The car fitted in the garage.
> But that's only from the garage frame.
If it's from only one frame and not another, that's the definition of
"not objective". It's not fact. It's subjective perception.
Brent
You truncated my statement. You showed the car fits in one frame
and not the other (the car frame). The paradox is based on the belief
that this is impossible. Disproving this belief is required to resolve
the paradox. AG
I've shown that it fits in one frame and not the other.
*We're in agreement! AG *
If your belief is irrational, that's not a paradox, it's just a false
belief.
*It might be a false belief. I'll grant you that. But can you prove it
false? That's the issue which must be addressed, rather than assuming it
false and using SR to get the result already known by a thought experiment
just assuming length contraction. You could be on a slippery slope, being
so sure SR is correct that you use it assuming its predictions must be
true. Personally, I think SR is OK and want it to be OK, but I don't think
this issue has been adequately resolved. AG*
*Quentin; thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll reply to it later. 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/f58b5b6d-931a-44e1-90f2-d4212e39170fn%40googlegroups.com.
