There is only one definition of fits into and it involves simultaneity. Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 13:21, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 1:07:25 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > I think there is no hope, the sole purpose of a troll is denying and goes > back circular... so Alan agree to the definition of fits into, then > disagree abs conclude the bullshit troll idea that he's the genius and SR > is flawed... we can go on for years only on this stupid 6 years old school > problem... what a shame. > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 08:58, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 07:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 3:27:44 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 6 janv. 2025, 22:58, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 2:44:56 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Last try. > > So as you agreed, the two observers being in different frame, they don't > share the simultaneity plane. > > The key to understanding the situation is that the two observers (the > person in the garage and the person in the car) don’t share the same idea > of what events happen at the same time. This is because, in relativity, the > concept of "simultaneity" depends on the observer’s motion. > > What does "fit into the garage" mean? > > For the car to "fit into" the garage, we’re asking if: > > The back of the car has passed the entrance of the garage and > > The front of the car is at, or before, the exit of the garage > at the same time. > > Why is there disagreement? > > 1. For the garage’s observer: > > The car looks shorter because of Lorentz contraction. > > They can say: "At the same time, the back of the car has passed the > entrance, and the front is at or before the exit." So, for them, the car > fits. > > 2. For the car’s observer: > > The garage looks shorter because of Lorentz contraction. > > They see events differently. For them, the back of the car passes the > entrance before the front reaches the exit. So, they say: "The car never > fits inside the garage." > > Why no contradiction? > > The disagreement comes from the fact that the two observers don’t share > the same plane of simultaneity: > > In the garage’s frame, the "fit" happens because the events (back passing > entrance and front at exit) occur simultaneously. > > In the car’s frame, those events don’t happen at the same time. The car > sees the garage’s doors acting at different times to avoid a crash. > > Conclusion: > > The paradox is resolved because "fitting into the garage" depends on when > you decide to check if the car fits, and different observers disagree about > what "at the same time" means. This is a direct result of how special > relativity changes our understanding of simultaneity. > > Quentin > > > *As I've previously stated, the issue, if there is one, is that the frames > disagree about whether the car fits in the garage, not when it fits, or how > good or bad the fit is. This is obvious from length contraction alone, that > the frames disagree. This fact is unchanged by the disagreement about > simultaneity. So if you or anyone want to use the disagreement on > simultaneity and length contraction, to put some numbers on this problem, > that's fine. But it shouldn't be concluded that the underlying enigma has > been solved. AG* > > > The confusion here seems to stem from treating "fits" as if it were an > absolute property, independent of the observer's frame of reference. > However, in the context of special relativity, "fits" is not absolute, it’s > inherently dependent on the observer's definition of simultaneity. > > Here’s why: > > 1. The concept of "fits" requires simultaneity: > > > *It does not.* > > > *I was referring to the initial condition of the problem where it is > asserted that fit, or not, depends solely on the relative lengths of car > and garage. It's what called in mathematics **the necessary condition. > There is no mention of simultaneity. I explained this previously but you > deliberately ignored it. Of course, what you copied below with large font > in blue, and what I agreed to, and still do, is specific to a particular > circumstance, also known in this context as the sufficient** condition. > OTOH, it's obvious that when fitting cannot occur, say if the car is longer > than the garage, the end points of the car can be simultaneous, since all > clocks in any frame can be assumed to be synchronized. The sad part of this > exchange is that you just want to play games, indulged in name-calling -- > not really trying to understand my pov. I see I made a mistake in being > polite to you. You're unworthy of basic courtesy. AG* > > *The initial condition of the problem is that the car's length is greater > than the garage's length, from whence it is concluded the car won't fit. No > mention or use of simutaneity. When the car is in motion, the changes in > lengths are calculated using the LT and are not frame independent. Consider > this exercise; choose the speed of the car such that it perfectly fits in > the garage from the garage's frame. Place an observer in garage frame at > the entrance to the garage, and an observer in the car frame at the rear > end of the car. When the car perfectly fits in the garage, the former > observer will observe the car's rear end at entrance to the garage, within > the garage. OTOH, since that car doesn't fit in the garage from the car's > frame, the latter observer will observe the rear end of car clearly outside > the garage. Since the same car is being observed by both observers, they > must observe the same thing, but they don't. This seems to be a flaw in SR > since simultaneity is not involved. It's only relevant when comparing a > pair of simultaneous events in one frame, with a pair of events in another > frame, which is not the situation in this exercise. AG* > > > For the car to "fit" in the garage, you need to compare two events: (1) > the back of the car passing the entrance and (2) the front of the car being > at or before the exit. Whether these two events happen "at the same time" > depends on the observer’s frame of reference. > > The disagreement about simultaneity between the two frames directly leads > to a disagreement about whether the car fits. It’s not just an added > detail—it’s fundamental. > > 2. Length contraction alone doesn’t explain the full scenario: > > Yes, length contraction makes the car appear shorter in the garage’s frame > and the garage appear shorter in the car’s frame. But without simultaneity, > "fits" remains undefined because it depends on when you compare the > positions of the car’s front and back relative to the garage. > > 3. There’s no "underlying enigma" left to solve: > > The disagreement between frames is entirely explained by relativity: the > garage’s observer uses their simultaneity to conclude the car fits, > > > *In any frame, the clocks are (or can be) synchronized, so the ends of the > car can be synchronized even when the car doesn't fit in the garage. AG* > > > while the car’s observer uses a different simultaneity to conclude it > doesn’t. Both are correct within their own frames. This is not a paradox, > it’s how spacetime works. > > 4. "Fits" cannot be absolute: > > If you’re treating "fits" as a frame-independent property, > > > *I am not. AG* > > > you’re implicitly ignoring the core of special relativity, where space and > time are not absolute. This perspective is incompatible with the theory. > > In short: The disagreement about simultaneity is not a side effect, it’s > the very reason frames disagree about whether the car fits. To claim the > problem is unsolved is to misunderstand how relativity defines spatial > relationships and simultaneity. > > Quentin > > > Le lun. 6 janv. 2025, 22:37, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> a écrit : > > A troll feels absolutely no shame. > > > > Le lun. 6 janv. 2025, 22:25, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 11:46:52 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 10:02:28 PM UTC-7 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 > > > *Here is something to consider to prove what I believe needs to be proven;* > *that the two frames under consideration are not in relative motion as the* > *case of two inertial frames in empty space where nothing exists other > than* > *these two frames. In the paradox the car is in real detectable motion if > one* > *views its background, whereas the garage is fixed by the same > observation.* > *In fact, the garage and its surroundings can be considered a rigid body > from* > *the pov of the car frame, entirely in motion, not just the garage. I do > not say* > *t**his will work in possibly eliminating the relative motion of garage > from * > *the pov of the car frame and thus resolving the paradox, but it's a > possibility* > *worth **considering. AG * > > > *Maybe you can explain this: we started with an apparent paradox based on > length* > *contraction. Then, to allegedly resolve it, several MB members including > yourself, * > *applied both length contraction and disagreement about simultaneity to > get the* > *SAME result which was patently obvious with nothing more than length > contraction.* > *At which point victory was declared; the alleged paradox was resolved! > Praise the* > *Lord! Can you tell me what I'm missing? And please; don't tell me that > adding doors* > *on the garage was needed or necessary. Without those doors it was obvious > that* > *the frames would disagree about whether the car would fit at some high > speed. * > *Maybe Jesse and Quentin could explain this as well. TY, AG* > > > *I'd also like to hear from Clark on this issue. He was another great > advocate of putting* > *doors on the garage and thinking the problem was solved. As I see it, all > that's been * > *accomplished is to put some numbers on the problem, to calculate how good > the fit* > *is or isn't, without touching on the underlying problem. As for > falsifying relativity, that's* > *definitely not my preference. It seems to have worked for more than a > century, so it's* > *highly likely to be correct. But when all the experts here give their > opinions, ISTM that * > *none **are in the ballpark of actually shedding light on this problem. > Of course, we can* > *always adopt the "shut up and calculate" pov and conclude that that's > what SR says, and * > *be done with it. So, Clark, what do you think? AG * > > > > It doesn't fit from the car frame, regardless of the doors, which IMO > > can be dispensed with. So, as I see it, the paradox follows from the > > belief that there can't be disagreement about what the frames > > conclude. Isn't this the claim that must be disproven to resolve the > > paradox, and a constructive proof that the frames disagree using the > > LT is insufficient? 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/63ae4f0f-baed-4e87-923c-24a36df28b3fn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63ae4f0f-baed-4e87-923c-24a36df28b3fn%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/CAMW2kAp_TA6MdOBbqMuA14Og5eaaC1MnFchqbOmoC9ZrEmD%3DtA%40mail.gmail.com.
