AG, your statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic relativity. Let’s break this down clearly:
1. Defining "fit" requires simultaneity To say the car "fits" in the garage means comparing two spatially separated events: Event A: The back of the car passes the entrance of the garage. Event B: The front of the car is at or within the exit of the garage. To determine if these two events occur at the same time, you need a definition of simultaneity. In relativity, simultaneity is frame-dependent, which means "fit" is frame-dependent. Without simultaneity, you cannot meaningfully compare these events to declare that the car fits. 2. Ignoring simultaneity creates an ill-defined problem You say I’m "creating a condition for comparison." That’s not an added condition—it’s a required step. Without simultaneity, there is no way to decide if the events (back exiting and front fitting) happen at the same moment. Dismissing simultaneity is effectively refusing to define what "fits" even means. 3. Your logical error By claiming simultaneity isn’t necessary, you’re effectively asserting that "fit" is absolute. However: In the garage frame: The car fits because events A and B are simultaneous. In the car frame: Events A and B are not simultaneous, so the car doesn’t fit. Your refusal to address this difference ignores the core principle of special relativity: there is no absolute simultaneity. 4. Conclusion Your argument boils down to dismissing a foundational concept of relativity. If simultaneity isn’t necessary, then "fit" becomes undefined and meaningless across different frames. To claim simultaneity is irrelevant while discussing events that are spatially and temporally separated is to fundamentally misunderstand or ignore the physics. Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 15:35, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 6:18:29 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Even chatgpt is tired. > > AG, your insistence on ignoring simultaneity while clinging to an > incomplete understanding of the problem is fundamentally flawed. Let’s > address the core of this once and for all. > > 1. Relative length alone is not sufficient to define "fit" > > Yes, the length contraction of the car in the garage’s frame establishes a > necessary condition: the car’s contracted length must be less than or equal > to the garage’s length for fitting to be possible. But relativity is not > classical mechanics—you cannot wave away simultaneity and declare that > "fit" is absolute. The sufficient condition for fitting depends on > comparing specific events, and that comparison is frame-dependent. > > 2. Simultaneity defines "fit" in relativity > > You’ve dismissed simultaneity as irrelevant, but it’s essential. To > declare that the car fits, you must determine: > > Whether the back of the car has passed the entrance at the same time that > the front is at or within the exit. > > > *No. Whether the car fits or not depends only on its length compared to > length of garage.. Plane geometry. AG * > > > In the garage frame, this simultaneity exists, and the car fits. In the > car’s frame, the sequence of events is different due to the relativity of > simultaneity. Ignoring this distinction is a failure to understand how > special relativity fundamentally works. > > > *I'm not denying simultaneity. But I do see it as irrelevant in knowing > whether the car fits or not. AG * > > > 3. Your claim about synchronized clocks is false > > > *It is not. You misread what I wrote and then think it's cool to call me a > troll. AG * > > > Your assertion that "all clocks in any frame can be assumed to be > synchronized" is blatantly incorrect in the context of relativity. > Synchronization only applies within the same frame, > > > *That's what I wrote. AG* > > > > and relativity explicitly demonstrates that different frames have > different notions of simultaneity. Pretending otherwise is either > deliberate trolling or a refusal to engage with the basic principles of the > theory. > > 4. The real issue > > This is not about "games" or "courtesy." The issue is your refusal to > engage with the central role simultaneity plays in defining the sufficient > condition for "fit." Length contraction is only half of the story. By > ignoring simultaneity, you’re oversimplifying a relativistic scenario and > then claiming it as a valid argument. It’s not. > > > *You seem to think invoking simultaneity is essential for determining fit. > But length contraction alone is obviously sufficient. Don't blame me. I > didn't invent SR. Apparently, you want to use simultaneity to further the > argument why frames disagree about fitting. AG * > > > 5. Conclusion > > Relativity is clear: simultaneity and length contraction together resolve > the disagreement between frames. If you insist on treating "fit" as an > absolute concept, you’re contradicting the very foundation of special > relativity. If this is deliberate trolling, then let’s end the discussion > here, because I have no interest in engaging further with bad faith > arguments. > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 14:13, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Chatgpt is your friend, talk to it and convince it you're absolutely right: > > 1. "Fit" as a necessary condition based on relative lengths > > Yes, you're absolutely right that the problem often starts by asserting > the necessary condition: whether the contracted length of the car (from the > garage’s frame) is shorter than or equal to the garage’s length. However, > this necessary condition alone doesn’t resolve the disagreement between > frames—it just establishes whether fitting is possible. > > 2. Why simultaneity is essential to the sufficient condition > > To determine whether the car "actually fits" in the garage, we need to > specify when the comparison is made. That’s where simultaneity becomes > critical. For example: > > In the garage frame: At one specific instant, the back of the car passes > the entrance, and the front is still inside the exit. > > In the car frame: The back of the car passing the entrance and the front > reaching the exit are not simultaneous. > > Without simultaneity, the "fit" cannot be meaningfully defined because > it’s unclear what events we’re comparing. This isn’t about adding > unnecessary complexity but about adhering to how relativity defines events > across space and time. > > > *The fact is that simultaneity isn't necessary to determine if the car > fits. What you're doing is creating the condition for a comparison of > events, or fitting, between different frames.* > > -- > 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/3e6f3ed8-a10a-4f6f-8c05-7e89e033718en%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e6f3ed8-a10a-4f6f-8c05-7e89e033718en%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/CAMW2kAoNbKYcwoBvqHQh2gCvn2Of4d3K1gMcXq2vZKF86GdO-g%40mail.gmail.com.
