On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 10:43:08 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 9:35 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> I'm not denying simultaneity. But I do see it as irrelevant in knowing whether the car fits or not.* *Irrelevant?! Regardless of how long or short the car is or how long or short the garage is or how fast or slow an observer is moving EVERYBODY will agree that there was a time when the back of the car entered the front of the garage, and everybody will agree there was a time when the front of the car left the back of the garage, and everybody will agree there was a time where both of the doors on the garage were closed, BUT they will disagree if those three events occurred simultaneously. Those who think they were simultaneous events will conclude that the car fit in the garage, and those who think the events were not simultaneous will conclude that the car did not fit in the garage. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* *Why cannot the car's endpoints be simultaneous without the car fitting? After all, in any frame, all clocks can be synchronized to be simultaneous. ISTM that the necessary requirement for fitting is the relative lengths of the car and garage, and these lengths depend on the initial conditions, and later on the car's speed, applying length contraction using the LT. I get the same results as Brent just using length contraction and yet, according to Quentin, I am downgrading the disagreement about simultaneity. The fact is, it isn't needed to establish the apparent paradox. If you guys want to blame someone, blame Einstein! AG * *8ys* -- 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/176a6fe9-5d63-4a2c-ad37-d97957e71012n%40googlegroups.com.
