Le jeu. 9 janv. 2025, 16:51, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 5:33:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, your question is just another attempt to misrepresent the role of > simultaneity and derail the discussion. Let’s cut through the nonsense and > address this directly. > > The car fitting in two different garages of different lengths depends on > relative lengths and simultaneity. Simultaneity doesn’t somehow override > length contraction—it works in tandem with it to determine whether the car > fits in a specific frame. Here’s how it works: > > 1. Garage1 where the car fits: > In the frame of Garage1, simultaneity determines that, at a specific > moment, the back of the car passes the entrance while the front is within > the exit. This conclusion is consistent with the car’s length being shorter > than or equal to the length of Garage1 in this frame due to length > contraction. > > > 2. Garage2 where the car doesn’t fit: > In the frame of Garage2, the same principles apply. If the car is longer > than Garage2’s length (as measured in the frame of Garage2), simultaneity > will show that there is no single moment when the back of the car is inside > while the front is also inside. The relative lengths determine whether > fitting is possible, but simultaneity is what determines when and how you > compare the endpoints. > > > > So, to answer your question: the car doesn’t fail to fit in Garage2 > because of simultaneity alone. The disagreement about simultaneity simply > explains why the two frames (the car frame and the garage frame) reach > different conclusions. Simultaneity is critical because it defines how you > compare events in spacetime. Without it, "fitting" would be an undefined > concept. > > Once again, your attempt to isolate simultaneity as some kind of side > issue misses the mark entirely. Relative lengths are part of the setup, but > simultaneity is what resolves the paradox. Ignoring this just shows that > you still don’t understand—or don’t want to understand—how special > relativity works. Your question doesn’t prove simultaneity is irrelevant; > it just shows your commitment to trolling. > > > *Forget my last question. I meant to ask about a situation where the car > fits in both frames due to choice of initial parameters, and I was > wondering if simultaneity continues to disagree and what will be the > situation in the second frame where it previously fit. AG * > AG, your attempt to shift the discussion yet again is nothing more than a distraction. But let’s humor this new scenario and break it down clearly. If the car fits in both frames, then the initial conditions are such that: 1. The contracted length of the car in the garage frame is less than or equal to the length of the garage. 2. The contracted length of the garage in the car frame is less than or equal to the length of the car. In this case, simultaneity still plays a role, because it dictates how events are aligned in each frame. Let’s break it into the two frames: 1. In the garage frame: The back of the car passes the entrance while the front is at or within the exit simultaneously (according to the garage’s synchronized clocks). This means the car fits, and simultaneity determines this alignment. 2. In the car frame: The garage appears contracted, but simultaneity in the car frame still ensures that at some moment (according to the car’s synchronized clocks), the back of the garage aligns with the back of the car, and the front of the garage aligns with the front of the car. The car fits here too. Does simultaneity still disagree? Yes, simultaneity still disagrees between the two frames because that’s a fundamental aspect of special relativity. Even if the car fits in both frames, the ordering of events will differ: In the garage frame, the events of "back passing the entrance" and "front at the exit" are simultaneous. In the car frame, these events may not be simultaneous, but the alignment of the endpoints still ensures the car fits due to the chosen parameters. What happens in the second frame? The car will still fit, but the perception of when it fits differs due to the relativity of simultaneity. This doesn’t create a contradiction; it’s just a reflection of how spacetime operates. Both frames agree on the physical reality (the car fits), but they describe it differently. Your question doesn’t undermine simultaneity—it reinforces its importance. Even when the car fits in both frames, simultaneity determines how the events align in each frame. Pretending simultaneity is irrelevant here, as you’ve tried to do throughout this discussion, would render the entire concept of "fitting" meaningless. So yes, simultaneity continues to disagree. It always does. That’s relativity. If you were expecting this to disprove anything, you’re barking up the wrong tree—again. -- > 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/148ecc97-6638-4c28-99d3-af22d6a1cb7an%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/148ecc97-6638-4c28-99d3-af22d6a1cb7an%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/CAMW2kArUFBCzyUKfr1qEjkxyZtXSy%2BZR3pAQanY9f%2Bss6sztLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
