On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 4:25:46 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:58 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: *>Brent’s Point: Fitting and not fitting "occur at the same time" in their respective frames. This doesn’t mean they happen simultaneously across frames; it means that within each frame’s own definition of simultaneity, their conclusion is consistent. The car fits in the garage frame and doesn’t fit in the car frame—simultaneously by their own standards.* *Clark’s Point: The frames disagree about simultaneity, which explains why the conclusions about fitting differ. This doesn’t contradict Brent; it complements it. The disagreement is exactly what relativity predicts due to the relativity of simultaneity.The contradiction you see isn’t between Brent and Clark—it’s in your understanding. They’re describing the same phenomenon from different angles.* *I agree with everything Quentin said.* *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* *Brent wrote that the frames agree on the time when they agreed and disagreed concerning fitting. Using English, this means there's one clock for both frames, which of course contradicts relativity. If Brent meant something else, he should refine his use of English. Now, about the substance; I am not convinced the disagreement of simultaneity resolves the paradox. The frames disagree on when the fitting or not occurred, but we still have two frames, each predicting the same thing internally -- car fits in garage frame, but doesn't fit in car frame -- which presumably Clark calls "odd", which is his limited admission that something here is awry. AG*g -- 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/592af9b8-9774-4bd1-b848-6b092b8d077cn%40googlegroups.com.
