On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 6:18:40 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, your relentless misinterpretation and refusal to grasp basic concepts of relativity are exhausting. Let’s break this down yet again: 1. Brent’s statement: The frames agree on the conditions for disagreement because they both acknowledge the relativity of simultaneity. This doesn’t imply a "universal clock" or a single time across frames—it reflects the fact that both frames are internally consistent and predict different outcomes due to their differing simultaneity definitions. 2. No universal simultaneity: Your claim that Brent’s statement implies a single clock is a gross misreading. Relativity explicitly denies a universal simultaneity. Brent’s language doesn’t contradict relativity; your interpretation does. Can you read English? Apparently not. That's what Brent wrote; apparently not what he meant. AG 3. The "odd" situation: The car fitting in one frame and not fitting in the other isn’t "awry." It’s exactly what special relativity predicts. Clark calling it "odd" is likely a reflection of how non-intuitive relativity can be, not an admission of a flaw. The so-called paradox is fully resolved by understanding simultaneity and the Lorentz transformations. Let Clark speak for himself. I understand simultaneity but I don't agree it resolves the paradox. AG 4. Substance of your argument: You keep returning to the same flawed point: that disagreement between frames somehow undermines the theory. It doesn’t. The frames are meant to disagree; that’s the essence of relativity. Each frame is consistent within its own simultaneity and observations, and there is no contradiction. Experts on SR claim the LT gives us what observers in the primed frame will measure, but this is obviously false. The LT predicts length contraction which the target frame, the primed frame, never measures. AG If you’re "not convinced" simultaneity resolves the paradox, it’s because you’re refusing to accept how relativity works, not because of any flaw in the explanation. Stop blaming others for your confusion and start addressing your own misunderstandings. Stop with your persistent pathology. I am not "blaming" anyone. I just disagree with a conclusion and I am allowed to do that! AG Le mer. 15 janv. 2025, 13:58, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : 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 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/592af9b8-9774-4bd1-b848-6b092b8d077cn%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/5c296755-7c2f-49f4-ae0b-9452d1f8baben%40googlegroups.com.
