Le mer. 15 janv. 2025, 14:31, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c296755-7c2f-49f4-ae0b-9452d1f8baben%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/CAMW2kAo4yJSfqYWeQbNSLmQm%2B1A%2BWkZXQR-CYux6JcTiif0gPQ%40mail.gmail.com.
