This topic is about the relation between girlfriend and AI. Why do you talk about relativity ?
On Wednesday, 15 January 2025 at 17:26:24 UTC+2 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le mer. 15 janv. 2025, 16:23, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 8:14:01 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> read A is before B >> >> >> In car frame, B before A is correct. AG >> > > No see point 2 and 3, car frame diagram. > > Event A happens before event B, the car doesn’t fit, fitting is the > simultaneous occurance of event A and event B. > > In the garage frame, event A and event B are simultaneous the car fits, > fitting is the simultaneous occurance of event A and event B. > >> >> Le mer. 15 janv. 2025 à 15:12, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> [image: image.png] >> >> [image: image.png] >> [image: image.png] >> >> In the garage frame, event A and event B are simultaneous, the car fit. >> In the car frame, event A and event B are not simultaneous (B is before >> A), the car does not fit. >> Simultaneity is different between frame and completely explain the >> apparent paradox of frame disagreement about fitting. >> >> Le mer. 15 janv. 2025 à 15:24, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> >> >> >> 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> >> . >> >> >> >> -- >> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy >> Batty/Rutger Hauer) >> >> >> >> -- >> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy >> Batty/Rutger Hauer) >> >> -- >> 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/2a274d8e-31b8-4d2b-8cbb-9da0efb1f3cdn%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a274d8e-31b8-4d2b-8cbb-9da0efb1f3cdn%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/9eb1b63b-7065-4abf-9183-2acb3cb2f703n%40googlegroups.com.
