On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 5:10 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:32 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 2:20:32 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:08 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 2:00:25 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Brent hasn't chosen to answer your question, but my guess would be he just > means if you pick some specific event where part of the car is inside the > garage, like the event A of the back of the car passing the garage entry > door, in the garage frame the car is fully inside the garage "at the same > time" as event A (using the garage frame definition of other events > simultaneous with A), while in the car frame the front of the car is > already well past the exit of the garage "at the same time" as event A > (using the car frame definition of other events simultaneous with A). He > obviously isn't disputing the notion that the two frames have different > definitions of simultaneity since he made this point many times in his > comments. > > Jesse > > > I go by what he writes, not how someone interprets his words. AG > > > So are you just asking an open-ended question about what he means by "at > the same time" without imposing your own *interpretation* that this > necessarily must conflict with the idea you stated at the beginning, "the > assumption that fitting and not fitting of car in garage, from frame of > garage and frame of car do not happen at the same time"? You allow for the > possibility that his statement and your statement may just be using the > informal phrase "at the same time" in different ways, without an actual > substantive conflict in ideas? > > Jesse > > > Whille I am open to any possibility, it's invariably alleged that the > disagreement about simultaneity means the contrary events don't occur at > the same time, and this allegedly solves the problem. So a good teacher > would try to resolve his words without resorting to the "Heavyside" cop > out. It's ironic that you, a stickler for precision in words, let this > slide so easily. AG > > > I'm a stickler about words only when I think unclear phrases lead to > ambiguity about meaning, but since Brent knows his SR and emphasized many > times that the two frames have different definitions of simultaneity I > don't think there's any real possibility he was going back on that with > these words, although I might criticize his choice of words insofar as they > can be potentially misleading to someone who isn't already clear on this > stuff. > > Jesse > > > Brent wrote the car fits and doesn't fit "at the same time". How does this > affirm the disagreement about simultaneity? AG > His statement is ambiguous on its own which is why I said I would criticize his word choice, but I did give you a plausible reading of what he could have meant that wouldn't conflict with the relativity of simultaneity (in the garage frame it fits at the same time as some event A, in the car frame it doesn't fit at the same time as the same event A, so a person might use the shorthand 'it fits and doesn't fit at the same time' for this). You criticized this as an interpretation, but your own notion that his words *do* conflict with relativity of simultaneity is also just an interpretation, and I think a much less plausible one given that he affirms the relativity of simultaneity over and over in his posts (presumably you agree that context is relevant when interpreting someone's words). Jesse -- 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/CAPCWU3KVcFq_-dngEU7-Pc3SFJpbdtmqBtK1XT4n5MVArE-9tA%40mail.gmail.com.
