On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 4:23:46 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:37:31 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion. FWIW, we can engage in a rational discussion if you would cease making accusations about my motives and state of mind. I've reviiewed some of your earlier explanations of the alleged paradox, and your more or less constant complaint that I downplay the role of simultaneity in the resolution. While I admit that my initial proposed solution was mistaken -- that length contraction was alone sufficient to resolve the paradox -- I still fail to see why simultaneity does the trick. I say this because all it does is show that fitting and not fitting cannot occur "at the same time". But once it's acknowleged that each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, not synchronized with the clocks in some other frame, the concept "at the same time" is meaningless. So, if you agree so far, the question becomes whether fitting and not fitting "at different times" remains a paradox to resolve. Although, "at the same time" is meaningless, it's possible to imagine the car midway within the garage, and two juxtaposed observers, one in each frame, which observe the car fitting and not fitting, now NOT simultaneous, but spatially co-located. Can this mean another form of the paradox is alive and well, since each observer has contradictory observations (where additional observers are added where necessary to confirm the observations)? Although SR allows measurement to be frame dependent, why isn't this stuation* essentially identical *to the one which requires simutaneity arguments to allegedly resolve? AG You just admitted that it's possible you're still clinging to classical notions of time. That’s the closest thing to progress you’ve made in this entire exchange. But let’s be real—you’ll probably backpedal on that in your next reply, just like you’ve done every other time. So go ahead, type "PRICK" again if that’s all you’ve got left. It’s the perfect way to prove you were never interested in an actual conversation. PRICK! Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 22:34, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:24:36 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, the irony of you accusing me of not "getting it" while you continuously move the goalposts is almost impressive. You keep doing the same thing. You have zero ability for self reflection. AN INCORRIGIBLE PRICK. AG You’ve spent this entire discussion dodging explanations, shifting arguments, and now pretending that maybe, just maybe, you might have had a reason for not accepting the answer earlier. Except, that’s nonsense. You weren’t "under the impression" of anything—you were rejecting explanations outright while throwing insults. PRICK. Fitting and not fitting at different times is exactly what relativity predicts, and there is nothing paradoxical about it once you acknowledge that simultaneity is relative. If you still see a paradox, it’s because you’re clinging to classical, absolute notions of time that do not exist in SR. That's possible. AG So what’s next? Another dramatic exit? Another accusation? Or are you finally going to admit you were just being stubborn? PRICK. Quentin Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 22:18, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:09:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, I answered your question directly. The fact that you don’t like the answer—or that it exposes your bad faith—isn’t my problem. The paradox arises from the false assumption that there is a universal simultaneity, leading to the mistaken belief that the car must fit and not fit in an absolute sense. The solution is recognizing that simultaneity is frame-dependent, meaning each frame has its own consistent reality where its conclusion holds. There is no contradiction once you stop applying outdated, classical assumptions to relativistic scenarios. Now, go ahead—pretend I didn’t answer, throw another insult, or twist this into something else. That’s all you ever do. You just don't get it. You constantly accuse me of this or that, as if you can read my intentions. For that reason, and only for that reason, I identify you as an incorrigible PRICK. As for your answer, when did you write that? I might have been under the impression that fitting and not fitting at DIFFERENT times might still be a paradox, and perhaps might NOT have accepted your answer for that reason, which I know you cannot grasp. AG Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 21:44, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : Why can't you just answer my question and cease being a pseudo mind-reading PRICK? Yes, that's what you are. No doubt about it. AG On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:31:11 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, after all your backpedaling, dodging, and attempts to rewrite history, you’re now pretending to ask a sincere question? Fine, I’ll humor you—though we both know you’ll just find another way to twist this. The so-called paradox arises when someone incorrectly assumes that both frames should agree on whether the car fits inside the garage at a single universal moment. In other words, people mistakenly expect an absolute answer to a question that is frame-dependent. The "Problem" That Simultaneity Resolves: Garage frame: The car is contracted due to length contraction, so at some moment in this frame, it fits entirely inside the garage. Car frame: The garage is contracted instead, and simultaneity shifts, meaning that by the time the back of the car enters, the front has already exited. The car is never entirely inside at any moment in this frame. Why This Is Not a Contradiction: The naïve view (where people think in classical, absolute simultaneity terms) sees this as a paradox: "How can the car fit and not fit at the same time?" Relativity of simultaneity resolves this because the frames do not share a single definition of ‘at the same time’. What is "simultaneous" in one frame is not simultaneous in another. Your whole "question" is just an attempt to make it seem like simultaneity doesn’t actually resolve anything—when, in reality, the misunderstanding of simultaneity is the only reason people see a paradox in the first place. If you truly don’t see this after months of discussion, it’s not because the answer isn’t clear—it’s because you refuse to let go of your preconceptions. Quentin Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 21:22, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : FWIW, I've established to my satisfaction that the "paradox" is unrelated to the fact that the car fits and doesn't fit in the garage. As Clark pointed out, this result is "odd". And it is not related to Clark claim the alleged paradox has anything to do with the idea that fitting and not filling occurs "at the same time", since each frame in SR has its own set of clocks, so the hypothesis in quotes makes no sense. The one thing there's general agreement on, is that the paradox is resolved by applying the disagreement about simultaneity. You've made this claim repeatedly and mocked me for not seeing the light. But if your alleged solution, which I referred to as a slogan, is the solution to the paradox, the question is, "What is the problem it is a solution to?" So, now I'd appreciate an answer to this basic question, if you have one. What exactly, in your opinion, is the paradox you claim is solved by disagreement about simultaneity? AG -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07a7fa13-acea-4466-8525-3489d830ac8fn%40googlegroups.com.
