On Saturday, December 7, 2024 at 12:53:00 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 9:22:33 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/6/2024 7:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 8:00:56 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/6/2024 6:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 5:30:59 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: I thought I had put this to bed long ago. Here's how is looks in the cars reference frame. The garage ,which is 10' long, is moving fast toward the car. It's length is Lorentz contracted to only 6', so the car doesn't fit. No surprise since the car is 12' long. But now from the garage's reference frame. The car is contracted to only 8' and so fits nicely, both ends of the car are inside the garage at the same time (where simultaneity is defined in the garage reference frame). But doesn't this contradict the car's observation that the garage was way to short? No, because what the car measure to be simultaneous is shown as the slanted car. His front bumper was well beyond the end of the garage when his rear bumper had just entered. These two diagrams are just the Lorentz transform of one another. *Please elaborate on this point. TY, AG* Brent *So, from the car's frame, the car won't fit in garage due to contraction of garage's length, but from garage frame the car fits perfectly due to contraction of car's length, and then it doesn't? * How did you get "and then it doesn't out of what I wrote." Study the diagram. Brent *First the car doesn't fit from car's frame, then it does fit from garage frame, then the elogated car doesn't fit from garage frame. AG* *Maybe you don't know the difference between a space/time diagram and a space/space diagram. Brent* *I can read English well and what you've presented is a space/TIME diagram, with TIME on the vertical axis, and where the car perfectly fits from the pov of the garage, and then you have the enlongated car which doesn't fit, supposedly based on simultaneity as measured in the car's frame, which, as I previously wrote, we already know doesn't fit. I have a high IQ but absolutely no clue what you have proven, if anything. AG* *Concerning your Heavyside remark, I understand your impulse to put me down, but the fact is your "proof" fails what it means to prove anything. That's why I regard it as handwaving. When attempting a proof, you are minimally required to clearly state exactly what you're trying to prove, and then do it if you can. What exactly do you think you're trying to prove? What exactly is the apparent paradox you're trying to resolve, and how have your diagrams done that? Failing to meet these requirements, you can't expect to be understood. AG * *So, apparently, there's no objective answer to the question of whether car fits in garage, or not. Doesn't there have to be agreement betweem the frames to claim the apparent paradox is resolved? BTW, what velcoity did you use to get the numerical contraction values? 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e94953f-f58c-4535-aead-63ff82572068n%40googlegroups.com.
