Chatgpt is your friend and accept an infinite amount of trolling, here is its a correct answer:
The scenario you're referring to is a classic thought experiment in special relativity called the "ladder paradox" or "pole-and-barn paradox". It illustrates how the effects of Lorentz contraction and the relativity of simultaneity work together to resolve what seems like a paradox. The Setup: Imagine a car moving at a relativistic speed (close to the speed of light) towards a garage. The car is longer than the garage when measured in their respective rest frames. The question is: can the car fit entirely inside the garage for a moment, given Lorentz contraction? Lorentz Contraction: 1. In the garage's frame of reference (rest frame of the garage): Due to the Lorentz contraction, the moving car appears shorter than its rest length. This contraction occurs along the direction of motion. >From the garage's perspective, it seems that the car becomes short enough to fit entirely inside the garage for a moment. 2. In the car's frame of reference (rest frame of the car): The car perceives the garage as moving toward it at relativistic speed. Due to Lorentz contraction, the garage appears even shorter than its rest length. >From the car's perspective, it seems impossible for the car to fit inside the garage, as the garage is too short. Relativity of Simultaneity: The apparent paradox arises because different observers disagree on what events are simultaneous. Here's how this resolves the situation: 1. In the garage's frame: The garage can be equipped with two doors: a front door and a back door. At one specific instant (according to the garage's clock), both doors can close simultaneously, with the car fully inside the garage. 2. In the car's frame: Simultaneity is relative. The car's frame does not agree that the front and back doors close at the same time. Instead, it perceives the back door closing first and the front door closing later (or vice versa, depending on the direction of motion). Resolving the Paradox: 1. In the garage's frame, the car can fit entirely inside the garage due to Lorentz contraction. 2. In the car's frame, the car never fits entirely inside the garage. However, because simultaneity is relative, the sequence of door closures ensures that no collision occurs, and the situation is physically consistent in both frames. Key Takeaway: The apparent paradox arises from treating simultaneity as absolute (like in classical mechanics). Special relativity shows that simultaneity depends on the observer's frame of reference, and Lorentz contraction is observed differently depending on the frame. This resolves the contradiction and maintains consistency with the principles of relativity. Use chatgpt and *leave this list alone* Le lun. 30 déc. 2024, 11:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 4:36:11 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > I've answered *multiple* times, it all boils down to a disagreement about > simultaneity, > > > *As I've told you multiple times, that's not enough. Does it mean the > frames disagree, and if so, why is it that on the Internet it is generally > agreed that this affirms the paradox? Brent seems not to care about the > disagreement, so does he endorse or deny the paradox? You're a vulgar fool > who doesn't understand the issue, and thinks saying something about > simultaneity is the full and complete answer. AG* > > > not our fault if alan the genius cannot comprehend it because he's so > smart and has falsified SR via his fatal blowjob. Please leave this list, > the name of this list is the everything list, created by Wei Dai to talk > about everything type theories, not low iq troll. Please leave this list > alone of your shit. It doesn't stink to you because it's your own shit, > keep it for you > Bye > > Le lun. 30 déc. 2024, 11:04, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 2:14:48 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > Le lun. 30 déc. 2024, 07:41, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 12:23:08 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 11:06:06 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 12/29/2024 7:02 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 4:38:06 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 12/29/2024 4:08 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > *Here's another video which shows the paradox is resolved by demonstrating > that the car fits in both frames, again affirming my intuition that 1), the > paradox is caused by the apparent disagreement between the frames that the > car fits in garage; and 2), the fact that using the LT properly, by > including time dilation, there does exist an objective reality wherein the > car fits in garage in both frames. Why then, when I asked you to affirm the > existence of this objective reality, you denied it? AG* > > *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q>* > > > You don't even understand the things you post...or you're just trolling. > Here's a still from that video. > > > > Look at the numbers in the box, the entrance and exit numbers from the > garage point of view. Back enters at 1.6e-8 and Front exits at 1.8e-8, > AFTER the back had entered. So the pole was entirely within the garage, > from the garage pov. Now look at the numbers calculated on the upper > right. These are the numbers from the cars point of view. Back enters at > 3.70e-8 sec and Front exits 8.07e-9 sec. The Front exits BEFORE the back > enters. The pole is not entirely within the garage! And then the > discrepancy is illustrated by an animation, clearly showing the pole > (ladder) doesn't fit in the garage in the frame in which the garage is > moving. > > > > Yet you write, " > *Here's another video which shows the paradox is resolved by demonstrating > that the car fits in both frames,". * > > > *I should have wriiten " ... allegedly resolved ... ". In your opinion, > can it be shown the car fits in garage from the car's frame? If not, the > paradox is alive and well, and SR is in trouble. AG* > > ??? You should have written the video shows that the pole fits in one > reference frame (the garage's) and not in the other (the pole's). I don't > know whether that "allegedly resolves" the paradox for you or not. > > Brent > > > *In other alleged SR paradoxes, where observers are juxtaposed like the > TP, the resolution involves some asymmetry, but not in this case. My > question was, really, as far as you know, is there any way for the car to > fit in the garage from the car's frame? For you, I suppose that the > observers differing in their conclusion about fitting is not a problem. If > so, my use of length contraction should have been sufficient for you, since > the conclusion is the same as your plots. For me the disagreement is a > problem, but it's hard to come up with a convincing argument why that's the > case. On the Internet, it seems to be assumed that such disagreement > produces what appears to be a paradox, but it's not argued why this is so. > In my discussions with Jesse I tried to imagine a Bird's Eye Observer, for > an observer, say, from a satellite with the garage being open on the top, > to determine what would be observed, by an alleged objective observer, but > I'm not sure this is helpful in this case. AG* > > > *The only asymmetry in this case involves the velocity of the car. Here, > it's not an ideal case of two entities moving with respect to each other, > and being the only entities in the universe, that allows us to conclude > their motion is simply relative. AG * > > > *What you demonstrate is a person of ordinary intelligence. A symptom of > your condiiton is that you fail to ask a fairly deep question inherent in > this issue; specifically, why is it considered a paradox when the frames > reach opposite conclusions? I don't see this question asked on the > Internet, even though the disagreement is alleged to be an apparent > paradox. The videos I posted try to show the frames reach the same > conclusion. Some fail, others I am not sure about. In Brent's case, IIUC, > he's not bothered that the frames disagree. So it surely seems there's an > unanswered question here. Finally, when I asked you about your position, > you refuse to answer. So, either you're a coward, or aren't clear what your > actual position is. 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/cc805ab2-34e2-438a-8006-3c2dc320b152n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cc805ab2-34e2-438a-8006-3c2dc320b152n%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/CAMW2kAp-aRGvC-JQsfweY8%3DrDLKyoXf%2Bn7c_-Kwhu8Jqoxd3SQ%40mail.gmail.com.
