On Monday, December 30, 2024 at 1:24:50 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 5:10 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Sunday, December 29, 2024 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/29/2024 2:03 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDqUbBYpB_k#:~:text=from%20the%20car's%20reference%20rate%20however%20the,will%20get%20smashed%20by%20the%20garage%20doors.&text=in%20order%20to%20find%20out%20we%20must,use%20our%20friends%20the%20lorentz%20transformation%20equations . They are just calculating the position of the ends of the car in the garage frame so it it is contracted. Brent Does it show the car fits from the car frame, which is the claim? Maybe this video is better. AG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HtKe9POc_Q Do you watch these videos all the way through before posting links? In this one he says at 4:35 that "the solution to our paradox" is that while the doors are able to close simultaneously in the barn's frame with the pole inside, in the pole's frame the door closings are not simultaneous. After actually calculating the times in the pole frame using the LT, he says at 6:45 "Just think about what this means: the time that the back door closes is significantly before the front door closes. In other words, as the barn is moving towards the pole, the back door closes momentarily and then opens up immediately after. And when the back of the pole enters the barn the front door closes. So the closing of the doors that occurred simultaneously in one frame of reference does not occur simultaneously in the other frame of reference, and our paradox is resolved." Jesse *While it's obvious that the frames disagree on simultaneity, I really don't understand why that FACT, in itself, which I never disputed, resolves the paradox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction. Moreover, even supposing it's true, why does disagreement about simultaneity, somehow supercedes the fact that the LT implies the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car's frame (since the width of the garage can be made arbitrarily short using the LT, while the car's length remain constant). I also notice in Quentin's summary explanation, he affirms the disagreement of simultaneity, yet still concludes the car can't fit from the pov of the car's frame, essentially re-stating the paradox. I think Brent does the same with his plots. I am quite willing to admit I have been mistaken and annoying in pursuing this issue, but the analyses presented either fail to concretely and unambiguously link the simultaneity issue, with whether the car fits in garage from the pov of car frame, or not. And if not, what's the basis and rationale for simply ignoring what the LT clearly implies wrt the car frame? TY, 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/0b71d0ec-8b35-4f79-bcd4-97f2afb38a91n%40googlegroups.com.
