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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/336a2019-58b4-4520-ac34-762930581d90n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/336a2019-58b4-4520-ac34-762930581d90n%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/2c219f76-8d98-4584-8f6e-c4529c4340d9n%40googlegroups.com.
