Meaning

[John Clark]

What does "can't fit in the garage" mean exactly? Both the car driver and the garage man agree that it means the following 2 events occurred SIMULTANEOUSLY: 

1) Both the front and back doors of the garage are closed and locked.

2) Both the front and the back of the car are in the garage.  

But if they don't agree on what is simultaneous then there is nothing paradoxical in concluding that they will disagree about the car fitting in the garage. Strange is not synonymous with paradoxical. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

enp

[Alan Grayson]

Why impose the requirement of fitting EXACTLY in the garage? All that necessary is to show that, due to length contraction, the length of the car is LESS than the length of the garage. In such case, the concept of simultaneity does not become part of the problem and its possible resolution. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 8, 2024 at 5:39:01 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

>> What does "can't fit in the garage" mean exactly? Both the car driver and the garage man agree that it means the following 2 events occurred SIMULTANEOUSLY:

1) Both the front and back doors of the garage are closed and locked.

2) Both the front and the back of the car are in the garage.  

But if they don't agree on what is simultaneous then there is nothing paradoxical in concluding that they will disagree about the car fitting in the garage. Strange is not synonymous with paradoxical. 

John K Clark   

> Why impose the requirement of fitting EXACTLY in the garage?

I never said "exactly". If there is a length of time, no matter how long or short, provided it is greater than zero, in which conditions #1 and #2 in the above are met then both of them would agree that the car can and has fit in the garage.   

> All that necessary is to show that, due to length contraction, the length of the car is LESS than the length of the garage.

And the most unambiguous way to demonstrate that is to see if it is possible to close both the front and back doors of the garage simultaneously with both the front and back of the car being in the garage. If they can't agree on simultaneity then they can't agree on whether the car can fit in the garage. And that is odd but not paradoxical. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

tca

[Alan Grayson]

I've shown that the car fits in the garage, from the pov of the garage, but not how you want it proven.  And I see you're up to old habit of selectively editing my comments. It seems a method has been conjured up to avoid the obvious; namely, that the length of the car can be assumed as small as necessary, which leads to a paradox. AG

  

tca

[Alan Grayson]

In setting up the problem, it is assumed the rest measurements have the car longer than the garage, so IMO it's legitimate just to show that the car can be measured as shorter than the garage, which is what I did, and it leads to a paradox. Nothing wrong with my method other than the wish to avoid a paradox by using a method which involves lack of simultaneity between frames. AG

  

tca

[Alan Grayson]

How can you assume the car fits exactly if it's initially assumed to be larger in length than the garage? This makes no sense,, plus you refuse to allow length contraction to show the paradox. This utterly fails the smell test. AG 

  

tca

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 2:37 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the length of the car can be assumed as small as necessary

Yes.

> which leads to a paradox

Please specify the paradox that you think you see. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

6fh

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 8, 2024 at 2:05:48 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 2:37 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the length of the car can be assumed as small as necessary

Yes.

> which leads to a paradox

Please specify the paradox that you think you see. 

John K Clark  

6fh

You already identified it, in effect, that if the frames disagree whether the car fits, relativity is falsified. As I see it, there's a hard fact -- whether the car fits or not -- and I've shown that relativity gives contradictory answers. IMO, it's deceptive to formulate the problem in such way as to require disagreements about simultaneity to "resolve" the contradiction. BTW, I don't agree with Jesse, the physics allow for such ambiguities. AG

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 5:11 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the length of the car can be assumed as small as necessary

Yes.

> which leads to a paradox

Please specify the paradox that you think you see. 

> You already identified it, in effect,

Nope, read what I said again  

 

> that if the frames disagree whether the car fits, relativity is falsified.

Relatively would only be falsified if they agreed that "the following 2 events occurred SIMULTANEOUSLY" but disagreed about the car fitting; and that's not what happened. They agree there was a time when the front of the car was in the garage and they agreed there was a time when the back of the car was in the garage and they agreed that there was a time when both  doors on the garage were closed, but they disagreed about those events happening simultaneously. The result is odd but not paradoxical.  

John K Clark