I have no girlfriend, therefore I speak about AI

[Cosmin Visan]

I have no girlfriend, therefore I speak about AI.

[Alan Grayson]

If you really were conscious, you'd realize how stupid is your post. You know nothing of anyone's personal life, or sex life, so if you were minimally conscious you'd cease this foolishness. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

What a fun thing to witness, a troll fighting another troll... each one believing they are sane, rational and genius. 🤣

--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3892dcd5-0b8a-4d09-a26c-3fcb915eed32n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 2:36:44 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

What a fun thing to witness, a troll fighting another troll... each one believing they are sane, rational and genius. 🤣

Do you have any professional achievements? Can you offer at least one? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 2:36:44 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

What a fun thing to witness, a troll fighting another troll... each one believing they are sane, rational and genius. 🤣

Do you have any professional achievements? Can you offer at least one? AG 

Any university degrees? I have three. BTW, I'm not completely convinced that simultaneity solves the parking paradox. While it's true that the car can't fit and not fit simultaneously, it's still troublesome that it can fit and not fit at different times. I believe Clark thinks this is an "odd situation". It certainly is and demands more thought. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, waving around your supposed "three degrees" doesn’t make your arguments any less flawed or your behavior any less trollish. If those degrees are real, they clearly didn’t include lessons on humility, logic, or how to engage in productive discussion.

Your backpedaling on simultaneity yet again shows you’re either incapable of following the reasoning or deliberately stirring the pot. The car fitting in one frame and not in another isn’t "troublesome" or "odd"—it’s a direct and perfectly explained consequence of the relativity of simultaneity. If you still find it confusing, the problem isn’t with relativity; it’s with your refusal to listen.

Stop using your imaginary academic credentials as a shield for bad arguments. Degrees don’t mean anything if you keep proving you didn’t learn the basics. Focus on understanding instead of trolling—it might save what little credibility you have left.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2db92db3-6828-47a8-a544-314cf7892b7an%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 11:05:21 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, waving around your supposed "three degrees" doesn’t make your arguments any less flawed or your behavior any less trollish. If those degrees are real, they clearly didn’t include lessons on humility, logic, or how to engage in productive discussion.

Your backpedaling on simultaneity yet again shows you’re either incapable of following the reasoning or deliberately stirring the pot. The car fitting in one frame and not in another isn’t "troublesome" or "odd"—it’s a direct and perfectly explained consequence of the relativity of simultaneity. If you still find it confusing, the problem isn’t with relativity; it’s with your refusal to listen.

Stop using your imaginary academic credentials as a shield for bad arguments. Degrees don’t mean anything if you keep proving you didn’t learn the basics. Focus on understanding instead of trolling—it might save what little credibility you have left.

Did you notice? Now Brent and Clark (and YOU!) apparently disagree on what simultaneity establishes. BTW, usually someone mentally ill, like you, can't do any deep self diagnosis and doesn't realize how iil they are. Example; your use of "backpedaling" is a symptom of paranoia. I just changed my mind at some point in the discussion. That was it. Nothing more. I doubt you will able to see this simple fact. And it is simple and true. it was your paranoia and abuse that produced the type of behavior on my part that you complain about. I might have been mistaken on the issue discussed, though now the experts seem to disagree, but I am not a fool and I don't suffer fools like you lightly. It really takes a lot of abuse from someone, for me to call that someone a prick/asshole, but you deserve it. BTW2, do you have any professional achievements, any? Mine aren't imaginary. And nowhere did I use them to support any arguments I make, good or bad ones. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your attempts to shift blame and play the victim are as predictable as they are tiresome. Let’s get a few things straight.

First, changing your mind isn’t the issue—it’s your constant refusal to acknowledge explanations, your endless insults, and your bad faith throughout the discussion. You didn’t just change your mind; you repeatedly dismissed valid points, only to later parrot them back as if they were your own revelations.

Second, accusing others of mental illness while lacing every response with personal attacks isn’t just hypocritical—it’s pathetic. You’ve spent more time throwing tantrums and dodging accountability than actually discussing the topic. If you can’t handle criticism, that’s on you, not anyone else.

Third, waving your "achievements" around—imaginary or not—while insulting others’ supposed lack of them is irrelevant and desperate. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit, and yours have consistently fallen apart under scrutiny.

Finally, calling others "pricks" or "assholes" doesn’t make you look strong or justified; it just highlights your inability to engage in a mature, constructive manner. If you truly believe in the importance of professional and intellectual respect, maybe try demonstrating some for once. Until then, your behavior speaks for itself.

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1de6df53-5533-4bd1-92ce-54a80c0509f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 12:31:31 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your attempts to shift blame and play the victim are as predictable as they are tiresome. Let’s get a few things straight.

First, changing your mind isn’t the issue—it’s your constant refusal to acknowledge explanations, your endless insults, and your bad faith throughout the discussion. You didn’t just change your mind; you repeatedly dismissed valid points, only to later parrot them back as if they were your own revelations.

Second, accusing others of mental illness while lacing every response with personal attacks isn’t just hypocritical—it’s pathetic. You’ve spent more time throwing tantrums and dodging accountability than actually discussing the topic. If you can’t handle criticism, that’s on you, not anyone else.

Third, waving your "achievements" around—imaginary or not—while insulting others’ supposed lack of them is irrelevant and desperate. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit, and yours have consistently fallen apart under scrutiny.

Finally, calling others "pricks" or "assholes" doesn’t make you look strong or justified; it just highlights your inability to engage in a mature, constructive manner. If you truly believe in the importance of professional and intellectual respect, maybe try demonstrating some for once. Until then, your behavior speaks for itself.

I'll say it again, for the last time; you're hopelessly deluded. About those arguments about simultaneity; you, Brent and Clark seem to disagree about the cause of the paradox and its resolution. Any professional achievements? Did you graduate from college? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your endless cycle of insults, condescension, and pointless questions does nothing to hide the fact that you’ve failed to contribute anything meaningful. Whether I graduated from college or not doesn’t change the reality: you don’t understand the very concepts you’re arguing about and have spent this entire discussion dodging explanations and projecting your insecurities onto others.

If you genuinely believe Brent, Clark, and I disagree, it’s only because you lack the comprehension to follow the arguments. The cause of the so-called paradox and its resolution have been clearly explained multiple times. You’ve chosen to ignore or twist those explanations to fit your narrative, which is classic trolling behavior.

If this is truly your "last time," then good riddance. But let’s not pretend your parting shot is anything other than another empty attempt to deflect from your own inability to engage in good faith.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9cb87416-83d8-492e-be6b-c6970f10dbffn%40googlegroups.com.

[Giulio Prisco]

This list used to be fun but it's becoming boring with all these
personal attacks. Unsubscribing...

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 12:56:01 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your endless cycle of insults, condescension, and pointless questions does nothing to hide the fact that you’ve failed to contribute anything meaningful. Whether I graduated from college or not doesn’t change the reality: you don’t understand the very concepts you’re arguing about and have spent this entire discussion dodging explanations and projecting your insecurities onto others.

If you genuinely believe Brent, Clark, and I disagree, it’s only because you lack the comprehension to follow the arguments. The cause of the so-called paradox and its resolution have been clearly explained multiple times. You’ve chosen to ignore or twist those explanations to fit your narrative, which is classic trolling behavior.

If this is truly your "last time," then good riddance. But let’s not pretend your parting shot is anything other than another empty attempt to deflect from your own inability to engage in good faith.

Reading plain English is easy;  Brent now says fitting and not fitting occur at the same time, whereas Clark says they don't and that's the resolution of the paradox by applying disagreement about simultaneity. Which expert do you agree with? AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, once again, you’re twisting the discussion to manufacture a false contradiction. Both points are compatible within the framework of relativity if you understand the basic principles.

1. Brent’s point: Fitting and not fitting occur at the same time in their respective frames. This is true because each frame applies its own simultaneity to determine when the events align. The disagreement arises precisely because of the relativity of simultaneity.

2. Clark’s point: The car fits in one frame and not in the other because simultaneity shifts the alignment of events between frames. This is the resolution of the paradox: the frames disagree because their definitions of "simultaneous" differ.

These are two sides of the same coin. Brent describes the observation within each frame, while Clark explains why the disagreement exists. If you think they contradict each other, that’s on you for misunderstanding how simultaneity works—not on them.

Instead of continuing to nitpick and troll, maybe focus on understanding relativity for what it is. The paradox has been resolved repeatedly—you’re the only one still confused.

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1271ed00-98d7-46d5-8620-f18c731a7180n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:43:57 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, once again, you’re twisting the discussion to manufacture a false contradiction. Both points are compatible within the framework of relativity if you understand the basic principles.

1. Brent’s point: Fitting and not fitting occur at the same time in their respective frames. This is true because each frame applies its own simultaneity to determine when the events align. The disagreement arises precisely because of the relativity of simultaneity.

2. Clark’s point: The car fits in one frame and not in the other because simultaneity shifts the alignment of events between frames. This is the resolution of the paradox: the frames disagree because their definitions of "simultaneous" differ.

These are two sides of the same coin. Brent describes the observation within each frame, while Clark explains why the disagreement exists. If you think they contradict each other, that’s on you for misunderstanding how simultaneity works—not on them.

Instead of continuing to nitpick and troll, maybe focus on understanding relativity for what it is. The paradox has been resolved repeatedly—you’re the only one still confused.

Your pathology surfaces again. I'm not nitpicking. I understand Clarks pov but not Brent's. They do seem to contradict each other. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, if you truly wanted to understand, you wouldn’t default to insults and accusations every time someone explains something you don’t grasp. Let me clarify, again:

Brent’s Point: Fitting and not fitting "occur at the same time" in their respective frames. This doesn’t mean they happen simultaneously across frames; it means that within each frame’s own definition of simultaneity, their conclusion is consistent. The car fits in the garage frame and doesn’t fit in the car frame—simultaneously by their own standards.

Clark’s Point: The frames disagree about simultaneity, which explains why the conclusions about fitting differ. This doesn’t contradict Brent; it complements it. The disagreement is exactly what relativity predicts due to the relativity of simultaneity.

The contradiction you see isn’t between Brent and Clark—it’s in your understanding. They’re describing the same phenomenon from different angles. The only pathology here is your refusal to engage in good faith and actually consider the explanations being given. Drop the hostility and try to follow the logic.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/41457302-5780-4e69-b684-e8b1ad8817edn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:48:48 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:43:57 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, once again, you’re twisting the discussion to manufacture a false contradiction. Both points are compatible within the framework of relativity if you understand the basic principles.

1. Brent’s point: Fitting and not fitting occur at the same time in their respective frames. This is true because each frame applies its own simultaneity to determine when the events align. The disagreement arises precisely because of the relativity of simultaneity.

2. Clark’s point: The car fits in one frame and not in the other because simultaneity shifts the alignment of events between frames. This is the resolution of the paradox: the frames disagree because their definitions of "simultaneous" differ.

These are two sides of the same coin. Brent describes the observation within each frame, while Clark explains why the disagreement exists. If you think they contradict each other, that’s on you for misunderstanding how simultaneity works—not on them.

Instead of continuing to nitpick and troll, maybe focus on understanding relativity for what it is. The paradox has been resolved repeatedly—you’re the only one still confused.

Your pathology surfaces again. I'm not nitpicking. I understand Clarks pov but not Brent's. They do seem to contradict each other. AG

Concerning your interpretation of Brent's pov, if simultaneity applies in both frames, then in each frame there should be a disagreement about fitting, not an agreement about fitting and hence a paradox. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 2:02:02 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:48:48 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:43:57 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, once again, you’re twisting the discussion to manufacture a false contradiction. Both points are compatible within the framework of relativity if you understand the basic principles.

1. Brent’s point: Fitting and not fitting occur at the same time in their respective frames. This is true because each frame applies its own simultaneity to determine when the events align. The disagreement arises precisely because of the relativity of simultaneity.

2. Clark’s point: The car fits in one frame and not in the other because simultaneity shifts the alignment of events between frames. This is the resolution of the paradox: the frames disagree because their definitions of "simultaneous" differ.

These are two sides of the same coin. Brent describes the observation within each frame, while Clark explains why the disagreement exists. If you think they contradict each other, that’s on you for misunderstanding how simultaneity works—not on them.

Instead of continuing to nitpick and troll, maybe focus on understanding relativity for what it is. The paradox has been resolved repeatedly—you’re the only one still confused.

Your pathology surfaces again. I'm not nitpicking. I understand Clarks pov but not Brent's. They do seem to contradict each other. AG

Concerning your interpretation of Brent's pov, if simultaneity applies in both frames, then in each frame there should be a disagreement about fitting, not an agreement about fitting and hence a paradox. AG 

Again, I am referring to the time when fitting and not fitting occurs. If they're the same in both frames individually, then the paradox is unsolved in each frame. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, the diagrams you’re referencing (uploaded here) clearly illustrate how simultaneity and the relativity of frames resolve the so-called paradox. Your interpretation that simultaneity "should create a disagreement in both frames" misses the point entirely.

1. In the garage frame:

The car fits because at a single moment (according to the garage’s simultaneity), the back of the car is at the entrance and the front is at or within the exit. This is consistent with the logic of length contraction.

2. In the car frame:

The garage does not fit because simultaneity shifts in this frame. The back of the car passes the entrance after the front has exited the garage. Again, this is consistent with the logic of length contraction and the Lorentz transformations.

The diagrams confirm this understanding visually and mathematically. The "paradox" is only apparent if you incorrectly assume that simultaneity is absolute, which it is not. Each frame’s conclusions about fitting are entirely consistent within their own context, and there is no contradiction when relativity is properly applied.

Your attempt to claim there "should be a paradox" demonstrates that you’ve misunderstood both Brent’s point and how relativity works. The diagrams don’t support your argument—they directly refute it. Brent’s explanation is correct, and the apparent disagreement between frames is precisely what relativity predicts. No paradox remains when simultaneity and the Lorentz transformations are understood and applied properly.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/df6959cf-b9b1-4059-ab8b-cd9c1202652cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

Let’s analyze the diagrams. They clearly show how the relativity of simultaneity resolves the so-called "paradox" between the car’s reference frame and the garage’s reference frame.

Diagram 1: Car reference frame

The vertical axis represents time in the car’s frame, and the horizontal axis represents distance in the car’s frame.

Key points:

1. The garage appears shortened due to length contraction. The lines representing the garage doors are closer together.

2. Sequence of events:

The front of the car enters the garage first.

The rear of the car enters while the front is already exiting.

The car is never fully inside the garage at any moment in this frame.

3. Conclusion: In the car’s frame, the garage is too short, and the events are not simultaneous in a way that would allow the car to fit entirely inside the garage.

Diagram 2: Garage reference frame

The vertical axis represents time in the garage’s frame, and the horizontal axis represents distance in the garage’s frame.

Key points:

1. The car appears shortened due to length contraction. This allows the car to fit fully inside the garage at a specific moment.

2. Sequence of events:

The front of the car enters the garage.

The rear of the car enters after the front.

At one specific moment, the car is entirely inside the garage.

The front exits the garage before the rear exits.

3. Conclusion: In the garage’s frame, the car fits entirely inside the garage at one specific moment.

Cross-analysis of the diagrams

1. Relativity of simultaneity: Each frame defines simultaneity differently, leading to different conclusions about the sequence of events. In the garage frame, the car is fully inside at one moment, while in the car frame, it never is.

2. No paradox: The apparent contradiction is resolved when we understand that simultaneity is relative. Both frames are consistent within their own perspectives.

Conclusion

These diagrams clearly illustrate how the relativity of simultaneity explains the differences between the two frames. In the garage frame, the car fits, while in the car frame, it does not. Both perspectives are consistent with special relativity, and there is no contradiction.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 2:10:21 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, the diagrams you’re referencing (uploaded here) clearly illustrate how simultaneity and the relativity of frames resolve the so-called paradox. Your interpretation that simultaneity "should create a disagreement in both frames" misses the point entirely.

1. In the garage frame:

The car fits because at a single moment (according to the garage’s simultaneity), the back of the car is at the entrance and the front is at or within the exit. This is consistent with the logic of length contraction.

2. In the car frame:

The garage does not fit because simultaneity shifts in this frame. The back of the car passes the entrance after the front has exited the garage. Again, this is consistent with the logic of length contraction and the Lorentz transformations.

You mean the CAR doesn't fit in the car frame. In any case, if the car fits and doesn't fit at the same time, which is what Brent claims, according to Clark that would mean the paradox is alive and well. So I don't understand how your "understanding" of relativity changes that conclusion. AG
 

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Let’s analyze the diagrams. They clearly show how the relativity of simultaneity resolves the so-called "paradox" between the car’s reference frame and the garage’s reference frame.

Diagram 1: Car reference frame

The vertical axis represents time in the car’s frame, and the horizontal axis represents distance in the car’s frame.

Key points:

1. The garage appears shortened due to length contraction. The lines representing the garage doors are closer together.

2. Sequence of events:

The front of the car enters the garage first.

The rear of the car enters while the front is already exiting.

The car is never fully inside the garage at any moment in this frame.

3. Conclusion: In the car’s frame, the garage is too short, and the events are not simultaneous in a way that would allow the car to fit entirely inside the garage.

Diagram 2: Garage reference frame

The vertical axis represents time in the garage’s frame, and the horizontal axis represents distance in the garage’s frame.

Key points:

1. The car appears shortened due to length contraction. This allows the car to fit fully inside the garage at a specific moment.

2. Sequence of events:

The front of the car enters the garage.

The rear of the car enters after the front.

At one specific moment, the car is entirely inside the garage.

The front exits the garage before the rear exits.

3. Conclusion: In the garage’s frame, the car fits entirely inside the garage at one specific moment.

Cross-analysis of the diagrams

1. Relativity of simultaneity: Each frame defines simultaneity differently, leading to different conclusions about the sequence of events. In the garage frame, the car is fully inside at one moment, while in the car frame, it never is.

2. No paradox: The apparent contradiction is resolved when we understand that simultaneity is relative. Both frames are consistent within their own perspectives.

Given that simultaneity is not absolute, there's no contradiction in each frame. Then why does Brent now say his plots show the frames agree on the time when fitting and not fitting occurs, contradicting what Clark says is the definition of the paradox? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, once again, you’re twisting concepts and misunderstanding the core principles of relativity. Let me make this painfully clear for you.

1. In the garage frame, the car fits because its length is contracted, and simultaneity in this frame aligns the rear entering and the front still being inside at the same time.

2. In the car frame, the garage is too short due to length contraction, and simultaneity shifts such that the rear enters after the front exits, meaning the car does not fit.

These are two entirely separate observations in two different frames. There is no contradiction because the relativity of simultaneity explains why each frame observes a different sequence of events. The car doesn’t "fit and not fit at the same time" across frames because time is frame-dependent in relativity.

If you think Brent’s claim means the paradox "is alive and well," you’re still misunderstanding. The "paradox" only exists if you cling to the false notion of absolute simultaneity, which special relativity rejects. Clark and Brent’s explanations aren’t contradictory; they’re describing the same relativistic phenomena from different angles.

Your confusion isn’t a problem with relativity—it’s a problem with your inability to follow the explanation. Stop blaming others for your lack of understanding.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63835b55-0b3c-4a55-ae90-0d01b4ea4c4cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, once again, you’re twisting concepts and misunderstanding the core principles of relativity. Let me make this painfully clear for you.

1. In the garage frame, the car fits because its length is contracted, and simultaneity in this frame aligns the rear entering and the front still being inside at the same time.

2. In the car frame, the garage is too short due to length contraction, and simultaneity shifts such that the rear enters after the front exits, meaning the car does not fit.

These are two entirely separate observations in two different frames. There is no contradiction because the relativity of simultaneity explains why each frame observes a different sequence of events. The car doesn’t "fit and not fit at the same time" across frames because time is frame-dependent in relativity.

I do understand. In each frame, there is no paradox. Each frame has its own definition of simultaneity. But Brent says his plots show that both frames agree that fitting and not fitting occur at the same time. I am not asserting absolute simultaneity. I am just giving a plain vanilla interpretation of what Brent says his plots show. AG

If you think Brent’s claim means the paradox "is alive and well," you’re still misunderstanding. The "paradox" only exists if you cling to the false notion of absolute simultaneity, which special relativity rejects. Clark and Brent’s explanations aren’t contradictory; they’re describing the same relativistic phenomena from different angles.

Your confusion isn’t a problem with relativity—it’s a problem with your inability to follow the explanation. Stop blaming others for your lack of understanding.

Your pathology -- your accusations -- persist. I can read plain English. I know what Brent now claims. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your "plain vanilla interpretation" of Brent’s claim is anything but plain or accurate. Brent’s plots do not show "fitting and not fitting occur at the same time" in the sense you’re implying. They show that each frame perceives its own internally consistent conclusion based on its own simultaneity. There is no universal "same time" where both outcomes coexist because simultaneity is relative.

In simpler terms:

Garage frame: The car fits because simultaneity aligns the rear entering with the front still inside.

Car frame: The car doesn’t fit because simultaneity aligns the rear entering after the front exits.

Both frames describe their own reality. When Brent says "at the same time," he’s referring to how each frame is internally consistent, not that they agree on an absolute simultaneity.

If you truly understand relativity, you’d know that "fitting and not fitting at the same time" across frames isn’t even a meaningful concept under SR. Your fixation on Brent’s supposed claim is yet another misunderstanding you’re trying to pin on someone else. Own it.

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f47eeda1-fb99-489f-9936-c7559d643213n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 3:10:38 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your "plain vanilla interpretation" of Brent’s claim is anything but plain or accurate. Brent’s plots do not show "fitting and not fitting occur at the same time" in the sense you’re implying. They show that each frame perceives its own internally consistent conclusion based on its own simultaneity. There is no universal "same time" where both outcomes coexist because simultaneity is relative.

In simpler terms:

Garage frame: The car fits because simultaneity aligns the rear entering with the front still inside.

Car frame: The car doesn’t fit because simultaneity aligns the rear entering after the front exits.

Both frames describe their own reality. When Brent says "at the same time," he’s referring to how each frame is internally consistent, not that they agree on an absolute simultaneity.

If you truly understand relativity, you’d know that "fitting and not fitting at the same time" across frames isn’t even a meaningful concept under SR. Your fixation on Brent’s supposed claim is yet another misunderstanding you’re trying to pin on someone else. Own it.

I suggest you read Brent's statement on other thread. It does suggest the same time across frames, and can't be what he meant. I am used to educated people, particularly experts, to write with greater accuracy. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your selective interpretation of Brent's statement is yet another attempt to create a contradiction where none exists. Brent's analysis, when properly understood, does not imply "the same time across frames" in the way you’re claiming. It reflects the relativity of simultaneity—each frame’s internally consistent perspective on events, not some universal simultaneity.

If you’re "used to educated people writing with greater accuracy," perhaps the issue lies with your reading comprehension rather than their explanation. Misrepresenting their words and then blaming them for your misunderstanding is textbook deflection. If you want to be taken seriously, start by engaging honestly with the material instead of bending it to fit your narrative.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6597fb7c-6d9d-4ace-a4e7-9c943b32a5e8n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:58 AM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Brent’s Point: Fitting and not fitting "occur at the same time" in their respective frames. This doesn’t mean they happen simultaneously across frames; it means that within each frame’s own definition of simultaneity, their conclusion is consistent. The car fits in the garage frame and doesn’t fit in the car frame—simultaneously by their own standards.

 

Clark’s Point: The frames disagree about simultaneity, which explains why the conclusions about fitting differ. This doesn’t contradict Brent; it complements it. The disagreement is exactly what relativity predicts due to the relativity of simultaneity.
The contradiction you see isn’t between Brent and Clark—it’s in your understanding. They’re describing the same phenomenon from different angles.

I agree with everything  Quentin said.

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

gwx

[Alan Grayson]

Brent wrote that the frames agree on the time when they agreed and disagreed concerning fitting. Using English, this means there's one clock for both frames, which of course contradicts relativity. If Brent meant something else, he should refine his use of English. Now, about the substance; I am not convinced the disagreement of simultaneity resolves the paradox. The frames disagree on when the fitting or not occurred, but we still have two frames, each predicting the same thing internally -- car fits in garage frame, but doesn't fit in car frame -- which presumably Clark calls "odd", which is his limited admission that something here is awry. AGg

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your relentless misinterpretation and refusal to grasp basic concepts of relativity are exhausting. Let’s break this down yet again:

1. Brent’s statement: The frames agree on the conditions for disagreement because they both acknowledge the relativity of simultaneity. This doesn’t imply a "universal clock" or a single time across frames—it reflects the fact that both frames are internally consistent and predict different outcomes due to their differing simultaneity definitions.

2. No universal simultaneity: Your claim that Brent’s statement implies a single clock is a gross misreading. Relativity explicitly denies a universal simultaneity. Brent’s language doesn’t contradict relativity; your interpretation does.

3. The "odd" situation: The car fitting in one frame and not fitting in the other isn’t "awry." It’s exactly what special relativity predicts. Clark calling it "odd" is likely a reflection of how non-intuitive relativity can be, not an admission of a flaw. The so-called paradox is fully resolved by understanding simultaneity and the Lorentz transformations.

4. Substance of your argument: You keep returning to the same flawed point: that disagreement between frames somehow undermines the theory. It doesn’t. The frames are meant to disagree; that’s the essence of relativity. Each frame is consistent within its own simultaneity and observations, and there is no contradiction.

If you’re "not convinced" simultaneity resolves the paradox, it’s because you’re refusing to accept how relativity works, not because of any flaw in the explanation. Stop blaming others for your confusion and start addressing your own misunderstandings.

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/592af9b8-9774-4bd1-b848-6b092b8d077cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 6:18:40 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your relentless misinterpretation and refusal to grasp basic concepts of relativity are exhausting. Let’s break this down yet again:

1. Brent’s statement: The frames agree on the conditions for disagreement because they both acknowledge the relativity of simultaneity. This doesn’t imply a "universal clock" or a single time across frames—it reflects the fact that both frames are internally consistent and predict different outcomes due to their differing simultaneity definitions.

2. No universal simultaneity: Your claim that Brent’s statement implies a single clock is a gross misreading. Relativity explicitly denies a universal simultaneity. Brent’s language doesn’t contradict relativity; your interpretation does.

Can you read English? Apparently not. That's what Brent wrote; apparently not what he meant. AG 

3. The "odd" situation: The car fitting in one frame and not fitting in the other isn’t "awry." It’s exactly what special relativity predicts. Clark calling it "odd" is likely a reflection of how non-intuitive relativity can be, not an admission of a flaw. The so-called paradox is fully resolved by understanding simultaneity and the Lorentz transformations.

Let Clark speak for himself. I understand simultaneity but I don't agree it resolves the paradox. AG

4. Substance of your argument: You keep returning to the same flawed point: that disagreement between frames somehow undermines the theory. It doesn’t. The frames are meant to disagree; that’s the essence of relativity. Each frame is consistent within its own simultaneity and observations, and there is no contradiction.

Experts on SR claim the LT gives us what observers in the primed frame will measure, but this is obviously false. The LT predicts length contraction which the target frame, the primed frame, never measures. AG 

If you’re "not convinced" simultaneity resolves the paradox, it’s because you’re refusing to accept how relativity works, not because of any flaw in the explanation. Stop blaming others for your confusion and start addressing your own misunderstandings.

Stop with your persistent pathology. I am not "blaming" anyone. I just disagree with a conclusion and I am allowed to do that! AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c296755-7c2f-49f4-ae0b-9452d1f8baben%40googlegroups.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

In the garage frame, event A and event B are simultaneous, the car fit.

In the car frame, event A and event B are not simultaneous (B is before A), the car does not fit.

Simultaneity is different between frame and completely explain the apparent paradox of frame disagreement about fitting.

--

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

[Alan Grayson]

You can disagree, but the parking paradox seems to me a bridge too far, sort of like the Cat Paradox in QM. Of course, SR allows and expects different frames to measure things differently, but I feel this problem suggests something deeper than simply measurement differences. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

read A is before B

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 8:14:01 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

read A is before B

In car frame, B before A is correct. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 15 janv. 2025, 16:23, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 8:14:01 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

read A is before B

In car frame, B before A is correct. AG 

No see point 2 and 3, car frame diagram. 

Event A happens before event B, the car doesn’t fit, fitting is the simultaneous occurance of event A and event B.

In the garage frame, event A and event B are simultaneous  the car fits, fitting is the simultaneous occurance of event A and event B.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a274d8e-31b8-4d2b-8cbb-9da0efb1f3cdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Cosmin Visan]

This topic is about the relation between girlfriend and AI. Why do you talk about relativity ?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 7:58 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > we still have two frames, each predicting the same thing internally -- car fits in garage frame, but doesn't fit in car frame -- which presumably Clark calls "odd", which is his limited admission that something here is awry. AGg

I admit a lot of stuff happens that I would call "odd" when you start to approach the speed of light, or when gravity becomes ridiculously strong, or when things become ridiculously small, because they are well outside my everyday experience, but none of them produce a logical self-contradiction, and that is what you need for a paradox.  It's possible that nature may be stranger than we think, it might even be stranger than we can think, but I am confident it is not logically self-contradictory.

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

5na

 

[Alan Grayson]

Not sure what "logically self-contradictory" means in this context. But when the car can repeatly fail to fit in one frame, yet always fit in another frame, that might satisfy any definition you can come up with. Like I said; for me it's a bridge too far, but I don't expect or demand that anyone agrees with me. AG 

5na

 

[Quentin Anciaux]

What about ?

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c7aa0a8-0074-48f5-9aa9-cf6d0e1823f8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 11:31:02 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

What about ?

I don't disagree that what you've described is the result of SR. But I remain skeptical that cars and garages behave this way. That is, I don't see the paradox going away simply by applying simultaneity to show disagreements of time measured between two frames. I can't prove this, and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I will just note that cars and garages don't physically contract, so the LT, and SR, deals with appearances that change due to inertial motion, contrary to what is claimed -- that the LT tell us what will actually be measured in the target or primed frame. Lengths are preserved in the primed frame. They never shrink from the pov of the primed frame. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your response makes it clear that you’re either misunderstanding the foundational principles of special relativity or deliberately conflating concepts to stir confusion. Let’s break this down:

1. Relativity describes reality, not "appearances": The Lorentz transformations (LT) don’t deal with illusions or appearances. They describe measurable physical quantities as observed from different inertial frames. When the car moves relative to the garage, its contracted length is a real, measurable quantity in the garage’s frame—not a mere "appearance." Your dismissal of this as "not real" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of SR.

2. Lengths in the primed frame: Yes, in the car’s own frame (the primed frame), its length remains the same—it doesn’t contract. This is precisely what SR predicts: lengths are only contracted when observed from a frame where the object is in motion. This isn’t contradictory; it’s exactly how relativity works.

3. "Skepticism" doesn’t disprove physics: You claim you’re not trying to convince anyone, but skepticism without substance adds nothing to the discussion. The disagreement between frames is a natural and fully explained consequence of SR, which has been experimentally validated countless times. If you’re "skeptical," that’s fine—but don’t expect anyone to take it seriously without an actual argument or evidence.

4. The paradox is resolved: The so-called "paradox" isn’t real because it arises only when someone refuses to account for relativity of simultaneity. Once that’s included, there’s no contradiction between the frames; both are internally consistent. Your refusal to accept this doesn’t keep the paradox alive—it just highlights your unwillingness to engage with the explanation.

If you think cars and garages don’t behave this way, you’re not disagreeing with me—you’re disagreeing with decades of experimental evidence supporting SR. That’s not skepticism—it’s denial.

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d2b394f-4e50-46f7-b933-1ee222445d99n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:26:41 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your response makes it clear that you’re either misunderstanding the foundational principles of special relativity or deliberately conflating concepts to stir confusion. Let’s break this down:

1. Relativity describes reality, not "appearances": The Lorentz transformations (LT) don’t deal with illusions or appearances. They describe measurable physical quantities as observed from different inertial frames. When the car moves relative to the garage, its contracted length is a real, measurable quantity in the garage’s frame—not a mere "appearance." Your dismissal of this as "not real" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of SR.

It's an appearance, not a "mere" appearance. Please don't put words in my mouth which distorts my meaning. Nor have I claimed it is "not real". This issue is rather subtle. At some level these appearance are "real", but the fact that there are disagreements about fundamentals such as length and time, depending on the frame doing the "measurement, is troubling. IMO, the paradox is rooted in the belief that fitting and not fitting occur simultaneously, as if both frame share the same synchronized clocks. But they don't. Once this is resolved using simultaneity, we are still left with an unresolved issue, of inconsistent results involving two frames of reference. I don't think this the end of the story. You are allowed to think otherwise. AG 

2. Lengths in the primed frame: Yes, in the car’s own frame (the primed frame), its length remains the same—it doesn’t contract. This is precisely what SR predicts: lengths are only contracted when observed from a frame where the object is in motion. This isn’t contradictory; it’s exactly how relativity works.

 

Nor did I claim it's contradictory. AG

 

3. "Skepticism" doesn’t disprove physics: You claim you’re not trying to convince anyone, but skepticism without substance adds nothing to the discussion. The disagreement between frames is a natural and fully explained consequence of SR, which has been experimentally validated countless times. If you’re "skeptical," that’s fine—but don’t expect anyone to take it seriously without an actual argument or evidence.

I'm not asking or expecting you to take my skepticism seriously. I really don't care how you take it. But when simultaneity makes two frames independently consistent, we're still left with two frames which fundamentally disagree with each other. And since the disagreement is immense, it causes me to think something more fundamental might be manifesting. AG 

4. The paradox is resolved: The so-called "paradox" isn’t real because it arises only when someone refuses to account for relativity of simultaneity. Once that’s included, there’s no contradiction between the frames; both are internally consistent. Your refusal to accept this doesn’t keep the paradox alive—it just highlights your unwillingness to engage with the explanation.

I accept the relativity of simultaneity. But I am skeptical that it's the whole story. This is how science progresses; people being allowed to think outside the box without the mocking of a True Believer such as yourself. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 1:26:41 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your response makes it clear that you’re either misunderstanding the foundational principles of special relativity or deliberately conflating concepts to stir confusion. Let’s break this down:

1. Relativity describes reality, not "appearances": The Lorentz transformations (LT) don’t deal with illusions or appearances. They describe measurable physical quantities as observed from different inertial frames. When the car moves relative to the garage, its contracted length is a real, measurable quantity in the garage’s frame—not a mere "appearance." Your dismissal of this as "not real" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of SR.

I made an error which needs correcting; I thought the LT doesn't always tell us what is measured in some transformed frame, and I used the example of length. But this is wrong. All lengths, including rest length, are measurable in the primed or target frame, and given by the LT. For example, by setting v = 0 in the gamma factor, the LT is predicting the rest length in the primed or target frame. AG  

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, it’s amusing to see you briefly acknowledge reality before inevitably backpedaling again. If you now accept that the LT predicts measurable quantities in all frames, then your earlier dismissal of length contraction and simultaneity as "appearances" was nonsense.

But let’s not pretend you’ve actually changed your stance—you’ve done this dance before. How long before you twist this into another baseless contradiction? Let’s hear it.

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d26c995-76d1-4aa5-97aa-40b18a6dbc8cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 2:00:20 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, it’s amusing to see you briefly acknowledge reality before inevitably backpedaling again. If you now accept that the LT predicts measurable quantities in all frames, then your earlier dismissal of length contraction and simultaneity as "appearances" was nonsense.

But let’s not pretend you’ve actually changed your stance—you’ve done this dance before. How long before you twist this into another baseless contradiction? Let’s hear it.

God, if He/She exists, is very kind to you, by preventing you from seeing yourself as you are -- an incorrigibly rude, pseudo mind-reading prick. You're really out of your depth in trying to read me, so best for you to cease wasting your time trying. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, the irony of you accusing anyone of being rude while you hurl insults like it’s your full-time job is almost comical. If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that you’re projecting your own behavior onto others.

As for "reading you," no mind-reading is necessary—you wear your bad faith on your sleeve. Instead of addressing the topic, you resort to personal attacks and empty posturing. Maybe take a moment to reflect on why you feel the need to lash out every time you’re challenged. It’s not a good look, 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bc7f7ab6-c9da-4c21-bf7b-32d7f70055a6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 3:46:22 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, the irony of you accusing anyone of being rude while you hurl insults like it’s your full-time job is almost comical. If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that you’re projecting your own behavior onto others.

As for "reading you," no mind-reading is necessary—you wear your bad faith on your sleeve. Instead of addressing the topic, you resort to personal attacks and empty posturing. Maybe take a moment to reflect on why you feel the need to lash out every time you’re challenged. It’s not a good look, AG

Can't you take the hint? Much more than a hint actually.  Get lost. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, if you truly wanted me to "get lost," you wouldn’t keep responding. But hey, I’ll play along—consider this my acknowledgment that you’ve officially run out of arguments. Take care, AG, and try not to trip over your own contradictions on the way out.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/625f804b-860c-4c2e-9158-9f678668e4b2n%40googlegroups.com.