The car-garage odd situation (was: paradox)

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 1:02 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I've mostly resolved this issue. 

Being confused is bad but there's something worse, convincing yourself that you're not confused when you're still dead wrong, because then you believe you no longer need to learn.  

 >  Length contraction is sufficient to define and resolve the problem

You can't understand length contraction without understanding time dilation because the speed of light can't be the same for all observers unless you have BOTH, and if you have both then you must give up simultaneity. And until you stop thinking about things happening in space and remember that they happen in SPACETIME  you're never going to understand Special Relativity, and General Relativity would be hopelessly out of your reach.    

> despite the unanimity of our resident experts, the importance of simultaneity for solving this problem is way overblown.

As I've said before, nobody on this list has ever been able to convince you that you're wrong about anything and I don't believe anybody ever will. And the tragedy of that is if you think you know everything then you will never learn anything.

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

nla

[Alan Grayson]

Amusing coming from a guy who believes that radioactive decays in the human body produces many worlds. Carroll never justified his claim, and sycophants like you presumably o along with this nonsense. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Amusing coming from a guy who believes that radioactive decays in the human body produces many worlds. Carroll never justified his claim, and sycophants like you presumably go along with this nonsense. AG 

The LT is derived with the understanding that SR is dealing with SPACETIME, so I can use it for length contraction as it is stated. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Apparently you forgot that Einstein assumes x' = f (x, t) and t' = g (x, t) to derive the LT, where the primed coordinates are the transformed coordinates. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Here's a puzzle for one of the resident experts in relativity: how was I able to determine whether the car fits, or not, in the garage and car frames respectively, without using the disagreement on simultaneity? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, length contraction is what sets up the apparent paradox, but it doesn’t resolve it. Length contraction tells us that in the garage frame, the car is shorter and can fit, while in the car frame, the garage is shorter and the car cannot fit. This sets the conditions for disagreement but does nothing to explain why the two frames reach different conclusions.

The relativity of simultaneity is what resolves the paradox. In the garage frame, simultaneity ensures that the back of the car passes the entrance and the front is at or within the exit at the same time, meaning the car fits. In the car frame, these same events are not simultaneous, and the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. This difference in simultaneity explains why both frames disagree while remaining consistent with relativity.

Your claim that you can determine whether the car fits without simultaneity is nonsense. Length contraction alone doesn’t tell you when events align—it only gives you the contracted lengths in a given frame. Without simultaneity, you have no way to compare the positions of the car and garage endpoints in time, which is essential to define fitting.

Referencing Einstein and the Lorentz transformations won’t save your argument. Simultaneity is built into the framework of special relativity. Ignoring it doesn’t simplify the problem; it leaves it unresolved. You’re not demonstrating insight, AG. You’re just showing how deeply you misunderstand relativity.

--
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/5aeef83c-5dd9-476a-9079-03793a107d03n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:10:58 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, length contraction is what sets up the apparent paradox, but it doesn’t resolve it. Length contraction tells us that in the garage frame, the car is shorter and can fit, while in the car frame, the garage is shorter and the car cannot fit. This sets the conditions for disagreement but does nothing to explain why the two frames reach different conclusions.

The relativity of simultaneity is what resolves the paradox. In the garage frame, simultaneity ensures that the back of the car passes the entrance and the front is at or within the exit at the same time, meaning the car fits. In the car frame, these same events are not simultaneous, and the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. This difference in simultaneity explains why both frames disagree while remaining consistent with relativity.

Your claim that you can determine whether the car fits without simultaneity is nonsense. Length contraction alone doesn’t tell you when events align—it only gives you the contracted lengths in a given frame. Without simultaneity, you have no way to compare the positions of the car and garage endpoints in time, which is essential to define fitting.

Referencing Einstein and the Lorentz transformations won’t save your argument. Simultaneity is built into the framework of special relativity. Ignoring it doesn’t simplify the problem; it leaves it unresolved. You’re not demonstrating insight, AG. You’re just showing how deeply you misunderstand relativity.

I asked the question to Clark. The fact is, I was able to know in which frame the car fitted, and didn't need any reference to simultaneity. It was real easy. Try my method. You might like it. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your "method" is as hollow as your understanding of relativity. Sure, you might determine in which frame the car fits based on length contraction alone, but that doesn’t address the actual issue—the so-called paradox. The key question isn’t just "does the car fit?" but why the two frames disagree about it. That’s what makes it an apparent paradox, and length contraction alone doesn’t even come close to resolving it.

The disagreement arises because of the relativity of simultaneity, which explains why each frame sees the events differently. In the garage frame, simultaneity aligns the back of the car with the entrance and the front with the exit at the same time, meaning the car fits. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and those same events are not simultaneous, meaning the car doesn’t fit. Without simultaneity, you have no way to explain why the frames disagree.

Your claim that you "didn’t need any reference to simultaneity" just shows how clueless you are. Length contraction might give you an answer in one frame, but it doesn’t explain the disagreement between frames or why both are internally consistent. Ignoring simultaneity isn’t simplifying the problem—it’s ignoring the core of the issue entirely.

Stop acting like your "method" is some genius insight. It’s not. It’s a half-baked shortcut that skips over the actual physics. If you think you’ve solved anything without addressing simultaneity, you’re not just wrong—you’re wasting everyone’s time.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aa6f76b8-dc57-4930-8743-9bc472084864n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:16:52 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:10:58 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, length contraction is what sets up the apparent paradox, but it doesn’t resolve it. Length contraction tells us that in the garage frame, the car is shorter and can fit, while in the car frame, the garage is shorter and the car cannot fit. This sets the conditions for disagreement but does nothing to explain why the two frames reach different conclusions.

The relativity of simultaneity is what resolves the paradox. In the garage frame, simultaneity ensures that the back of the car passes the entrance and the front is at or within the exit at the same time, meaning the car fits. In the car frame, these same events are not simultaneous, and the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. This difference in simultaneity explains why both frames disagree while remaining consistent with relativity.

Your claim that you can determine whether the car fits without simultaneity is nonsense. Length contraction alone doesn’t tell you when events align—it only gives you the contracted lengths in a given frame. Without simultaneity, you have no way to compare the positions of the car and garage endpoints in time, which is essential to define fitting.

Referencing Einstein and the Lorentz transformations won’t save your argument. Simultaneity is built into the framework of special relativity. Ignoring it doesn’t simplify the problem; it leaves it unresolved. You’re not demonstrating insight, AG. You’re just showing how deeply you misunderstand relativity.

I asked the question to Clark. The fact is, I was able to know in which frame the car fitted, and didn't need any reference to simultaneity. It was real easy. Try my method. You might like it. AG 

There is no paradox to be resolved. What is interpreted as a paradox is the false expectation that the frames should agree on fitting. But, as I pointed out previously, that would be a worse situation than someone's false expectation; it would imply that length contraction, and therefore the LT, was giving us a false prediction. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your attempt to brush off the apparent paradox as a "false expectation" is nothing more than intellectual laziness dressed up as insight. Of course, we don’t expect the frames to agree on fitting—that’s the whole point of the apparent paradox. The paradox exists because the frames reach different conclusions, and understanding why they disagree is the actual problem to be addressed. Pretending it’s just a "false expectation" is a cheap cop-out.

Length contraction sets up the conditions for the disagreement, but it doesn’t explain it. The relativity of simultaneity is what resolves it by showing how the frames define "fitting" differently. In the garage frame, simultaneity aligns the back and front of the car with the entrance and exit, so the car fits. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the same events don’t happen at the same time, so the car doesn’t fit. Without simultaneity, there’s no way to explain why both frames are correct within their own contexts.

Your claim that resolving the paradox would "imply length contraction is false" is pure nonsense. The disagreement between frames doesn’t undermine length contraction—it’s a direct consequence of it. The Lorentz transformations don’t give "false predictions"; they provide the framework that explains both length contraction and simultaneity. If you’re failing to see this, it’s not because the theory is flawed—it’s because your understanding of it is.

Your refusal to engage with simultaneity shows that you’re not interested in understanding the physics. You’re more interested in dismissing the actual resolution because it doesn’t fit your overly simplistic narrative. Stop pretending that ignoring a core concept like simultaneity makes you insightful. It doesn’t. It makes you wrong, and transparently so.

--

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/2ccd706d-7fc1-4887-bac9-2fd4ec861d39n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your attempt to brush off the apparent paradox as a "false expectation" is nothing more than intellectual laziness dressed up as insight. Of course, we don’t expect the frames to agree on fitting—that’s the whole point of the apparent paradox. The paradox exists because the frames reach different conclusions, and understanding why they disagree is the actual problem to be addressed. Pretending it’s just a "false expectation" is a cheap cop-out.

Just assume the opposite, that the frames AGREE, and you'll see the clarity of my analysis (so to speak, a proof via contradiction). AG 

Length contraction sets up the conditions for the disagreement, but it doesn’t explain it. The relativity of simultaneity is what resolves it by showing how the frames define "fitting" differently. In the garage frame, simultaneity aligns the back and front of the car with the entrance and exit, so the car fits. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the same events don’t happen at the same time, so the car doesn’t fit. Without simultaneity, there’s no way to explain why both frames are correct within their own contexts.

Your claim that resolving the paradox would "imply length contraction is false" is pure nonsense. The disagreement between frames doesn’t undermine length contraction—

 I wrote that if the frames AGREED on fitting, that would imply length contraction using the LT is a false prediction. AG

it’s a direct consequence of it. The Lorentz transformations don’t give "false predictions"; they provide the framework that explains both length contraction and simultaneity. If you’re failing to see this, it’s not because the theory is flawed—it’s because your understanding of it is.

Your refusal to engage with simultaneity shows that you’re not interested in understanding the physics.

I understand that your commitment to simultaneity is so intense, that you are unable to admit I was able to determine in which frame the car fitted, without simultaneity; AND that there's no paradox to resolve unless you want to claim a false expectation equates to a paradox. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your so-called "analysis" is just another smokescreen to avoid admitting you don’t understand the actual physics. Let’s address your latest round of deflections and misrepresentations.

First, your "proof via contradiction" is laughable. Assuming the frames agreed would contradict everything we know about relativity, including length contraction, simultaneity, and the Lorentz transformations. You’re not offering clarity; you’re proposing an absurdity to justify your refusal to engage with the real concepts at play.

Second, your claim that you "determined in which frame the car fitted without simultaneity" is meaningless. Yes, you can identify that one frame sees the car fit and the other doesn’t based on length contraction. But that’s not the issue. The apparent paradox arises because the frames disagree, and resolving that disagreement requires simultaneity. Length contraction sets up the disagreement, but simultaneity explains why the frames are both correct in their own contexts. Ignoring this is like claiming you solved half a puzzle and declaring the rest irrelevant.

Third, your statement that "there’s no paradox to resolve unless a false expectation equates to a paradox" is either disingenuous or plain stupid. The paradox isn’t about expecting the frames to agree—it’s about understanding why they disagree. Dismissing it as a "false expectation" is just you refusing to address the core of the problem. It’s a cop-out, not an argument.

Finally, your fixation on simultaneity being unnecessary is outright wrong. You can’t compare events across frames without simultaneity. It’s not optional—it’s fundamental to understanding how space and time work in relativity. Pretending otherwise doesn’t simplify the problem; it just highlights your lack of understanding.

Your refusal to engage with simultaneity isn’t a bold stance or a clever insight—it’s willful ignorance. You’re not providing a new perspective; you’re just ignoring the key principles of relativity and pretending that’s somehow insightful. It’s not. It’s lazy.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a627b0ec-1838-413b-ba69-eea1478e2744n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no paradox to be resolved.

There sure as hell is a logical paradox if you only use length contraction and ignore time dilation and the resultant disagreement about simultaneity. The garage man took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car was entirely in the garage. But the car driver also took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car had left the garage. With just length contraction you have a profound logical paradox. With length contraction AND time dilation you just have an odd situation.

And Allen please no more whining about snarky comments, over the years you've heard about 6.02×10^23 insults against me. 

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

38v

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your so-called "analysis" is just another smokescreen to avoid admitting you don’t understand the actual physics. Let’s address your latest round of deflections and misrepresentations.

First, your "proof via contradiction" is laughable. Assuming the frames agreed would contradict everything we know about relativity, including length contraction, simultaneity, and the Lorentz transformations. You’re not offering clarity; you’re proposing an absurdity to justify your refusal to engage with the real concepts at play.

Second, your claim that you "determined in which frame the car fitted without simultaneity" is meaningless. Yes, you can identify that one frame sees the car fit and the other doesn’t based on length contraction. But that’s not the issue. The apparent paradox arises because the frames disagree, and resolving that disagreement requires simultaneity. Length contraction sets up the disagreement, but simultaneity explains why the frames are both correct in their own contexts. Ignoring this is like claiming you solved half a puzzle and declaring the rest irrelevant.

Third, your statement that "there’s no paradox to resolve unless a false expectation equates to a paradox" is either disingenuous or plain stupid. The paradox isn’t about expecting the frames to agree—it’s about understanding why they disagree. Dismissing it as a "false expectation" is just you refusing to address the core of the problem. It’s a cop-out, not an argument.

Finally, your fixation on simultaneity being unnecessary is outright wrong. You can’t compare events across frames without simultaneity.

Why do you insist on comparing events across frames. If you want to do that, apply simultaneity. I don't object. All I am claiming is that it's not necessary to always do that, and that there's no paradox to resolve, as is obvious when acknowledging the implication of the frames agreeing. AG

It’s not optional—it’s fundamental to understanding how space and time work in relativity. Pretending otherwise doesn’t simplify the problem; it just highlights your lack of understanding.

Someone who can't admit that it's easy to determine which frame the car fit in, as well as the non-existence of a paradox, cannot claim any lack of understanding on my part. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your insistence on sidestepping the core issue while doubling down on straw man arguments is as predictable as it is tedious. Let me address your latest nonsense.

The reason we compare events across frames is because that’s where the disagreement arises. The entire point of the "paradox" is that the garage frame and the car frame reach different conclusions about fitting. This disagreement doesn’t exist in a single frame—it only exists when you consider the two frames together. Ignoring this doesn’t make the problem disappear; it just shows you’re avoiding the hard part of the analysis.

Your claim that "it’s easy to determine which frame the car fits in" is irrelevant. Of course, it’s easy to determine that in the garage frame the car fits and in the car frame it doesn’t—that’s the setup of the paradox, not its resolution. The actual question is why the frames disagree and how both conclusions can be correct within their own contexts. That requires simultaneity. Length contraction alone doesn’t resolve this because it doesn’t explain how events are ordered in time across frames.

Your repeated assertion that "there’s no paradox" is just you waving away the disagreement instead of engaging with it. Sure, if you define "paradox" as a logical contradiction, there isn’t one—but the disagreement between frames is still a feature of relativity that requires explanation. Simultaneity provides that explanation. Dismissing it doesn’t make you insightful; it makes you look like someone who doesn’t want to engage with the full problem.

Finally, your refusal to admit simultaneity’s importance isn’t clever or contrarian—it’s ignorance disguised as confidence. You can keep pretending that ignoring simultaneity simplifies relativity, but it doesn’t. It just shows you don’t understand how the pieces fit together. So go ahead, keep declaring the nonexistence of a paradox while dodging the actual resolution. The only thing you’re proving is your own unwillingness to learn.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d18d5a24-1fae-4af2-ba58-104d47c99598n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:53:22 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no paradox to be resolved.

There sure as hell is a logical paradox if you only use length contraction and ignore time dilation and the resultant disagreement about simultaneity. The garage man took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car was entirely in the garage. But the car driver also took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car had left the garage. With just length contraction you have a profound logical paradox. With length contraction AND time dilation you just have an odd situation.

Odd situation? Is that a technical term? What's the logical paradox, that the car doesn't fit in both frames? If they did, then you'd have a huge problem with the LT and SR. AG 

And Allen please no more whining about snarky comments, over the years you've heard about 6.02×10^23 insults against me. 

I've heard? BTW, I am still waiting for your explanation why every POSSIBLE outcome of an experiment MUST occur. And please, no BS that you've explained it numerous times. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:53:22 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 2:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no paradox to be resolved.

There sure as hell is a logical paradox if you only use length contraction and ignore time dilation and the resultant disagreement about simultaneity. The garage man took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car was entirely in the garage. But the car driver also took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car had left the garage. With just length contraction you have a profound logical paradox. With length contraction AND time dilation you just have an odd situation.

What exactly is the paradox you allege? What is the odd situation you allege? If the car had left the garage, what exactly is the problem you find paradoxical or just odd? And if you use failure of simultaneity to resolve these questions, what result do you get? ISTM you're on a slippery slope with claims which have virtually no obvious content. As I see it, there is no paradox, just a result you find uncomfortable. Why is it uncomfortable? If you entertain what might be comfortable, you'll find something worse; the failure of the LT to make a true prediction. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your arrogance combined with your willful ignorance is genuinely something to behold. Let’s break it down one more time, not because you deserve the effort, but because your nonsense deserves to be dismantled.

The so-called "paradox" exists because the two frames disagree on whether the car fits. This disagreement is a feature of relativity, not a flaw. In the garage frame, the car fits because its contracted length allows it to align with the garage’s endpoints simultaneously. In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts, so the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. This difference isn’t a "false expectation" or a "non-problem"—it’s the fundamental behavior of spacetime under the Lorentz transformations.

Your refusal to accept simultaneity’s role shows either that you’re deliberately trolling or that you fundamentally don’t understand what you’re talking about. Length contraction sets up the conditions for disagreement, but it doesn’t explain the disagreement. Simultaneity resolves it by showing why both frames arrive at different, yet internally consistent conclusions. Ignoring simultaneity is like ignoring gravity while trying to describe an orbit—it’s idiotic.

You keep parroting that there’s no paradox, as if repeating it will make it true. The paradox isn’t about some emotional discomfort with the results; it’s about reconciling why the two frames disagree. Your suggestion that "acknowledging the frames agree" would fix this is pure drivel. If the frames agreed, it would violate the very principles of relativity you claim to understand. That’s not insight—it’s stupidity wrapped in smugness.

Your constant attempts to downplay simultaneity while pretending to understand the LT are laughable. Simultaneity isn’t some optional detail—it’s central to how relativity works. You don’t like that? Tough. Reality doesn’t care about your preferences.

You’ve spent this entire discussion avoiding the actual physics, throwing around insults, and pretending you’re the smartest person in the room. You’re not. You’re just loud and wrong. If you’re so desperate to avoid learning, that’s your choice, but don’t mistake your obstinance for intelligence. It’s not. It’s just sad.

--
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/a20e4d75-9feb-4fc4-b1e7-a5f07dab82dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your arrogance combined with your willful ignorance is genuinely something to behold. Let’s break it down one more time, not because you deserve the effort, but because your nonsense deserves to be dismantled.

The so-called "paradox" exists because the two frames disagree on whether the car fits.

Why is this a paradox? Why must the frames agree? If it is a paradox, how does simultaneity resolve it? I asked these questions to Clark because he's more in a position to avoid emotions determining the answers. AG 

This disagreement is a feature of relativity, not a flaw. In the garage frame, the car fits because its contracted length allows it to align with the garage’s endpoints simultaneously. In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts, so the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit.

So the car fits, contradicting the prediction of the LT where the car's length is longer than the garage. You've apparently proven what I have been claiming all along. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your attempt to twist this into supporting your nonsense is laughable, so let’s dismantle it piece by piece.

The disagreement between frames is not a contradiction. It’s a consequence of relativity. The frames don’t need to agree—that’s the entire point of the theory. The "paradox" is only apparent to someone who doesn’t understand why the frames differ. Simultaneity resolves the disagreement because it shows how the frames define "fitting" differently based on their relative motion.

In the garage frame, simultaneity aligns the car’s endpoints with the garage’s endpoints at the same time, meaning the car fits. This is consistent with length contraction in this frame. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. Both are internally consistent, and both follow directly from the Lorentz transformations.

Your claim that this "contradicts the LT" is nonsense. The LT predicts exactly this: frame-dependent observations based on simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. There’s no contradiction because the LT explicitly accounts for the fact that events simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another.

Stop pretending that you’ve proven anything. All you’ve done is repeatedly fail to grasp the role simultaneity plays in resolving this so-called paradox. If you think the frames should agree, you’re clinging to a pre-relativistic worldview that has no place in this discussion. Your refusal to engage with the actual mechanics of relativity isn’t clever—it’s just ignorance on full display.

--

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/87d5cd43-e4b7-49cb-ab8f-e3088577fbf1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:50:37 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your arrogance combined with your willful ignorance is genuinely something to behold. Let’s break it down one more time, not because you deserve the effort, but because your nonsense deserves to be dismantled.

The so-called "paradox" exists because the two frames disagree on whether the car fits.

Why is this a paradox? Why must the frames agree? If it is a paradox, how does simultaneity resolve it? I asked these questions to Clark because he's more in a position to avoid emotions determining the answers. AG 

This disagreement is a feature of relativity, not a flaw. In the garage frame, the car fits because its contracted length allows it to align with the garage’s endpoints simultaneously. In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts, so the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit.

So the car fits, contradicting the prediction of the LT where the car's length is longer than the garage. You've apparently proven what I have been claiming all along. AG

 

This difference isn’t a "false expectation" or a "non-problem"—it’s the fundamental behavior of spacetime under the Lorentz transformations. 

Your refusal to accept simultaneity’s role shows either that you’re deliberately trolling or that you fundamentally don’t understand what you’re talking about. Length contraction sets up the conditions for disagreement, but it doesn’t explain the disagreement. Simultaneity resolves it by showing why both frames arrive at different, yet internally consistent conclusions. Ignoring simultaneity is like ignoring gravity while trying to describe an orbit—it’s idiotic.

You keep parroting that there’s no paradox, as if repeating it will make it true. The paradox isn’t about some emotional discomfort with the results; it’s about reconciling why the two frames disagree. Your suggestion that "acknowledging the frames agree" would fix this is pure drivel.

I never made such a claim. I said if the frames agreed, it would be a huge problem, as it would falsify the prediction of the LT. It would mean a car longer than the garage could fit inside. AG

 

If the frames agreed, it would violate the very principles of relativity you claim to understand. That’s not insight—it’s stupidity wrapped in smugness.

 

Learn to read well. I never claimed the frames should agree; rather, if you're uncomfortable that they disagree, you should consider the opposite, which is clearly worse. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your backpedaling and constant twisting of words are as predictable as ever. Let me clarify what’s actually happening here because your attempts at misdirection are getting tiresome.

You keep pretending that your "if the frames agreed" argument is some profound insight. It’s not. Everyone understands that the frames disagree because of the principles of relativity, and that’s exactly what the LT predicts. You’re stating the obvious and then patting yourself on the back as if you’ve uncovered a hidden truth. Newsflash: you haven’t.

Your suggestion that we should "consider the opposite" (the frames agreeing) isn’t helpful or insightful—it’s a straw man. No one is arguing that the frames should agree, and no one finds the disagreement "uncomfortable." The disagreement is the expected result of relativity and the reason why the paradox appears to exist in the first place. The role of simultaneity is to resolve the paradox by showing how the frames’ conclusions are internally consistent.

Your assertion that "if the frames agreed, it would falsify the LT" is just you stating something obvious and acting like it’s profound. Of course, if the frames agreed, it would contradict the predictions of the LT. That’s why they don’t agree. This isn’t a revelation—it’s literally the framework of special relativity at work.

Your attempt to dodge criticism with "learn to read well" is laughable. You’ve spent this entire discussion misrepresenting arguments, dodging points, and pretending simultaneity is irrelevant when it’s central to the resolution. Stop playing word games, AG. You’re not adding anything new—you’re just repeating the same tired distractions and congratulating yourself for being clever. You’re not.

--

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/4843b688-21c4-41f0-be18-e00810da3e37n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 12:54:51 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your attempt to twist this into supporting your nonsense is laughable, so let’s dismantle it piece by piece.

The disagreement between frames is not a contradiction. It’s a consequence of relativity. The frames don’t need to agree—

That's what I've been saying. No paradox because there's no requirement in relativity for the frames to agree. But earlier you claimed the following, that the car fits in the car frame; "In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts, so the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit."

that’s the entire point of the theory. The "paradox" is only apparent to someone who doesn’t understand why the frames differ. Simultaneity resolves the disagreement because it shows how the frames define "fitting" differently based on their relative motion.

In the garage frame, simultaneity aligns the car’s endpoints with the garage’s endpoints at the same time, meaning the car fits. This is consistent with length contraction in this frame. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit.

No. It means the car fits! AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your response is as confused as ever. The car does not fit in the car frame. In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts so that the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. That’s literally the definition of "not fitting." You’re either deliberately twisting this or you fundamentally don’t understand relativity. Length contraction sets the disagreement; simultaneity resolves it. Stop pretending you’ve uncovered some hidden truth—you haven’t.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7014b434-e41e-44a0-9a15-c19b187c7dabn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:03:18 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your backpedaling and constant twisting of words are as predictable as ever. Let me clarify what’s actually happening here because your attempts at misdirection are getting tiresome.

You keep pretending that your "if the frames agreed" argument is some profound insight. It’s not. Everyone understands that the frames disagree because of the principles of relativity, and that’s exactly what the LT predicts. You’re stating the obvious and then patting yourself on the back as if you’ve uncovered a hidden truth. Newsflash: you haven’t.

You used simultaneity to determine the car's endpoints in the car frame, and they implied that the car fits, contradicting LT predictions. Maybe you had a typo. And NO, I'm not patting myself on the back. This is just one of your many paranoid mind-reading episodes occurring in your sick brain. AG 

Your suggestion that we should "consider the opposite" (the frames agreeing) isn’t helpful or insightful—it’s a straw man. No one is arguing that the frames should agree, and no one finds the disagreement "uncomfortable."

Sure they do. That's why they call it a paradox. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, in the car frame, the garage is contracted, and the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. The car doesn’t fit. No typo, just your inability to understand.

The "paradox" isn’t discomfort—it’s the non-intuitive result of relativity. Simultaneity resolves why the frames disagree, not that they should agree. Calling it "paranoia" is just you dodging yet again. You’re not engaging, just trolling.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84d5c3d7-1c4e-4936-b3ae-85b50cda91aan%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:12:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your response is as confused as ever. The car does not fit in the car frame.

Correct. We agree. AG

 

In the car frame, the garage is contracted, and simultaneity shifts so that the back of the car passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. That’s literally the definition of "not fitting."

 

Sounds like fitting to me! AG 

You’re either deliberately twisting this or you fundamentally don’t understand relativity. Length contraction sets the disagreement; simultaneity resolves it. Stop pretending you’ve uncovered some hidden truth—you haven’t.

I'm not pretending. You wrote that the back of the car enters front of garage before the front of car exits back of garage. This seems to mean the car fits in car frame. Maybe you have a typo or a special definition. But that's what your statement seems to mean. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, let’s clarify this once and for all since you seem intent on misrepresenting the argument. In the car frame, if the back of the car passes the entrance before the front exits the garage, then yes, the car fits in that frame. That is the definition of fitting—there is a moment when the entire car is inside the garage.

If I wrote "before" earlier when describing the car not fitting, it was either a typo or a miscommunication. When the back passes the entrance after the front has already exited, that’s when the car doesn’t fit. This is obvious to anyone following the logic, but it seems like you’re more interested in twisting words than understanding the physics.

There’s no paradox. Simultaneity explains why the frames disagree, and the disagreement is entirely consistent with the predictions of relativity. Your attempts to confuse the matter aren’t clever—they’re just tiresome.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c19705b8-8fb2-4d19-b453-212caeee71f2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:29:04 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, in the car frame, the garage is contracted, and the back passes the entrance before the front reaches the exit. The car doesn’t fit. No typo, just your inability to understand.

It could mean fitting. This seems identical to "fitting" from the pov of garage frame. What's the difference? AG 

The "paradox" isn’t discomfort—it’s the non-intuitive result of relativity.

Non-intuitive becomes a paradox for those who think the frames should agree. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? AG

 

Simultaneity resolves why the frames disagree, not that they should agree. Calling it "paranoia" is just you dodging yet again. You’re not engaging, just trolling.

You are paranoid. No question about it. I need to rest now, so please don't reply. Your incessant abuse is exhausting. I don't need it. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:35:10 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, let’s clarify this once and for all since you seem intent on misrepresenting the argument. In the car frame, if the back of the car passes the entrance before the front exits the garage, then yes, the car fits in that frame. That is the definition of fitting—there is a moment when the entire car is inside the garage.

If I wrote "before" earlier when describing the car not fitting, it was either a typo or a miscommunication. When the back passes the entrance after the front has already exited, that’s when the car doesn’t fit. This is obvious to anyone following the logic, but it seems like you’re more interested in twisting words than understanding the physics.

I am not interested in twisting your words. I think you had a typo which implied the car fits in car frame. So, with your correction, you showed with simultaneity why the car won't in car frame. ISTM, using length contraction alone, I established the SAME result, relying on the length initial conditions, the car's frame velocity, and the LT. Why is my method inferior to yours, as I think you would claim? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your constant twisting of words and deliberate obtuseness aren’t worth serious engagement. You claim to understand relativity yet confuse "fitting" with "not fitting" depending on which way the wind blows. The frames disagree because of simultaneity, which you still refuse to grasp. Rest all you want—it won’t fix your inability to understand basic physics.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d9d75fae-6a05-4f26-a74b-086ea6fe92f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your so-called "method" is inferior because it only provides half the picture. Length contraction alone establishes the conditions for disagreement but doesn’t explain why the frames differ in their conclusions. Simultaneity resolves this by showing how events are ordered differently in each frame.

In the car frame, simultaneity ensures that the back of the car passes the entrance after the front leaves the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. Length contraction can’t explain this temporal ordering—it only tells you the garage appears shorter. Without simultaneity, your explanation is incomplete.

Your insistence that length contraction alone resolves the issue is wrong. It’s like claiming you solved a puzzle with half the pieces missing. You’re not seeing the full picture because you refuse to engage with simultaneity, the very concept that ties the disagreement together. That’s why your method is inferior.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a6f5992-29ab-4fdf-9ae2-f4fa94f59249n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 1:52:11 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your so-called "method" is inferior because it only provides half the picture. Length contraction alone establishes the conditions for disagreement but doesn’t explain why the frames differ in their conclusions. Simultaneity resolves this by showing how events are ordered differently in each frame.

In the car frame, simultaneity ensures that the back of the car passes the entrance after the front leaves the exit, meaning the car doesn’t fit. Length contraction can’t explain this temporal ordering—it only tells you the garage appears shorter. Without simultaneity, your explanation is incomplete.

Your insistence that length contraction alone resolves the issue is wrong.

To be clear, I'm using the initial conditions and the LT, the latter being as firm a principle in relativity as simultaneity. As I stated in my original claim on this issue, simultaneity and the LT have the same ontological status in relativity, that is, the same truth value. So, IMO, I have explained the apparent frame disagreement using a tried and true relativistic principle, the LT. You can prefer your method, but that doesn't make my method inferior in any way. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your claim that the Lorentz transformations alone resolve the disagreement is fundamentally flawed. The LT does indeed underlie all relativistic principles, but simultaneity is not separate from the LT—it’s a direct consequence of it. Ignoring simultaneity while invoking the LT is like using a calculator but refusing to press the equals button.

Length contraction, derived from the LT, explains how lengths change, but it doesn’t address the core disagreement: the ordering of events. That’s where simultaneity comes in. Without it, you can’t determine when the car’s endpoints align with the garage’s endpoints in any frame. Your "method" stops short of explaining the full picture because it omits the temporal dimension of relativity.

Simultaneity and the LT don’t just have the same "ontological status"—they’re inseparably linked. You’re not using the LT fully if you ignore simultaneity. That’s why your method is incomplete and, yes, inferior. It’s not about preference; it’s about addressing the problem in its entirety, something you’ve repeatedly failed to do.

--

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/e1662630-39f5-49f0-8b62-8a131fb5744an%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 2:12:49 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your claim that the Lorentz transformations alone resolve the disagreement is fundamentally flawed. The LT does indeed underlie all relativistic principles, but simultaneity is not separate from the LT—it’s a direct consequence of it. Ignoring simultaneity while invoking the LT is like using a calculator but refusing to press the equals button.

Length contraction, derived from the LT, explains how lengths change, but it doesn’t address the core disagreement: the ordering of events. That’s where simultaneity comes in. Without it, you can’t determine when the car’s endpoints align with the garage’s endpoints in any frame. Your "method" stops short of explaining the full picture because it omits the temporal dimension of relativity.

Simultaneity and the LT don’t just have the same "ontological status"—they’re inseparably linked. You’re not using the LT fully if you ignore simultaneity. That’s why your method is incomplete and, yes, inferior. It’s not about preference; it’s about addressing the problem in its entirety, something you’ve repeatedly failed to do.

They do have the same truth value. You just don't like that I am not using simultaneity; that my use of the LT is insufficiently explanatory. The key problem with invoking simultaneity is that people claim it solves the problem, but rarely if ever indicate HOW it does that. Today was the first time you were actually explicit and tried to cover this gap. To your credit you've done that by indicating exactly how the disagreement is caused by the actual changes of the events in the car frame. If you have the time and interest, I'd like to know how this is done. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, simultaneity resolves the disagreement by showing how events are ordered differently in each frame. In the garage frame, the car fits because the back passes the entrance and the front is still at the exit simultaneously. In the car frame, simultaneity shifts, and the back passes the entrance after the front has already left the exit, meaning it doesn’t fit. Length contraction alone doesn’t explain this—it just sets the stage. Simultaneity, derived directly from the LT, is what resolves the so-called paradox. Stop pretending it’s optional—it’s fundamental.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21922c20-74b1-4bab-a596-b8f76754d095n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

Will you ever cease being an abusive prick? 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, will you ever stop being a troll?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e05520b6-41fd-48fe-bcb7-570e65360e08n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 2:43:12 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, will you ever stop being a troll?

If you're typical of residents in Belgium, I am in favor of Trump cutting off military-financial assistence to NATO. Pricks like you should twist in the wind.  

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:04 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There sure as hell is a logical paradox if you only use length contraction and ignore time dilation and the resultant disagreement about simultaneity. The garage man took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car was entirely in the garage. But the car driver also took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car had left the garage. With just length contraction you have a profound logical paradox. With length contraction AND time dilation you just have an odd situation.

> What exactly is the paradox you allege?

You've got a photograph of the car, allegedly taken at the instant both the front and the back of the garage doors were closed, and you can clearly see that the car WAS entirely in the garage at that instant, and you've also got another photograph of the car, allegedly taken at the instant both the front and the back of the garage doors were closed, and you can clearly see that the car was NOT in the garage. So You've got rock solid evidence the car DID fit in the garage and you've got rock solid evidence the car DID NOT fit in the garage, and that is a logical paradox IF AND ONLY IF the two pictures really were taken simultaneously.

 Alan, couldn't you have figured this out by yourself? At this point I have to wonder if understanding Special Relativity is your primary goal or if demonstrating to other people that you're always right and smarter than everybody else is your primary goal. 

> What is the odd situation you allege?

I flat out refused to believe you don't already know the answer to that question.  

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

fow

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 4:36:49 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:04 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There sure as hell is a logical paradox if you only use length contraction and ignore time dilation and the resultant disagreement about simultaneity. The garage man took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car was entirely in the garage. But the car driver also took a snapshot at the instant he saw BOTH the garage doors were closed, and it clearly shows the car had left the garage. With just length contraction you have a profound logical paradox. With length contraction AND time dilation you just have an odd situation.

> What exactly is the paradox you allege?

You've got a photograph of the car, allegedly taken at the instant both the front and the back of the garage doors were closed, and you can clearly see that the car WAS entirely in the garage at that instant, and you've also got another photograph of the car, allegedly taken at the instant both the front and the back of the garage doors were closed, and you can clearly see that the car was NOT in the garage. So You've got rock solid evidence the car DID fit in the garage and you've got rock solid evidence the car DID NOT fit in the garage, and that is a logical paradox IF AND ONLY IF the two pictures really were taken simultaneously.

I never saw any pictures. What the F are you talking about? Sure, if they existed and taken simultaneously, you've got a paradox. The trouble with using simultaneity to prove otherwise is that something is claimed, but nothing is ever calculated to make the point. In any event, if you believe in the LT, you can establish the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, so if you believe in SR, you have to conclude that if such pictures could be taken, they could NOT be simultaneous. AG 

 Alan, couldn't you have figured this out by yourself? At this point I have to wonder if understanding Special Relativity is your primary goal or if demonstrating to other people that you're always right and smarter than everybody else is your primary goal. 

Why should I spend my time proving I am smarter than some assholes who post here, such as persons who believe decaying atoms in our bodies create whole universes? AG 

> What is the odd situation you allege?

I flat out refused to believe you don't already know the answer to that question.  

fow

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if you believe in the LT, you can establish the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, so if you believe in SR, you have to conclude that if such pictures could be taken, they could NOT be simultaneous. AG 

Then what are we arguing about? 

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

twa

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 8:04:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if you believe in the LT, you can establish the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, so if you believe in SR, you have to conclude that if such pictures could be taken, they could NOT be simultaneous. AG 

Then what are we arguing about? 

There are no pictures taken simultaneity, I've never seen such pictures, so what the F were you alleging about what I've seen? But if you believe in SR and the LR, you have to conclude the car won't fit in car frame. The problem with invoking disagreement with simultaneity is that the morons who assert it just say the words, as if that's enough, but rarely if ever do they do any calculation to prove the key point; the time change of events in the car frame which would show no contradiction, no paradox. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

At some point in this discussion I tried to use the Bird's Eye Observer to determine if the views from both frames were simultaneous, but I gave it up because I couldn't determine that such an observer (assuming the garage has no roof) could be distinguished from the garage observer. I think now that using simultaneity is necessary to show a paradox does not exist, but I never thought kindly on mere claims without proofs based on calculations. Using just the LT leaves open the possibility that SR and the LT are flawed. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

FYI, a while back, when the chief asshole claimed an analysis of simultaneity solved the problem, I repeated stated that merely writing that was insufficient, more must be done in order to prove something that showed no paradox. But all that asshole could do was to repeat the claim, several times. I have David Bohm's book on SR. I plan to see if he shows how the calculation is done. For any asshole who claims I am a troll, I have this to say; do you really think you're so important that I would waste my precious time proving anything to you? The one exception is you, Clark. I continue to ask about your ADDITIONAL POSTULATE to S's equation, that everything that CAN happen, MUST happen. Please; no BS that you answered this question many times. That would be a flat-out lie used in defense of the cult. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your misunderstanding is once again on full display. Simultaneity is about the frame-dependent nature of when events occur. The frames disagree on whether the car fits because simultaneity shifts the timing of events like the back entering the garage and the front exiting.

Your claim that "morons just say the words" is rich coming from someone who dismisses simultaneity entirely while pretending length contraction is enough. Calculations using the Lorentz transformations explicitly show how simultaneity shifts the alignment of events across frames. If you’d bothered to actually engage with the math instead of trolling, you’d see that simultaneity explains why there’s no contradiction.

In the car frame, the garage is shorter, and simultaneity ensures that the back enters after the front leaves. That’s why the car doesn’t fit. This isn’t just "words"—it’s the direct consequence of SR and the LT. Your refusal to understand this isn’t a lack of calculation—it’s a lack of effort on your part.

--
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/d0615940-1496-4444-8d8c-c04dc0e2dea6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your tantrum-laden diatribes are as tiresome as they are pointless. You swing between dismissing simultaneity and grudgingly admitting its necessity, while spewing insults to cover for your inability to engage with the actual physics.

Let’s get this straight: simultaneity is not optional if you want to resolve the apparent paradox. It’s embedded in the LT and explicitly explains why the frames disagree. Your attempts to dismiss explanations because they lack "calculations" are just another way to avoid addressing the core issue—you’re more interested in arguing than understanding.

You claim to value your "precious time," yet you waste it hurling insults and revisiting points that have already been explained. If you’re planning to read David Bohm’s book, great—maybe you’ll finally get a grasp of the basic principles of SR. Until then, stop pretending your half-baked arguments and vitriol make you anything other than the troll you insist you’re not.

--
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/32446711-e03a-445c-bf7f-515d4031bebcn%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 10:21 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 > if you believe in SR and the LR, you have to conclude the car won't fit in car frame.

If you believe in Special Relativity then you can't just take length contraction into account, you also have to consider time dilation, and if you have time dilation then simultaneity is not objective but is subjective. And the definition of "fitting in the garage" is that the front of the car is fully within the garage while simultaneously the back of the car is also fully within the garage.     

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 9:46:06 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your misunderstanding is once again on full display. Simultaneity is about the frame-dependent nature of when events occur. The frames disagree on whether the car fits because simultaneity shifts the timing of events like the back entering the garage and the front exiting.

Your claim that "morons just say the words" is rich coming from someone who dismisses simultaneity entirely while pretending length contraction is enough. Calculations using the Lorentz transformations explicitly show how simultaneity shifts the alignment of events across frames. If you’d bothered to actually engage with the math instead of trolling, you’d see that simultaneity explains why there’s no contradiction.

In the car frame, the garage is shorter, and simultaneity ensures that the back enters after the front leaves. That’s why the car doesn’t fit. This isn’t just "words"—it’s the direct consequence of SR and the LT. Your refusal to understand this isn’t a lack of calculation—it’s a lack of effort on your part.

Asshole; I several times asked for the proof, instead of a slogan, and you never provided it, except in part within the last two days. You're a Belgium shit. Stop with your stupid pretending mind-reading posts. AG 

Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 16:21, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 8:04:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if you believe in the LT, you can establish the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, so if you believe in SR, you have to conclude that if such pictures could be taken, they could NOT be simultaneous. AG 

Then what are we arguing about? 

There are no pictures taken simultaneity, I've never seen such pictures, so what the F were you alleging about what I've seen? But if you believe in SR and the LR, you have to conclude the car won't fit in car frame. The problem with invoking disagreement with simultaneity is that the morons who assert it just say the words, as if that's enough, but rarely if ever do they do any calculation to prove the key point; the time change of events in the car frame which would show no contradiction, no paradox. AG 

.

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your inability to engage without resorting to childish insults speaks volumes about your character. Proofs and explanations were provided repeatedly, but your deliberate refusal to engage with them isn’t anyone’s fault but your own. Simultaneity’s role has been outlined clearly—it resolves the disagreement by explaining how events align differently in each frame. You ignored it then, and now you’re pretending it was never explained. That’s peak trolling.

If you can’t handle the discussion without devolving into personal attacks, maybe it’s time to step away. Your insults don’t make you look clever—they just confirm what everyone already knows: you’re not here for the physics, just to waste time.

--

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/50777741-c42e-4bcb-8966-e2c527158ab6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

If I believe in SR, then I can use length contraction to establish the car won't fit in garage in car's frame. But this alone doesn't prove that the car fitting and not fitting in respective frames does not occur simultaneously. Thus, more information is required to prove there's no paradox. When you claim simultaneity is not objective, I assume you mean it's frame dependent. Nonetheless, it can be calculated for the conditions defining this problem. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 11:12:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your inability to engage without resorting to childish insults speaks volumes about your character. Proofs and explanations were provided repeatedly, but your deliberate refusal to engage with them isn’t anyone’s fault but your own. Simultaneity’s role has been outlined clearly—it resolves the disagreement by explaining how events align differently in each frame. You ignored it then, and now you’re pretending it was never explained. That’s peak trolling.

If you can’t handle the discussion without devolving into personal attacks, maybe it’s time to step away. Your insults don’t make you look clever—they just confirm what everyone already knows: you’re not here for the physics, just to waste time.

You're a total prick. You never explained it adequately. All you did was repeat several times that it solved the problem.That's why I referred to your "explanation" as a slogan. I really don't want to discuss this further with a lying abusive shit such as you.  AG

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 1:07 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Asshole; You're a Belgium shit. You're a total prick. I really don't want to discuss this further with a lying abusive shit such as you"

And this comes from a man who was recently whining about how people were being too "snarky" with him. 

 

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

2sw

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 11:12:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your inability to engage without resorting to childish insults speaks volumes about your character. Proofs and explanations were provided repeatedly, but your deliberate refusal to engage with them isn’t anyone’s fault but your own. Simultaneity’s role has been outlined clearly—it resolves the disagreement by explaining how events align differently in each frame. You ignored it then, and now you’re pretending it was never explained. That’s peak trolling.

If you can’t handle the discussion without devolving into personal attacks, maybe it’s time to step away. Your insults don’t make you look clever—they just confirm what everyone already knows: you’re not here for the physics, just to waste time.

You continue with your lying shithead behavior. It's not enough to just to say events align differently in each frame, but to demonstrate it mathematically. You were just using a slogan and still have no clue about it. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 11:36:19 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 1:07 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Asshole; You're a Belgium shit. You're a total prick. I really don't want to discuss this further with a lying abusive shit such as you"

And this comes from a man who was recently whining about how people were being too "snarky" with him. 

Clark; why do you post in support of the shit? He kept doing his abusive mind-reading about my motives, and at times I tried to give him some respect, but he de facto declined the offer. As for your posts about Meeker1 and Meeker2 not being distinguishable before the box opens, is this more fantasy about what S's equation implies? AG

CClark

[Alan Grayson]

I assume the calculation requires using the Lorentz time transformation to get the event times in the car's frame, assuming we know it in the garage frame. AG 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 1:52 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you believe in Special Relativity then you can't just take length contraction into account, you also have to consider time dilation, and if you have time dilation then simultaneity is not objective but is subjective. And the definition of "fitting in the garage" is that the front of the car is fully within the garage while simultaneously the back of the car is also fully within the garage.     

>If I believe in SR, then I can use length contraction to establish the car won't fit in garage in car's frame.

 

That depends entirely on what you mean by "the car won't fit in the garage". In the above I've told you exactly what I mean by the term. What do you mean? 

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

4hb

[Alan Grayson]

What do I mean; what any sane person would mean; that the car's length is fixed from the pov of the car's frame when car is moving, but the garage's length is shortened from an initial condition where it starts out shorter. AG 

4hb

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:15 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>If I believe in SR, then I can use length contraction to establish the car won't fit in garage in car's frame.

 

>> That depends entirely on what you mean by "the car won't fit in the garage". In the above I've told you exactly what I mean by the term. What do you mean? 

> What do I mean; what any sane person would mean; that the car's length is fixed from the pov of the car's frame when car is moving, but the garage's length is shortened from an initial condition where it starts out shorter. AG 

That's all very nice but that's not what I asked. What exactly do you mean by "the car won't fit in the garage" if it's not "the front of the car is fully within the garage while SIMULTANEOUSLY the back of the car is also fully within the garage"?

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

RXT

[Alan Grayson]

My definition is sufficient but doesn't exclude other definitiions, such as the front and back of car are simultaneously outside the garage. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

What you wrote is one way of defining a car which fits in the garage! AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Length contraction can show that the car won't fit from the pov of the car frame, but won't resolve the possibility of a paradox. But solving the paradox issue with simultaneity is not simple since there are an uncountable number of ways the car can fit in the garage if its velocity is large enough. So the easiest way to approach the solution is to find the velocity which allows the car to fit perfectly in the garage frame, and then transform its endpoint events, the back and front of garage, using the t' transformation formula given by the LT. For higher velocities, the problem is substantially more difficult since now the car will loosely fit in the garage from the pov of the garage frame, in which case we'd have an uncountable number of endpoint events for which we'd have to transform to the car frame. I think it's do-able but more difficult. So the best approach is to determine the velocity such that the car perfectly fits in the garage from the pov of the garage frame, and perform the transformation using the two endpoint events in the garage frame to the car frame. I really can't explain why I thought length contraction alone could also resolve the paradox problem, but I can say it wasn't deliberate. Just an error on my part. AG 

RXT

[Alan Grayson]

Clark, thanks for clearly defining the paradox. Somehow, in the course of this discussion, I lost contact with its meaning. However, when contemplating the solution, using a specific configuration of fitting from the pov of the garage frame, and then trying to mathematically solve the location of the car in the car frame using the disagreement of simultaneity, I just came to a disquieting conclusion; namely, that the mathematical problem seems insoluble. The reason is that there is an uncountable number of solutions of the car NOT fitiiing from the pov of the car frame. We know it can't fit using length contraction, but it seems impossible to determine its exact location due to the uncountable number of soluttions. There's simply not enough information to solve the problem exactly, which I think is necessary to resolve the paradox. I'd like your opinion in this matter, and anyone who has an interest in the solution. TY, AG  

X

[Alan Grayson]

It's probably a non-problem. Possibly, for every fitting assumption from the pov of the garage frame, there's a unique non-fitting solution from the pov of the car frame, using the LT. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your latest claim about "an uncountable number of solutions" is yet another attempt to complicate something that is already well understood. The "paradox" you keep referencing is entirely resolved through the principles of special relativity, specifically length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. Let’s address your confusion point by point.

1. The paradox is fully resolvable

The car’s position in both frames is fully determined by the Lorentz transformations. These transformations provide exact relationships for space and time coordinates between frames. There’s no ambiguity or "uncountable number of solutions" because the math directly links events in one frame to events in another. Your assertion that it’s "impossible to determine the car’s exact location" is baseless.

2. Simultaneity provides the necessary information

The disagreement between frames arises because simultaneity shifts the ordering of events. In the garage frame, the back of the car enters the garage while the front is still inside. In the car frame, the back enters after the front has already exited. The Lorentz transformations calculate these relationships precisely. There is no missing information.

3. Your "length contraction only" approach is incomplete

Length contraction shows that the garage is shorter in the car frame, but without simultaneity, you can’t determine how events align in time. This alignment is critical to resolving the disagreement. The so-called paradox exists only when you refuse to account for simultaneity.

4. There’s no "uncountable" problem

The problem is entirely countable and deterministic. The Lorentz transformations give you precise equations for determining the position and timing of events. If you’re struggling to see this, it’s not because the problem is unsolvable—it’s because you’re either misunderstanding or overcomplicating it.

Your suggestion that the paradox remains unresolved because of a supposed infinite ambiguity is simply wrong. The tools of special relativity, including length contraction, time dilation, and simultaneity, resolve the problem completely. If you truly want clarity, work through the Lorentz transformations instead of inventing unnecessary complications.

--

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/4daa6be8-459b-4424-a813-6ec77b001871n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, January 11, 2025 at 12:07:23 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your latest claim about "an uncountable number of solutions" is yet another attempt to complicate something that is already well understood. The "paradox" you keep referencing is entirely resolved through the principles of special relativity, specifically length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. Let’s address your confusion point by point.

That was my solution as well. You should have read it before replying. And NO, I wasn't trying to complicate anything. AG 

1. The paradox is fully resolvable

The car’s position in both frames is fully determined by the Lorentz transformations. These transformations provide exact relationships for space and time coordinates between frames. There’s no ambiguity or "uncountable number of solutions" because the math directly links events in one frame to events in another. Your assertion that it’s "impossible to determine the car’s exact location" is baseless.

2. Simultaneity provides the necessary information

The disagreement between frames arises because simultaneity shifts the ordering of events. In the garage frame, the back of the car enters the garage while the front is still inside. In the car frame, the back enters after the front has already exited. The Lorentz transformations calculate these relationships precisely. There is no missing information.

 That's essentially what I wrote. AG

3. Your "length contraction only" approach is incomplete

Length contraction shows that the garage is shorter in the car frame, but without simultaneity, you can’t determine how events align in time. This alignment is critical to resolving the disagreement. The so-called paradox exists only when you refuse to account for simultaneity.

4. There’s no "uncountable" problem

The problem is entirely countable and deterministic. The Lorentz transformations give you precise equations for determining the position and timing of events. If you’re struggling to see this, it’s not because the problem is unsolvable—it’s because you’re either misunderstanding or overcomplicating it.

Your suggestion that the paradox remains unresolved because of a supposed infinite ambiguity is simply wrong. The tools of special relativity, including length contraction, time dilation, and simultaneity, resolve the problem completely. If you truly want clarity, work through the Lorentz transformations instead of inventing unnecessary complications.

I was thinking out loud, and later reached the same conclusions you have described, and posted it. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your pathetic attempt to claim credit after spewing nonsense about "uncountable solutions" and an "unsolvable problem" is exactly what I’d expect from you. Now you’re suddenly saying you "already knew" the conclusion after wasting everyone’s time with your confusion and bad takes. That’s pure dishonesty.

What you’re doing is classic backpedaling. You throw out baseless claims, derail the discussion, and then pretend your nonsense was part of some grand reasoning when you realize you’re wrong. Newsflash: nobody’s buying it.

The so-called paradox was resolved long before you jumped in with your distractions. Stop pretending you’ve contributed anything meaningful here. You’re not a misunderstood genius—you’re just a time-wasting troll who thrives on unnecessary conflict. Done.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4db16446-55fb-4db4-975e-845220089b26n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, January 11, 2025 at 1:46:02 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your pathetic attempt to claim credit after spewing nonsense about "uncountable solutions" and an "unsolvable problem" is exactly what I’d expect from you. Now you’re suddenly saying you "already knew" the conclusion after wasting everyone’s time with your confusion and bad takes. That’s pure dishonesty.

What you’re doing is classic backpedaling. You throw out baseless claims, derail the discussion, and then pretend your nonsense was part of some grand reasoning when you realize you’re wrong. Newsflash: nobody’s buying it.

The so-called paradox was resolved long before you jumped in with your distractions. Stop pretending you’ve contributed anything meaningful here. You’re not a misunderstood genius—you’re just a time-wasting troll who thrives on unnecessary conflict. Done.

Now you seem brain-dead. Before you posted that I was mistaken about uncountable solutions, I had ALREADY posted that I was mistaken. What the fuck is the matter with you? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your endless insults and dramatics don’t make your point any more valid. If you already acknowledged your mistake, great—but don’t act like you’re above criticism when you’ve spent the entire discussion sowing confusion and bad faith. The fact that you circle back to hostility every time someone engages with your nonsense says more about you than anyone else. Maybe reflect on why this is your go-to response instead of expecting everyone else to tolerate it.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eba4799d-08a9-4ff3-b6f4-4b4c72c76937n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, January 11, 2025 at 3:03:46 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG, your endless insults and dramatics don’t make your point any more valid. If you already acknowledged your mistake, great—but don’t act like you’re above criticism when you’ve spent the entire discussion sowing confusion and bad faith. The fact that you circle back to hostility every time someone engages with your nonsense says more about you than anyone else. Maybe reflect on why this is your go-to response instead of expecting everyone else to tolerate it.

You refer again to my bad faith, which is an accusation without merit, a product of your malicious character and foolish belief you can know someone's soul. You can have the last word. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG, your pattern of projection and self-righteousness is noted. If you’re offering the last word, I’ll simply say this: your behavior throughout this discussion speaks for itself. Take care.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fedfd147-12da-47db-96f0-14ada56bec18n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

I think you meant "the car will fit in the garage."

But there's been so much unproductive back and forth on this thread, which I thought I had put to bed, that I'm going to try again and to make everything even more graphic and explicit.  Here's the spacetime diagram in the reference frame of the garage (which we would ordinarily refer to a stationary):


Here we see that the car, whose proper length is 10', traveling at 0.8c is Lorentz contracted to a little over 6'.  We start with the entrance open and the exit closed and we see that we can close the entrance door before we have to open the exit door because there is a brief period in which the car is fully within the 8' garage, the red trapezoid.  If the distances are in feet then the times are in nano-seconds.  So the exit door can stay closed for about 2.5 nano-seconds after the entrance door closes, as measured in the garage reference frame.  For those 2.5 nano-seconds the car is fully inside the garage.

Now consider that same events in the car's frame of reference.  Keep in mind the technical meaning of "event" is a point in spacetime, not a "happening" as in casual parlance.  So points in the above diagram, like "FRONT ENTERS" are events and the Lorentz transformation preserves events but it in general changes their spacetime relation.  Here is the Lorentz transformation, point-by-point, of the above diagram.  The two diagrams are physically identical; differing only in being viewed from different states of motion:


Specifically in this case the time order of "REAR ENTERS" and "FRONT EXITS" is reversed.  This is typical of space-like separated events: their order is different in different reference frames.  So from the car's point of view there is a period of about 7 nano-seconds during which both doors are open and so the car sails thru without hitting a door.

Brent

[John Clark]

Brent Meeker:

 

>> That's all very nice but that's not what I asked. What exactly do you mean by "the car won't fit in the garage" if it's not "the front of the car is fully within the garage while SIMULTANEOUSLY the back of the car is also fully within the garage"?

>I think you meant "the car will fit in the garage."

Yes, sorry for the mistake. 

John K Clark 

[Alan Grayson]

When you write the time order of events is reversed, presumably in the car frame, does this mean the rear of the car enters the garage before the front enters (which is physically impossible)? If not, what do you mean? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

That's the sort of question that gets you a troll reputation.  The events are clearly labelled and the axes have time and position variables.  If you can't read the diagram you won't understand a written explanation any better.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

As I was scrolling down to your reply, I was expecting a BS answer and that's what I got. F the troll BS. When I worked at JPL no one questioned my ability of reading plain English. But you know better. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

In the car frame, the Front Exits and Rear Enters, in this order, so the car doesn't fit. In the garage frame, the Front Enters and Rear Enters, in this order, so the car fits, but the latter isn't the opposite of the former, AFAICT. AG

 

[Alan Grayson]

BTW, your plots are the constructions of pure genius; you have in the car frame, the front enters and front exits at the same spatial coordinate, so it never moved between entering and leaving. Like I said, pure genius. AG 

 

[Alan Grayson]

Why do you have the plot arranged so distance decreasing while time is increasing? Don't you want distance increasing, since the car is in motion, while time is also increasing? For you the plots are self-explanatory, but for me and possibly others, they're murky at best, or minimally confusing. AG

 

[Brent Meeker]

Then why couldn't you read the diagram and answer your own question?  As my mother used to say, "Ask a silly question and you'll get a silly answer."

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

That's right.  You can read the diagram!

Brent

 

--
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/3436a827-9dc2-42ce-af98-fb495ef04382n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

Would you like it better if the car moved in the car frame?

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

If the car is going to the right then in the car's frame the garage is going to the left...duh!

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

I had a general question about how time evolves oppositely for spacial separated events, but "opposite" from what to what. I understand. It's a fuckin' tough question for you to answer, genius that you are. Do me a big favor; STOP WITH THE TROLL SHIT!

[Alan Grayson]

Tell your mother, there's no such thing as a silly question.

[Alan Grayson]

But what IS the "opposite" you referred to?  

[Alan Grayson]

The "silly" question involved the suggestion of a violation of causality if time is "reversed" for transformations of spacelike separated events. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

You seem to suggest that for two spacelike separated events A and B, it A causes B, then under a LT, the image of B is the cause of the  image of A in the transformed frame. I tend not to believe this, OR, maybe that's not what was implied. In any event, this was the cause of my question and I don't believe your plots will answer this question. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 4:58:17 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

You seem to suggest that for two spacelike separated events A and B, IF A causes B, then under a LT, the image of B is the cause of the  image of A in the transformed frame. I tend not to believe this, OR, maybe that's not what was implied. In any event, this was the cause of my question and I don't believe your plots will answer this question. AG

The apparent condition for this would be the time order reversal of events under the LT transformation. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

I didn't use that word, you did, see above

[Alan Grayson]

What word are you referring to. You referred to time order reversal for spacelike separated events, so if that generally occurs, it could mean what I thought. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/12/2025 11:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

The "silly" question involved the suggestion of a violation of causality if time is "reversed" for transformations of spacelike separated events. AG 

It's silly because there cannot be any cause/effect relation between spacelike separated events.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

Last I looked up spacelike separated recently, it said the opposite, or so I thought. OK,  AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/13/2025 3:58 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

You seem to suggest that for two spacelike separated events A and B, it A causes B,

I would never suggest such a thing.  Spacelike events cannot have a causal relation because that would require a faster than light transmission.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

My error. I confused timelike with spacelike. TY, AG 

[Brent Meeker]

I bolded the word.

Brent

--

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/0495996c-19d0-48a0-91d1-1a8e62b87a28n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 3:38:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

I bolded the word.

Brent

I realized that later, but I wasn't sure which two events you were referring to, whose times were reversed. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/13/2025 2:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 3:38:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

I bolded the word.

Brent

I realized that later, but I wasn't sure which two events you were referring to, whose times were reversed. AG

You keep asking what I was referring to when all the referalls were yours, to wit:

>>     In the car frame, the Front Exits and Rear Enters, in this order, so the car doesn't fit. In the garage frame, the Front Enters and Rear Enters, in this order, so the car fits, but the latter isn't the opposite of the former, AFAICT. AG

There are no "two events" I was referring to.  There were four events having two different time orders, as bolded above.

Brent