a thought on the garage paradox

[RichD]

Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -

The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
or not, the garage is too shallow, blah blah, the usual.

To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:

The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
open, the car approaches from the south.
The garage's center point is clearly marked. The
driver is centered within the vehicle. Two cameras
are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.

I) In the garage frame:
The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.


II) In the Corvette's frame:
The car is stationary, the garage approaches
(so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
amount. The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.

So far, so standard.

Now, what do the cameras record? These are unique
to both frames, nothing 'relative' there! (I rule
out the 'many worlds' interpretation of QM) In
particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
driver hits the center point?

Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
to the garage. Though, from the car's frame, this is
counter-intuitive, it must be so, for logical consistency.

However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
outside the garage.

Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
Am I missing something here?

--
Rich

[Poutnik]

Have you correctly applied relativity of simultaneity ?

In the garage frame, if 2 stationary cameras were installed as well,
both would register both doors to be quickly closed and open again
at the same moment, while the car in at the garage centre.

In the car frame, where the garage is shorter than the car,
the front car camera registers closing/opening of the door
before the car reaches the centre,
so the front of car does not hit the closed door.

The rear car camera registers closing/opening of the door later,
after the car reaches the centre,
so the rear door does not hit the leaving car.

------------------

Remember that all the length contraction in SR
is because of relativity of simultaneity.

Imagine 3 children measuring a length of a slithering(?) snake.
( e.g. one of those domestic pythons in SE Asia ).

2 of them would measure it correctly, making marks on the floor
at the snakes's head and tail at the same time
and then measuring the distance by a meter stick.

The 3rd child is a non cooperative introvert,
going to the head, making the mark,
going then to the tail, and making the 2nd mark.
After measuring the child realizes
his/her measured length is shorter.

The same happens at measuring of length of moving object.
For the observer in rest wrt the object it appears like
"No wonder they get the length shorter !!
I have no idea why the measure
the object point positions at different times !! "


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 25 sierpnia 2016 02:52:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Have you correctly applied relativity of simultaneity ?
>
> In the garage frame, if 2 stationary cameras were installed as well,
> both would register both doors to be quickly closed and open again
> at the same moment, while the car in at the garage centre.

And an observer walking on a street registers buildings
and trees running around him.
So said idiot physicist!!!
Must be the truth.

[Python]

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/plus/galilean-relativity.cfm

Mr. Wozniak, you are one more confirmation of a very well established
fact on this forum: most cranks and Special Relativity deniers have
as a matter of fact big issues with classical physics as well.

Welcome in the club of pathetic retards, you are not alone there!

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Mr Python, you are one more confirmation of a very well established
fact on this forum: most of minions of The Shit can't read, so they
fight strawmen.
Though, well, I could accept the mistake of Galileo if it weren't
followed by poor idiot Einstein.

[RichD]

On August 24, Poutnik wrote:
> In the garage frame, if 2 stationary cameras were installed as well,

Where?

> both would register both doors to be quickly closed and open again
> at the same moment, while the car in at the garage centre.

No, that's the fallacy, explicable by finite speed of light.
The rear-facing camera might see the rear fender outside the garage.
It depends on the numbers.

> In the car frame, where the garage is shorter than the car,
> the front car camera registers closing/opening of the door
> before the car reaches the centre,
> so the front of car does not hit the closed door.

That's what I said.

> Remember that all the length contraction in SR
> is because of relativity of simultaneity.

I don't remember that -

--
Rich

[Poutnik]

Dne 28/08/2016 v 05:55 RichD napsal(a):

> On August 24, Poutnik wrote:
>> In the garage frame, if 2 stationary cameras were installed as well,
>
> Where?

Is such a question necessery ?
Any position symetric to the both doors.

>
>> both would register both doors to be quickly closed and open again
>> at the same moment, while the car in at the garage centre.
>
> No, that's the fallacy, explicable by finite speed of light.
> The rear-facing camera might see the rear fender outside the garage.
> It depends on the numbers.

Than it would be your phalacy, as you have said it by your words
in the fist post. But it is not, as it is what everybody observes.
It is independent on fact if there is any car ever.

>
>> In the car frame, where the garage is shorter than the car,
>> the front car camera registers closing/opening of the door
>> before the car reaches the centre,
>> so the front of car does not hit the closed door.
>
> That's what I said.

Than what is the problem ?

>
>
>> Remember that all the length contraction in SR
>> is because of relativity of simultaneity.
>
> I don't remember that -

That learn why it is so and remember it.

[Poutnik]

Dne 28/08/2016 v 05:55 RichD napsal(a):

> No, that's the fallacy, explicable by finite speed of light.
> The rear-facing camera might see the rear fender outside the garage.
> It depends on the numbers.

The camera system is clever enough,
taking EventTime = MeasuredTime - c * EventDdistance.

Neither you consider a sound event happens
at the moment you hear it, but you take into account
the sound speed and the source distance.

No big deal.

[Poutnik]

Dne 28/08/2016 v 05:55 RichD napsal(a):

People usually have no mental problem to accept vacuum speed light
invariance, probably because it is easy to imagine some speed is constant.

Their "common sense" should protest the most at this simple phenomena.
But is tricked to feel it is ok, as the full weirdness for common sense
will appear for high speeds only.

As, when the above is accepted, all 3 phenomena - TD, LC and RoS
are necessary and inevitable consequences of invariant light speed.

Because of invariant light speed, you will measure

2 simultaneous not collocated events on moving objects
as not simultaneous.

2 points on moving objects as closer.

periods of repeating events as lower.

All of that even after correction
for finite light speed
and for classical Doppler effect.

[Sylvia Else]

You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for light to
get from the event being observed and arriving at the camera. Usually,
one ignores such things, but at the kinds of speeds we're talking about
here, it's important.

I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
cameras some while back

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>

and showed that everything works out fine.

Sylvia.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Sylvia Else wrote:

- show quoted text -

You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for light to
get from the event being observed and arriving at the camera. Usually,
one ignores such things, but at the kinds of speeds we're talking about
here, it's important.

I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
cameras some while back

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>

and showed that everything works out fine.

Sylvia.

When the light from Distant Events like supernova arrived HERE, they would the event would be temporally "Smeared" if c is not invariant , eliminating any and all "ballistic" light theories and requiring a real moving fabric of space time moving at c, transporting the photons

A three dimensional fabric moving radially at c both inward and outward at the same time.

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

When the light from Distant Events like supernova arrived HERE, the event would be temporally "Smeared" if c is not invariant , eliminating any and all "ballistic" light theories and requiring a real moving fabric of space time moving at c, transporting the photons

A three dimensional fabric moving radially at c both inward and outward at the same time.

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg

If this structure (http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg) is stretched over the surface of this (http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg) both inward & outward transit could simultaneously be permitted on the surface of the Schwarz-P minimal surface, just as light transits our spacetime.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

(2 997.92458 * tau)^0.5 = 137.24618637

(2 997.92458 * tau * 0.99693942)^0.5 = 137.035998956

(2 988.7492 * tau)^0.5 = 137.03599914

[RichD]

>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>> driver hits the center point?
>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior

>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.

>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>> outside the garage.
>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>

> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
> camera.

huh?
Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.

> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
> cameras some while back
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>

> and showed that everything works out fine.

Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
Mine is precisely stated.

Re-write it, then we can compare apples vs. apples.

--
Rich

[JanPB]

You keep confusing the mundane meanings of words in English with what
they refer to in the context of certain mathematical models in physics.

--
Jan

[Sylvia Else]

It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
the doors, and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 *
sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

It's one thing to recognize a mistake- another educating people of said mistake. A very difficult task indeed!

[John Gogo]

If you asked me what kind of man I am- I would always say a measure man. I've been this way as long as I can remember. I don't care who is right or wrong- I'm enamored with the measure alone.

[John Gogo]

I think like P.W. Bridgman's "Central Clearing House"!

[Poutnik]

According to him, the Sun and all planetes and stars orbits the Earth,
as everybody knows the Earth is static.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

According to your Shit from the point of view of an
Earth based observer (i.e. for us all) - it is. Don't
you believe your moronic gurus?

[JanPB]

Again, you confuse properties of certain mathematical constructs with
the everyday meanings of _words_ used to describe them. You also confuse
philosophy with science.

--
Jan

[RichD]

On August 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,

>>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, the usual.

>>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked. The
>>>> driver is centered within the vehicle. Two cameras
>>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>>>> I) In the garage frame:
>>>> The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>>> II) In the Corvette's frame:
>>>> The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>>>> amount. The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>>>> So far, so standard.
>>>> Now, what do the cameras record?

>>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>>>> driver hits the center point?
>>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>>>> outside the garage.
>>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>
>>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
>>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
>>> camera.
>
>> huh?
>> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
>
>>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
>>> cameras some while back
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
>>> and showed that everything works out fine.
>
>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>
> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
> the doors,

No it doesn't:
"... attach video cameras to the barn and to the
pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
pole respectively)"

That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.

> and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 *
> sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.

... after some tortured arithmetic.

And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
Just some hand waving about a barn and some cameras.


--
Rich

[Sylvia Else]

If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
should bother with you. By all means go on being mistaken, it's no skin
off my nose.

Sylvia.

[benj]

Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake
here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!

[Sylvia Else]

Well, he might think so.

I find it difficult to express just how much I despise people who use
aggression as a debating tactic.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

the reality. You also confuse philosophy with science.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Unless, of course, they are by your side.

[RichD]

On August 30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>
>>>>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
>>>>> the doors,
>
>>>> No it doesn't:
>>>> "... attach video cameras to the barn and to the
>>>> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
>>>> pole respectively)"
>>>> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.

>>>> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
>>>> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
>

>>> If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
>>> should bother with you.
>

>> Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake
>> here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!
>

> I find it difficult to express just how much I despise people who use
> aggression as a debating tactic.

"All you care about is who's right, the FACTS, but what
about FEELINGS, you brute? You never consider MY needs,
that's what this argument is REALLY about!"

She argues just like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmRnKaTEr8

--
Rich

[JanPB]

Whenever you get cornered, you copy and paste your opponent's post - you
noticed that?

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:9a6c344d-3617-401c...@googlegroups.com...

Talking to an idiot I descend to his level.
And whenever you get cornered your moronic shouts loose even
the shadow of content and can be copied by anyone against
anyone - you noticed that?

[JanPB]

I rest my case. Don't answer here as I feel I've proved the point so I'm
off this thread.

--
Jan

[Sylvia Else]

No, you miss the point entirely. My thoughts are always along the lines
of "is that all they have, and they think it's useful?"

Sylvia.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

The car splits the garage into
two frames, or rather, a continuum
of frames, as it were.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 02-sep-2016 om 17:31 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:

> The car splits the garage into
> two frames, or rather, a continuum
> of frames, as it were.

Basically, you mean, as you used to open your nonsense
statements about number systems at sci.math.
Basically way back, as it were.

Dirk Vdm

[Ross A. Finlayson]

These days that's "If you can't
make sense of it, don't go making
nonsense of it".

Indeed, the Equivalency Function
or "sweep principle" as (unique)
counterexample to un-countabilty
stands quite firmly as opinion,
mine.

Also some useful results for
mathematicans like the Intermediate
Value Theorem are so established
with the corresponding countable,
continuous domain.


Here then instead there is that a
massive object accelerating hard by
c brings quite a radius of its
surrounds with it, as frames are
so defined in the kinetic.

This is part of, overall: A-Theory.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

It seems clear there is a place in physics
for the mathematics of infinity, and in fact
and indeed much of extra-classical mathematical
physics sees the symmetries or reflection of
the classical in the meso-scale about the infinite
in extent and infinitesimal in exent, the total
and point for the global and local.

Key to this then is the extent of the support of
mathematical foundations for foundations of the
mathematical physics.

Where the features of the physics plainly enough
_are_ the features of the mathematics, then finding
new features of common structures in the mathematics
automatically so equips the physics with these features.

Here these "new features" are of the points in the line
themselves, that there are models of R the real numbers
of line continuity (as above), field continuity (as usual),
and signal continuity (as consequent) that would find
relevant placement variously in the models of the
physical regimes.

Here this isn't so much about the various models in physics
themselves of the fluid model or the wave model and how
these today may commonly yet be but a partial perspective
of the true nature of things, it is already a richer
substrate of the elements of the continuum themselves
that advises what occurs of these effects of the "particle"
in the configuration (or as Bohr puts it, arrangement) and
energy of experiment that so yields the _effects_ in physics,
as they are direct effects, as it were, in mathematics.

So, yeah, the points in a line
from zero to one are a continuum.

Also they're uniform and regular there,
constant monotone increasing as it were.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Dirk, you can also read my other posts here to get an
idea of what kind of narrative I've been establishing
with regards to usual modern notions of theoretical
physics.

And on sci.logic with respect to formal logic,
and on sci.math with respect to mathematics.

There's about quite enough of them for your
computer research assistant to present to you
quite whatever it would have you read.

Thus, I encourage you to read for yourself.