Re: Langevin's paradox again

W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:

Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 09.07.2024 o 15:47, Richard Hachel pisze:

Le 09/07/2024 à 07:33, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:

Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of relativity.

>
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.

>
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
>
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
>
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz transformation to some effects.
>
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
>
Both assumptions are wrong.
>
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
>
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
>
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
>
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
>
...
>
>

Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.

>
Nor do I.
>
>
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
>
TH

>
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will not be the same age, it is not a paradox.

>
>
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.

 *facepalm*
 You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
 When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it

, you know? You really think that

these methods are inaccurate?

You really think they are not, poor stinker?