Re: Langevin's paradox again

Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 04/07/2024 à 20:27, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

>
Richard Hachel wrote:

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

of

relativity.

>
No, it's not.  It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
ignored.
That part has been explained in more than one way, but some don't seem
capable of understanding.
>

What was the grievance?
>
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference

of

the twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth,
if we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel

says

that we must use this notion of reciprocity,

>
Dr. Hachel is wrong, along with all those who conveniently forget

about

the turn-around.  And "reciprocity" doesn't even enter Dr. H's

solution.

>

very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both
logical and absurd.

>
“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
>
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it.”
-- Samuel Butler
>

No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and
perfectly

>
Incorrect assertion.
>

[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
>
The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of
confusion.
They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of measured

times,

and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.

>
Incorrect assertion.
>

It's not the same thing.
>
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.

>
Not impossible.
>
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe

something

that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
>

The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey

of 24

light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.
It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24[/]0.8=30
But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old[er].

>
[Corrections made].
>

There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the
explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete
ignorance.

>
Not everyone, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
>

I can't explain it more clearly.

>
Then you have failed.  Whether the entire path a semicircle, or just

the

end is a semicircle, particle physicists have known for nearly a

century

that time dilation occurs on circular paths based only on the velocity
around the path.  So Dr. hachel is a few years too late.
>
If the semicircle is at the end of a straightaway, then Stella will
endure a humongous acceleration and return home a puddle of goo.  If,
OTOH, her trajectory is a giant circle of 24 Lyrs circumference, she
will, indeed, be 6 years younger than her twin, but if she wanted to
reach a destination 24 LYrs AWAY, she will only reach a distance of
7.6 Lyrs from home.
>
Usually, the problem is proposed as reaching a destination along a
linear path and then returning, not taking a grand tour.

>
Your criticisms have no point whatsoever. You say anything to save a
sinking ship.

You sound like your hero, Napolean, as depicted in "Bill and Ted's
Excellent Adventure."

In any case, if you do not want Stella to be crushed by the acceleration
of the U-turn, but the U-turn remains negligible, we can take a period
of 25 years to make this U-turn, in correct conditions and make a
journey
of 30,000 years, instead of 30 years.

 No, you cannot.  You have specified a journey of 24 lightyears, period!
You cannot wiggle your way around and change the conditions when you
have
been shown up.

It won't change much. She will not be crushed, and she will return
18,000 years old.

Of course she'll be crushed, into dust.

I find it a shame that every time I explain something that is nothing
more than a thought experiment, I am given stupid arguments (Stella is
going to be crushed, the spinning relativistic disk is going to explode,
etc.).

So you want to spin fairy tales instead of physics.

All of this sinks into ridicule with the sole aim of not thinking about
the relativistic evidence that I explain,

Pot, kettle, black.  You are intentionally forgetting the fact of what I
posted about particle experiments (see above).

and which is much more logical than what we find in the textbooks.
>
R.H.

But particle experiments are in textbooks, too.  Sure, I haven't seen
the
particle accelerator result employed in the twin paradox explanation
(but
maybe I just haven't seen it).  Perhaps that's because there are several
other explanations that are correct and follow the path prescribed in
the
problem.
BTW, ignore Wozzie's posts.  His opinions are worthless.