Re: Langevin's paradox again

Am Dienstag000009, 09.07.2024 um 15:47 schrieb Richard Hachel:

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.
 If you pick two lettuces at the same time, and 48 hours later they do not have the same state of freshness, this is not abnormal, and there is no paradox for anyone who knows what it happened. I put one in the fridge, and the other I left in full sun on the garden table for two days.
 The paradox is not there.
 The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.

Actually I have not read Langvin's paper, but a paper about Langvin's paradox:
"Langevin's twin paradox and the forwards and backwards movement of a rotating cylinder experiment"
https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1
So, possibly, there is a difference between the origional and the quote.

This is where the paradox lies.

I personally think, that velocity is irrelevant for 'time-dilation', while acceleration is not.
So I have problems with the 'twin paradox' per se.
TH
...