Re: ? ? ?

Am Donnerstag000022, 22.02.2024 um 15:26 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 22/02/2024 à 13:37, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:
>

We must describe the Langevin as I do it

>
No, we must understand, first of all, that
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX *** in the Langevin gedanken.

 To judge what a man (here me) says, you must first understand this man.
If we give a man who does not know music theory the score of Mozart's 21st, he will only see signs written on paper, and will understand nothing of the beauty of the work.
If I give you the explanations of Langevin's traveler, it is clear that you will not be able to appreciate the beauty of the concepts.
For this, you would have to study and understand what I am saying.
There is in Langevin's traveler a paradox that is irresolvable without going through Hachel. Physicists, not knowing what to do with it, divert the problem by proposing a very welcome gap time at the time of the U-turn. ...

'Langvin's traveller' contains a serious error.
https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1/file/Langevin_s_twin_paradox_and_the_forwards_and_backwards_movement_of_a_rotating_cylinder_experiment.pdf
SRT is about inertial frames of reference, but 'Langvin's traveller' cannot travel inertially.
Instead he had to accelerate at an enormous rate, than decelerate with the same rate but opposite direction, accelerate again and decelerate again.
But from e.g. Hafele-Keating we know, that acceleration has an influence on clocks.
Therefore acceleration could not be ignored.
TH
TH