Re: Langevin's paradox again

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: Langevin's paradox again
De : r.hachel (at) *nospam* tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 14. Jul 2024, 03:02:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <LS4aWQk6smoI8nPu6CSU96H5gYQ@jntp>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 14/07/2024 à 01:29, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 12.07.2024 15:55, skrev Richard Hachel:

Of course Stella must accelerate at some part of the journey in
order to get back to Terrence, but when the speed is constant
the acceleration is transversal and will have no effect on her
proper time.
You are right, physically, instantaneous accelerations pose a problem, at least a priori. But this is only an a priori problem, and, in thought experiments, we could do without it.
But it does not matter.
When describing the Langevin data, so as not to offend readers, I used what I think is the best and simplest data.
We could take a trip of 2*41.2389al, but it is simpler to take a trip of 2*12al.
We could take a speed of Vo=0.9564c, but it is simpler to take a speed of Vo=0.8c.
We could call the star traveler Michel-Anthony-Pierre Debuccisky-Jacob but it is simpler to call her Stella.
We could call the other twin Claudius Demetrius Fegafovirus,
but it's easier to call him Terrence.
For the sake of poetry, and although I pay little attention to the transitory and brief phases of acceleration (which contribute nothing at all to the reasoning), I wanted to introduce a small, more physical and more understandable phase. to the human mind, only an instantaneous acceleration, however possible "in idea".
So I assumed that the journey would last 18 years for Stella, and 30 years for Terrence (Vo=0.8c and D=2*12 al in R) which everyone agrees with.
I placed a small acceleration phase at the aphelion of Stella's journey which will make a vast half-turn on a semi-circle while keeping its tangential speed of 0.8c in R, and this for 40 hours (we admit that momentary and monstrous accelerations are physically technically possible).
In Stella's repository, exactly 24 hours (one day) will pass.
This value is absolute, and the two twins agree that for this concrete phase, it is 24 hours for Stella, and 40 hours for Terrence.
I ask you to kindly grant me these bases.
Because afterwards, it gets complicated, and it seems that apart from me, no one in the world has had the trigger for the complete explanation of the Langevin traveler.
I therefore ask you to agree on the basics, because then you will have to admit true, but astonishing things, which can shock the human mind, in the same way as saying that the earth is a big blue ball to a peasant from the 11th century.
It's true, but it can be shocking when you're not there, or worse, when you're poorly prepared.
N.B. Attention, un point important. Nous parlons d'une accélération de Stella sur un vaste demi-cercle dans le référentiel de Terrence, et grosso modo, on peut considérer qu'elle accélère du même point et qu'elle revient au même point (juste séparé par le diamètre du cercle). Dans le référentiel de Stella, le trajet correspondant de Terrence pour elle ne représente pas une figure géométrique aussi simple, et Terrence ne revient pas à la même place. Il passe de 4 al au début du demi-tour (Stella s'éloigne de la terre à 0.4444c de vitesse apparente) à 36 al à la sortie du demi-tour (vapp=-4c). Cette phase n'est donc pas symétrique. Et les temps notés vont être absolus et accordés par les deux protagonistes.  24 heures pour Stella ; 40 pour Terrence. N.B.B. Il faut absolument que les physiciens aient le déclic sur la notion d'élasticité des longueurs et des distances en relativité.
"...et les effets de la physiques (même les effets apparents) sont réciproques par permutation d'observateur".  Lorsque Terrence observe la fusée de Stella s'éloigner, elle mesure 10 mètres au lieu de 30, et quand il la voit revenir, elle mesure 90 mètres au lieu de 30.
 Cela les physiciens le comprennent.
 Depuis des décennies, sans y parvenir, je les supplie de comprendre que les choses sont symétriques et réciproques en SR.  C'est à dire que lorsque Stella observe le télescope de Terrence pointé sur elle (3 mètres de long), elle voit un télescope de 1 mètre à l'aller, et de 9 mètres au retour.
 Cette symétrie est très contre intuitive, et c'est elle pourtant qui explique le paradoxe réel de Langevin dans lequel on comprend alors, si l'on se gratte un peu les neurones que Stella a parcouru seulement quatre années lumières à l'aller, et 36 au retour.
Le physicien qui ne comprend pas ça, n'a rien compris du tout à l'ensemble logique du raisonnement et à la beauté des explications. R.H.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jul 24 * Langevin's paradox again205Richard Hachel
4 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Python
4 Jul 24 i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
4 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
4 Jul 24 i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
4 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again5gharnagel
4 Jul 24 i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
4 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
4 Jul 24 i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2gharnagel
5 Jul 24 i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Emette Warszawski Wei
7 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again14Maciej Wozniak
8 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again13Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again12Python
8 Jul 24 i  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i  i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Python
8 Jul 24 i  i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Athel Cornish-Bowden
8 Jul 24 i  i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i  i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Athel Cornish-Bowden
8 Jul 24 i  i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24 i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Cornelio Somogyi Xing
11 Jul 24 i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Nesdy Pantelas
8 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again8J. J. Lodder
8 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Python
8 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Maciej Wozniak
8 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Python
8 Jul 24 i i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
8 Jul 24 i i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
8 Jul 24 i i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
8 Jul 24 i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1J. J. Lodder
9 Jul 24 +* Re: Langevin's paradox again158Thomas Heger
9 Jul 24 i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again157Richard Hachel
9 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Python
9 Jul 24 i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Python
9 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
9 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again9Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Python
10 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Python
10 Jul 24 i i    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Python
10 Jul 24 i i    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i i    i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
10 Jul 24 i i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Thomas Heger
10 Jul 24 i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again139Paul.B.Andersen
10 Jul 24 i  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24 i  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again136Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again135Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again29Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24 i    i+* Re: Langevin's paradox again22Paul.B.Andersen
12 Jul 24 i    ii+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24 i    ii`* Re: Langevin's paradox again20Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24 i    ii `* Re: Langevin's paradox again19Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24 i    ii  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24 i    ii  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again17Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24 i    ii   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again16Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24 i    ii    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again14Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again12Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again11Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again10Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24 i    ii    i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again9Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i      `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24 i    ii    i       +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24 i    ii    i       `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Stefan Ram
16 Jul 24 i    ii    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Haynh Molnár Jue
12 Jul 24 i    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again6ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
12 Jul 24 i    i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24 i    i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24 i    i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24 i    i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24 i    i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again102Stefan Ram
11 Jul 24 i     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again101Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24 i      +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
11 Jul 24 i      +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
12 Jul 24 i      +* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Mikko
12 Jul 24 i      i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Athel Cornish-Bowden
14 Jul 24 i      i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Mikko
14 Jul 24 i      i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24 i      i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24 i      i i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Finis Maryanna
14 Jul 24 i      i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24 i      i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
12 Jul 24 i      `* Re: Langevin's paradox again90Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24 `* Re: Langevin's paradox again15J. J. Lodder

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal