Re: Langevin's paradox again

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: Langevin's paradox again
De : r.hachel (at) *nospam* wanadou.fr (Richard Hachel)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 16. Jul 2024, 14:25:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <esHcGgnWa-kSH-yFGrczTDSFLzc@jntp>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 16/07/2024 à 13:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
 means that the direction of the acceleration (a vector) is
always toward Terrence, but since Stella at the first passing is
moving away from  Terrence at the speed 0.8c, her speed will
first be reduced (she's braking) and eventually reach zero,
and thereafter she will move towards Terrence at increasing speed.
It should not be hard to guess what the speed is when she passes Terrence the second time.
  Paul
I speak English very poorly, and sometimes I may misunderstand a question.
Thank you for the linguistic clarifications you have just provided.
As for the question, I've already answered it indirectly, but I'll do it more specifically.
We are therefore in the presence of a Stella which crosses the earth at a constant uniform speed of Vo=0.8c.
According to the criteria of Richard Verret and Richard Hachel, we therefore have Vr=(4/3)c.
At this precise moment, Stella transforms into a Bella, and sets up an acceleration system of approximately 10m/s², which we will assume to be precisely a=1 ly/y² acceleration towards the earth, which she wants to cross a second time.
In the Galilean reference frame of Stella (which has not yet transformed into Bella), we will have a distance for the earth which will gradually increase according to x=To.Vo. We will also have, for Stella 1 observing Stella 2 (now Bella), x=(c²/a).sqrt(1+a²To²/c).
When Bella (new Stella) crosses the earth, we will necessarily have x=x.
Let To.Vo=(c²/a).sqrt(1+a²To²/c).
This equation has two roots:
The first is To=0 and x=0.
This is the first crossing.
The second root gives: To=(40/9)ans.
Let x=32/9 al
This is the second observed crossing of the old Stella repository.
But this does not tell us the proper time of Bella (new Stella),
nor Terrence.
Note that so far, physicists agree with Doctor Hachel.
They will still be if we ask Terrence's own time between the two crossings.
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=24/9 years (or 8/3)
Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculate Stella's own time (now Bella).
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame of reference allows us to say:
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then the proper times will be equal”
Hence Tr=24/9 years for her too (or 8/3).
What physicists deny, but which I nevertheless confirm.
Note that if we have x and a, i.e. x=32/9 and a=1 we immediately have Tr for the Stella accelerated according to Tr=sqrt(2x/a) a very Newtonian formula, but which nevertheless applies here. Let Tr=sqrt[2*(32/9)/1]=24/9 years.
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