Re: Langevin's paradox again

Den 16.07.2024 22:43, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 16/07/2024 à 22:25, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

I will however write this:
>
A proton is guided by RF-cavities and bending magnets around
the circuit in the LHC.
If the speed of the proton wasn't exactly right (slightly less than c)
the RF-cavities wouldn't work because each cavity has to be in the right phase when the proton passes it, and the bending magnets wouldn't guide the proton around the bends because the deflection of the proton
is strongly dependent on its speed.
>
I do indeed understand what you are saying.
>
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC know
that a proton has went around the circuit once, it has really
went around the circuit 6933 times.
>
This is an incredible stupid claim, and it is hard to believe
that a sane person can believe so.
>
Your "theory" isn't even wrong, it is only incoherent nonsense.
>
Enough now!

I said that the proton was actually rotating in the system 6933 times faster than measured by the clocks placed in the laboratory reference frame. This is a simple dilation of durations in the laboratory reference frame.
I never said that when it spins once, it spins 6933 times.

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
|>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
|>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
|>
|> CERN physicists are doing their job.
|> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
|> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
|> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
This is an incredible stupid claim, and it is hard to believe
that a sane person can believe so.
Your "theory" isn't even wrong, it is only incoherent nonsense.
C'est une affirmation incroyablement stupide, et c'est difficile
à croire qu'une personne sensée peut le croire.
Votre « théorie » n’est même pas fausse, ce n’est qu’un non-sens incohérent. Et il ne l’est probablement pas.
To niewiarygodnie głupie twierdzenie, w które trudno uwierzyć
że rozsądny człowiek może w to wierzyć.
Twoja „teoria” nie jest nawet błędna, jest to jedynie niespójny nonsens.
Esta es una afirmación increíblemente estúpida y es difícil de creer.
que una persona cuerda pueda creerlo.
Su "teoría" ni siquiera está equivocada, es sólo una tontería incoherente.
これは信じられないほど愚かな主張であり、信じがたい
正気の人ならそう信じられるだろう。
そして彼はおそらくそうではない。
あなたの「理論」は間違っているわけでもなく、支離滅裂なナンセンスにすぎません。
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/