Re: Langevin's paradox again

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.
This is where the paradox lies.
Certainly when Stella returns, she is 18 years old, and Terrence is 30, and for Terrence there is no problem, his watch has run faster than Stella's.
The paradox and the incomprehension appear if, on the other hand, we ask Stella the question. She also saw the INTERNAL mechanism of her watch turning faster than Terrence's, and this CONSTANTLY both on the way out and back and during the U-turn.
This is where the paradox lies.
To solve it, you need TWO strokes of genius (one is not enough).
1. Understand that we are talking about chronotropy, that is to say the internal mechanism of watches (Lorentz factor) and not times measured on watches. Breathe-breathe.
2. Admit the fantastic elasticity of the distances in the Stelle frame of reference during its U-turn. Which is, however, only a simple notion of reciprocity of the effects of physics. She sees the earth go from 4 ly to 36 ly during this half-turn. The effect is multiplied by 9. As the apparent length of the rocket for Terrence is logically multiplied by 9 when 10 meters, it now seems to return with an apparent length of 90 meters. (the rocket measures 30 meters at rest).
Do you understand these things and why those who insult me ​​are the worst morons?
R.H.