Re: Langevin's paradox again

Den 11.07.2024 14:56, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 11/07/2024 à 14:36, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 11.07.2024 02:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

 

Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.

>
Which is the only result SR can give.

What's the point with writing 5 responses where you don't
address anything in the post you are responding to?

Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.

No. Not MINE.

May I remind you:
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>>   Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.
| 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,
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!

SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.

 And MINE?

Is falsified by the experiments that confirm SR.
Some of the experimental evidence that fail to falsify SR:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
Can a physicist with three Nobel Prizes ignore
the experimental evidence?

If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.
>

 Absolutely.

So you agree? Where is your reference?

 But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE. Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in apparent speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand, because that would call too much into question. It is therefore very little useful to carry out experiments on what she says, since in any case, it is dead from the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further, and see if what I say (and which is infinitely coherent if we master the concepts) is experimentally true.

You keep repeating that SR must be wrong because you,
the greatest relativistic physicist in the universe, think so.
Don't you understand how ridiculous it is to call
yourself a physicist and insist that your belief
can trump experimental evidence?
(A rhetoric question, of course you don't understand.)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/