Re: Langevin's paradox again

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: Langevin's paradox again
De : relativity (at) *nospam* paulba.no (Paul.B.Andersen)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 11. Jul 2024, 13:41:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6ojjl$2fb4i$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Den 11.07.2024 02:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 10/07/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
 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.
Richard Hachel claims:
"each [clock] will beat faster than the other,
both on the outward and return journey"
This is obviously a nonsensical statement.
However, I have chosen to interpret the statement like this:
"Each twin will measure the other twin's clock to beat slower
  than his own clock, both on the outward and return journey".
If this (mutual time dilation) were the case, both twin's clocks
would obviously show the same at the end.
They don't.

 Let's look at the following scenario:
>
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
   away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B  coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
   go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
The point with this scenario is that both twins are inertial
for most of the journey.
I could obviously have calculated the result from the metric
like I have done with the scenario where twin B is accelerating
during the whole journey:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
(Note that the simulation
   https://paulba.no/twins.html
gives exactly the same result)

>
>
Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
Look at the run of the simulation:
https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_run.pdf
You could say:
"When both twins are inertial each twin will measure the other
  twin's  clock to beat slower than his own clock, both on
  the outward and return journey".
Which would make your statement above partly right.
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.

 This value is calculated starting from Minkowsky's four-dimensional space-time which is only one of the possible understandings of Lorentz transformations and the relationships between space and time.
Don't be ridiculous. This is according to SR, and there is only
one possible solution. It doesn't matter if you start with the metric
or the Lorentz transform, the result is the same because the latter
follows from the former.

Mine is directly calculated with the new and direct equation Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
And I find Vo=0.8944c and not Vo=0.943c. The values ​​given are always too high among relativists for instantaneous observable speeds.
 

Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.

 That's not what I find.
Tr=11.155 years
To=23,544 years.
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.

 The fact that in my opinion there are two errors comes from the fact that, as I have always said, the instantaneous observable speeds are given too high, this makes an error for To; and the natural times of the accelerated objects are given a little too low, this gives an error for Tr.
 R.H.
Physics isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of
experimental evidence.
If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.
Here are a few experiments which fails to falsify SR:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Jul 24 * Re: Langevin's paradox again161Thomas Heger
9 Jul 24 `* Re: Langevin's paradox again160Richard Hachel
9 Jul 24  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24  i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Python
9 Jul 24  i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24  i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Python
9 Jul 24  i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24  i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
9 Jul 24  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again10Maciej Wozniak
9 Jul 24  i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again9Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24  i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Python
10 Jul 24  i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24  i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Python
10 Jul 24  i    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Python
10 Jul 24  i    i+* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24  i    ii`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
10 Jul 24  i    i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24  i    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24  +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Thomas Heger
10 Jul 24  i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again141Paul.B.Andersen
10 Jul 24   +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
10 Jul 24   +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again138Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again137Paul.B.Andersen
11 Jul 24     +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24     +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24     +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24     +* Re: Langevin's paradox again29Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24     i+* Re: Langevin's paradox again22Paul.B.Andersen
12 Jul 24     ii+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24     ii`* Re: Langevin's paradox again20Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24     ii `* Re: Langevin's paradox again19Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24     ii  +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24     ii  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again17Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24     ii   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again16Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24     ii    +* Re: Langevin's paradox again14Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24     ii    i+- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Python
15 Jul 24     ii    i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again12Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24     ii    i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again11Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24     ii    i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again10Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24     ii    i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again9Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24     ii    i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24     ii    i     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24     ii    i      `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24     ii    i       +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24     ii    i       i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24     ii    i       i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24     ii    i       i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24     ii    i       `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Stefan Ram
16 Jul 24     ii    `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Haynh Molnár Jue
12 Jul 24     i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again6ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
12 Jul 24     i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24     i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24     i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24     i i`- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24     i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again104Stefan Ram
11 Jul 24      +* Re: Langevin's paradox again102Richard 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      ii`* Re: Langevin's paradox again7Athel Cornish-Bowden
14 Jul 24      ii +* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Mikko
14 Jul 24      ii i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24      ii i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      ii i  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Finis Maryanna
14 Jul 24      ii `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      ii  `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Athel Cornish-Bowden
12 Jul 24      i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again91Paul.B.Andersen
12 Jul 24      i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again83Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again82Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24      i i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again80Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again79Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24      i i i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Conard Lèmmi
14 Jul 24      i i i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again5Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again4Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24      i i i i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
14 Jul 24      i i i i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24      i i i i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Thomas Heger
14 Jul 24      i i i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again70Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again69Paul.B.Andersen
14 Jul 24      i i i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again68Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24      i i i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again67Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24      i i i     +* Re: Langevin's paradox again65Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24      i i i     i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again64Paul.B.Andersen
15 Jul 24      i i i     i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again36Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again35Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again34Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again33Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i   +* Re: Langevin's paradox again20Richard Hachel
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again19Paul.B.Andersen
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again18Richard Hachel
17 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i  `* Re: Langevin's paradox again17Paul.B.Andersen
17 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again16Richard Hachel
18 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i    `* Re: Langevin's paradox again15Paul.B.Andersen
18 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i     +* Re: Langevin's paradox again8Richard Hachel
19 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i     i`* Re: Langevin's paradox again7J. J. Lodder
19 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i     i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Richard Hachel
18 Jul 24      i i i     i i   i     `* Re: Langevin's paradox again6Jean-Michel Affoinez y Lopez-Francos
16 Jul 24      i i i     i i   `* Re: Langevin's paradox again12Python
15 Jul 24      i i i     i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again27Richard Hachel
15 Jul 24      i i i     `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
14 Jul 24      i i `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak
12 Jul 24      i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24      i +* Re: Langevin's paradox again3Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24      i +- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Richard Hachel
12 Jul 24      i `* Re: Langevin's paradox again2Richard Hachel
11 Jul 24      `- Re: Langevin's paradox again1Maciej Wozniak

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal