Re: Langevin's paradox again

Le 16/07/2024 à 21:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 16.07.2024 20:56, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 16/07/2024 à 20:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

>
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard 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)
. .
Hence Tr=24/9 years for her too (or 8/3).
. .
 

 

So your theory predicts that Stella and Terrence ages equally.
>
According to SR Stella's proper time is τₛ ≈ 2.19722 years.
>
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
>
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally verified to be as predicted by SR.
>
Your theory is falsified.

 This is what I keep repeating to relativistic physicists, who can read what I write on usenet (but I don't think they are interested).

 Right.
I am not interested.
You have answered my question and showed that the predictions
of your "theory" are different from the predictions of SR.
 I am not interested in your obviously inconsistent
theory which give predictions which are not in accordance
with reality.

You are right.
A theory that does not agree with experimentation cannot be correct.
And a theory that doesn't even agree with the theoretical principles it states, much less.
The SR teaches a contraction of distances (while Poincaré teaches an expansion of distances if we understand it well), and does not know how to explain the Langevin paradox in apparent speeds.
It therefore has no chance of being true in its entirety. It is only partially true, and essentially for the Galilean movements. Everything else quickly becomes false.
Experience will only be able to show this when we can test things more complex than those we test today (time dilation, aberration in the position of the stars, etc.)
R.H.