Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!glou.org!news.glou.org!pi2.pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <oifv2gv8lSmpEE3OlZ7h_aGUb_Q@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp> <FlDiO.56506$GVTf.837@fx01.ams4> <lf40ddFdu9kU3@mid.individual.net>
 <Qjq15Muw8aIiGRVOKV0Bu2oT9_k@jntp> <v6mlhe$21277$2@dont-email.me> <9oTvw4-YSIPb1dubtdBwcc_MeX8@jntp>
 <v6ojjl$2fb4i$1@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: pL45Ly_elGVcOxD02KosmC_sFlg
JNTP-ThreadID: sxhQQgyUgiiv6OcO_6O_beeL7bk
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=oifv2gv8lSmpEE3OlZ7h_aGUb_Q@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 24 12:56:25 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-07-11T12:56:25Z/8943385"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
Bytes: 2628
Lines: 38

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.

 Not mine.
> 
>> 
>> 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.

 No. Not MINE. 
 
> SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.

 And MINE? 

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

 Absolutely.

 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.

R.H.