Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:06:38 +0200 Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net xSOggFv0jGueAP4DqPilpAnEN1Jpu54TQVW+Wiu7mlMzWBx93v Cancel-Lock: sha1:123ChACE5OlHnpNvPXwmITOAxX8= sha256:PrpxRoM2d77gY9ur2IMvS29Zo0KXDgG0uKxBPbPD4Xc= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4242 Am Dienstag000009, 09.07.2024 um 15:47 schrieb Richard Hachel: > 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. Actually I have not read Langvin's paper, but a paper about Langvin's paradox: "Langevin's twin paradox and the forwards and backwards movement of a rotating cylinder experiment" https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1 So, possibly, there is a difference between the origional and the quote. > This is where the paradox lies. I personally think, that velocity is irrelevant for 'time-dilation', while acceleration is not. So I have problems with the 'twin paradox' per se. TH ....