Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:35:59 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <17e093318d04c44e$453$506977$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 86 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.endofthelinebbs.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 15:35:58 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3604 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17e0956e40b4ac96$539$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4037 W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze: > Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 09.07.2024 o 15:47, Richard Hachel pisze: >>> 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. >> >> >> It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently - >> the idiot didn't understand what yhe >> human age is, how it is determined and >> that clocks have nothing in common with >> that. >> Of course, an age of a human is determined >> by subtracting his birthdate from the >> current date. It always was. > > *facepalm* > > You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak. > > When a person's age is unknown there are biological > ways to estimate it , you know? You really think that > these methods are inaccurate? You really think they are not, poor stinker? > > >