Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:54:59 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: Content-Language: pl From: Maciej Wozniak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 67 Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:54:58 +0000 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17e093318d04c44e$453$506977$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> X-Received-Bytes: 3300 Bytes: 3427 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.