Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <U7ad1EmJgRdHWf9kq4_f9rKU_Q0@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> <ynhjO.5165$3qya.840@fx05.ams4>
 <17e0a8161c6ccf81$886$506977$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: OmtsYM-HCGqW5YiTOlPfK7FMkPM
JNTP-ThreadID: sxhQQgyUgiiv6OcO_6O_beeL7bk
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=U7ad1EmJgRdHWf9kq4_f9rKU_Q0@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 24 21:36:56 +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="2024-07-09T21:36:56Z/8940882"; 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: 2281
Lines: 19

Le 09/07/2024 à 23:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 09.07.2024 o 22:54, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>> Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:

>>> 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.
>> 
>> A very naive notion. :-D

 Two problems: unfortunately I do not receive the answers from Paul 
B.Andersen in France, and it is therefore difficult for me to answer them. 
On the other hand, it is still very blunt to say that “Richard 
Hachel’s posts are very naive”.


 R.H.