Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Z9xdCfY-CkJ4tGo9CajkqUmI6oE@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> <U7ad1EmJgRdHWf9kq4_f9rKU_Q0@jntp>
 <v6loii$1sfaq$1@dont-email.me>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: eKDkD61YMAHrP8LncUEhwAJ8pmw
JNTP-ThreadID: sxhQQgyUgiiv6OcO_6O_beeL7bk
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Z9xdCfY-CkJ4tGo9CajkqUmI6oE@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 24 12:25:27 +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="2024-07-10T12:25:27Z/8941671"; 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: 4267
Lines: 54

Le 10/07/2024 à 12:42, Python a écrit :
>> Hachel’s posts are very naive”.
> 
> It is not blunt, it is actually quite indulgent. On the other
> hand Paul didn't have to suffer for thirty years of idiotic
> posts from a demented M.D. from France.

Before insulting, we must be properly aware of the theses and postulates 
of those we want to refute.
Your position is to say anything, for the sake of anything, as long as 
it's fun.
For Paul, the logic is different, he is not here to have fun, he wants to 
know and teach, but the problem is that he does it very badly.
He posed a problem yesterday, proof that he is trying to progress; but the 
way he resolves it shows that if he studied Minkowski well, he did not 
study Hachel at all, and the result is catastrophic.
It poses the following problem (if I understood correctly since I only 
have part of the message):
A twin B is stationary with A (and even conjoined). Then it accelerates 
according to a=2ly/y² over a distance of 1 ly, before continuing in 
Galilean movement (it cuts the engine) then arriving at 9ly, it 
accelerates again, a=2ly/y² for 1 ly.
I don't really know what he is trying to do or demonstrate, but once 
again, I take the opportunity to point out my opposition to Albert 
Einstein when he says "relativity is very complicated calculations, but it 
There are no pitfalls." I say conversely: “Reltivity is at high school 
mathematics level once you have the right concepts, but it’s full of 
little traps”

It is obvious that because of this, Paul completely drowned in his 
answers.

We could also ask him the very profound question (if Doctor Hachel talks 
about it, and if Python wants to fight about it, it is because it is 
necessarily profound):
Is it the same thing for Paul at the level of observable time (in the 
frame of reference of A) if:
1. Subject B accelerates over one light year, spends 8 years in Galilean 
motion, then reaccelerates over one light year according to a=2ly/y²
and if
2. Subject B accelerates two light years, then spends 8 years in Galilean 
motion, regaining the speed it had after one light year of travel?

For Richard Hachel, proper times will be equal, but not improper times, 
which in this case may seem absurd if we believe that the two situations 
are identical in relativity.

N.B. Be careful, I did say in example 2 that traveler B resumes the 
Galilean speed which was his after 1 ly.
(we neglect the instantaneous deceleration or we imagine that he 
teletransports in another rocket that he passes)
It is obvious that otherwise, the Galilean phase will not be the same in 
the two examples, and that we are no longer in the question posed.

R.H.