Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:33:39 +0200
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <lf40ddFdu9kU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp>
 <FlDiO.56506$GVTf.837@fx01.ams4>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Gs/pB2vAt5HG8Cv8mgO3XACGHgtveT3Wao4ADfviH+cm7jfbAv
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rpr1TkkNJEmo5GGOjnPrYa1rk98= sha256:uX/TaHHzx1qB1lljEm3N8kn7K4UJBowhqDgb+2oZ2SU=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <FlDiO.56506$GVTf.837@fx01.ams4>
Bytes: 2523

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