Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!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: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:06:38 +0200
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <lf7ps7F1bn5U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp>
 <FlDiO.56506$GVTf.837@fx01.ams4> <lf40ddFdu9kU3@mid.individual.net>
 <Qjq15Muw8aIiGRVOKV0Bu2oT9_k@jntp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net xSOggFv0jGueAP4DqPilpAnEN1Jpu54TQVW+Wiu7mlMzWBx93v
Cancel-Lock: sha1:123ChACE5OlHnpNvPXwmITOAxX8= sha256:PrpxRoM2d77gY9ur2IMvS29Zo0KXDgG0uKxBPbPD4Xc=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <Qjq15Muw8aIiGRVOKV0Bu2oT9_k@jntp>
Bytes: 4242

Am Dienstag000009, 09.07.2024 um 15:47 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> 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.
> 
> If you pick two lettuces at the same time, and 48 hours later they do 
> not have the same state of freshness, this is not abnormal, and there is 
> no paradox for anyone who knows what it happened. I put one in the 
> fridge, and the other I left in full sun on the garden table for two days.
> 
> The paradox is not there.
> 
> 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.


Actually I have not read Langvin's paper, but a paper about Langvin's 
paradox:
"Langevin's twin paradox and the forwards and backwards movement of a 
rotating cylinder experiment"

https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1

So, possibly, there is a difference between the origional and the quote.


> This is where the paradox lies.

I personally think, that velocity is irrelevant for 'time-dilation', 
while acceleration is not.

So I have problems with the 'twin paradox' per se.

TH

....