Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<oifv2gv8lSmpEE3OlZ7h_aGUb_Q@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!glou.org!news.glou.org!pi2.pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <oifv2gv8lSmpEE3OlZ7h_aGUb_Q@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> <v6mlhe$21277$2@dont-email.me> <9oTvw4-YSIPb1dubtdBwcc_MeX8@jntp> <v6ojjl$2fb4i$1@dont-email.me> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity JNTP-HashClient: pL45Ly_elGVcOxD02KosmC_sFlg JNTP-ThreadID: sxhQQgyUgiiv6OcO_6O_beeL7bk JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=oifv2gv8lSmpEE3OlZ7h_aGUb_Q@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Thu, 11 Jul 24 12:56:25 +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="2024-07-11T12:56:25Z/8943385"; 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: 2628 Lines: 38 Le 11/07/2024 à 14:36, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 11.07.2024 02:02, skrev Richard Hachel: >>> Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y. > > Which is the only result SR can give. Not mine. > >> >> That's not what I find. >> Tr=11.155 years >> To=23,544 years. > > Quite. > We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results. No. Not MINE. > SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified. And MINE? > If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference > to an experiment which falsify SR. > Absolutely. But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE. Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in apparent speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand, because that would call too much into question. It is therefore very little useful to carry out experiments on what she says, since in any case, it is dead from the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further, and see if what I say (and which is infinitely coherent if we master the concepts) is experimentally true. R.H.