Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v6m04n$1tlq8$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Python <python@invalid.org> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:51:35 +0200 Organization: CCCP Lines: 30 Message-ID: <v6m04n$1tlq8$2@dont-email.me> References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp> <FlDiO.56506$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> <Z9xdCfY-CkJ4tGo9CajkqUmI6oE@jntp> <v6lvvs$1tlq8$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:51:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3022f8287846089d7f60a60f76613ffb"; logging-data="2021192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bT9EU7qKns4UhZS9BgQhN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZeYoEluLQLCsC1CIWgPFlJccGrg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v6lvvs$1tlq8$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 2348 Le 10/07/2024 à 14:49, Python a écrit : > Le 10/07/2024 à 14:25, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >> ... >> 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 does it very well, and has a lot of fun too. > >> 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 > > This is a direct violation of the principle of Relativity as me (and > others) have demonstrated numerous times. Moreover what you wrote then is utterly ridiculous : >> but not improper times Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times" cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.