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.