Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Langevin's paradox again
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:09:54 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <v7edc8$3453q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp> <v75m18$1828i$2@dont-email.me>
 <esHcGgnWa-kSH-yFGrczTDSFLzc@jntp> <v76e49$1cn1q$1@dont-email.me>
 <xLBGlqr9FmVi45Mlcw6nJbdFqqM@jntp> <v76hh2$1d5jc$2@dont-email.me>
 <MINhbylBZhXuFEEVBuuOVNQAhME@jntp> <v78vh4$1u5pb$2@dont-email.me>
 <KgsNxvPyqt-0B8k9AVRrfDcva1k@jntp> <v7bqlv$2ie0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <c-PkYK_utOa8WeI_M5VOpKpj9Bk@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:04:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="34f3e4e4b1a92e40bb97f316ef213a06";
	logging-data="3282042"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KLnZCDt/d4fgOvjZP9nzY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0zjtn9FZEyaoyU+PXt+nNvA+HZo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <c-PkYK_utOa8WeI_M5VOpKpj9Bk@jntp>
Bytes: 6620

Den 18.07.2024 22:35, skrev Jean-Michel Affoinez y Lopez-Francos:
> Le 18/07/2024 à 21:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> 
>> Your theory predicts that the real speed of the protons
>> in the LHC is 6947c.
> 
> Yes, absolutly.
> 
> Vr=6947c
> 
> The relativistic world uses fantastic speeds.

Let's stay in the real world.

> 
>>
>> The real speed of the protons in the LHC is measured
>> to be 0.9999998c.
> 
> No

The time to go around the loop is measured to be ≈ 90 μs
You claim the proton will go around the loop in ≈ 13 ns

Please explain again why a clock on the circuit can't
measure the time between each time the proton passes it,
but only can measure the time between each time the 6933th
proton passes it.

It is something about time dilation, isn't it ?
And something about that the single clock really is two
clocks fused into one, right?

> 
> Please stop.

Nope. This is fun!

> 
> Observable speed in the laboratory Vo=0.99999998c

And "observable" is different from observed as in measured?

> 
> Real Speed : Vr=6947c
> You confuse the notions.

Quite.
It is a bit confusing that it is impossible to measure the real speed.

>>  You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
>>  know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
>>  gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
> 
> But no !!!

  | Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
  |> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
  |>>
  |>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
  |>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
  |>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
  |>
  |> CERN physicists are doing their job.
  |> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
  |> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
  |> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,

You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.

You were right when you said:
"No one in their right mind has ever said that."

You were obviously not in your right mind when you claim that
the physicists who are operating the LHC don't know how many times
the protons are going around the ring per second.

> LOL !!!

Indeed!

>> Please keep insisting that if the speed of the protons is 6947c
>> and thus will move once around the ring in ≈ 13 ns, 
>> then a clock
>> at a point in the ring will measure that the proton passes it
>> every ≈ 90 μs.

Thanks for complying.

>> (I have a morbid sense of humour and love to rub it in.)

> 
> It's not humor, I just can't understand why you contradict everything I 
> write on usenet.

The reason is that everything you write on internet is so
incredible stupid, that I, with my morbid sense of humour,
find it very entertaining to ridicule you.

> It would appear that you are doing this with honesty, not simply to 
> falsify the science, and with confidence in your right because you have 
> memorized what others have said.
> I now invite you to go further, to think for yourself, and to verify 
> that things are really sometimes wrong in the interpretations that men 
> have made of the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations (which are correct, 
> but interpreted anyhow and with an abstract, false, contradictory and 
> absurd Minkowskian metric).

To be serious:

The Special Theory of Relativity is very well defined,
and there are not several interpretations of it. You demonstrate
your ignorance of mathematics when you think that the SR metric is
"false" while the Lorentz transform is "correct".
They express exactly the same, you can find the Lorentz transform
from the metric and vice versa.
https://www.umsl.edu/~fraundorfp/anyspeed/metric2lorentz.html

The Special Theory of Relativity [SR,SRT] is thoroughly tested
and never falsified, and it is general consensus among physicist
(has been for more than a century) that SR is the valid theory
for its domain of applicability, and all modern theories of physics
are based on SR. (QED, QCD, Standard Model).

I would be extremely stupid if I thought that I could "think for
myself" and come up with a better (and different) theory than SR.
So I have "memorised what others have said", as you put it.
You should try it, it's called studying and learning.
It takes a bit thinking for oneself, though.
The result is that I know SR quite well.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of SR, and your
"thinking for yourself" has only resulted in utter nonsense.

> I want to lead you to understand it or at least suspect it.
> Then, it will be extraordinarily easy to show you that my metric poses 
> no problem of mathematical logic, physical evidence, or artistic beauty.

It would be interesting to see your "metric" and the beautiful 
mathematics that predicts that protons can move at 6947c.

------------------

Jean-Michel Affoinez y Lopez-Francos, thanks for disclosing your
real name.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/