| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8gini$29mhp$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!217.73.144.44.MISMATCH!feeder.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!168.119.53.7.MISMATCH!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Relativistic aberration Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 20:04:54 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 73 Message-ID: <v8gini$29mhp$1@dont-email.me> References: <QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp> <lgtntqFjg34U1@mid.individual.net> <17e7331a73814274$123023$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <v8cgia$1e4s9$1@dont-email.me> <O-L1WgU1eCsz14Wrc6D7tpNPV7s@jntp> <v8fkn6$23nee$1@dont-email.me> <FS7BRIsxO-_X20VxXPebSsjPIt4@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 20:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="596178ae8276f6bf92ab1561edfe2825"; logging-data="2415161"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YeY42smdfyBcLH0KG3JYK" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JNL1rpR/2dhNeZ9tpr59rxXbuBw= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <FS7BRIsxO-_X20VxXPebSsjPIt4@jntp> Bytes: 4055 Den 01.08.2024 13:39, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 01/08/2024 à 11:32, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 31.07.2024 17:10, skrev Richard Hachel: >>> >>> In particular the Langevin paradox which has NEVER >>> been correctly explained, except by Richard Hachel and more than a >>> hundred years after Poincaré. So far I have several times seen you claim to have correctly explained the Langevin paradox, but I have never seen you do it. Should I be impressed? >> >> Since you mention the Langevin paradox: >> >> I have a version of said paradox which is a bit more down to Earth >> than your examples use to be. I suppose your theory is valid in the real >> world, so I would like you to give the correct explanation of >> the version of Langevin paradox below: >> >> The triplets Ginette, Elise and Wanda are co-located on >> the equator. They all have an atomic clock. >> >> Ginette are always stationary on the Equator. >> Elise is travelling eastwards at low altitude in an aeroplane. >> Wanda is travelling westwards at low altitude in an aeroplane. >> Both are travelling once around Earth at equator. >> >> Note that the altitude is so low that the gravitational >> blue shift can be ignored. >> >> From the time they are co-located, to they again are colocated >> after Elise's and Wanda's journey, Ginette's clock shows that >> the duration of their journey is τ_G = two sidereal days. >> >> Please find what the duration of the journey will be >> measured by Elise and Wanda, τ_E and τ_W. > > For now, it is clear that we should not talk about such complex things. > I think that we will be able to do it later when HR is accepted, but not > before. > I sincerely think that we will find exactly the experimental results but > without going through GR. > We will explain them only with SR. > GR will be abandoned, I think, as the biggest mistake of modern physics. > >> Some data: >> Circumference of Earth at equator L = 40075 km >> Sidereal day Tday = 86164.0905 s >> Ginette's speed in the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference >> (ECI frame), v = L/Tday = 465.1 m/s >> >> SR predicts: τ_E − τ_G = −259.2 ns, τ_W − τ_G = +155.5 ns >> >> But that's not the right answer, is it? Richard, you pride yourself of being the only person who has ever correctly explained the Langevin paradox, but when I ask you to explain a very simple example of said paradox, you chicken out! One stationary clock on Earth, and two aeroplanes flying at very low altitude in opposite directions around the Earth, could it be simpler? -- Paul https://paulba.no/