Richard Hachel

2024-07-04 13:30:16 UTC

Reply

PermalinkThe Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of

relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert

Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both

substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw

dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their

grievances were audible.

What was the grievance?

If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference of the

twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth, if we

apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel says that we

must use this notion of reciprocity, very basis of logic, comes back older

than the other. Which is both logical and absurd.

No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and perfectly

(except Hachel), and if we look closely at the forums, articles, websites,

books, publications, for 120 years, not everyone has There's nothing wrong

with it, and everyone says anything to try to get back on their feet.

Only Doctor Hachel (what a man!) gave the perfect explanation, as on other

points of the SR, because he uses appropriate and consistent relativistic

geometry, and he KNOWS how to explain things clearly.

The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of confusion.

They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of measured times, and

the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.

It's not the same thing.

Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.

The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey of 24

light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.

It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24*0.8=30

But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old.

There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the

explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete ignorance.

Because we are confusing it with the notion of chronotropy, which is

ANOTHER THING, and which can be defined by the internal functioning of

watches. On this, yes, the effect is symmetrical, reciprocal; each watch,

and throughout the entire journey, (including if I place a small half-turn

phase on a semi-circle with a preserved tangential speed of 0.8c), beats

faster than the other watch, and the equation is constant and reciprocal

over the entire path: T2=T1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

This is true.

But this only qualifies chronotropy, that is to say the internal mechanism

of watches, it is not the whole of the relativistic effect.

This is not what we will ultimately measure.

I can't explain it more clearly.

Now, if you are curious, and truly in love with science, you try to

understand what I am saying, without spitting, without mocking, and you

refer to the little diagrams posted years ago already, which explain the

things as we have never done before, notably with the logical notion of

the elasticity of relativistic distances.

All of perfect theoretical and experimental beauty.

“I have told you all these things, so that when the time comes, you will

remember that I said them.”

Jesus Christ knew that no one would believe him, and that Minerva's owl

would not take flight until nightfall.

R.H.