Discussion:
Richard Hachel
2024-07-04 13:30:16 UTC
The 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.
Python
2024-07-04 15:27:39 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Same bullshit you've posted for decades. You are ill, Lengrand.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-07-04 17:04:51 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
[ … ]
Jesus Christ knew that no one would believe him, and that Minerva's owl
would not take flight until nightfall.
R.H.
Same bullshit you've posted for decades. You are ill, Lengrand.
It's getting worse, and treatment has become urgent. This "Doctor
Richard Hachel" fantasy is coming up more and more often.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-04 18:23:13 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Same bullshit you've posted for decades. You are ill, Lengrand.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Richard Hachel
2024-07-04 21:19:08 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Jean-Pierre Messager is unfortunately a dishonest person with whom we
cannot argue.
His only goal is to have fun with usenet because he is bored at home. So
he defames, insults, mocks, threatens...

You won't be able to change it.

I explained to him, here and on the French forums, the problems posed by
special relativity, and how we could solve them with a simpler, more
beautiful and truer vision of things.

He makes me look like a moron, when no one in the history of humanity has
been so clear on these things (neither Einstein, nor Poincaré, nor
Lorentz, nor Minkowski).

I solved the paradoxes of relativity in a Galilean environment and
explained the notion of anisochrony, relativity of chronotropy (Lorentz
factor), I gave the correct equations of accelerated relativistic frames
of reference, I gave the correct transformations for rotating frames of
reference.

No one had ever been so simple, so clear, precise, and in agreement with
all the experiments, and without any possible paradox.

But he doesn't care, he wants to have fun, he wants fistfights.

Science doesn't interest him.

Besides, he only understands that.

He's a stinking Python, you're right, and seeing him in this state doesn't
really amuse me, contrary to what he might think.

R.H.
gharnagel
2024-07-04 18:27:03 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
No, it's not. It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
ignored.
That part has been explained in more than one way, but some don't seem
capable of understanding.
Post by Richard Hachel
[Verbal bobbling deleted]
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,
Dr. Hachel is wrong, along with all those who conveniently forget about
the turn-around. And "reciprocity" doesn't even enter Dr. H's solution.
Post by Richard Hachel
very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both
logical and absurd.
“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr

“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it.”
-- Samuel Butler
Post by Richard Hachel
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and
perfectly
Incorrect assertion.
Post by Richard Hachel
[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
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.
Incorrect assertion.
Post by Richard Hachel
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
Not impossible.

“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
Post by Richard Hachel
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[er].
Post by Richard Hachel
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the
explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete
ignorance.
Not everyone, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Post by Richard Hachel
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.
Then you have failed. Whether the entire path a semicircle, or just the
end is a semicircle, particle physicists have known for nearly a century
that time dilation occurs on circular paths based only on the velocity
around the path. So Dr. hachel is a few years too late.

If the semicircle is at the end of a straightaway, then Stella will
endure
a humongous acceleration and return home a puddle of goo. If, OTOH, her
trajectory is a giant circle of 24 Lyrs circumference, she will, indeed,
be 6 years younger than her twin, but if she wanted to reach a
destination
24 LYrs AWAY, she will only reach a distance of 7.6 Lyrs from home.

Usually, the problem is proposed as reaching a destination along a
linear
path and then returning, not taking a grand tour.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-04 19:06:55 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
No, it's not.  It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent
anyway. Face it, poor fanatic halfbrain.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-04 20:54:02 UTC
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
No, it's not. It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
ignored.
That part has been explained in more than one way, but some don't seem
capable of understanding.
Post by Richard Hachel
[Verbal bobbling deleted]
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,
Dr. Hachel is wrong, along with all those who conveniently forget about
the turn-around. And "reciprocity" doesn't even enter Dr. H's solution.
Post by Richard Hachel
very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both
logical and absurd.
“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it.”
-- Samuel Butler
Post by Richard Hachel
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and perfectly
Incorrect assertion.
Post by Richard Hachel
[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
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.
Incorrect assertion.
Post by Richard Hachel
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
Not impossible.
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
Post by Richard Hachel
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[er].
Post by Richard Hachel
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the
explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete ignorance.
Not everyone, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Post by Richard Hachel
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.
Then you have failed. Whether the entire path a semicircle, or just the
end is a semicircle, particle physicists have known for nearly a century
that time dilation occurs on circular paths based only on the velocity
around the path. So Dr. hachel is a few years too late.
If the semicircle is at the end of a straightaway, then Stella will
endure
a humongous acceleration and return home a puddle of goo. If, OTOH, her
trajectory is a giant circle of 24 Lyrs circumference, she will, indeed,
be 6 years younger than her twin, but if she wanted to reach a
destination
24 LYrs AWAY, she will only reach a distance of 7.6 Lyrs from home.
Usually, the problem is proposed as reaching a destination along a
linear
path and then returning, not taking a grand tour.
Your criticisms have no point whatsoever. You say anything to save a
sinking ship.

In any case, if you do not want Stella to be crushed by the acceleration
of the U-turn, but the U-turn remains negligible, we can take a period of
25 years to make this U-turn, in correct conditions and make a journey of
30,000 years, instead of 30 years.

It won't change much. She will not be crushed, and she will return 18,000
years old.

I find it a shame that every time I explain something that is nothing more
than a thought experiment, I am given stupid arguments (Stella is going to
be crushed, the spinning relativistic disk is going to explode, etc.). .).

All of this sinks into ridicule with the sole aim of not thinking about
the relativistic evidence that I explain, and which is much more logical
than what we find in the textbooks.

R.H.
gharnagel
2024-07-04 21:32:58 UTC
Post by gharnagel
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
relativity.
No, it's not. It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
ignored.
That part has been explained in more than one way, but some don't seem
capable of understanding.
Post by Richard Hachel
What was the grievance?
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference
of
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
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
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
that we must use this notion of reciprocity,
Dr. Hachel is wrong, along with all those who conveniently forget
Post by gharnagel
the turn-around. And "reciprocity" doesn't even enter Dr. H's
solution.
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both
logical and absurd.
“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it.”
-- Samuel Butler
Post by Richard Hachel
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and perfectly
Incorrect assertion.
Post by Richard Hachel
[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of confusion.
They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of measured
times,
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.
Incorrect assertion.
Post by Richard Hachel
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
Not impossible.
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe
something
Post by gharnagel
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
Post by Richard Hachel
The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey
of 24
Post by gharnagel
Post by Richard Hachel
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[er].
Post by Richard Hachel
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the
explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete ignorance.
Not everyone, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Post by Richard Hachel
I can't explain it more clearly.
Then you have failed. Whether the entire path a semicircle, or just
the
Post by gharnagel
end is a semicircle, particle physicists have known for nearly a
century
Post by gharnagel
that time dilation occurs on circular paths based only on the velocity
around the path. So Dr. hachel is a few years too late.
If the semicircle is at the end of a straightaway, then Stella will
endure a humongous acceleration and return home a puddle of goo. If,
OTOH, her trajectory is a giant circle of 24 Lyrs circumference, she
will, indeed, be 6 years younger than her twin, but if she wanted to
reach a destination 24 LYrs AWAY, she will only reach a distance of
7.6 Lyrs from home.
Usually, the problem is proposed as reaching a destination along a
linear path and then returning, not taking a grand tour.
Your criticisms have no point whatsoever. You say anything to save a
sinking ship.
You sound like your hero, Napolean, as depicted in "Bill and Ted's
Post by gharnagel
In any case, if you do not want Stella to be crushed by the acceleration
of the U-turn, but the U-turn remains negligible, we can take a period
of 25 years to make this U-turn, in correct conditions and make a
journey
of 30,000 years, instead of 30 years.
No, you cannot. You have specified a journey of 24 lightyears, period!
You cannot wiggle your way around and change the conditions when you
have
been shown up.
Post by gharnagel
It won't change much. She will not be crushed, and she will return
18,000 years old.
Of course she'll be crushed, into dust.
Post by gharnagel
I find it a shame that every time I explain something that is nothing
more than a thought experiment, I am given stupid arguments (Stella is
going to be crushed, the spinning relativistic disk is going to explode,
etc.).
So you want to spin fairy tales instead of physics.
Post by gharnagel
All of this sinks into ridicule with the sole aim of not thinking about
the relativistic evidence that I explain,
Pot, kettle, black. You are intentionally forgetting the fact of what I
posted about particle experiments (see above).
Post by gharnagel
and which is much more logical than what we find in the textbooks.
R.H.
But particle experiments are in textbooks, too. Sure, I haven't seen
the
particle accelerator result employed in the twin paradox explanation
(but
maybe I just haven't seen it). Perhaps that's because there are several
other explanations that are correct and follow the path prescribed in
the
problem.

BTW, ignore Wozzie's posts. His opinions are worthless.
Emette Warszawski Wei
2024-07-04 22:14:01 UTC
Post by gharnagel
and which is much more logical than what we find in the textbooks. R.H.
But particle experiments are in textbooks, too. Sure, I haven't seen
the particle accelerator result employed in the twin paradox explanation
(but maybe I just haven't seen it). Perhaps that's because there are
several other explanations that are correct and follow the path
prescribed in the problem.
i like your thinking. In america they shit in a hole back in their garden,
calling it "𝙖_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮". What "a property" is that, paying to bidon a 20% of
it every year??

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗢𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀_𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗜𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝘁_𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗜𝘁_𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀_𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/XCdFOeE1dQhl

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗣𝗠_𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗸_𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘀
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/PSWzdvIjsHX8
Paul B. Andersen
2024-07-07 21:05:13 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.

Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Post by Richard Hachel
What was the grievance?
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.

In 1911 there were many, even a few physicists who thought so.
But today, the fact that clocks travelling along different
paths between two events may show different time, is so well
known (and experimentally verified) that only ignorant cranks
think so.
Post by Richard Hachel
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.
It is nothing to discuss.
The predictions of SR and GR for the "twin paradox"
are experimentally confirmed.
Your opinion can't change facts.

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

Doctor Richard Hachel with three Nobel Prizes isn't even a crank.
He is too nonsensical to deserve that title.

And his inconsistent and nonsensical "theory" is thoroughly falsified:

It is experimentally proved that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider never exceed c.

Richard Hachel's "theory" predicts that the speed of protons
in the Large Hadron Collider is 6927⋅c.

Inevitable conclusion:
Richard Hachel's "theory" is falsified.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-07 21:25:58 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-07 22:49:32 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France, but I can respond to him via the responses reported by Maciej.

Paul talks about synchronization, and it is this notion that we all
stumble upon. Some speak black (Paul), others speak white (Doctor Hachel),
others orange (Maciej) and, in the end, no one can agree on anything.

What do we mean by "synchronize"?

For Maciej, for example, the word synchronization is a word that does not
mean much, as for Hachel (but not for the same reasons).

So for him, this word is stupid, because it is obvious that t'=t, as he
keeps saying, and, thus, all watches always beat at the same speed, there
is no theory of relativity, and everything is very simple and very
practical: the world is Newtonian.

But it is a very archaic position, and it is impossible to defend it today
without ignoring the posts or laughing about it.

For Paul, the intellectual position is very different. According to him,
by changing the frame of reference, the watches no longer beat at the same
speed in relation to each other. Paul is obviously right when he says
"they no longer beat at the same speed", but unfortunately his definition
stops there, because he cannot go any further in understanding the
phenomenon.

Paul understands the idea of ​​reciprocal relativity of internal
chronotropies (Lorentz factor) but this is NOT enough for a completely
clear view. He never talks about spatial anisochrony. It doesn't exist for
him.

I have explained this phenomenon dozens of times, apparently with total
indifference.

It is difficult to change entrenched ideas, I know that.

Paul seems to think that each watch, placed in a frame of reference
different from another watch, beats faster than the other, or, which is
the same thing, observes that the other watch has an internal mechanism
which beats less quickly than the other.
He calls this phenomenon “breakdown of simultaneity”.

It is on this word “simultaneity” that I no longer get along with him.

For me, the notion of simultaneity is not when two watches beat at the
same rhythm, I call that isochronotropy.

Not simultaneity.

Simultaneity is when two events occur together
for a given observer.
It's not the same thing.

Thus two different observers who meet observe the universe in perfect
simultaneity. They see exactly the same universe. But their chronotropy is
different. Proof that simultaneity and chronotropy are two very different
things and that it is their confusion which has posed many problems to
physicists for more than 120 years.

It is the term "clocks are synchronous" which poses a real and very
serious problem, because by this we sometimes mean that they beat at the
same speed. Now, that's not the meaning of "synchronizing watches" to me.

Synchronizing watches can only have one meaning. Put them at the same time
at the same time and in the same place.
The watches are thus truly synchronized, and, if left together, they will
always mark the same time (great deal!)

To say that watches will be synchronous is certainly not false, but in
physics, it is utter uselessness. This is like saying that a swallow is a
swallow.

You don't have to be a physicist to know that.

But let's ask the right question. Let's separate two watches by a distance
of 30 meters, one on this bench, the other on this other bench.

Are they synchronous?

Some will say yes, others will say no.

The problem is a problem of definition: what do we mean by synchronous? If
it means that they beat at the same speed, yes, obviously they are
synchronous.

But this is not the meaning of the word synchronous, or the word
simultaneous for Doctor Hachel.
For Hachel, certainly they beat with the same chronotropy, they measure
time in the same way, otherwise it is absurd, since they are on different
benches, but in the same schoolyard. But they will undoubtedly remain
asynchronous, that is to say they will never mark the same time.
Each time we observe them, each will affirm that the other delays by a
value of t=x/c.
The error of physicists is then to say: “But no, there is no delay, it
is simply that information takes time”.
No, information does not take time. It is instantaneous and nothing can
move faster than instantaneous information.
The relationship is simply anisochronous.
It is this anisochrony which is the very basis of the entire theory of
relativity.

R.H.
Python
2024-07-08 10:58:35 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post. Stop lying Lengrand.
Post by Richard Hachel
[snip complete bullshit]
Richard Hachel
2024-07-08 13:19:21 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Meuh t'euh qu'un bouffon incapable de comprendre une simple notion de
vitesse apparente,
et tu veux nous expliquer que le docteur Hachel (le plus clair des
relativistes dans ses concepts)
ne sait pas de quoi il parle?
T'euh qu'un guiiiignol...

Doublé d'un psychopathe harceleur et ridicule.

Bouffon!

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.
Python
2024-07-08 13:21:07 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Meuh t'euh qu'un bouffon incapable de comprendre une simple notion de
vitesse apparente, et tu veux nous expliquer que le docteur Hachel (le
plus clair des relativistes dans ses concepts) ne sait pas de quoi il
parle? T'euh qu'un guiiiignol...
Doublé d'un psychopathe harceleur et ridicule.
Bouffon!
You're nervous today Richard, how come?
Richard Hachel
2024-07-08 13:37:14 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Meuh t'euh qu'un bouffon incapable de comprendre une simple notion de
vitesse apparente, et tu veux nous expliquer que le docteur Hachel (le
plus clair des relativistes dans ses concepts) ne sait pas de quoi il
parle? T'euh qu'un guiiiignol...
Doublé d'un psychopathe harceleur et ridicule.
Bouffon!
You're nervous today Richard, how come?
No, I'm having a lot of fun seeing you so aggressive and so full of shit
(I see that you follow me like a little poodle everywhere, what are you
doing on fr.soc.politics, Jean-Pierre (LOL)?
Nothing new under the sun.

R.H.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-07-08 14:00:11 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Post by Python
Stop lying Lengrand.
[snip complete bullshit]
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-08 14:17:01 UTC
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Python
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Vous postez sur le même ordi? :))

R.H.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-07-08 15:57:49 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Python
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Vous postez sur le même ordi? :))
Bien sûr que non. Je ne sais ni où habite Python ni quel ordinateur il utilise.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-08 16:07:13 UTC
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Python
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Vous postez sur le même ordi? :))
Bien sûr que non. Je ne sais ni où habite Python ni quel ordinateur il utilise.
Et moi, je suis la reine Elisabeth II ressuscitée.

R.H.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-07-10 18:51:05 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post. Stop lying Lengrand.
Post by Richard Hachel
[snip complete bullshit]
Why should my posts be censored in France? :-D
That's ridiculous. He must use a lousy Usenet provider.

Please tell Richard to use a proper Usenet provider such as
Eternal-september.

It's free, but you have to register .

https://www.eternal-september.org/
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 00:26:53 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post. Stop lying Lengrand.
Post by Richard Hachel
[snip complete bullshit]
Why should my posts be censored in France? :-D
Your posts seem available again.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
That's ridiculous.
Je sais.

Les posts de Paul B. Andersen ne sont pas censurés en France. :))

Les miens non plus d'ailleurs.
Mais ce n'a pas toujours été le cas dans les années 1990 où ma
présence sur usenet me valait des haines féroces et des ruptures
d'accès à internet (ce qui était d'ailleurs illégal et
particulièrement violent).

R.H.
Cornelio Somogyi Xing
2024-07-11 17:20:33 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Why should my posts be censored in France? :-D
Your posts seem available again.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
That's ridiculous.
Je sais. J'adore plaisanter.
Les posts de Paul B. Andersen ne sont pas censurés en France. )
absolute true, these guys dont undrestand relativity and confuse the
Einstine. Who did nothing but use the same Newton force as gravity. That's
what Guv stands for in that relativity equation Guv=Tuv, where Guv tensor,
aka the dot product between 2 vectors, lol, which gives a force, aka energy
tensor, still a force lol

the Newtone and Einstine, no difference lol.
Nesdy Pantelas
2024-07-11 17:42:13 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Why should my posts be censored in France? :-D
Your posts seem available again.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
That's ridiculous.
Je sais. J'adore plaisanter.
Les posts de Paul B. Andersen ne sont pas censurés en France. )
yes sure, in that equation they are denoted as outer product of two
vectors, but still stands for a force including the direction for space and
the direction for time lol. Read my lips, Guv=Tuv lol. Completely Newton.

the Einstine stole from Newton lol. That's why they pretend the Special
came before the General Relativity, to confuse the public. As the General
is completely Newton.
Paul B. Andersen
2024-07-08 18:30:47 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France, but I can respond to him via the responses reported by Maciej.
Paul talks about synchronization, and it is this notion that we all
stumble upon. Some speak black (Paul), others speak white (Doctor
Hachel), others orange (Maciej) and, in the end, no one can agree on
anything.
For Paul, the intellectual position is very different. According to him,
by changing the frame of reference, the watches no longer beat at the
same speed in relation to each other. Paul is obviously right when he
says "they no longer beat at the same speed", but unfortunately his
definition stops there, because he cannot go any further in
understanding the phenomenon.
Paul understands the idea of ​​reciprocal relativity of internal
chronotropies (Lorentz factor) but this is NOT enough for a completely
clear view. He never talks about spatial anisochrony. It doesn't exist
for him.
Paul seems to think that each watch, placed in a frame of reference
different from another watch, beats faster than the other, or, which is
the same thing, observes that the other watch has an internal mechanism
which beats less quickly than the other. He calls this phenomenon
“breakdown of simultaneity”.
Strange that you, Richard Hachel, can know what I say and think
when you cannot read what I write. :-D

So you can read my posts. Why don't you respond to my posts
instead of writing your misconceptions of what I have written
in responses to others?

Is it because you hope I will not correct you?
Post by Richard Hachel
Synchronizing watches can only have one meaning. Put them at the same
time at the same time and in the same place.
The watches are thus truly synchronized, and, if left together, they
will always mark the same time (great deal!)
But let's ask the right question. Let's separate two watches by a
distance of 30 meters, one on this bench, the other on this other bench.
Are they synchronous?
Synchronous is that two clocks simultaneously show the same.
Post by Richard Hachel
Some will say yes, others will say no.
Indeed. Well said!

When different observers can have different opinion of
whether or not two clocks simultaneously show the same,
it can only be because they have different opinion
of what is simultaneous.
Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is a problem of definition: what do we mean by synchronous?
If it means that they beat at the same speed, yes, obviously they are
synchronous.
Exactly!
Synchronicity is a matter of definition.

Einstein's definition:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §1. Definition of Simultaneity

When 'simultaneity' is defined, so is 'synchronicity'
Post by Richard Hachel
But this is not the meaning of the word synchronous, or the word
simultaneous for Doctor Hachel.
For Hachel, certainly they beat with the same chronotropy, they measure
time in the same way, otherwise it is absurd, since they are on
different benches, but in the same schoolyard. But they will undoubtedly
remain asynchronous, that is to say they will never mark the same time.
Each time we observe them, each will affirm that the other delays by a
value of t=x/c.
The error of physicists is then to say: “But no, there is no delay, it
is simply that information takes time”.
No, information does not take time. It is instantaneous and nothing can
move faster than instantaneous information.
The relationship is simply anisochronous.
It is this anisochrony which is the very basis of the entire theory of
relativity.
R.H.
A bit confused, Richard? :-D
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-08 19:05:07 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France, but I can respond to him via the responses reported by Maciej.
Paul talks about synchronization, and it is this notion that we all
stumble upon. Some speak black (Paul), others speak white (Doctor
Hachel), others orange (Maciej) and, in the end, no one can agree on
anything.
For Paul, the intellectual position is very different. According to
him, by changing the frame of reference, the watches no longer beat at
the same speed in relation to each other. Paul is obviously right when
he says "they no longer beat at the same speed", but unfortunately his
definition stops there, because he cannot go any further in
understanding the phenomenon.
Paul understands the idea of ​​reciprocal relativity of internal
chronotropies (Lorentz factor) but this is NOT enough for a completely
clear view. He never talks about spatial anisochrony. It doesn't exist
for him.
Paul seems to think that each watch, placed in a frame of reference
different from another watch, beats faster than the other, or, which
is the same thing, observes that the other watch has an internal
mechanism which beats less quickly than the other. He calls this
phenomenon “breakdown of simultaneity”.
Strange that you, Richard Hachel, can know what I say and think
when you cannot read what I write. :-D
So you can read my posts. Why don't you respond to my posts
instead of writing your misconceptions of what I have written
in responses to others?
Is it because you hope I will not correct you?
Post by Richard Hachel
Synchronizing watches can only have one meaning. Put them at the same
time at the same time and in the same place.
The watches are thus truly synchronized, and, if left together, they
will always mark the same time (great deal!)
But let's ask the right question. Let's separate two watches by a
distance of 30 meters, one on this bench, the other on this other bench.
Are they synchronous?
Synchronous is that two clocks simultaneously show the same.
Post by Richard Hachel
Some will say yes, others will say no.
Indeed. Well said!
When different observers can have different opinion of
whether or not two clocks simultaneously show the same,
it can only be because they have different opinion
of what is simultaneous.
Post by Richard Hachel
The problem is a problem of definition: what do we mean by
synchronous? If it means that they beat at the same speed, yes,
obviously they are synchronous.
Exactly!
Synchronicity is a matter of definition.
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §1. Definition of Simultaneity
Do you - both of you - think that if you define a
whale as a four legs, furry, meaowing animal - the
whales start to hunt mices?
The reality is pissing at your "proper" delusions,
anyone can check GPS, you may imagine and define how
proper clock should world and the reality may fuck
J. J. Lodder
2024-07-08 08:57:55 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.

Jan
Python
2024-07-08 11:11:14 UTC
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
by the French communist Paul Langevin, who was very close
with the French/Polish twice nobel prize winner Marie Curie.

Even in France, I would say especially in France, the absurd
theory that Einstein plagiarized Poincaré has been debunked
strongly.

People like M.D. Lengrand (aka Hachel) are a plague, don't
worry we can deal with that kind of people and give them
what they deserve :-)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-08 12:57:06 UTC
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between worshippers of your idiot guru nor between
his enemies anyone noticed, that the mumble of
the idiot was obviously inconsistent.

With the approach of "nature is speaking through
our mouth, we don't have to care about mere
definitions of mere humans" - all physicists are
idiots.
Python
2024-07-08 13:05:17 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-08 13:12:44 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
Oh yes, it is. I've pointed dirtectly 2 derivable
in the physics of your idiot guru predictions
denying each other. The demented screams and insult
of a senile fanatic piece of shit do not matter
you know?
Python
2024-07-08 13:14:27 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
Oh yes, it is. I've pointed dirtectly
You've pointed nothing but illustrations of your stupidity.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-08 13:56:36 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
Oh yes, it is. I've pointed dirtectly
You've pointed nothing but illustrations of your stupidity.
See, trash: I've proven the mumble of your
idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you
can do nothing about it - apart of barking,
spitting, lying and slandering.
But you will do what you can for your moronic
church and its glory.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-08 13:33:20 UTC
senile Polish crank
Pas d'insultes racistes, s'il te plait.

C'est d'autant plus croustillant que tu veux te faire passer un pour
grand humaniste,
et que tu me traites moi, de nationaliste français.

Je ne m'en prends pas à Maciej, même si je ne suis pas d'accord avec
ses idées, et il a le droit de les exprimer comme bon lui semble, qu'il
soit polonais, allemand, canadien, ou italien.

Question sénilité, je ne suis pas sûr qu'il ne sache pas comment on
peut prouver que le Langevin possède un paradoxe intrinsèque qu'on n'a
jamais résolu, et que j'ai dénoncé, expliqué.

TOI, tu es sénile, incapable de comprendre ce qu'on t'explique.

Et pourtant toi tu es français (enfin presque d'après ce que je lis de
tes interventions politique pro-européiste et ton amour pour la Das Neue
Europa).

T'es qu'un clown.

Un bouffon, un guignol...

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.
J. J. Lodder
2024-07-08 14:25:59 UTC
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
What makes you believe that the French left and the centre
are not chauvinistic?
Post by Python
Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
by the French communist Paul Langevin, who was very close
with the French/Polish twice nobel prize winner Marie Curie.
Not really, it is already explicitly in Einstein 1905.
Langevin merely invented a more dramatic hypothetical example.

And more not really, Langevin was in the first place an anti-fascist.
He didn't become a communist party member until 1944,
shortly before his death in 1946.
Post by Python
Even in France, I would say especially in France, the absurd
theory that Einstein plagiarized Poincaré has been debunked
strongly.
There never was any basis for that beyond anti-Einstein sentiment.
Idem for the Lorentz-plagiarising,

Jan
Thomas Heger
2024-07-09 05:33:39 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.

But I actually failed to understand his arguments.

It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.

But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because he
assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at constant
velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.

Both assumptions are wrong.

Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.

Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.

But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.

Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.

...
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.

The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.

TH
Richard Hachel
2024-07-09 13:47:03 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because he
assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at constant
velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will not
be the same age, it is not a paradox.

If you pick two lettuces at the same time, and 48 hours later they do not
have the same state of freshness, this is not abnormal, and there is no
paradox for anyone who knows what it happened. I put one in the fridge,
and the other I left in full sun on the garden table for two days.

The paradox is not there.

The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by
permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL mechanism
of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on the outward
and return journey, or during a long circular journey.

This is where the paradox lies.

Certainly when Stella returns, she is 18 years old, and Terrence is 30,
and for Terrence there is no problem, his watch has run faster than
Stella's.

The paradox and the incomprehension appear if, on the other hand, we ask
Stella the question. She also saw the INTERNAL mechanism of her watch
turning faster than Terrence's, and this CONSTANTLY both on the way out
and back and during the U-turn.

This is where the paradox lies.

To solve it, you need TWO strokes of genius (one is not enough).
1. Understand that we are talking about chronotropy, that is to say the
internal mechanism of watches (Lorentz factor) and not times measured on
watches. Breathe-breathe.
2. Admit the fantastic elasticity of the distances in the Stelle frame of
reference during its U-turn. Which is, however, only a simple notion of
reciprocity of the effects of physics. She sees the earth go from 4 ly to
36 ly during this half-turn. The effect is multiplied by 9. As the
apparent length of the rocket for Terrence is logically multiplied by 9
when 10 meters, it now seems to return with an apparent length of 90
meters. (the rocket measures 30 meters at rest).
Do you understand these things and why those who insult me ​​are the
worst morons?

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-09 14:54:59 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because
he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at
constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will
not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
Python
2024-07-09 15:02:15 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because
he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at
constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will
not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*

You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.

When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know? You really think that
these methods are inaccurate?
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-09 15:35:59 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the
theory of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did,
because he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made
at constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as
for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two
will not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it
, you know? You really think that
Post by Python
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not, poor stinker?
Python
2024-07-09 15:47:28 UTC
...
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
Post by Python
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.

Aging is a biological process. It matches with stationary
(respectively with the person's body) clocks and not with
moving clocks. This is a fact.

As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
Post by Python
poor stinker
Nice signature Wozniak. For instance your level of stench
is a indication of your age. You are definitely degrading
quite fast.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-09 17:05:06 UTC
Post by Python
...
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
Post by Python
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
You fabricate and lie. No surprise.
Post by Python
Aging is a biological process. It matches with stationary> (respectively with the person's body) clocks
No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.
Post by Python
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.

And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes nothing.
Python
2024-07-09 17:08:49 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
...
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
Post by Python
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
You fabricate and lie. No surprise.
Post by Python
Aging is a biological process.  It matches with stationary>
(respectively with the person's body) clocks
No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.
Post by Python
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.
And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes  nothing.
Wozniak, you stupidity is beyond all limits.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-09 17:55:56 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
...
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
Post by Python
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
You fabricate and lie. No surprise.
Post by Python
Aging is a biological process.  It matches with stationary>
(respectively with the person's body) clocks
No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.
Post by Python
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.
And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes  nothing.
Wozniak, you stupidity is beyond all limits.
See, trash: I've proven the mumble
of your divine guru to be not even
consistent...
Paul B. Andersen
2024-07-09 20:54:30 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by
permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D

Let's look at the following scenario:

- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.

The scenario can be simulated here:
https://paulba.no/twins.html

Here are screenshots of the simulation:

https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_run.pdf

Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
and both will measure the other twin's clock to run slow by
the factor 0.333.
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.

B's accelerations make all the difference.

The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) will probably not read this,
and if he does i won't understand it.

But there may be lurkers?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-09 21:17:52 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B  coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
https://paulba.no/twins.html
https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_run.pdf
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
and both will measure the other twin's clock to run slow by
Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be absolutely
sure that your fairy scenarios have nothing in common with
real clocks, real measuremens or real anything.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-09 21:36:56 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D
Two problems: unfortunately I do not receive the answers from Paul
B.Andersen in France, and it is therefore difficult for me to answer them.
On the other hand, it is still very blunt to say that “Richard
Hachel’s posts are very naive”.

R.H.
Python
2024-07-10 10:42:26 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D
Two problems: unfortunately I do not receive the answers from Paul
B.Andersen in France, and it is therefore difficult for me to answer them.
You may want to ask your NNTP provider why posts from eweka.nl are
not relayed. This has nothing to do with being in France or not.
Post by Richard Hachel
On the other hand, it is still very blunt to say that “Richard
Hachel’s posts are very naive”.
It is not blunt, it is actually quite indulgent. On the other
hand Paul didn't have to suffer for thirty years of idiotic
posts from a demented M.D. from France.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 12:25:27 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Hachel’s posts are very naive”.
It is not blunt, it is actually quite indulgent. On the other
hand Paul didn't have to suffer for thirty years of idiotic
posts from a demented M.D. from France.
Before insulting, we must be properly aware of the theses and postulates
of those we want to refute.
Your position is to say anything, for the sake of anything, as long as
it's fun.
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 posed a problem yesterday, proof that he is trying to progress; but the
way he resolves it shows that if he studied Minkowski well, he did not
study Hachel at all, and the result is catastrophic.
It poses the following problem (if I understood correctly since I only
have part of the message):
A twin B is stationary with A (and even conjoined). Then it accelerates
according to a=2ly/y² over a distance of 1 ly, before continuing in
Galilean movement (it cuts the engine) then arriving at 9ly, it
accelerates again, a=2ly/y² for 1 ly.
I don't really know what he is trying to do or demonstrate, but once
again, I take the opportunity to point out my opposition to Albert
Einstein when he says "relativity is very complicated calculations, but it
There are no pitfalls." I say conversely: “Reltivity is at high school
mathematics level once you have the right concepts, but it’s full of
little traps”

It is obvious that because of this, Paul completely drowned in his

We could also ask him the very profound question (if Doctor Hachel talks
about it, and if Python wants to fight about it, it is because it is
necessarily profound):
Is it the same thing for Paul at the level of observable time (in the
frame of reference of A) if:
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, but not improper times,
which in this case may seem absurd if we believe that the two situations
are identical in relativity.

N.B. Be careful, I did say in example 2 that traveler B resumes the
Galilean speed which was his after 1 ly.
(we neglect the instantaneous deceleration or we imagine that he
teletransports in another rocket that he passes)
It is obvious that otherwise, the Galilean phase will not be the same in
the two examples, and that we are no longer in the question posed.

R.H.
Python
2024-07-10 12:49:00 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
...
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.
Post by Richard Hachel
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.
Python
2024-07-10 12:51:35 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
...
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.
Post by Richard Hachel
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.
Post by Richard Hachel
but not improper times
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times"
cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 13:17:36 UTC
Post by Python
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times"
cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
Dans le cas que j'ai enseigné, l'un en mouvement galiléen, l'autre en
mouvement uniformément accéléré, si les parcours sont égaux, et si
les temps impropres sont égaux, alors les temps propres seront égaux".

J'ai précisé pour être exact en tout que Bella devait avoir un
mouvement accéléré départ de la terre arrêté.

Si le départ est lancé, on entre dans les problèmes d'addition de
vitesses relativistes (que ce soit les réelles ou les observables), et
cela ne marche plus, évidemment.

Sinon, bien que les physiciens relativistes ne soient pas d'accord (parce
qu'on leur a enseigné les choses autrement), c'est d'une grande logique
mathématique et physique.

Le pivot de la physique relativiste est un simple pythagorisme qui lie le
temps observable dans un référentiel au temps propre dans un autre.

To²=Tr²+Et²

Et ça marche en tout et pour tout (si c'est bien appliqué et si l'on
fait attentions aux pièges dont l'un des plus important est l'addition
des vitesses relativistes qu'il faut bien faire selon les règles).

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 13:19:19 UTC
Post by Python
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times"
cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
Dans le cas que j'ai enseigné, l'un en mouvement galiléen, l'autre en
mouvement uniformément accéléré : "si les parcours sont égaux, et si
les temps impropres sont égaux, alors les temps propres seront égaux".

J'ai précisé pour être exact en tout que Bella devait avoir un
mouvement accéléré départ de la terre arrêté.
Si le départ est lancé, on entre dans les problèmes d'additions de
vitesses relativistes (que ce soit les réelles ou les observables), et
cela ne marche plus, évidemment.

Sinon, bien que les physiciens relativistes ne soient pas d'accord (parce
qu'on leur a enseigné les choses autrement), c'est d'une grande logique
mathématique et physique.

Le pivot de la physique relativiste est un simple pythagorisme qui lie le
temps observable dans un référentiel au temps propre dans un autre.

To²=Tr²+Et²

Et ça marche en tout et pour tout (si c'est bien appliqué et si l'on
fait attentions aux pièges dont l'un des plus important est l'addition
des vitesses relativistes qu'il faut bien faire selon les règles).

R.H.
Python
2024-07-11 11:55:50 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times"
cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
Dans le cas que j'ai enseigné, l'un en mouvement galiléen, l'autre en
mouvement uniformément accéléré : "si les parcours sont égaux, et si les
temps impropres sont égaux, alors les temps propres seront égaux".
This is utterly asinine.

"parcours égaux" (i.e. same sets of spatial positions for two
different trajectories) is a property that is frame dependant.

So it is logically absurd for such a property to imply something
that is NOT frame dependent (equality of proper times). Except
of course if proper times are always equal (i.e. Galilean
Relativity).

Moreover "temps impropres égaux" is trivially true for any pairs
of events, so it is logically absurd to state it as a precondition.

You have a lot of cognitive dissonances Lengrand.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 13:33:23 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
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.
Absolutely not.

Simplement les physiciens disent les choses à l'envers.

Il faut que pour qu'une théorie soit bonne, elle ait la perfection
interne et la perfection externe.

La RR enseignée sur les bancs des facultés n'a ni l'une ni l'autre, et
on entre alors dans le problème de la dénégation humaine.

Les physiciens nient mes critiques (sans oser les regarder) sur le
Langevin en vitesses apparentes, et comment je résous le problème bien
mieux qu'eux et sans les incohérences et difficultés qu'ils ont dès que
je leur demande : "Mais qu'est ce que vous verriez si vous observiez les
choses en direct-live et avec de puissants télescopes?". Il ne savent pas
répondre, mais ne l'avouerons jamais (comme toi d'ailleurs).

Les physiciens sont incapable d'expliquer des transferts instantanés
d'informations, et donc sont en contradiction avec l'expérience.

Tout cela est pathétique.

Et quand j'explique pourquoi, on me réponds : "Oui mais toi tu as tort,
car tu ne penses pas comme nous".

C'est débile.

Comment des gens qui se targuent d'être intelligents, d'être physiciens,
peuvent-ils me faire des réponses aussi connes que celle-ci?

Idem pour mes transformations en milieux tournants, les physiciens sont
dans l'incapacité totale de me donner la moindre transformation
mathématique comme Poincaré l'a fait pour les référentiels galiléens.

Absolument incapables de faire passer (x,y,z,t) en (x',y',z',t'). Il
parlent vaguement d'incurvation abstraite en selle de cheval inversée et
autres singerie digne d'une physique relativiste de bédouins, alors que
la simplicité devrait être la splendeur du vrai.

Tout cette connerie universelle me dépasse.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=***@jntp>
Thomas Heger
2024-07-10 16:06:38 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because
he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at
constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will
not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
If you pick two lettuces at the same time, and 48 hours later they do
not have the same state of freshness, this is not abnormal, and there is
no paradox for anyone who knows what it happened. I put one in the
fridge, and the other I left in full sun on the garden table for two days.
The paradox is not there.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by
permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
Actually I have not read Langvin's paper, but a paper about Langvin's
"Langevin's twin paradox and the forwards and backwards movement of a
rotating cylinder experiment"

https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1

So, possibly, there is a difference between the origional and the quote.
Post by Richard Hachel
This is where the paradox lies.
I personally think, that velocity is irrelevant for 'time-dilation',
while acceleration is not.

So I have problems with the 'twin paradox' per se.

TH

...
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 16:25:26 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Actually I have not read Langvin's paper, but a paper about Langvin's
"Langevin's twin paradox and the forwards and backwards movement of a
rotating cylinder experiment"
https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1
So, possibly, there is a difference between the origional and the quote.
Post by Richard Hachel
This is where the paradox lies.
I personally think, that velocity is irrelevant for 'time-dilation',
while acceleration is not.
So I have problems with the 'twin paradox' per se.
TH
Everyone has problems with the Langevin paradox, since for 120 years, no
one (except Doctor Hachel) has ever succeeded in explaining it and showing
that the theory of special relativity well explained (and not by the
physics teachers who teach Minkowski space-time) is simple, coherent and
logical.
So everyone starts saying anything, explaining anything, and behaving in
any way.
We arrive at a problem which is more of a religious nature than a
scientific one, and it is simply incredible. “We don’t want this man
to rule over us.”
Scientifically, what is happening is simply incredible.

R.H.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-07-10 19:01:44 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by
permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
A very naive notion. 😂

Let's look at the following scenario:

- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.

The scenario can be simulated here:
https://paulba.no/twins.html

Here are screenshots of the simulation:

https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_run.pdf

Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
and both will measure the other twin's clock to run slow by
the factor 0.333.
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.

B's accelerations make all the difference.

The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) will probably not read this,
and if he does i won't understand it.

But there may be lurkers?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-10 19:24:37 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. 😂
Or instead let's look at some reality, where
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
improper seconds.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 20:41:31 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by
permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
A very naive notion. 😂
This is not a naive notion but a notion that is difficult to understand
when you don't have the key, and which has posed problems for many
physicists for 120 years.
At the time of the beginnings of relativity, a hundred physicists stood up
against Einstein, and an article was written "A hundred physicists against
Einstein" proof that everything was not completely clear. So no, you are
wrong Paul B.Andersen in saying that it is simple and that I am naive.
Einstein also replied "Why a hundred authors? If I was wrong, just one
would have been enough."
We can still say the same thing today, and if you make a petition, you
will find 100 authors to countersign the fact that I am wrong. But we
still won't know more about the truth of things.
No, things are not simple. It is not easy to explain that "the effects of
physics are symmetrical and reciprocal by permutation of observer".
This seems obvious, but as soon as the good doctor Hachel asks to apply
the principle, no one can follow.
This therefore means that the expansion of the chronotropies is reciprocal
by change of observer and simply as a function of relative speed. That is
to say that moment after moment, the internal mechanism of Stella's watch
will appear to beat more slowly for Terrence. On the way out, during the
U-turn, and during the return. Always, always, always, Terrence will note
that Stella's watch only goes 0.6 seconds while his watches beats 1
second. What is a paradoxical moment, if we do not understand this perfect
reciprocity, is that for its part, second after second, on the way out,
during the U-turn, and on the way back, Terrence's watch goes constantly
beating slower for Stella. The reciprocity of the dilation of chronotropy
is perfect.
So why is Stella 18 and Terrence 30?
This is true, but yet it seems absurd.
I explained it: because we confuse internal chronotropy (Lorentz factor,
gamma factor) and measurement of time marked on watches.
It is not the same thing, and this is the first explanation of the
But there is a second, the spatial zoom effect, which is only a simple
effect of elasticity of lengths and reciprocal distances.
Remember the term: reciprocal. Thus Stella's rocket seems three times
longer on the return trip, but Terrence's telescope will also appear three
times longer. The distance itself between his rocket and the earth will be
three times longer: the highlight of the show and the point of reasoning
in which intervenors like Python literally drown without understanding
anything about the beauty and evidence of the theory.
So no, it's neither simple nor naive.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-10 20:47:05 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
and both will measure the other twin's clock to run slow by
the factor 0.333.
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
B's accelerations make all the difference.
The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) will probably not read this,
and if he does i won't understand it.
Yes, your post appears, and I can read it.
I will answer it.
I think you're making a mistake in the concept, and I should easily
explain why.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 00:02:53 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
This value is calculated starting from Minkowsky's four-dimensional
space-time which is only one of the possible understandings of Lorentz
transformations and the relationships between space and time.
Mine is directly calculated with the new and direct equation
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
And I find Vo=0.8944c and not Vo=0.943c. The values ​​given are always
too high among relativists for instantaneous observable speeds.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
That's not what I find.
Tr=11.155 years
To=23,544 years.

The fact that in my opinion there are two errors comes from the fact that,
as I have always said, the instantaneous observable speeds are given too
high, this makes an error for To; and the natural times of the accelerated
objects are given a little too low, this gives an error for Tr.

R.H.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-07-11 12:41:04 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in
the universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics
are reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore,
if we take the INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will
beat faster than the other, both on the outward and return journey,
or during a long circular journey.
Richard Hachel claims:
"each [clock] will beat faster than the other,
both on the outward and return journey"

This is obviously a nonsensical statement.

However, I have chosen to interpret the statement like this:
"Each twin will measure the other twin's clock to beat slower
than his own clock, both on the outward and return journey".

If this (mutual time dilation) were the case, both twin's clocks
would obviously show the same at the end.

They don't.
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B  coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
The point with this scenario is that both twins are inertial
for most of the journey.

I could obviously have calculated the result from the metric
like I have done with the scenario where twin B is accelerating
during the whole journey:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
(Note that the simulation
https://paulba.no/twins.html
gives exactly the same result)
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
Look at the run of the simulation:
https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_run.pdf

You could say:
"When both twins are inertial each twin will measure the other
twin's clock to beat slower than his own clock, both on
the outward and return journey".

Which would make your statement above partly right.

But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
Post by Richard Hachel
This value is calculated starting from Minkowsky's four-dimensional
space-time which is only one of the possible understandings of Lorentz
transformations and the relationships between space and time.
Don't be ridiculous. This is according to SR, and there is only
one possible solution. It doesn't matter if you start with the metric
or the Lorentz transform, the result is the same because the latter
follows from the former.
Post by Richard Hachel
Mine is directly calculated with the new and direct equation
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
And I find Vo=0.8944c and not Vo=0.943c. The values ​​given are always
too high among relativists for instantaneous observable speeds.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
Post by Richard Hachel
That's not what I find.
Tr=11.155 years
To=23,544 years.
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.

SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.
Post by Richard Hachel
The fact that in my opinion there are two errors comes from the fact
that, as I have always said, the instantaneous observable speeds are
given too high, this makes an error for To; and the natural times of the
accelerated objects are given a little too low, this gives an error for Tr.
R.H.
Physics isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of
experimental evidence.

If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.

Here are a few experiments which fails to falsify SR:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 12:39:52 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"each [clock] will beat faster than the other,
both on the outward and return journey"
This is obviously a nonsensical statement.
"Each twin will measure the other twin's clock to beat slower
than his own clock, both on the outward and return journey".
If this (mutual time dilation) were the case, both twin's clocks
would obviously show the same at the end.
They don't.
If you say something stupid on purpose, we won't get out of this.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 12:42:51 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The point with this scenario is that both twins are inertial
for most of the journey.
I could obviously have calculated the result from the metric
like I have done with the scenario where twin B is accelerating
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
(Note that the simulation
https://paulba.no/twins.html
gives exactly the same result)
This gives the same false result. It is as if we asked two students to
give the result of 0.5c + 0.5c and both gave the same result Vo=c.
This does not make it a true result.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 12:49:49 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
"When both twins are inertial each twin will measure the other
twin's clock to beat slower than his own clock, both on
the outward and return journey".
Which would make your statement above partly right.
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
I think you still don't understand what I mean when I talk about internal
chronotropy,
and measuring what is actually written on the watches.
As long as you don't make the effort (because the problem is on your
side), you don't make the effort to understand me, we won't get there.
You criticize a theory that you don't understand.
YOU confuse two things, and thus show that you do not understand them.
I beg you not to confuse them again.
I beg you to understand that internal chronotropy of watches does not mean
measuring the passage of time on watches.
It is FUNDAMENTAL to understand this.
If you don't understand this, you will never be able to understand how the
theory of relativity works and you will teach a shaky or even false theory
in places.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 12:56:25 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
Not mine.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
That's not what I find.
Tr=11.155 years
To=23,544 years.
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
No. Not MINE.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.
And MINE?
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.
Absolutely.

But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE.
Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in apparent
speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand, because that
would call too much into question. It is therefore very little useful to
carry out experiments on what she says, since in any case, it is dead from
the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further,
and see if what I say (and which is infinitely coherent if we master the
concepts) is experimentally true.

R.H.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-07-12 12:03:08 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
What's the point with writing 5 responses where you don't
address anything in the post you are responding to?
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
No. Not MINE.
May I remind you:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>> Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.

| 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,

It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.

Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.

It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.
And MINE?
Is falsified by the experiments that confirm SR.

Some of the experimental evidence that fail to falsify SR:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Can a physicist with three Nobel Prizes ignore
the experimental evidence?
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.
Absolutely.
So you agree? Where is your reference?
Post by Richard Hachel
But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE.
Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in
apparent speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand,
because that would call too much into question. It is therefore very
little useful to carry out experiments on what she says, since in any
case, it is dead from the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must
therefore go further, and see if what I say (and which is infinitely
coherent if we master the concepts) is experimentally true.
You keep repeating that SR must be wrong because you,
the greatest relativistic physicist in the universe, think so.

Don't you understand how ridiculous it is to call
yourself a physicist and insist that your belief
can trump experimental evidence?

(A rhetoric question, of course you don't understand.)
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 12:11:42 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
What's the point with writing 5 responses where you don't
address anything in the post you are responding to?
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
No. Not MINE.
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>>   Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.
|>>
|>> 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,
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
A very impudent lie, as expected from
relativistic scum.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your insane church improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 13:44:41 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.
No.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
No.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!
The experimental verifications relate to points which are similar in the
two theories (or rather in the two relativistic geometries, those of
Minkowski and that of Hachel).

For example, if we ask a physicist to calculate the time taken by an
accelerated particle to travel a distance x, the physicist will
immediately use Hachel's formula and he will be right.
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
If we ask him the opposite, that is to say to calculate the distance as a
function of time, the physicists will still use Hachel's formula, which is
the reciprocal, and he will still be right.
x=(c²/a)[sqrt(1+a²To²/c²) -1]
You cannot therefore say, "the physicists contradict you", since they use
the same formulas as me, to prove a physical reality that is obvious on
paper, and obvious in the laboratories.

Now, on other things, they have to correct their equations, and they have
to prove experimentally whether it is Minkowski or me. On theoretical
paper, it is impossible that Minkowski and his physicists can be right,
what they say is not consistent and logical.

I have corrected a few equations that are not correct among theirs, and
all they have to do is verify experimentally what can only be correct both
mathematically and physically.

Example of corrections:

x=(1/2).a.Tr²

Vri=a.Tr

Tr (tau) =sqrt(2x/a)

To²=Tr²+Et²

Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)

To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vri²/c²)

Eg=mc².sqrt(1+2ax/c²)

Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+2ax/c²) -1]

p=m.sqrt(2ax)

a'=a(1+Vr²/c²)^(-3/2)

a'=a(1-Vo²/c²)^(3/2)

These equations contradict the predictions of proper times and
instantaneous observable velocities.

It is therefore the experimental verification of these two values
​​that we must seek (which is not simple experimentally).

R.H.
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
2024-07-12 15:27:58 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE.
Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in apparent
speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand, because that
would call too much into question. It is therefore very little useful to
carry out experiments on what she says, since in any case, it is dead from
the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further,
and see if what I say (and which is infinitely coherent if we master the
concepts) is experimentally true.
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX ***
In order for there to be a paradox, each twin would have to be in
disagreement about how much time passed for the OTHER twin. In
actuality,
if, during the trip, each twin were capable of transmitting their local
time information to the other twin, at the end of the trip, they would
be
in perfect agreement about how much time had passed for each twin. Their
on-board clocks would show different times when reunited, but that is
not
The writing is at least 95% my words, the figure is mine (adapted from
another), and the table is mine (adapted from A.P. French, 1968)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 15:34:34 UTC
Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE.
Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in apparent
speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand, because that
would call too much into question. It is therefore very little useful to
carry out experiments on what she says, since in any case, it is dead from
the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further,
and see if what I say (and which is infinitely coherent if we master the
concepts) is experimentally true.
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX ***
In order for there to be a paradox, each twin would have to be in
disagreement about how much time passed for the OTHER twin. In
actuality,
if, during the trip, each twin were capable of transmitting their local
time information to the other twin, at the end of the trip, they would
be
in perfect agreement about how much time had passed for each twin. Their
on-board clocks would show different times when reunited, but that is
not
Fortunately, we have GPS and everyone can check that
the moronic tales of your idiot guru have nothing
in common with the reality. No surprise - the mumble
of the idiot was not even consistent.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 17:46:52 UTC
Le 12/07/2024 à 17:27, ***@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :
What we must understand when we want to study the theory of relativity
correctly, and not simply to talk about it, to show that we are a man, and
that we have a large penis (the human guilty sin that man himself never
wants to admit and that he represses on others), is that the notion of
universal present DOES NOT EXIST.
Now, when I read you, I have the impression that you believe in it like
others believe in the Blessed Virgin or in the harem-paradise where we can
take around twenty chicks a day.
But no, that's not how it happens.
You say "at time one an event A occurs in A, there is an inctant present
in B which considers that A has just occurred at the moment; and vice
versa."
It's stupid.
And to think like that, that is to say that there exists in the universe a
plane of absolute present time, is to show that we have understood
nothing, nothing at all about the theory of relativity.
Don't laugh, friends, a man like Stephen Hawking, who was presented as a
great man, also believed in such nonsense.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 18:32:03 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
What we must understand when we want to study the theory of relativity
correctly,
Correctly, sure: as some inconsistent mumble of
an insane crazie.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 20:27:07 UTC
Le 12/07/2024 à 17:27, ***@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

When we teach the theory of relativity, we must teach it as Jewish rabbis
teach the Torah to young people, with seriousness and respect.

It is not very respectful of the public to teach such nonsense, and such
poorly explained concepts.

As for the representation on the left, I absolutely agree, and this is
what happens depending on the speed obtained.

I stand very far from the object, and I see it move from left to right (or
right to left), while the cube accelerates from 0c to 0.999c.

As I am very far away, I do not take into account any Doppler effect, and,
indeed, I observe what is drawn in the animated gif.

I can even give the equation for longitudinal contraction (in the
direction of movement).

BUT the “thing” on the right, I don’t understand it. What is this?

In all things we must have respect for beauty, precision, and relativistic
clarity. The right-wing “thing” has no kind of interest that we
don’t explain what we want to do or what we think we see.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 20:55:33 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
When we teach the theory of relativity, we must teach it as Jewish
rabbis teach the Torah to young people
And you do.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 20:39:56 UTC
Le 12/07/2024 à 17:27, ***@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
écrit :

Mais c'est complètement absurde!

Autant là encore je suis d'accord avec la vue de gauche, qui est réelle
et concrète, et qui représenterait ce que verrait un observateur
lointain observant la boule passer transversalement en mouvement
accéléré de 0 à 0.9999c, autant la vue de droite est grotesque,
abstraite et ridicule (d'ailleurs pourquoi la face antérieure de la boule
tournerait dans un sens, et la face postérieure dans l'autre?

C'est absurde a principia.

Oh my god!!!

R.H.
Stefan Ram
2024-07-11 14:09:32 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
From the perspective of the twin chilling back on Earth, the
traveling twin is getting the time dilation treatment the whole time,
so he ages way less. That part's a no-brainer. But now let's flip
the script and look at it /from the traveling twin's point of view/:

When the traveling twin bounces from Earth (I'm assuming
constant velocity for simplicity), time on Earth starts slowing
down for them. Not like, looking through a telescope slow,
but like, the time between two moments on Earth that line up
with a single second on the spaceship is actually less than a
second. Trippy, right?

Then when the traveling twin boomerangs back to Earth, time is
still dragging for them. That's the time dilation working its
magic - independent of the direction of the movement.

So the traveling twin should be thinking his Earth-bound bro is
aging slower. But somehow, it's the opposite - the Earth twin is
looking way more mature. What gives? Could it have something to do
with that quick boost in the middle to flip the script and head back?

This is the question that's been stumping everyone, but get
this - I found the answer last year in some old Einstein text.
Here's how it breaks down:

The traveler thinks of himself as stationary and unaccelerated. But
how does he keep that mindset when the engines are blasting during
the turnaround? It's like there's a uniform gravitational field
filling the whole space - the engines are just keeping the ship from
falling in it, so it stays at rest!

So if the traveler sees himself as at rest during that acceleration,
a uniform gravitational field is filling the whole space for him.

In this field, the traveler and Earth twin are at totally different
potentials (and the farther apart, the bigger the difference).
This potential gap makes time on Earth zoom by so fast, it more
than makes up for the slowdown on the outbound and return legs!

And that's why, /also from the traveler's point of view/, more time
has passed on Earth than on their ship by the end of the trip!

~~

BTW: I just read the name "Langevin" in some book:

|In 1924, Prince Louis de Broglie of France proposed in his
|doctoral dissertation that the electron, evidently a discrete
|point particle, might actually be a wave. De Broglie's thesis
|advisor, Paul Langevin, did what befuddled senior professors
|are wont to do: defer to a higher authority. He sent the
|dissertation to Einstein, who recognized its importance
|immediately. On Einstein's say-so, Langevin gave de Broglie
|his degree.

.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 14:31:05 UTC
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
From the perspective of the twin chilling back on Earth, the
traveling twin is getting the time dilation treatment the whole time,
so he ages way less. That part's a no-brainer. But now let's flip
Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we
can be absolutely sure these absurd tales
have nothing in common with real clocks,
real observers or real anything.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-11 18:29:51 UTC
Post by Stefan Ram
From the perspective of the twin chilling back on Earth, the
traveling twin is getting the time dilation treatment the whole time,
so he ages way less. That part's a no-brainer. But now let's flip
When the traveling twin bounces from Earth (I'm assuming
constant velocity for simplicity), time on Earth starts slowing
down for them. Not like, looking through a telescope slow,
but like, the time between two moments on Earth that line up
with a single second on the spaceship is actually less than a
second. Trippy, right?
Then when the traveling twin boomerangs back to Earth, time is
still dragging for them. That's the time dilation working its
magic - independent of the direction of the movement.
So the traveling twin should be thinking his Earth-bound bro is
aging slower. But somehow, it's the opposite - the Earth twin is
looking way more mature. What gives? Could it have something to do
with that quick boost in the middle to flip the script and head back?
This is the question that's been stumping everyone, but get
this - I found the answer last year in some old Einstein text.
The traveler thinks of himself as stationary and unaccelerated. But
how does he keep that mindset when the engines are blasting during
the turnaround? It's like there's a uniform gravitational field
filling the whole space - the engines are just keeping the ship from
falling in it, so it stays at rest!
So if the traveler sees himself as at rest during that acceleration,
a uniform gravitational field is filling the whole space for him.
In this field, the traveler and Earth twin are at totally different
potentials (and the farther apart, the bigger the difference).
This potential gap makes time on Earth zoom by so fast, it more
than makes up for the slowdown on the outbound and return legs!
And that's why, /also from the traveler's point of view/, more time
But no!!!

Damn, what are you all doing on sci.physics.relativity talking loads of
bullshit?

The problem is not there at all, and here is one (which seems to come from
Germany) who didn't understand anything more.

Damn it! Breathe in, breathe out!

This is not AT ALL what is happening. The U-turn, absolutely nothing
happens on TIMES, but only on spaces (and only in Stella's frame of
reference).

Breathe in, breathe out!

All this is the fault of this idiot Python, who has been completely
ruining the scientific forums for thirty years by spitting on posters as
soon as he sees one that does not seem to him to be in conformity.

And we end up with posts as stupid as this one.

I repeat, during the U-turn, nothing happens at all on the TIME side.

For Terrence to stay on earth, he observed in his ultra-powerful telescope
Stella traveling an immense semi-circle at the tangential speed of 0.8c,
and returning to earth.

We admit that the rocket can withstand these terrible accelerations,
and Terrence observes that the U-turn takes place in 40 hours.

For Stella, the clean time is shorter, only 24 hours.

The effect is absolute.

Once this is understood, we see that it all fits together very well, and
that there is no need to imagine useless unicorns.

But what happens during this U-turn for Terrence?
He ages by 40 hours, and observes that his sister ages by 24 hours between
the moment she begins the U-turn, and the moment she completes her U-turn.

FOR Stella, it's exactly the same thing, when she begins her U-turn, her
clock marks 9 years, and she sees over there (direct-live) Terrence's
clock marks three years.

When she finishes her U-turn, she has aged 24 hours, and she sees the
earth clock which still marks three years (plus 40 hours).

Nothing special happens.

And those who say that something is happening (like gap-time) are morons
who don't understand the theory.

Being an idiot who doesn't understand doesn't matter, personally I
remained an idiot for decades before I got the hang of it and was able to
write an SR of perfect logic and perfect beauty.

What's serious is remaining stupid when others give truly magnificent
explanations and we spit on them.

Doctor Richard Hachel.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-11 18:55:24 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
From the perspective of the twin chilling back on Earth, the
traveling twin is getting the time dilation treatment the whole time,
so he ages way less. That part's a no-brainer. But now let's flip
When the traveling twin bounces from Earth (I'm assuming
constant velocity for simplicity), time on Earth starts slowing
down for them. Not like, looking through a telescope slow,
but like, the time between two moments on Earth that line up
with a single second on the spaceship is actually less than a
second. Trippy, right?
Then when the traveling twin boomerangs back to Earth, time is
still dragging for them. That's the time dilation working its
magic - independent of the direction of the movement.
So the traveling twin should be thinking his Earth-bound bro is
aging slower. But somehow, it's the opposite - the Earth twin is
looking way more mature. What gives? Could it have something to do
with that quick boost in the middle to flip the script and head back?
This is the question that's been stumping everyone, but get
this - I found the answer last year in some old Einstein text.
The traveler thinks of himself as stationary and unaccelerated. But
how does he keep that mindset when the engines are blasting during
the turnaround? It's like there's a uniform gravitational field
filling the whole space - the engines are just keeping the ship from
falling in it, so it stays at rest!
So if the traveler sees himself as at rest during that acceleration,
a uniform gravitational field is filling the whole space for him.
In this field, the traveler and Earth twin are at totally different
potentials (and the farther apart, the bigger the difference).
This potential gap makes time on Earth zoom by so fast, it more
than makes up for the slowdown on the outbound and return legs!
And that's why, /also from the traveler's point of view/, more time
But no!!!
Damn, what are you all doing on sci.physics.relativity talking loads of
bullshit?
The problem is not there at all, and here is one (which seems to come
from Germany) who didn't understand anything more.
Damn it! Breathe in, breathe out!
This is not AT ALL what is happening. The U-turn, absolutely nothing
happens on TIMES, but only on spaces (and only in Stella's frame of
reference).
Breathe in, breathe out!
All this is the fault of this idiot Python, who has been completely
ruining the scientific forums for thirty years by spitting on posters as
soon as he sees one that does not seem to him to be in conformity.
And we end up with posts as stupid as this one.
I repeat, during the U-turn, nothing happens at all on the TIME side.
For Terrence to stay on earth, he observed in his ultra-powerful
telescope Stella traveling an immense semi-circle at the tangential
speed of 0.8c, and returning to earth.
We admit that the rocket can withstand these terrible accelerations,
and Terrence observes that the U-turn takes place in 40 hours.
For Stella, the clean time is shorter, only 24 hours.
The effect is absolute.
Once this is understood, we see that it all fits together very well, and
that there is no need to imagine useless unicorns.
But what happens during this U-turn for Terrence?
He ages by 40 hours, and observes that his sister ages by 24 hours
between the moment she begins the U-turn, and the moment she completes
her U-turn.
FOR Stella, it's exactly the same thing, when she begins her U-turn, her
clock marks 9 years, and she sees over there (direct-live) Terrence's
clock marks three years.
When she finishes her U-turn, she has aged 24 hours, and she sees the
earth clock which still marks three years (plus 40 hours).
Nothing special happens.
And those who say that something is happening (like gap-time) are morons
who don't understand the theory.
Being an idiot who doesn't understand doesn't matter, personally I
remained an idiot for decades before I got the hang of it and was able
to write an SR of perfect logic and perfect beauty.
And in the meantime in the real world, improper clocks
keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-07-11 19:04:47 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Stella traveling an immense semi-circle at the tangential speed of
0.8c, and returning to earth.
We admit that the rocket can withstand these terrible accelerations,
and Terrence observes that the U-turn takes place in 40 hours.
For Stella, the clean time is shorter, only 24 hours.
The effect is absolute.
Once this is understood, we see that it all fits together very well,
and that there is no need to imagine useless unicorns.
But what happens during this U-turn for Terrence?
He ages by 40 hours, and observes that his sister ages by 24 hours
between the moment she begins the U-turn, and the moment she completes
her U-turn.
FOR Stella, it's exactly the same thing, when she begins her U-turn,
her clock marks 9 years, and she sees over there (direct-live)
Terrence's clock marks three years.
When she finishes her U-turn, she has aged 24 hours, and she sees the
earth clock which still marks three years (plus 40 hours).
Nothing special happens.
And those who say that something is happening (like gap-time) are
morons who don't understand the theory.
Being an idiot who doesn't understand doesn't matter, personally I
remained an idiot for decades before I got the hang of it and was able
to write an SR of perfect logic and perfect beauty.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Mikko
2024-07-12 09:40:02 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Damn, what are you all doing on sci.physics.relativity talking loads of
bullshit?
That is the purpose sci.physics.relativity was created for.
--
Mikko
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-07-12 09:58:58 UTC
Post by Mikko
Post by Richard Hachel
Damn, what are you all doing on sci.physics.relativity talking loads of
bullshit?
That is the purpose sci.physics.relativity was created for.
Besides, where would "Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own bullshit,
if not here?
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-07-12 13:29:20 UTC
< snip whining and heavy breathing >
I repeat, during the U-turn, nothing happens at all on the TIME side.
Except that TIME is passing?
For Terrence to stay on earth, he observed in his ultra-powerful
telescope Stella traveling an immense semi-circle at the tangential
speed of 0.8c, and returning to earth.
We admit that the rocket can withstand these terrible accelerations,
and Terrence observes that the U-turn takes place in 40 hours.
For Stella, the clean time is shorter, only 24 hours.
Got it.
Stella ages 24 hours while Terrence ages 40 hours during the U-turn.
But what happens during this U-turn for Terrence?
He ages by 40 hours, and observes that his sister ages by 24 hours
between the moment she begins the U-turn, and the moment she completes
her U-turn.
Why the repetition?
FOR Stella, it's exactly the same thing, when she begins her U-turn, her
clock marks 9 years, and she sees over there (direct-live) Terrence's
clock marks three years.
When Stella's clock shows 9 hours, Terrence's must show 15 hours.
The distance must be 12 light hours, so the light that Stella sees
must have left Terrence 12 years earlier, when Terrence clock
showed 3 hours.

OK.
When she finishes her U-turn, she has aged 24 hours, and she sees the
earth clock which still marks three years (plus 40 hours).
So when she see the earth clock it _still_ shows 43 hours? :-D

Terrence's clock must show 55 hours, and since the light will use
12 years to reach Stella, she will see Terrence's clock show 43 hours.
Nothing special happens.
Right.
Terrence will age another 15 hours, and Stella will age
another 9 hours during her way back.
So when they are co-located, Stella will have aged 42 hours
while Terrence have aged 70 hours.

Stella has travelled with the speed 0.8c for 70 hours in Terrence'
rest frame and will have aged 70/γ = 42 hours

Note that for the twins to meet again, at least one of must accelerate
during the journey. And for the twins to age differently, their
acceleration history must be different.
And those who say that something is happening (like gap-time) are morons
who don't understand the theory.
Has anybody said that something is happening?

What was your point?
Being an idiot who doesn't understand doesn't matter, personally I
remained an idiot for decades before I got the hang of it and was able
to write an SR of perfect logic and perfect beauty.
So why do you claim that SR is wrong?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 13:55:36 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
< snip whining and heavy breathing >
I repeat, during the U-turn, nothing happens at all on the TIME side.
Except that TIME is passing?
Yes.

For Stella : tau(stella)=24 hours tau(Terrence)=40 hours

For Terrence : tau(Terrence)=40 hours tau(Stella)=24 hours

Ces valeurs sont insignifiantes et inutiles à calculer pour comprendre
correctement le paradoxe de Langevin, qui n'a aucun rapport avec les
phases d'accélérations, aucun.

Tout se joue lors des simples phases galiléennes. Tout.

Il faut utiliser simplement la formule
Tapp=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) à chaque fois, et pour toutes les
mesures.

La concordance est mathématique.

On n'a absolument besoin de rien d'autre.

Le reste, c'est du pur pipeau de physiciens relativistes, qui, n'y
comprenant que pouic, disent n'importe quoi (time-gap, montres qui
s'affolent, et autres joyeusetés).

Leur espace-temps ridicule à la Minkowski les a plongé 120 ans dans de
profondes ténèbres théoriques.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 14:02:15 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
We admit that the rocket can withstand these terrible accelerations,
and Terrence observes that the U-turn takes place in 40 hours.
For Stella, the clean time is shorter, only 24 hours.
Got it.
Stella ages 24 hours while Terrence ages 40 hours during the U-turn.
Absolutely.

The effect is absolute in this case.

But beware! Both protagonists, however, have an internal chronotropy of
their watch which each beats faster than the internal chronotropy of the
other watch.
This effect is reciprocal.
But we must not confuse internal chronotropy and external time measurement
(which is a result, and what is INSCRIBED on watches).
I have been asking for this difference to be understood for decades.

Vo=0.8c

T1=40 hours
T2=24 hours

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 14:17:00 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
When Stella's clock shows 9 hours, Terrence's must show 15 hours.
The distance must be 12 light hours, so the light that Stella sees
must have left Terrence 12 years earlier, when Terrence clock
showed 3 hours.
OK.
You're getting closer to the truth, but it's not there yet.
Breathe-exhale.
You do not yet fully understand the genius of well-understood SR.
When Stella reaches her aphelion, everyone agrees that her watch marks 9
years.
With her powerful telescope, she observes that the earth's clock marks 3
years.
The problem, between you and me, is that you THINK: "It takes time for the
light to arrive" and I think "What is seen is seen live, the effects are
real and reciprocal".
You start from the a priori that the speed of light (value c) is something
real, because it is physically measured. It goes without saying that the a
priori is fierce.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 14:39:27 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
When Stella's clock shows 9 hours, Terrence's must show 15 hours.
The distance must be 12 light hours, so the light that Stella  sees
must have left Terrence 12 years earlier, when Terrence clock
showed 3 hours.
OK.
You're getting closer to the truth, but it's not there yet.
Breathe-exhale.
You do not yet fully understand the genius of well-understood SR.
When Stella reaches her aphelion, everyone agrees that her watch marks 9
years.
Every relativistic idiot may agree, but,
as anyone can check at GPS - your idiocies
have nothing in common with real markings
of real clocks. Face it, poor brainwashed
fanatic.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 14:42:25 UTC
poor brainwashed fanatic.
Mówisz do mnie?

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 14:32:09 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by Richard Hachel
When she finishes her U-turn, she has aged 24 hours, and she sees the
earth clock which still marks three years (plus 40 hours).
I said : THREE YEARS AND 40 HOURS !!!!!
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So when she see the earth clock it _still_ shows 43 hours? :-D
Damn, do you not understand anything at all or are you doing it on
purpose?
Pfffff...
I repeat things of fantastic conceptual beauty and obvious physical
reality as long as one can experience the SR to the end.

When Stella reaches the end of her outward journey. She is 9 years old
on his watch. On earth, for her, only THREE years really passed. ACTUALLY
THREE YEARS.
It will rotate in a 24-hour day around its aphelion, and it returns on the
other side, still at 0.8c, and rushes towards the earth.
She aged 24 hours during the U-turn.
She then sees the earth which now marks 40 more hours.
OR three years and 40 hours.

That's why I say that not much happens during the U-turn, and that
hundreds of crazy heads contradict me because they didn't understand
anything at all.

And on Terrence's side, what happens during the U-turn?
Nothing more either or almost.
He sees Stella, aged nine, making her U-turn in 40 hours (but with
Stella's watch which will only age 24 hours). She emerges from the U-turn
aged 9 years and 24 hours, while he has
(breathe-exhale) 27 years and 40 hours.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to have three cups of coffee, because this is only
the beginning of the understanding that you will be able to achieve, if
you UNDERSTAND what I am saying.

Afterwards, there will be the coup de grace with the notion of symmetry
and reciprocity of the effects of relativistic physics on DISTANCES.

I assure you that it's heavy stuff, that it's far from what Einstein said,
and if you don't make the effort to understand things that are however
simple, we're not going to get there.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2024-07-12 14:39:26 UTC
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So why do you claim that SR is wrong?
That's not what I'm saying.
Many things physicists say are correct.
In this sense, SR is not false "in principle".
But a lot of things became wrong when we started to believe that we could
represent this by a Minkowskian block that was as stupid as it was
abstract.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-07-12 14:41:38 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So why do you claim that SR is wrong?
That's not what I'm saying.
Many things physicists say are correct.
In this sense, SR is not false "in principle".
Oh, yes, it is. The mumble of your idiot
guru was not even consistent.
J. J. Lodder
2024-07-11 11:14:42 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?

BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.

Jan
Thomas Heger
2024-07-12 06:11:26 UTC
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.

He had several other opportunities to speak French.

E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly Einstein
knew them.

He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.

Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like:

Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre

But when did he learn French?

He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at
his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!

So: where, when and why did he learn French?

My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this:

he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of
Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.

And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein and
he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the presidency
of Israel).

TH
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2024-07-12 07:32:22 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.
He had several other opportunities to speak French.
E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly
Einstein knew them.
Being able to read and understand French is not the same as beingg able
to speak "French very well". I can read and understand written
Portuguese, but I certainly can't speak it or understand it when spoken
(in Portugal; in Brazil it is less impenetrable).
Post by Thomas Heger
He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.
Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre
But when did he learn French?
He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at
his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!
So: where, when and why did he learn French?
he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of
Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.
Nonsense. He was born in Ulm, which is not and never was in Switzerland.
Post by Thomas Heger
And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein
and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the
presidency of Israel).
TH
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Thomas Heger
2024-07-13 07:30:31 UTC
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.
He had several other opportunities to speak French.
E.g. the works of PoincarÃ© were written in French and seemingly
Einstein knew them.
Being able to read and understand French is not the same as beingg able
to speak "French very well". I can read and understand written
Portuguese, but I certainly can't speak it or understand it when spoken
(in Portugal; in Brazil it is less impenetrable).
Post by Thomas Heger
He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.
Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre
But when did he learn French?
He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen
at his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!
So: where, when and why did he learn French?
he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of
Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.
Nonsense. He was born in Ulm, which is not and never was in Switzerland.
I had the impression, that is CV didn't make sense.

My alternative explanation was: he was neither Jew nor German, but a
Swiss citizen from birth.

Particularly inconvincing were these elements of his official biography:

his parents left him back in Munich, when the Einsteins went to Italy at
the age of fourteen.

But what kind of parents do this????

Einstein went to school in Munich, but didn't finish school and went to
Pavia, Italy, where the Einsteins lived then.

But Einstein lived there for a year (according to the website of the
Jesuit facility next door of the Einsteins) without going to school.

But why didn't he attend school in Pavia, if he lived there with his
family and was a teenager???

Einstein gave up German citizenship befor he left Germany.

But as a German I have difficulty to except this story, because such an
abendioning of citizenship was only possible, if the citizen gets
another citizenship. And - of course- minors cannot do anything alike
without their parents.

Einstein went from Pavia to Aarau in Swizzerland, alone actually, to
attend school there.

This is at least a little unlikely, because he could as well go to New
York or Sidney, if he didn't speak Italian, instead of to Aarau.

But why did the Swiss allow an unattended sateless teenager to go to
school in their beautiful country???

As far as I know, the Swiss were not very keen to have refugees of any
origin.

But after school he went to Zurich attended the ETH and studied physics
(as teacher).

After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there.

But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born
citizens (at least in Germany) in those days.

TH
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Thomas Heger
And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein
and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the
presidency of Israel).
TH
Thomas Heger
2024-07-13 08:27:05 UTC
Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
Post by Thomas Heger
After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there.
But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born
citizens (at least in Germany) in those days.
The word 'Amt' is the critical point here!

Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'.

But this would blur the distiction between private and state owned offices.

'Amt' means 'office', but has a certain important difference to the
English word 'office'.

The German 'Amt' necessarily means 'state owned' and is more related to
the English 'agency'.

The word 'Amt' is now the root of 'Beamter'.

Beamter can be decomposed to 'be made a member of the staff of an Amt'.

In such a position you get a certain status, which is usually very
desirable, like lifelong emploiment and generous pensions.

Such a status was usually granted only to born citizens in the German
speaking world, because you need to represent the state as Beamter and
had to swear a certain oath.

Now the Germann word 'Patentamt' (patent office') contains the phrase
'Amt', hence only 'Beamte' were allowed to work there.

And since only born citizens were allowed as 'Beamter' (state
officials), Einstein needed to be born in Swizzerland.

(today this is a little different, but in the early 20th century, the
state was still very authoritarian and had certain ideas about how to
recruit the state's employees)

Iow: his CV was a most likely faked.

And if something was wrong, all other parts are also questionable, too,
especially his name and being jewish.

The last sounds strange, but Einstein actually declined the presidency
of Israel, which was offered to him.

A good reason to do that would have been, if he wasn't a Jew.

TH

J. J. Lodder
2024-07-12 09:04:29 UTC
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Hachel
The 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.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKa
merlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.
In your fantasy world.
Post by Thomas Heger
He had several other opportunities to speak French.
E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly Einstein
knew them.
Some of them. Being able to read and understand is quite different
from being able to speak, let alone fluently.
Post by Thomas Heger
He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.
Incapable of looking up a correct spelling, as usual.
And no, the Solvay conferences were not held in French.
Speakers at the conferences spoke their own languages.
That's why they always had Lorentz presiding.
(who was fluent in all)
Post by Thomas Heger
Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre
But when did he learn French?
He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at
his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!
So: where, when and why did he learn French?
he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of
Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.
Your fantasy world again.
Post by Thomas Heger
And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein and
he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the presidency
of Israel).
Even more fantasy.
Have you considered that he may have been an extraterrestrial?

Jan