Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #654629 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-04 13:30 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-07-12 11:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-04 13:30 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-04 17:27 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-04 19:04 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-04 20:23 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-04 21:19 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-04 18:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-04 21:06 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-04 20:54 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-04 21:32 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Emette Warszawski Wei <wetz@sssrmwzt.pl> - 2024-07-04 22:14 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-07 23:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-07 23:25 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 13:19 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 15:21 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 13:37 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 14:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 16:07 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-08 17:57 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 12:58 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-08 16:00 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-10 20:51 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 00:26 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Cornelio Somogyi Xing <innli@lcrr.hu> - 2024-07-11 17:20 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Nesdy Pantelas <ssts@ynsap.gr> - 2024-07-11 17:42 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-08 20:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 21:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 15:12 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 15:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 15:56 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-08 10:57 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 15:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-08 13:33 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 14:57 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-08 16:25 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-08 13:11 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-09 07:33 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-09 13:47 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 16:54 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-09 17:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 17:35 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-09 17:47 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 19:05 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-09 19:08 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 19:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-09 22:54 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-09 23:17 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-09 21:36 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-10 12:42 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 12:25 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-10 14:49 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-10 14:51 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 13:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 13:19 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-11 13:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 13:33 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-10 18:06 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 16:25 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-10 21:01 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-10 21:24 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 20:41 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 00:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-11 14:41 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:42 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:49 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 12:56 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-12 14:03 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 14:11 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 13:44 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 20:36 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 20:46 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 21:11 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 13:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 12:23 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-15 14:26 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-15 14:58 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 15:16 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 13:23 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 22:18 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 20:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 13:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 22:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 20:43 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 19:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 17:34 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 19:59 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-15 15:28 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Haynh Molnár Jue <hlrrhm@omrh.hu> - 2024-07-16 17:00 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-07-12 15:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 17:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 17:46 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 20:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 20:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 22:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 20:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-11 16:31 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-11 18:29 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-11 20:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-11 21:04 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-12 12:40 +0300
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 11:58 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-14 13:32 +0300
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 15:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 15:05 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Finis Maryanna <mmin@isasmia.net> - 2024-07-14 18:43 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 13:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-14 18:31 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-12 15:29 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 13:55 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 01:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-14 02:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 19:12 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Conard Lèmmi <manc@mrm.it> - 2024-07-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 17:29 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 17:40 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 21:33 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 22:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 21:16 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-15 08:38 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 18:31 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-14 22:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-14 21:49 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 15:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 13:10 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 19:38 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 13:42 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 13:25 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 20:33 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 18:56 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 21:31 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 19:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 19:42 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 18:26 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Jean-Michel Affoinez y Lopez-Francos <jmaylf@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-18 20:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-19 21:09 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-19 19:34 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-20 22:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-22 10:47 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Tyrone Mokrousov <ysonon@yvosvoo.ru> - 2024-07-19 19:36 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-18 21:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-19 22:27 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-19 20:51 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-19 23:21 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-19 21:45 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-20 10:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-20 22:19 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-20 22:21 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-16 23:07 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-16 23:34 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 22:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 01:38 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 22:44 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 01:41 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 00:11 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 02:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 00:35 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 03:04 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 03:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-17 07:16 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 19:57 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 14:06 +0200
Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 13:38 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-16 17:27 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 21:05 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-16 21:43 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-17 09:14 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-17 14:34 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 14:52 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 13:14 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-17 15:10 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 13:13 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 15:17 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-17 13:28 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-17 15:30 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-17 15:36 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-18 08:40 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-18 19:54 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-07-18 22:41 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-20 13:02 +0300
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-21 08:26 +0200
Re: Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-18 21:25 +0000
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-19 12:16 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-19 12:21 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-20 08:15 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-20 16:03 +0200
Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-21 08:55 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-07-15 18:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-14 06:37 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:02 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:17 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 16:39 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:42 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:32 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-12 14:39 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-12 16:41 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-11 13:14 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-12 08:11 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 09:32 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-13 09:30 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-13 10:27 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-07-13 09:36 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-14 10:22 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 09:51 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-15 11:50 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 12:20 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-16 09:10 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-16 17:02 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-16 09:22 +0200
Re: Langevin's paradox again Codey Pasternak Miao <yno@epaotte.pl> - 2024-07-13 13:01 +0000
Re: Langevin's paradox again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-12 11:04 +0200
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 20:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e13d798bdb4847$35856$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #654826 |
W dniu 11.07.2024 o 20:29, Richard Hachel pisze: > Le 11/07/2024 à 16:09, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : >> >> 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 > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-11 21:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfaomhFf8kvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654826 |
On 2024-07-11 18:29:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 12:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v6qtli$2vfam$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #654826 |
On 2024-07-11 18:29:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 11:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfcd35Fmp07U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654845 |
On 2024-07-12 09:40:02 +0000, Mikko said: > On 2024-07-11 18:29:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > >> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 13:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v709f5$3r8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #654847 |
On 2024-07-12 09:58:58 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said: > On 2024-07-12 09:40:02 +0000, Mikko said: > >> On 2024-07-11 18:29:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >> >>> 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? Better not to answer or he will do it anyway. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 15:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e217b2476a78ec$73773$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #654895 |
W dniu 14.07.2024 o 12:32, Mikko pisze: > On 2024-07-12 09:58:58 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said: > >> On 2024-07-12 09:40:02 +0000, Mikko said: >> >>> On 2024-07-11 18:29:51 +0000, Richard Hachel said: >>> >>>> 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? Or where would Corrie Bowie and his fellow idiots bark and spit at the enemies of their moronic church?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FWacGmR2U669LzGlqSfw5gqfVBI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654898 |
Le 14/07/2024 à 15:34, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 14.07.2024 o 12:32, Mikko pisze: >>> "Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own >>> bullshit La notion de "publications de merde" est un invariant relativiste par réciprocité. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Finis Maryanna <mmin@isasmia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v7168a$2160f$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #654901 |
Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 14/07/2024 à 15:34, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>> "Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own bullshit > > La notion de "publications de merde" est un invariant relativiste par > réciprocité. this guy here, struggling to sell his book, but extremely coherent. He's a capitalist that I like. 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗧_𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘_𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗦_𝗕𝗟𝗔𝗠𝗘_𝗔𝗙𝗧𝗘𝗥_𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗧𝗘𝗥_𝗡𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗬_ 𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦_𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗣_𝗢𝗡_𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘_𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡.... https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/HhLpUNRfakYi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Hj6AGhrWLiSCLDh1QsTIMgu7tYI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654847 |
Le 12/07/2024 à 11:58, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > "Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own bullshit, This is a very harsh word. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 18:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lficr8Fjr5sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #654896 |
On 2024-07-14 13:02:39 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 12/07/2024 à 11:58, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > >> "Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own bullshit, > > This is a very harsh word. It was *your* word to refer to posts you didn't like. Have you forgotten already? -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 15:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v6raq4$31qsh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #654826 |
Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel: > > < 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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CDCWsXoiHhSeIJy4YS7qQQhcHf8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654854 |
Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel: >> >> < 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 01:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v6v2l5$3pri7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #654856 |
Den 12.07.2024 15:55, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel: >>> >>> < 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 Why do you write French? But we have Google translator. > These values are insignificant and useless to calculate to understand > correctly the Langevin paradox, which has no connection with the > acceleration phases, none. Langevin's example was a constant speed out, instant turnaround, and constant speed back. Instant turnaround means infinite acceleration, which is impossible, and will be a mathematical singularity. ---- Your scenario is trivially simple. Measured in Terrence's inertial rest frame Stella is moving at the constant speed v = 0.8c, γ = 1/0.6. Since Terrence's proper time for the whole journey is τₜ = 70 hours, Stella's proper time must be τₛ = τₜ/γ = 42 hours. If the rate of Terrence's clock is constant fₜ, the rate of Stella's clock is constant fₛ = fₜ/γ (Stella's clock runs slow). As long as Stella's speed is constant, the shape of Stella's path is irrelevant, it can be circular, elliptic, partly straight and partly curved, or whatever shape you might like. (But no sharp corners, he path must be an analytic function.) Of course Stella must accelerate at some part of the journey in order to get back to Terrence, but when the speed is constant the acceleration is transversal and will have no effect on her proper time. > > Everything is played out during the simple Galilean phases. All. Galilean phase? If there were a "Galilean phase" Terrence's and Stella's clocks would always show the same. > > You must simply use the formula > Tapp=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) each time, > and for all measurements. This is the relativistic Doppler shift equation. We can use Doppler shift to calculate how much Terrence and Stella will age. See: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf > The concordance is mathematical. > We absolutely don't need anything else. It is true that we don't need anything but Doppler shift to calculate how much Terrence and Stella will age. But when Stella is accelerating, the method will be rather cumbersome. So it is better to do it like this: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > The rest is pure nonsense from relativistic physicists, who, > understanding that pouic, say anything (time-gap, watches that > panic, and other joys). > Their ridiculous space-time à la Minkowski plunged them 120 years > into deep theoretical darkness. > R.H. Whining again, Richard? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LS4aWQk6smoI8nPu6CSU96H5gYQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654887 |
Le 14/07/2024 à 01:29, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 12.07.2024 15:55, skrev Richard Hachel: > Of course Stella must accelerate at some part of the journey in > order to get back to Terrence, but when the speed is constant > the acceleration is transversal and will have no effect on her > proper time. You are right, physically, instantaneous accelerations pose a problem, at least a priori. But this is only an a priori problem, and, in thought experiments, we could do without it. But it does not matter. When describing the Langevin data, so as not to offend readers, I used what I think is the best and simplest data. We could take a trip of 2*41.2389al, but it is simpler to take a trip of 2*12al. We could take a speed of Vo=0.9564c, but it is simpler to take a speed of Vo=0.8c. We could call the star traveler Michel-Anthony-Pierre Debuccisky-Jacob but it is simpler to call her Stella. We could call the other twin Claudius Demetrius Fegafovirus, but it's easier to call him Terrence. For the sake of poetry, and although I pay little attention to the transitory and brief phases of acceleration (which contribute nothing at all to the reasoning), I wanted to introduce a small, more physical and more understandable phase. to the human mind, only an instantaneous acceleration, however possible "in idea". So I assumed that the journey would last 18 years for Stella, and 30 years for Terrence (Vo=0.8c and D=2*12 al in R) which everyone agrees with. I placed a small acceleration phase at the aphelion of Stella's journey which will make a vast half-turn on a semi-circle while keeping its tangential speed of 0.8c in R, and this for 40 hours (we admit that momentary and monstrous accelerations are physically technically possible). In Stella's repository, exactly 24 hours (one day) will pass. This value is absolute, and the two twins agree that for this concrete phase, it is 24 hours for Stella, and 40 hours for Terrence. I ask you to kindly grant me these bases. Because afterwards, it gets complicated, and it seems that apart from me, no one in the world has had the trigger for the complete explanation of the Langevin traveler. I therefore ask you to agree on the basics, because then you will have to admit true, but astonishing things, which can shock the human mind, in the same way as saying that the earth is a big blue ball to a peasant from the 11th century. It's true, but it can be shocking when you're not there, or worse, when you're poorly prepared. N.B. Attention, un point important. Nous parlons d'une accélération de Stella sur un vaste demi-cercle dans le référentiel de Terrence, et grosso modo, on peut considérer qu'elle accélère du même point et qu'elle revient au même point (juste séparé par le diamètre du cercle). Dans le référentiel de Stella, le trajet correspondant de Terrence pour elle ne représente pas une figure géométrique aussi simple, et Terrence ne revient pas à la même place. Il passe de 4 al au début du demi-tour (Stella s'éloigne de la terre à 0.4444c de vitesse apparente) à 36 al à la sortie du demi-tour (vapp=-4c). Cette phase n'est donc pas symétrique. Et les temps notés vont être absolus et accordés par les deux protagonistes. 24 heures pour Stella ; 40 pour Terrence. N.B.B. Il faut absolument que les physiciens aient le déclic sur la notion d'élasticité des longueurs et des distances en relativité. "...et les effets de la physiques (même les effets apparents) sont réciproques par permutation d'observateur". Lorsque Terrence observe la fusée de Stella s'éloigner, elle mesure 10 mètres au lieu de 30, et quand il la voit revenir, elle mesure 90 mètres au lieu de 30. Cela les physiciens le comprennent. Depuis des décennies, sans y parvenir, je les supplie de comprendre que les choses sont symétriques et réciproques en SR. C'est à dire que lorsque Stella observe le télescope de Terrence pointé sur elle (3 mètres de long), elle voit un télescope de 1 mètre à l'aller, et de 9 mètres au retour. Cette symétrie est très contre intuitive, et c'est elle pourtant qui explique le paradoxe réel de Langevin dans lequel on comprend alors, si l'on se gratte un peu les neurones que Stella a parcouru seulement quatre années lumières à l'aller, et 36 au retour. Le physicien qui ne comprend pas ça, n'a rien compris du tout à l'ensemble logique du raisonnement et à la beauté des explications. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 19:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v710l9$7u9s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #654888 |
Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 14/07/2024 à 01:29, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : <unsnip>: >> As long as Stella's speed is constant, the shape of Stella's path >> is irrelevant, it can be circular, elliptic, partly straight and >> partly curved, or whatever shape you might like. >> (But no sharp corners, the path must be an analytic function.) <unsnip end> >> Of course Stella must accelerate at some part of the journey in >> order to get back to Terrence, but when the speed is constant >> the acceleration is transversal and will have no effect on her >> proper time. It's obvious from the following that you haven't understood my statements above. You probably haven't even read them. > > < snip irrelevant talk about Langevin> You have changed the scenario from the one I was responding to. But let us consider this one. > So I assumed that the journey would last 18 years for Stella, and 30 > years for Terrence (Vo=0.8c and D=2*12 al in R) which everyone agrees with. > > I placed a small acceleration phase at the aphelion of Stella's journey > which will make a vast half-turn on a semi-circle while keeping its > tangential speed of 0.8c in R, and this for 40 hours (we admit that > momentary and monstrous accelerations are physically technically possible). The acceleration isn't momentary, it lasts for 24 hours, and of course it is technically impossible. But it doesn't matter, this is a thought experiment. > In Stella's repository, exactly 24 hours (one day) will pass. > This value is absolute, and the two twins agree that for this concrete > phase, it is 24 hours for Stella, and 40 hours for Terrence. > > I ask you to kindly grant me these bases. I accept your definition of the scenario. I will assume that the 24 hours are included in the 18 years, and the 40 hours are included in the 30 years. > > Because afterwards, it gets complicated, and it seems that apart from > me, no one in the world has had the trigger for the complete explanation > of the Langevin traveler. What do you mean by "complete explanation"? Do you know the "complete explanation" for why the Earth is orbiting the Sun? Newton's gravitation theory and GR both predict that the Earth will orbit the Sun, given the right initial condition. Is this "the complete explanation" or have you another? The only sensible question is: What does the theory predict will happen? And: Is this in accordance with what really happens? I will tell you what SR predicts for the scenario. -------------------------------------------------- It is trivially simple. Stella's speed in Terrence's inertial rest frame is _constant_ 0.8c throughout the whole journey, so γ = 1/0.6. So if Terrence proper time is 30 years, Stella's proper time is 30/γ = 18 years. (This follows from the metric or Lorentz transform.) See: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf I explained in my previous posting (quoted above) why the acceleration is irrelevant in this case: As long as Stella's speed is constant, the shape of Stella's path is irrelevant, it can be circular, elliptic, partly straight and partly curved, or whatever shape you might like. (But no sharp corners, the path must be an analytic function.) Of course Stella must accelerate at some part of the journey in order to get back to Terrence, but when the speed is constant the acceleration is transversal and will have no effect on her proper time. If Stella was accelerating longitudinally, the speed would change and γ would be a function of time, so the acceleration would obviously affect Stella's proper time. https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > I therefore ask you to agree on the basics, because then you will have > to admit true, but astonishing things, which can shock the human mind, > in the same way as saying that the earth is a big blue ball to a peasant > from the 11th century. I can tell you that SR's prediction that the twins will age differently doesn't chock me at all, because I know that the prediction is demonstrated to be correct in the real world. > > It's true, but it can be shocking when you're not there, or worse, when > you're poorly prepared. Quite. SR's predictions are chocking for people ignorant of physics. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Conard Lèmmi <manc@mrm.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v711qm$20vak$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #654903 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel: >> tangential speed of 0.8c in R, and this for 40 hours (we admit that >> momentary and monstrous accelerations are physically technically >> possible). > > The acceleration isn't momentary, it lasts for 24 hours, > and of course it is technically impossible. > But it doesn't matter, this is a thought experiment. my butt, you are a gynecologist in everything. Here's some more, to undrestand the obvious corruption of your capitalist government, where the bigger capitalist eats the smaller capitalist. The smaller capitalist eats everything. 𝗛𝗼𝘄_𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿_𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_&_𝗪𝗶𝗻𝗱_𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗠𝗮𝗱𝗲_-_𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘀 https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/6CeNrqz4qQrM 𝗜𝗻_𝗗𝗻𝗲𝗽𝗿_𝗮_𝗴𝘂𝘆_𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗶𝗻_𝗮_𝗰𝗮𝗿_ 𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺_𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗿𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮. https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/bSTOVpISoOT2 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘂𝗸_𝗯𝘂𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀_ 𝘁𝗼_𝘂𝘀𝗲_𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴...._ https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/DknS90DwlzHB 𝗝𝗲𝘄_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻_»_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘀𝗲𝗲_𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰_𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻_ 𝗵𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗯𝗲_𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/jYQTDqk6EnPE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iBYq9FwVuSWy8k-u7ECgfHHi6h8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654903 |
Le 14/07/2024 à 19:07, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > I accept your definition of the scenario. Hourrah! Paul B. Andersen : Nobel price of relativity 2025! > I will assume that the 24 hours are included in the 18 years, > and the 40 hours are included in the 30 years. A B S O L U T E L Y . R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4GKS_zTsQUyd_izpUEURRk8dx3c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654903 |
Le 14/07/2024 à 19:07, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel: > I accept your definition of the scenario. > I will assume that the 24 hours are included in the 18 years, > and the 40 hours are included in the 30 years. > What do you mean by "complete explanation"? By this I mean that the explanation given by physicists is correct, but very incomplete. They say, like you, like me, that Stella will come back at the age of 18, and Terrence will be 30 years old. They are obviously right. If we carry the problem even more precisely, and we introduce a small acceleration phase, we can even say that Stella will be 18 years and 24 hours old, and that Terrence will be 30 years and 40 hours old. Of course, there will always be people who think otherwise. Here, on this forum, there is Maciej who thinks that Stella will be the same age as Terrence, that is to say 30 years and 40 hours for both of them. In France, Richard Verret and Yanick Toutain think the same thing, but they are wrong. But being certain that you are right, that Doctor Hachel is right, that the physicists are right, that is not enough. We must explain why correctly and with essential mathematical precision. And there, a problem arises: only Richard Hachel can break down the evolution, observer by observer, segments by segments whatever they may be. Neither physicists nor Paul B. Andersen can do it. Their explanation is therefore true, but very incomplete. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 21:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v718sq$9eau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #654907 |
Den 14.07.2024 19:40, skrev Richard Hachel: > Le 14/07/2024 à 19:07, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel: >>> it seems that apart from me, no one in the world has had the trigger for the complete explanation of the Langevin traveler. >> What do you mean by "complete explanation"? > > By this I mean that the explanation given by physicists is correct, but > very incomplete. Physicists don't explain (in the sense you use the word) anything. They tell you what physics theories predict. Have you ever seen "the complete explanation" for why the Earth is orbiting the Sun? Can you give the "complete explanation"? > > They say, like you, like me, that Stella will come back at the age of 18, > and Terrence will be 30 years old. Right. They and we tell what the theory predicts. > If we carry the problem even more precisely, and we introduce a small > acceleration phase, we can even say that Stella will be 18 years and 24 > hours old, and that Terrence will be 30 years and 40 hours old. Your "acceleration phase" is no different from the rest of the journey. Stella's proper time is: (30 years and 40 hours)/γ = 18 years and 24 hours. So if we introduce "a small acceleration phase" - what then? > But being certain that you are right, that Doctor Hachel is right, that the physicists are right, that is not enough. > > We must explain why correctly and with essential mathematical precision. > > And there, a problem arises: only Richard Hachel can break down the evolution, observer by observer, segments by segments whatever they may be. So please break down the evolution, observer by observer, segments by segments and explain correctly and with essential mathematical precision why Terrence ages 30 years and 40 hours while Stella ages 18 years and 24 hours Can you do that? Or can you only claim that you can do that? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 22:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e22d811dee6c3a$106047$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #654913 |
W dniu 14.07.2024 o 21:33, Paul.B.Andersen pisze: > Den 14.07.2024 19:40, skrev Richard Hachel: >> Le 14/07/2024 à 19:07, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >>> Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel: >>>> it seems that apart from me, no one in the world has had the >>>> trigger for the complete explanation of the Langevin traveler. > >>> What do you mean by "complete explanation"? >> >> By this I mean that the explanation given by physicists is correct, >> but very incomplete. > > Physicists don't explain (in the sense you use the word) anything. Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie. > They tell you what physics theories predict. And they don't even care their predictions drny each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web