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 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-17 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <v78h1p$1pkt8$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655040 |
Le 17/07/2024 à 15:28, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 17/07/2024 à 15:17, Python a écrit : > >> it can be somewhat funny (and provides occasion to better understand the >> theory). > > I'm here for that, and more than you think. What is sad is that the only one not making progress, even regressing, is you. You're not alone though (Heger, Wozniak, etc.) During the last decades I've seen only ONCE a crank to change his mind by being confronting to rational thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-17 15:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <17e30391699d1163$12528$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655041 |
W dniu 17.07.2024 o 15:30, Python pisze: > Le 17/07/2024 à 15:28, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : >> Le 17/07/2024 à 15:17, Python a écrit : >> >>> it can be somewhat funny (and provides occasion to better understand the >>> theory). >> >> I'm here for that, and more than you think. > > What is sad is that the only one not making progress, even regressing, > is you. You're not alone though (Heger, Wozniak, etc.) > > During the last decades I've seen only ONCE a crank to change his mind > by being confronting to rational thinking. And the hope for the relativistic idiots is for sure, very small. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-18 08:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <lfrrnfF22urU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655032 |
Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: ... >> >> Also the present mainstream consensus about this subject can be called >> 'SRT', but is different to what Einstein wrote. > > It is still the same one and only Special Theory of Relativity, > even if the math has evolved since 1905. > But there is nothing you can calculate from the metric, > which you can't calculate from the Lorentz transform in > "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". > >> >> There are also a number of other versions, which were created by >> people of minor importance, like e.g. also people participating in >> this forum. >> >> What exactly 'SRT' is, that is not cast in stone, but is a subject you >> could debate. >> ... > > The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined, > and there is no debate of what it is. > (Among reasonable knowledgeable people.) > You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's origional theory. This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects. I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too. This is the 'special' case of GR, which covers accelerated FoRs. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-18 19:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <v7bkir$2h9g3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655075 |
Den 18.07.2024 08:40, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: >> >> The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined, >> and there is no debate of what it is. >> (Among reasonable knowledgeable people.) >> > > You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's > origional theory. > > This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in > streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects. The one and only Special Theory of Relativity is only valid in "flat spacetime" where there is no gravitation. In flat spacetime non accelerated objects will move along straight lines in an inertial frame of reference. But accelerated objects can move in along any curve depending on the accelerating force. Obviously! Examples of accelerated motion in flat spacetime: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too. There is no interpretation of SR where objects can't accelerate. > > This is the 'special' case of GR, which covers accelerated FoRs. GR simplifies to SR when there is no gravitation. Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference". But SR only in flat spacetime. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-18 22:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <R0fmO.79375$ku13.42776@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #655089 |
Den 18.07.2024 21:02, skrev Stefan Ram: > "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted: >> Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference". > > In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time > length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the > perspective of a non-accelerated guy. The proper time is invariant, and doesn't depend on "perspective". > But one can't describe the > x-t coordinate system that the accelerated dude is using, because > for him to be at rest, he's got to assume there's a gravitational > field to explain why he feels like he's accelerating. Yes, according to the equivalence principle from GR, an acceleration is the same as gravitation. But you don't have to use this principle to find the accelerated dude's measurements of the inertial dude. > A Lorentz > transformation (a "boost") isn't enough to get one to that x-t > coordinate system of the accelerated guy starting from the x-t > coordinate system of some non-accelerated dude. You can calculate everything from the Lorentz transform. dx' = γ(v)⋅(dx - v⋅dt) dt' = γ(v)⋅(dt - (v/c²)⋅dx) You get differential equations to solve. You can see it calculated it in the inertial twin's frame of reference here: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf To calculate it from the accelerated twin's accelerated frame is a bit more complicated, you get a differential equation which is hard to solve analytically. It is however much simpler to simulate it. See this Java simulation: https://paulba.no/twins.html If you won't run it on your computer, you can see screenshots of a run here: https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_simulation.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 13:02 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <v7g1vj$3g3th$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655096 |
On 2024-07-18 20:41:13 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said: > Den 18.07.2024 21:02, skrev Stefan Ram: >> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted: >>> Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference". >> >> In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time >> length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the >> perspective of a non-accelerated guy. > > The proper time is invariant, and doesn't depend on "perspective". However, the effor needed to determine it may depend. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 08:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <lg3nvjF8fpmU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655141 |
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 12:02 schrieb Mikko: > On 2024-07-18 20:41:13 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said: > >> Den 18.07.2024 21:02, skrev Stefan Ram: >>> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted: >>>> Both SR and GR "covers accelerated frames of reference". >>> >>> In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time >>> length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the >>> perspective of a non-accelerated guy. >> >> The proper time is invariant, and doesn't depend on "perspective". > > However, the effor needed to determine it may depend. > The important point is: time is a local phenomenon and there exist no such thing as 'proper time'! It is VERY impotant to consider time as a local phenomenon and not as a special case of 'proper time', because otherwise relativity would not work. So: every inertial observer his his own 'proper time' and carries that with him (or better: local time carries the inertial observer with it). Poincare wrote about this subject and found certain errors in the works of Hendrik Lorentz. So Poincare removed unneccessesary terms from what he called 'Lorentz transform' and came to a better solution for relativity. This required to make time local and remove the very idea of 'proper time'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-18 21:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <U5ziFwnpBvFpPJS4qYToH0xLyGw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #655089 |
Le 18/07/2024 à 21:02, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) a écrit : > > In special relativity, one can still talk about the proper time > length of a section of an accelerated dude's world line from the > perspective of a non-accelerated guy. But one can't describe the > x-t coordinate system that the accelerated dude is using, because > for him to be at rest, he's got to assume there's a gravitational > field to explain why he feels like he's accelerating. A Lorentz > transformation (a "boost") isn't enough to get one to that x-t > coordinate system of the accelerated guy starting from the x-t > coordinate system of some non-accelerated dude. Aber nein! Atmen! Puste sanft! Es gibt viel weniger Probleme, als Physiker sagen, wenn sie die Relativitätstheorie mit beschleunigten Objekten studieren. Das sind die gleichen Physiker, die Staub in die Luft werfen und sich dann darüber beschweren, dass sie nicht mehr sehen können. Wenn wir die Relativitätstheorie studieren wollen, können wir dies tun, indem wir der deutschen Schule (Einstein, Minkowski) zuhören, ebenso wie der französischen Schule (Poincaré-das-genius, Langevin). Wir können es auch tun, indem wir Hachel zuhören. Was sagt Doktor Hachel? Die Gesetze der Physik bleiben bei Änderung des Bezugssystems dieselben, und die Wirkungen der Physik sind symmetrisch und reziprok durch Permutation des Beobachters. Wenn ich im Weltraum bin, mit einer Rakete nicht weit von mir entfernt, sagen wir zwei Kilometer entfernt und stationär, und die Rakete ihren Motor startet, wird sie beschleunigen. Von meiner Position aus werde ich sehen, wie es sich beschleunigt. Aber die Insassen der Rakete, die mich durch ihre Teleskope beobachten werden, werden bestätigen, dass ich es bin, der beschleunigt und sich immer schneller von ihnen entfernt. Abgesehen von der Tatsache, dass es eine Art Schwerkraft geben wird, werden sie behaupten, dass sie unbeweglich sind, und tausend Jahre später, wenn sie mit der gleichen Beschleunigung fortfahren, werden sie weiterhin sagen, dass sie nicht beschleunigen , dass ich es bin, der beschleunigt, und dass ihre Vorstellung von der Schwerkraft immer dieselbe bleibt. Was verstanden werden muss, ist die Reziprozität der Wirkungen, gerade weil es keinen absoluten Bezug gibt und auch nie geben wird. Für ein beschleunigtes Objekt wie für ein Objekt mit Galileischer Geschwindigkeit gilt: Die Bewegung existiert nicht. Er ist immernoch. Die Auswirkungen der Schwerkraft sollten nicht mehr der Rakete zugeschrieben werden, als auf den umgebenden Raum, der im Verhältnis zu einer stationären Rakete beschleunigt, auch wenn es für einen Moment kontraintuitiv erscheinen mag zu sagen, dass der Raum genauso stark reziprok beschleunigt wie die Rakete, und dass sich die Rakete im RR gut verstanden nicht bewegt. Daher die Gleichheit der Eigenzeiten zwischen einer Rakete in beschleunigter Bewegung (es sei denn, der Start befindet sich nicht in Ruhe, was seinen Startbezugsrahmen verändert) und einer Rakete in Galilei-Bewegung in einem gemeinsamen Rennen mit einer gemeinsamen Distanz, gemeinsamem Abflug und gemeinsamem Ankommen. Was Python in diesem Forum verrückt macht, weil er nur Pouic versteht. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-19 12:16 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <lfusn3FfohpU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655089 |
Am Donnerstag000018, 18.07.2024 um 19:54 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 18.07.2024 08:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>
>>> The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
>>> and there is no debate of what it is.
>>> (Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
>>>
>>
>> You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's
>> origional theory.
>>
>> This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in
>> streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects.
>
>
> The one and only Special Theory of Relativity is only
> valid in "flat spacetime" where there is no gravitation.
>
> In flat spacetime non accelerated objects will move along
> straight lines in an inertial frame of reference.
> But accelerated objects can move in along any curve depending
> on the accelerating force. Obviously!
>
> Examples of accelerated motion in flat spacetime:
> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>
>> I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too.
>
> There is no interpretation of SR where objects can't accelerate.
Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
acceleration.
('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
This went as far as this:
Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a
polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the
corners.
...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-19 12:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <v7den4$2sqhj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655104 |
Le 19/07/2024 à 12:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Donnerstag000018, 18.07.2024 um 19:54 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 18.07.2024 08:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>>
>>>> The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined,
>>>> and there is no debate of what it is.
>>>> (Among reasonable knowledgeable people.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's
>>> origional theory.
>>>
>>> This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in
>>> streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects.
>>
>>
>> The one and only Special Theory of Relativity is only
>> valid in "flat spacetime" where there is no gravitation.
>>
>> In flat spacetime non accelerated objects will move along
>> straight lines in an inertial frame of reference.
>> But accelerated objects can move in along any curve depending
>> on the accelerating force. Obviously!
>>
>> Examples of accelerated motion in flat spacetime:
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>>
>>> I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too.
>>
>> There is no interpretation of SR where objects can't accelerate.
>
>
> Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
> acceleration.
>
> ('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
>
> This went as far as this:
>
> Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
> streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
>
>
> But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
> 'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
>
> Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a
> polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the
> corners.
And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 08:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <lg12vgFq3poU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655106 |
Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Python:
...
>>
>> Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
>> acceleration.
>>
>> ('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
>>
>> This went as far as this:
>>
>> Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
>> streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
>>
>>
>> But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
>> 'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
>>
>> Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a
>> polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the
>> corners.
>
> And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
>
Well, at least I have a diploma and am allowed to use the academic
degree 'Dipl. Ing.'.
But anyhow:
would you really allow constant velocity along 'any polygonal line'??????
To me this is blatant nonsense, because acceleration depends on the
radius of curvature of the path and in a sharp corner with zero radius
the acceleration would be infinite.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 16:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <v7gg2n$3hi7e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655136 |
Le 20/07/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Python:
> ...
>>>
>>> Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
>>> acceleration.
>>>
>>> ('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
>>>
>>> This went as far as this:
>>>
>>> Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
>>> streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
>>>
>>>
>>> But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
>>> 'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
>>>
>>> Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along a
>>> polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in the
>>> corners.
>>
>> And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
>>
> Well, at least I have a diploma and am allowed to use the academic
> degree 'Dipl. Ing.'.
>
> But anyhow:
>
> would you really allow constant velocity along 'any polygonal line'??????
>
> To me this is blatant nonsense, because acceleration depends on the
> radius of curvature of the path and in a sharp corner with zero radius
> the acceleration would be infinite.
You are a failure of the German Education System clearly. You shouldn't
in no way got a diploma in engineering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 08:55 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Le piège parfait (the perfect trap) |
| Message-ID | <lg3pnhF8fpmU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655150 |
Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:03 schrieb Python:
> Le 20/07/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Python:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover
>>>> acceleration.
>>>>
>>>> ('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
>>>>
>>>> This went as far as this:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a
>>>> streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that
>>>> 'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
>>>>
>>>> Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along
>>>> a polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in
>>>> the corners.
>>>
>>> And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
>>>
>> Well, at least I have a diploma and am allowed to use the academic
>> degree 'Dipl. Ing.'.
>>
>> But anyhow:
>>
>> would you really allow constant velocity along 'any polygonal line'??????
>>
>> To me this is blatant nonsense, because acceleration depends on the
>> radius of curvature of the path and in a sharp corner with zero radius
>> the acceleration would be infinite.
>
>
> You are a failure of the German Education System clearly. You shouldn't
> in no way got a diploma in engineering.
???
Sideways movement causes acceleration and the rate of sideways change of
the path is relevant for the amount of acceleration of the object
following a cuirved path.
The easiest case is circular motion, which causes the centrifugal
acceleration outwards in a rotating drum.
This rotating drum I take as symbolic equivalence for the sideways
acceleration needed, to bring the object into a path sideways from
inertial motion.
But the speed of the circumference of a rotating drum must be equal to
the assumed contant speed of our inertial observer (or any other object
moving with constant velocity v), because we had CONSTANT speed as an
assumption.
Smaller drums need higher omegas (rotations per time unit), because we
have the requirement for a constant velocity along the path of the object.
Now we have a sharp corner. That is equal to a drum with zero diameter,
because the radius of curvature is zero at a sharp corner.
Now the equivalent drum had to ratotate with infinite omega, which would
cause infinite acceleration upon its content.
As this is not possible, we cannot allow sharp corners to be passed with
constant non-zero speed.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pV0qtTN3r2yVQMsv7JmcdoOdDzE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654944 |
Le 15/07/2024 à 14:57, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > Den 14.07.2024 23:49, skrev Richard Hachel: > The scenario is: > > Terrence is inertial. > Stella passes Terrence with the speed 0.8c relative to Terrence. > At the instant when Stella is adjacent to Terrence they both set > their clocks to zero, and Stella starts her rocket engine so that > she accelerates at the constant acceleration c per year (≈ 0.97g) > towards Terrence. > Some time later, Stella will again pass Terrence at the speed 0.8c. > > The only question I want answered is: > What do Stella's clock and Terrence's clock show > at the instant when Stella passes Terence the second time? > > It's two invariant proper times, so they are "absolute". Well. I hadn't understood the question correctly, and I thought it was the question: Stella goes to 0.8c, and immediately Terrence sends Bella (a=1al/an²) to join her. The question was when will Bella join Stella, and where? The answer is quite simple, since we have x=Vo.To and x=(c²/a)[sqrt(1+To²a²/c²)-1] Let for x=x, two root possibilities To=0 and To=40/9 years And x=0 (the start) and x=32/9 ly. It remains to be seen what the clean times will be for Stella and Bella. I'm responding hastily, and I hope without any miscalculation. Tr(Stella)=sqrt(To²-Et²)=sqrt(To²-x²/c²)=24/9 years Other mode Tr(Stella)=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=24/9 years Tr(Bella)=x/Vr=x.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/Vo=(32/9)*0.6/0.8=24/9 years We notice that here, the proper times are equal. But that's not what you're asking, your question is: "As Stella passes Vo=0.8c, it accelerates towards the earth (a=1 ly/y²)" I ask you for a few moments, and I will answer you. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 06:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e1fa635a807464$52$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #654887 |
W dniu 14.07.2024 o 01:34, Paul.B.Andersen pisze: > 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 Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be absolutely sure your scenario tales have nothing in common with real clocks, real observers or real anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlKZz_NUd21_RgKAZ5isKxHPKvY@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: >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5tdYLkheZgX96lrzn-o1pHvQHZI@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: > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 16:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e17e166672a665$70084$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #654859 |
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 16:17, Richard Hachel pisze: > Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel: > >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <px2VKl5SVWWNo2mQ0lew6xbSjfc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654862 |
Le 12/07/2024 à 16:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 12.07.2024 o 16:17, Richard Hachel pisze: > poor brainwashed fanatic. Mówisz do mnie? R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9nNmv4RGyfYehQY5VxBueHoiiE4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #654854 |
Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit : > >> >> 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 !!!!! > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web