Le 24/04/2023 à 21:55, Python a écrit :
And I am told: "9*4=7.2"
This. is. plain. lie.
Non.
C'est la pure vérité.
If, for example, I pose the fact that in the story of Langevin's
traveler, who travels in the classic example 12 al on the way out and 12
al on the way back, at v=0.8c, everyone will say like me , that its proper
time will be 9 years outward, and 9 years in return.
That is 18 years (against 30 years for the other) in total.
But it's so crying it's stupid simplicity.
Is it true or is it not true?
And everyone is acting like a monkey. It makes everyone laugh it's so
simple.
And I warn: "But be careful, you're going to take a right in the face"
Then, I'm going to say: "You know, when the traveler turns around, and he
is fixed in his frame of reference, but he will see, for 9 years, the
earth come back on him, at a speed of 0.8c"
And everyone howls even more laughter.
And I warn again: "But be careful, you're going to take a right in the
face"
They continue to laugh.
I then ask them if they know that in apparent speed, ie what the subject
sees in his telescope, the earth seems to be returning towards him at 4c?
They laugh even more.
"You're not going to teach us what apparent speed is. Of course it seems
to be back to 4c".
I then ask them what is the distance between the rocket and the earth at
this moment in the rocket's frame of reference.
Howls of laughter: they laugh heartily and say: contraction of distances: D'=D.sqrt(1-v²/c²)
The distance is 7.2 ly for the rocket.
No wait, I don't understand.
Isn't the distance that the earth will travel in the reference frame of
the rocket the apparent speed of the earth multiplied by the proper time
of the rocket?
Let x=9*4=36
I am told yes, but no, and that x=7.2
In short, no one understood anything about SR.
And the one who had the stroke of genius to understand everything (= EVERYTHING), we spit in his face wickedly.
I problem is human.
“Human, human, all too human” Frédéric Nietzsche.
R.H.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)