Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
What was the grievance?
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference of
the twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth, if
we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel says that
we must use this notion of reciprocity, very basis of logic, comes back
older than the other. Which is both logical and absurd.
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and perfectly (except Hachel), and if we look closely at the forums, articles,
websites, books, publications, for 120 years, not everyone has There's nothing wrong with it, and everyone says anything to try to get back on
their feet.
Only Doctor Hachel (what a man!) gave the perfect explanation, as on
other points of the SR, because he uses appropriate and consistent relativistic geometry, and he KNOWS how to explain things clearly.
The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of
confusion. They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of
measured times, and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey of 24 light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.
It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24*0.8=30
But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old.
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete ignorance.
Because we are confusing it with the notion of chronotropy, which is
ANOTHER THING, and which can be defined by the internal functioning of watches. On this, yes, the effect is symmetrical, reciprocal; each
watch, and throughout the entire journey, (including if I place a small half-turn phase on a semi-circle with a preserved tangential speed of
0.8c), beats faster than the other watch, and the equation is constant
and reciprocal over the entire path: T2=T1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
This is true.
But this only qualifies chronotropy, that is to say the internal
mechanism of watches, it is not the whole of the relativistic effect.
This is not what we will ultimately measure.
I can't explain it more clearly.
Now, if you are curious, and truly in love with science, you try to understand what I am saying, without spitting, without mocking, and you
refer to the little diagrams posted years ago already, which explain the things as we have never done before, notably with the logical notion of
the elasticity of relativistic distances.
All of perfect theoretical and experimental beauty.
“I have told you all these things, so that when the time comes, you will remember that I said them.”
Jesus Christ knew that no one would believe him, and that Minerva's owl
would not take flight until nightfall.
R.H.
Le 04/07/2024 à 15:30, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
[ … ]
Jesus Christ knew that no one would believe him, and that Minerva's owl
would not take flight until nightfall.
R.H.
Same bullshit you've posted for decades. You are ill, Lengrand.
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of relativity.
[Verbal bobbling deleted]
What was the grievance?
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference of
the twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth,
if we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel says
that we must use this notion of reciprocity,
very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both
logical and absurd.
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and
perfectly
[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of
confusion.
They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of measured times,
and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey of 24 light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.
It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24[/]0.8=30
But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old[er].
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete
ignorance.
Because we are confusing it with the notion of chronotropy, which is
ANOTHER THING, and which can be defined by the internal functioning of watches. On this, yes, the effect is symmetrical, reciprocal; each
watch, and throughout the entire journey, (including if I place a small half-turn phase on a semi-circle with a preserved tangential speed of
0.8c), beats faster than the other watch, and the equation is constant
and reciprocal over the entire path: T2=T1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
This is true.
But this only qualifies chronotropy, that is to say the internal
mechanism of watches, it is not the whole of the relativistic effect.
This is not what we will ultimately measure.
I can't explain it more clearly.
Le 04/07/2024 à 15:30, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert
Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
What was the grievance?
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference of
the twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth,
if we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel says
that we must use this notion of reciprocity, very basis of logic,
comes back older than the other. Which is both logical and absurd.
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and
perfectly (except Hachel), and if we look closely at the forums,
articles, websites, books, publications, for 120 years, not everyone
has There's nothing wrong with it, and everyone says anything to try
to get back on their feet.
Only Doctor Hachel (what a man!) gave the perfect explanation, as on
other points of the SR, because he uses appropriate and consistent
relativistic geometry, and he KNOWS how to explain things clearly.
The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of
confusion. They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of
measured times, and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey of
24 light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.
It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24*0.8=30
But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old.
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the
explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete ignorance.
Because we are confusing it with the notion of chronotropy, which is
ANOTHER THING, and which can be defined by the internal functioning of
watches. On this, yes, the effect is symmetrical, reciprocal; each
watch, and throughout the entire journey, (including if I place a
small half-turn phase on a semi-circle with a preserved tangential
speed of 0.8c), beats faster than the other watch, and the equation is
constant and reciprocal over the entire path: T2=T1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
This is true.
But this only qualifies chronotropy, that is to say the internal
mechanism of watches, it is not the whole of the relativistic effect.
This is not what we will ultimately measure.
I can't explain it more clearly.
Now, if you are curious, and truly in love with science, you try to
understand what I am saying, without spitting, without mocking, and
you refer to the little diagrams posted years ago already, which
explain the things as we have never done before, notably with the
logical notion of the elasticity of relativistic distances.
All of perfect theoretical and experimental beauty.
“I have told you all these things, so that when the time comes, you
will remember that I said them.”
Jesus Christ knew that no one would believe him, and that Minerva's
owl would not take flight until nightfall.
R.H.
Same bullshit you've posted for decades. You are ill, Lengrand.
Richard Hachel wrote:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
No, it's not. It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
Richard Hachel wrote:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
No, it's not. It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
ignored.
That part has been explained in more than one way, but some don't seem capable of understanding.
[Verbal bobbling deleted]
What was the grievance?
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference of
the twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth,
if we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel says
that we must use this notion of reciprocity,
Dr. Hachel is wrong, along with all those who conveniently forget about
the turn-around. And "reciprocity" doesn't even enter Dr. H's solution.
very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both
logical and absurd.
“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it.”
-- Samuel Butler
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and
perfectly
Incorrect assertion.
[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of
confusion.
They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of measured times,
and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.
Incorrect assertion.
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
Not impossible.
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey of 24
light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.
It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24[/]0.8=30
But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old[er].
[Corrections made].
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the
explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete
ignorance.
Not everyone, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Because we are confusing it with the notion of chronotropy, which is
ANOTHER THING, and which can be defined by the internal functioning of
watches. On this, yes, the effect is symmetrical, reciprocal; each
watch, and throughout the entire journey, (including if I place a small
half-turn phase on a semi-circle with a preserved tangential speed of
0.8c), beats faster than the other watch, and the equation is constant
and reciprocal over the entire path: T2=T1/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
This is true.
But this only qualifies chronotropy, that is to say the internal
mechanism of watches, it is not the whole of the relativistic effect.
This is not what we will ultimately measure.
I can't explain it more clearly.
Then you have failed. Whether the entire path a semicircle, or just the
end is a semicircle, particle physicists have known for nearly a century
that time dilation occurs on circular paths based only on the velocity
around the path. So Dr. hachel is a few years too late.
If the semicircle is at the end of a straightaway, then Stella will
endure
a humongous acceleration and return home a puddle of goo. If, OTOH, her trajectory is a giant circle of 24 Lyrs circumference, she will, indeed,
be 6 years younger than her twin, but if she wanted to reach a
destination
24 LYrs AWAY, she will only reach a distance of 7.6 Lyrs from home.
Usually, the problem is proposed as reaching a destination along a
linear
path and then returning, not taking a grand tour.
Le 04/07/2024 à 20:27, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
ofLangevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
relativity.
No, it's not. It's only a paradox when part of the operation is
ignored.
That part has been explained in more than one way, but some don't seem capable of understanding.
What was the grievance?
ofIf the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference
saysthe twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth,
if we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel
that we must use this notion of reciprocity,
Dr. Hachel is wrong, along with all those who conveniently forgetabout
the turn-around. And "reciprocity" doesn't even enter Dr. H'ssolution.
very basis of logic, comes back older than the other. Which is both logical and absurd.
“No, no, you’re not thinking: you’re just being logical” – Niels Bohr
“Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it.” -- Samuel Butler
No one has ever been able to answer the question correctly and
perfectly
Incorrect assertion.
[Self-aggrandizing verbage deleted]
times,The great problem facing the world's physicists is a problem of confusion.
They confuse two notions: the notion of relativity of measured
and the notion of reciprocal relativity of chronotropies.
Incorrect assertion.
It's not the same thing.
Hence the impossibility for them all to explain things coherently.
Not impossible.
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describesomething
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
of 24The relativity of the measured times will show that over a journey
light years, carried out at v=0.8c, Terrence will age by 30 years.
It's very simple: x=v.t, i.e. t=x/v and 24[/]0.8=30
But when Stella returns, she will only be 18 years old[er].
[Corrections made].
There is therefore an asymmetry, that is obvious, but it is on the explanation of the asymmetry that everyone sinks into complete
ignorance.
Not everyone, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I can't explain it more clearly.
Then you have failed. Whether the entire path a semicircle, or justthe
end is a semicircle, particle physicists have known for nearly acentury
that time dilation occurs on circular paths based only on the velocity around the path. So Dr. hachel is a few years too late.
If the semicircle is at the end of a straightaway, then Stella will
endure a humongous acceleration and return home a puddle of goo. If,
OTOH, her trajectory is a giant circle of 24 Lyrs circumference, she
will, indeed, be 6 years younger than her twin, but if she wanted to
reach a destination 24 LYrs AWAY, she will only reach a distance of
7.6 Lyrs from home.
Usually, the problem is proposed as reaching a destination along a
linear path and then returning, not taking a grand tour.
Your criticisms have no point whatsoever. You say anything to save a
sinking ship.
In any case, if you do not want Stella to be crushed by the accelerationNo, you cannot. You have specified a journey of 24 lightyears, period!
of the U-turn, but the U-turn remains negligible, we can take a period
of 25 years to make this U-turn, in correct conditions and make a
journey
of 30,000 years, instead of 30 years.
It won't change much. She will not be crushed, and she will return
18,000 years old.
I find it a shame that every time I explain something that is nothing
more than a thought experiment, I am given stupid arguments (Stella is
going to be crushed, the spinning relativistic disk is going to explode, etc.).
All of this sinks into ridicule with the sole aim of not thinking about
the relativistic evidence that I explain,
and which is much more logical than what we find in the textbooks.
R.H.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of relativity.
What was the grievance?
If the twin of the stars returns younger in the frame of reference of
the twin who remained on earth, then the twin who remained on earth, if
we apply the reciprocity of effects, and Doctor Richard Hachel says that
we must use this notion of reciprocity, very basis of logic, comes back
older than the other. Which is both logical and absurd.
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:05, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Le 07/07/2024 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:05, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
[snip complete bullshit]
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Le 08/07/2024 à 10:57, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >>>> relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 13:11, Python pisze:
Le 08/07/2024 à 10:57, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >>>>> relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Le 08/07/2024 à 14:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 13:11, Python pisze:
Le 08/07/2024 à 10:57, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the
theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 15:05, Python pisze:
Le 08/07/2024 à 14:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 13:11, Python pisze:
Le 08/07/2024 à 10:57, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the
theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
Oh yes, it is. I've pointed dirtectly
Le 08/07/2024 à 12:58, Python a écrit :
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Meuh t'euh qu'un bouffon incapable de comprendre une simple notion de
vitesse apparente, et tu veux nous expliquer que le docteur Hachel (le
plus clair des relativistes dans ses concepts) ne sait pas de quoi il
parle? T'euh qu'un guiiiignol...
Doublé d'un psychopathe harceleur et ridicule.
Bouffon!
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Le 08/07/2024 à 14:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
senile Polish crank
Le 08/07/2024 à 15:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 08/07/2024 à 12:58, Python a écrit :
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Meuh t'euh qu'un bouffon incapable de comprendre une simple notion de
vitesse apparente, et tu veux nous expliquer que le docteur Hachel (le
plus clair des relativistes dans ses concepts) ne sait pas de quoi il
parle? T'euh qu'un guiiiignol...
Doublé d'un psychopathe harceleur et ridicule.
Bouffon!
You're nervous today Richard, how come?
Le 08/07/2024 à 15:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 15:05, Python pisze:
Le 08/07/2024 à 14:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 13:11, Python pisze:
Le 08/07/2024 à 10:57, J. J. Lodder a écrit :
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the
theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
Neither in France, nor in other countries, neither
between [Scientists] nor
his enemies anyone noticed, that [Special Relativity]
was obviously inconsistent.
Simply because it is not. The demented mumble of a senile
Polish crank does not matter you know?
Oh yes, it is. I've pointed dirtectly
You've pointed nothing but illustrations of your stupidity.
Le 08/07/2024 00:49, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a crit:
Le 07/07/2024 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a crit :
W dniu 07.07.2024 o23:05, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Those who insist that time is absolute (as in Newtonian Mechanics)
will obviously claim that all equal synchronised clocks will
stay synchronous irrespective of how they are moved relative
to each other.
What an impudent slander. But what to
expect from relativistic scum.
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Stop lying Lengrand.
[snip complete bullshit]
On 2024-07-08 10:58:35 +0000, Python said:
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Le 08/07/2024 10:57, J. J. Lodder a crit :
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >>> relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
Yes, but the French are often excessively chauvinistic.
Lengrand (aka Hachel) is. A quite ridiculous one. Most French
are not, obviously (look at the election results :-) )
Nothing is to be taken seriously
unless a French name can be tagged onto it.
Fact it that the twin paradox has been pointed out first
by the French communist Paul Langevin, who was very close
with the French/Polish twice nobel prize winner Marie Curie.
Even in France, I would say especially in France, the absurd
theory that Einstein plagiarized Poincar has been debunked
strongly.
On 2024-07-08 14:17:01 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 08/07/2024 à 16:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-07-08 10:58:35 +0000, Python said:
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Vous postez sur le même ordi? :))
Bien sûr que non. Je ne sais ni où habite Python ni quel ordinateur il utilise.
Le 08/07/2024 16:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden a crit :
On 2024-07-08 10:58:35 +0000, Python said:
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post.
Me too.
Vous postez sur le mme ordi? :))
Den 08.07.2024 00:49, skrev Richard Hachel:
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France, but I can respond to him via the responses reported by Maciej.
Paul talks about synchronization, and it is this notion that we all
stumble upon. Some speak black (Paul), others speak white (Doctor
Hachel), others orange (Maciej) and, in the end, no one can agree on
anything.
For Paul, the intellectual position is very different. According to
him, by changing the frame of reference, the watches no longer beat at
the same speed in relation to each other. Paul is obviously right when
he says "they no longer beat at the same speed", but unfortunately his
definition stops there, because he cannot go any further in
understanding the phenomenon.
Paul understands the idea of reciprocal relativity of internal
chronotropies (Lorentz factor) but this is NOT enough for a completely
clear view. He never talks about spatial anisochrony. It doesn't exist
for him.
Paul seems to think that each watch, placed in a frame of reference
different from another watch, beats faster than the other, or, which
is the same thing, observes that the other watch has an internal
mechanism which beats less quickly than the other. He calls this
phenomenon “breakdown of simultaneity”.
Strange that you, Richard Hachel, can know what I say and think
when you cannot read what I write. :-D
So you can read my posts. Why don't you respond to my posts
instead of writing your misconceptions of what I have written
in responses to others?
Is it because you hope I will not correct you?
Synchronizing watches can only have one meaning. Put them at the same
time at the same time and in the same place.
The watches are thus truly synchronized, and, if left together, they
will always mark the same time (great deal!)
But let's ask the right question. Let's separate two watches by a
distance of 30 meters, one on this bench, the other on this other bench.
Are they synchronous?
Synchronous is that two clocks simultaneously show the same.
Some will say yes, others will say no.
Indeed. Well said!
When different observers can have different opinion of
whether or not two clocks simultaneously show the same,
it can only be because they have different opinion
of what is simultaneous.
The problem is a problem of definition: what do we mean by
synchronous? If it means that they beat at the same speed, yes,
obviously they are synchronous.
Exactly!
Synchronicity is a matter of definition.
Einstein's definition:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §1. Definition of Simultaneity
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France, but I can respond to him via the responses reported by Maciej.
Paul talks about synchronization, and it is this notion that we all
stumble upon. Some speak black (Paul), others speak white (Doctor
Hachel), others orange (Maciej) and, in the end, no one can agree on anything.
For Paul, the intellectual position is very different. According to him,
by changing the frame of reference, the watches no longer beat at the
same speed in relation to each other. Paul is obviously right when he
says "they no longer beat at the same speed", but unfortunately his definition stops there, because he cannot go any further in
understanding the phenomenon.
Paul understands the idea of reciprocal relativity of internal chronotropies (Lorentz factor) but this is NOT enough for a completely
clear view. He never talks about spatial anisochrony. It doesn't exist
for him.
Paul seems to think that each watch, placed in a frame of reference
different from another watch, beats faster than the other, or, which is
the same thing, observes that the other watch has an internal mechanism
which beats less quickly than the other. He calls this phenomenon “breakdown of simultaneity”.
Synchronizing watches can only have one meaning. Put them at the same
time at the same time and in the same place.
The watches are thus truly synchronized, and, if left together, they
will always mark the same time (great deal!)
But let's ask the right question. Let's separate two watches by a
distance of 30 meters, one on this bench, the other on this other bench.
Are they synchronous?
Some will say yes, others will say no.
The problem is a problem of definition: what do we mean by synchronous?
If it means that they beat at the same speed, yes, obviously they are synchronous.
But this is not the meaning of the word synchronous, or the word
simultaneous for Doctor Hachel.
For Hachel, certainly they beat with the same chronotropy, they measure
time in the same way, otherwise it is absurd, since they are on
different benches, but in the same schoolyard. But they will undoubtedly remain asynchronous, that is to say they will never mark the same time.
Each time we observe them, each will affirm that the other delays by a
value of t=x/c.
The error of physicists is then to say: “But no, there is no delay, it
is simply that information takes time”.
No, information does not take time. It is instantaneous and nothing can
move faster than instantaneous information.
The relationship is simply anisochronous.
It is this anisochrony which is the very basis of the entire theory of relativity.
R.H.
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at constant
velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 15:47, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 09/07/2024 à 07:33, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because
he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at
constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v. >>>
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will
not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
Le 09/07/2024 à 07:33, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because
he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at
constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will
not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:...
Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
poor stinker
Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :, you know? You really think that
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 15:47, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 09/07/2024 à 07:33, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the
theory of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did,
because he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made
at constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as
for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c. >>>>
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two
will not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it
these methods are inaccurate?
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:47, Python pisze:
Le 09/07/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:...
Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
You fabricate and lie. No surprise.
Aging is a biological process. It matches with stationary>
(respectively with the person's body) clocks
No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.
And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes nothing.
Le 09/07/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:...
Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
Aging is a biological process. It matches with stationary> (respectively with the person's body) clocks
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
Le 09/07/2024 à 19:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:47, Python pisze:
Le 09/07/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:...
Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
*facepalm*
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
You really think that
these methods are inaccurate?
You really think they are not
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
You fabricate and lie. No surprise.
Aging is a biological process. It matches with stationary>
(respectively with the person's body) clocks
No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.
And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes nothing.
Wozniak, you stupidity is beyond all limits.
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 22:54, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D
Let's look at the following scenario:
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
The scenario can be simulated here:
https://paulba.no/twins.html
Here are screenshots of the simulation:
https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_run.pdf
Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
and both will measure the other twin's clock to run slow by
Le 09/07/2024 à 23:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 22:54, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. :-D
Two problems: unfortunately I do not receive the answers from Paul
B.Andersen in France, and it is therefore difficult for me to answer
them.
On the other hand, it is still very blunt to say that “Richard
Hachel’s posts are very naive”.
...
For Paul, the logic is different, he is not here to have fun, he wants
to know and teach, but the problem is that he does it very badly.
1. Subject B accelerates over one light year, spends 8 years in Galilean motion, then reaccelerates over one light year according to a=2ly/y²
and if
2. Subject B accelerates two light years, then spends 8 years in
Galilean motion, regaining the speed it had after one light year of travel?
For Richard Hachel, proper times will be equal
Hachel’s posts are very naive”.
It is not blunt, it is actually quite indulgent. On the other
hand Paul didn't have to suffer for thirty years of idiotic
posts from a demented M.D. from France.
Le 10/07/2024 à 14:25, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
For Paul, the logic is different, he is not here to have fun, he wants
to know and teach, but the problem is that he does it very badly.
He does it very well, and has a lot of fun too.
1. Subject B accelerates over one light year, spends 8 years in
Galilean motion, then reaccelerates over one light year according to
a=2ly/y²
and if
2. Subject B accelerates two light years, then spends 8 years in
Galilean motion, regaining the speed it had after one light year of
travel?
For Richard Hachel, proper times will be equal
This is a direct violation of the principle of Relativity as me (and
others) have demonstrated numerous times.
but not improper times
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times" cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times" cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
1. Subject B accelerates over one light year, spends 8 years in Galilean
motion, then reaccelerates over one light year according to a=2ly/y²
and if
2. Subject B accelerates two light years, then spends 8 years in
Galilean motion, regaining the speed it had after one light year of travel? >>
For Richard Hachel, proper times will be equal
This is a direct violation of the principle of Relativity as me (and
others) have demonstrated numerous times.
Le 09/07/2024 à 07:33, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
I have tried to read Langvin's paper.
But I actually failed to understand his arguments.
It is based on rotations of zylinders and applying a Lorentz
transformation to some effects.
But actally I think, he made the same errors as Einstein did, because
he assumed, that the journey of the travelling twin is made at
constant velocity and that the effect would be the same for -v as for v.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Obviously wrong is constant velocity with a significant fraction of c.
Langvin actually spoke of 'shot'.
But that is blatant nonsense, since it would require accelerations
strong enough to disintegrate the atoms of the traveling twin.
Also ' v=-v' is total nonsense, especially if something similar to
optical effects or similar to the Doppler effect are considered.
...
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
Nor do I.
The twin paradox is nosense nevertheless.
TH
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you to stop talking nonsense.
First, Langevin's paradox does not consist of saying that the two will
not be the same age, it is not a paradox.
If you pick two lettuces at the same time, and 48 hours later they do
not have the same state of freshness, this is not abnormal, and there is
no paradox for anyone who knows what it happened. I put one in the
fridge, and the other I left in full sun on the garden table for two days.
The paradox is not there.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
This is where the paradox lies.
Actually I have not read Langvin's paper, but a paper about Langvin's paradox:
"Langevin's twin paradox and the forwards and backwards movement of a rotating cylinder experiment"
https://hal.science/hal-01003084v1
So, possibly, there is a difference between the origional and the quote.
This is where the paradox lies.
I personally think, that velocity is irrelevant for 'time-dilation',
while acceleration is not.
So I have problems with the 'twin paradox' per se.
TH
Le 08/07/2024 à 00:49, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post. Stop lying Lengrand.
[snip complete bullshit]
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
Am Sonntag000007, 07.07.2024 um 23:05 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 04.07.2024 15:30, skrev Richard Hachel:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory
of relativity.
Langvin's paradox is another name of the "twin paradox".
In 1911 Langevin gave an example of said "paradox".
He showed that the twins' would age differently.
This was nothing new, Einstein gave an example of it
in his 1905 paper, but he only mentioned the phenomenon
without numbers. But Langevin gave an example where
the "travelling twin" was moving at the speed 0.99995c
(γ = 100) which made the "travelling twin" age 2 years
while the "home twin" aged 200 years.
Neither Einstein nor Langevin thought that this falsified SR.
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the
universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are
reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the
INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the
other, both on the outward and return journey, or during a long
circular journey.
A very naive notion. 😂
Let's look at the following scenario:
Let's look at the following scenario:
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
and both will measure the other twin's clock to run slow by
the factor 0.333.
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
B's accelerations make all the difference.
The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) will probably not read this,
and if he does i won't understand it.
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in the universe
(Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics are reciprocal by
permutation of observer, and therefore, if we take the INTERNAL
mechanism of two watches, each will beat faster than the other, both on
the outward and return journey, or during a long circular journey.
A very naive notion. 😂
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
Let's look at the following scenario:
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Den 08.07.2024 12:58, skrev Python:
Le 08/07/2024 à 00:49, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
I do not have Paul's initial post because his posts are censored in
France,
I am in France, I have access to Paul's post. Stop lying Lengrand.
[snip complete bullshit]
Why should my posts be censored in France? :-D
That's ridiculous.
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
Le 10/07/2024 à 14:51, Python a écrit :
Between any two events whatever frame you consider the "improper times"
cannot be different. You are pathetically absurd Richard.
Dans le cas que j'ai enseigné, l'un en mouvement galiléen, l'autre en mouvement uniformément accéléré : "si les parcours sont égaux, et si les temps impropres sont égaux, alors les temps propres seront égaux".
The point with this scenario is that both twins are inertial
for most of the journey.
I could obviously have calculated the result from the metric
like I have done with the scenario where twin B is accelerating
during the whole journey:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
(Note that the simulation
https://paulba.no/twins.html
gives exactly the same result)
Richard Hachel claims:
"each [clock] will beat faster than the other,
both on the outward and return journey"
This is obviously a nonsensical statement.
However, I have chosen to interpret the statement like this:
"Each twin will measure the other twin's clock to beat slower
than his own clock, both on the outward and return journey".
If this (mutual time dilation) were the case, both twin's clocks
would obviously show the same at the end.
They don't.
Le 10/07/2024 à 20:56, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 09.07.2024 15:47, skrev Richard Hachel:
The paradox is this: The greatest relativistic physicist in
the universe (Richard Hachel) said that the effects of physics
are reciprocal by permutation of observer, and therefore,
if we take the INTERNAL mechanism of two watches, each will
beat faster than the other, both on the outward and return journey,
or during a long circular journey.
Let's look at the following scenario:
- Twin A and twin B are inertial and co-located.
- Twin B accelerates at the proper acceleration 2 c/year
away from A for 1 light year [ly] in A's rest frame.
- Twin B coasts (no engine) for 8 light years until he is 9 ly from A.
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/year towards A. He will reach 10 ly and
go back to 9 ly when he stops the engine.
- Twin B coasts from 9 ly to 1 ly-
- Twin B accelerates at 2 c/y until he is co-located with A.
Note:
While B is coasting and inertial we have two inertial twins
moving at the constant speed 0.943 c relative to each other,
This value is calculated starting from Minkowsky's four-dimensional space-time which is only one of the possible understandings of Lorentz transformations and the relationships between space and time.
Mine is directly calculated with the new and direct equation Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
And I find Vo=0.8944c and not Vo=0.943c. The values given are always too high among relativists for instantaneous observable speeds.
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
That's not what I find.
Tr=11.155 years
To=23,544 years.
The fact that in my opinion there are two errors comes from the fact
that, as I have always said, the instantaneous observable speeds are
given too high, this makes an error for To; and the natural times of the accelerated objects are given a little too low, this gives an error for Tr.
R.H.
Den 11.07.2024 02:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
That's not what I find.
Tr=11.155 years
To=23,544 years.
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.
If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.
You could say:
"When both twins are inertial each twin will measure the other
twin's clock to beat slower than his own clock, both on
the outward and return journey".
Which would make your statement above partly right.
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
But what happens when twin B is accelerating makes all the difference.
From the perspective of the twin chilling back on Earth, the
traveling twin is getting the time dilation treatment the whole time,
so he ages way less. That part's a no-brainer. But now let's flip
the script and look at it /from the traveling twin's point of view/:
Le 10/07/2024 à 20:46, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Why should my posts be censored in France? :-DYour posts seem available again.
That's ridiculous.
Je sais. J'adore plaisanter.
Les posts de Paul B. Andersen ne sont pas censurés en France. )
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.
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.
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
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert
Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert
Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.
He had several other opportunities to speak French.
E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly
Einstein knew them.
He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.
Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like:
Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre
But when did he learn French?
He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at
his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!
So: where, when and why did he learn French?
My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this:
he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.
And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein
and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the
presidency of Israel).
TH
Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder:merlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of
relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert
Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKa
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.
He had several other opportunities to speak French.
E.g. the works of Poincar were written in French and seemingly Einstein
knew them.
He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.
Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like:
Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre
But when did he learn French?
He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen at
his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!
So: where, when and why did he learn French?
My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this:
he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.
And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein and
he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the presidency
of Israel).
Damn, what are you all doing on sci.physics.relativity talking loads of bullshit?
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.
Le 11/07/2024 à 14:36, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 11.07.2024 02:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
No. Not MINE.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
SR is however thoroughly tested and never falsified.
And MINE?
If you claim SR is wrong, you better give reference
to an experiment which falsify SR.
Absolutely.
But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE. Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in
apparent speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand,
because that would call too much into question. It is therefore very
little useful to carry out experiments on what she says, since in any
case, it is dead from the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further, and see if what I say (and which is infinitely
coherent if we master the concepts) is experimentally true.
Den 11.07.2024 14:56, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 11/07/2024 à 14:36, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 11.07.2024 02:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
Yet B ages 9.18 years while A ages 22.63 y.
Which is the only result SR can give.
What's the point with writing 5 responses where you don't
address anything in the post you are responding to?
Quite.
We know that your "theory" is falsified and gives the wrong results.
No. Not MINE.
May I remind you:
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
Some of the experimental evidence that fail to falsify SR: https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!
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.
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?
< snip whining and heavy breathing >
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.
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.
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
Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel:
So why do you claim that SR is wrong?
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.
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.
Le 12/07/2024 à 15:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 11.07.2024 20:29, skrev Richard Hachel:
So why do you claim that SR is wrong?
That's not what I'm saying.
Many things physicists say are correct.
In this sense, SR is not false "in principle".
W dniu 12.07.2024 o 16:17, Richard Hachel pisze:
poor brainwashed fanatic.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:56:25 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
But I already told you, SR as taught has no chance of being true. NONE.
Because it inevitably contains a paradox (the Langevin paradox in
apparent
speeds). I explained why, but we don't WANT to understand, because that
would call too much into question. It is therefore very little useful to
carry out experiments on what she says, since in any case, it is dead
from
the start by simple theoretical evidence. We must therefore go further,
and see if what I say (and which is infinitely coherent if we master the
concepts) is experimentally true.
*** THERE IS NO PARADOX ***
In order for there to be a paradox, each twin would have to be in disagreement about how much time passed for the OTHER twin. In
actuality,
if, during the trip, each twin were capable of transmitting their local
time information to the other twin, at the end of the trip, they would
be
in perfect agreement about how much time had passed for each twin. Their on-board clocks would show different times when reunited, but that is
not
a paradox.
Le 12/07/2024 à 17:27, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a écrit :
What we must understand when we want to study the theory of relativity correctly,
Le 12/07/2024 à 17:27, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a écrit :
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?pY7stjyz5ZkXIvicxYhwWCsIV00@jntp/Data.Media:1>
When we teach the theory of relativity, we must teach it as Jewish
rabbis teach the Torah to young people
On 2024-07-12 06:11:26 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Donnerstag000011, 11.07.2024 um 13:14 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote:
Langevin's paradox.
The Langevin paradox is a very serious criticism against the theory of >>>> relativity. Unfortunately, the canonization and divinization of Albert >>>> Einstein as the new son of God on earth (it was excessive in both
substance and form) completely obscured the problem, and we only saw
dozens high-level theorists were right against him, and that their
grievances were audible.
Here you have Langevin (seated in front of the blackboard)
with Einstein and Ehrenfest.
You can see how devastated Einstein is at his theory
having been destroyed by Langevin, can't you?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin#/media/File:EinsteinEhrenfestKamerlingh-OnnesWeiss.jpg>
BTW, Einstein is on record as having praised Langevin
as 'the only Frenchman who understands relativity'.
Langevin started lecturing on relativity in 1910.
I had assumed, that Einstein spoke French very well.
He had several other opportunities to speak French.
E.g. the works of Poincaré were written in French and seemingly
Einstein knew them.
Being able to read and understand French is not the same as beingg able
to speak "French very well". I can read and understand written
Portuguese, but I certainly can't speak it or understand it when spoken
(in Portugal; in Brazil it is less impenetrable).
He had attended the 'Solveig Conference' which was held in French.
Einstein had also a number of contacts to people speaking French, like:
Marie Curie
Langvin
George Lemaitre
But when did he learn French?
He had no particular talent for foreign languages, which can be seen
at his very poor perfomance in English, after ten years in Princton!!
So: where, when and why did he learn French?
My current 'work hypothesis' goes like this:
he was actually Swiss citizen from birth and born in the west of
Szwizzerland, were they speak German and French.
Nonsense. He was born in Ulm, which is not and never was in Switzerland.
And possibly his CV was a complete fake and his name wasn't Einstein
and he was possibly not even a Jew (which is why he declined the
presidency of Israel).
TH
After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there.
But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born
citizens (at least in Germany) in those days.
Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there.
But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born
citizens (at least in Germany) in those days.
The word 'Amt' is the critical point here!
Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'.
But this would blur the distiction between private and state owned offices.
'Amt' means 'office', but has a certain important difference to the
English word 'office'.
The German 'Amt' necessarily means 'state owned' and is more related to
the English 'agency'.
The word 'Amt' is now the root of 'Beamter'.
Beamter can be decomposed to 'be made a member of the staff of an Amt'.
In such a position you get a certain status, which is usually very
desirable, like lifelong emploiment and generous pensions.
Such a status was usually granted only to born citizens in the German speaking world, because you need to represent the state as Beamter and
had to swear a certain oath.
Now the Germann word 'Patentamt' (patent office') contains the phrase
'Amt', hence only 'Beamte' were allowed to work there.
And since only born citizens were allowed as 'Beamter' (state
officials), Einstein needed to be born in Swizzerland.
(today this is a little different, but in the early 20th century, the
state was still very authoritarian and had certain ideas about how to
recruit the state's employees)
Iow: his CV was a most likely faked.
And if something was wrong, all other parts are also questionable, too, especially his name and being jewish.
The last sounds strange, but Einstein actually declined the presidency
of Israel, which was offered to him.
A good reason to do that would have been, if he wasn't a Jew.
TH
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
These values are insignificant and useless to calculate to understand correctly the Langevin paradox, which has no connection with the
acceleration phases, none.
Everything is played out during the simple Galilean phases. All.
You must simply use the formula
Tapp=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) each time,
and for all measurements.
The concordance is mathematical.
We absolutely don't need anything else.
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.
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.
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
Le 13/07/2024 à 10:27, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000013, 13.07.2024 um 09:30 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...
After university he went to Bern and worked in the patent office there.
But state officials (called 'Beamte' in German) needed to be born
citizens (at least in Germany) in those days.
The word 'Amt' is the critical point here!
Usualy the German 'Patentamt' is translated to 'patent office'.
But this would blur the distiction between private and state owned
offices.
'Amt' means 'office', but has a certain important difference to the
English word 'office'.
The German 'Amt' necessarily means 'state owned' and is more related
to the English 'agency'.
The word 'Amt' is now the root of 'Beamter'.
Beamter can be decomposed to 'be made a member of the staff of an Amt'.
In such a position you get a certain status, which is usually very
desirable, like lifelong emploiment and generous pensions.
Such a status was usually granted only to born citizens in the German
speaking world, because you need to represent the state as Beamter and
had to swear a certain oath.
Now the Germann word 'Patentamt' (patent office') contains the phrase
'Amt', hence only 'Beamte' were allowed to work there.
And since only born citizens were allowed as 'Beamter' (state
officials), Einstein needed to be born in Swizzerland.
(today this is a little different, but in the early 20th century, the
state was still very authoritarian and had certain ideas about how to
recruit the state's employees)
Iow: his CV was a most likely faked.
And if something was wrong, all other parts are also questionable,
too, especially his name and being jewish.
The last sounds strange, but Einstein actually declined the presidency
of Israel, which was offered to him.
A good reason to do that would have been, if he wasn't a Jew.
TH
There are indeed quite a few things that pose problems in the life of
Albert Einstein.
Perhaps the most important is this: he worked at the Berne patent office
as a copyist, and he had the opportunity to read the patents he copied,
to validate them.
It is very strange that it took a few years for the greatest
mathematician in the world, who communicated with Lorentz, Langevin and
many others, and with considerable experience, to come out with the
correct Lorentz transformations that everyone was looking for (Lorentz
he himself wrote horrible pieces which were false).
Poincaré will in fact release the correct transformations in June 1905
after much reflection.
And bang, an unknown copyist from the copy office brought out a similar article with the same name "on the kinematics of the electron" with the
same transformations in September 1905.
Aged 27!!!
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?
"Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own bullshit,
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?
W dniu 14.07.2024 o 12:32, Mikko pisze:
"Doctor" Richard Hachel post all his own
bullshit
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.
Le 14/07/2024 à 01:29, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
<unsnip end>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.
< snip irrelevant talk about Langevin>
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.
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"?
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.
Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
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.
SR's predictions are chocking for people ignorant of physics.
Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
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.
Le 12/07/2024 à 13:58, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.
No.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
No.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?
Absolutely.
That's what I said.
It's no way you can save your theory, Richard!
The experimental verifications relate to points which are similar in the
two theories (or rather in the two relativistic geometries, those of Minkowski and that of Hachel).
For example, if we ask a physicist to calculate the time taken by an accelerated particle to travel a distance x, the physicist will
immediately use Hachel's formula and he will be right. To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax)
If we ask him the opposite, that is to say to calculate the distance as
a function of time, the physicists will still use Hachel's formula,
which is the reciprocal, and he will still be right. x=(c²/a)[sqrt(1+a²To²/c²) -1]
You cannot therefore say, "the physicists contradict you", since they
use the same formulas as me, to prove a physical reality that is obvious
on paper, and obvious in the laboratories.
Now, on other things, they have to correct their equations, and they
have to prove experimentally whether it is Minkowski or me. On
theoretical paper, it is impossible that Minkowski and his physicists
can be right, what they say is not consistent and logical.
I have corrected a few equations that are not correct among theirs, and
all they have to do is verify experimentally what can only be correct
both mathematically and physically.
Example of corrections:
x=(1/2).a.Tr²
Vri=a.Tr
Tr (tau) =sqrt(2x/a)
To²=Tr²+Et²
Voi/c=[1+c²/2ax]^-(1/2)
To=Tr.sqrt(1+(1/4)Vri²/c²)
Eg=mc².sqrt(1+2ax/c²)
Ec=mc².[sqrt(1+2ax/c²) -1]
p=m.sqrt(2ax)
a'=a(1+Vr²/c²)^(-3/2)
a'=a(1-Vo²/c²)^(3/2)
These equations contradict the predictions of proper times and
instantaneous observable velocities.
It is therefore the experimental verification of these two values that we must seek (which is not simple experimentally).
Den 12.07.2024 15:44, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 12/07/2024 à 13:58, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
It is experimentally proved that no accelerator would work
if charged particles didn't behave _exactly_ as predicted by SR.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory predicts that protons behave
very differently from what SR predicts.
No.
Doctor Richard Hachel's theory is experimentally falsified.
No.
To test a theory, you must calculate what the theory
predicts will be measured in an experiment.
Then you do the experiment, and see if the values
read of the instrument are in accordance with the prediction
within the precision of the measurement.
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.
They say, like you, like me, that Stella will come back at the age of 18,
and Terrence will be 30 years old.
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.
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.
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.
Le 14/07/2024 à 19:07, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel:
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.
Absolutely not.
Proper time is an invariant.
Acceleration no affects anything, only improper time because speed is différent.
Acceleration is measured in the reference frame of the accelerating
object, and as the external space that accelerates relative to it.
It is therefore both completely inactive in proper time, remains
constant in this frame of reference, and becomes relative if it is
measured in the observing frame of reference.
R.H.
You claim that the protons in the LHC are moving
with the speed 6927⋅c.
The physicists who designed and run the LHC know that
the machinery (RF-cavites, bending and focusing magnets)
can only work if the speed of the protons is slightly
less than c.
The predictions of your theory are different from the measured
values.
Your theory is falsified.
Den 14.07.2024 19:40, skrev Richard Hachel:
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?
Den 14.07.2024 20:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
Everybody but complete morons will understand that the acceleration
will affect Stella's proper time when she is back at Terrence.
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.
[ … ]
Not only his age was a problem.
Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a genius:
he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a
week with ten hours each.
This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the
early 20th century.
He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who
would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left.
In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four
ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize.
Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'
in the same year.
(I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep).
But there a few more problems to overcome:
computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers.
Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession.
This was expensive and also a lot to read.
It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools
were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink).
Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light
(while his wife snores and the kind crys).
...
TH
On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Not only his age was a problem.
Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a genius:
he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a
week with ten hours each.
This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the
early 20th century.
He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who
would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left.
In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four
ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize.
Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'
in the same year.
(I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep).
But there a few more problems to overcome:
computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers.
Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession.
This was expensive and also a lot to read.
Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're
the Thomas Heger that wrote
Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004)
and
T. Heger and M. Pandit, "Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung," in
Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002).
then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science
at all (technology, rather).
Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books
and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know
about libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein
as well. If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not
expensive, it's free.
I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work
would include studying what had already been described. For that,
access to a library would be essential.
It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools
were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink).
Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light
Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of
the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Not only his age was a problem.
Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become a
genius:
he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a
week with ten hours each.
This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the
early 20th century.
He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who
would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left.
In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four
ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize.
Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'
in the same year.
(I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep).
But there a few more problems to overcome:
computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers.
Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own posession. >>>
This was expensive and also a lot to read.
Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're
the Thomas Heger that wrote
Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for
grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004)
and
T. Heger and M. Pandit, "Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von
Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung," in
Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002).
then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science
at all (technology, rather).
Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books
and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be
impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know
about libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein
as well. If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not
expensive, it's free.
I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work
would include studying what had already been described. For that,
access to a library would be essential.
Of course, patent offices have huge libraries.
Patent examiners must examine feasability and prior art.
Merely understanding the patent may already require library work.
It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools
were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink).
Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write his
masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light
Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of
the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then.
We have had this discussion about this particular fantasy of TH
several times already.
As a matter of fact Bern, and all other major European towns,
had gas light, both in the street and in the houses.
The Einstein house in Bern, nowadays a museum with period furniture,
still has gas lamps in place. [1] (but converted for elecricity)
Jan
[1] In the museum they are hung too high, against the public touching. Einstein would have had a central gas lamp not too high above the table,
for lighting it and turning it off.
BTW, th standard thread for electrical fittings is still the 19th
century British standard gas pipe.
Le 14/07/2024 à 20:31, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
You claim that the protons in the LHC are moving
with the speed 6927⋅c.
The physicists who designed and run the LHC know that
the machinery (RF-cavites, bending and focusing magnets)
can only work if the speed of the protons is slightly
less than c.
The predictions of your theory are different from the measured
values.
Your theory is falsified.
Paul, you are completely crazy.
What can I say to such nonsense?
Even Jean-Pierre Messager doesn't say such stupid things.
R.H.
Den 14.07.2024 23:11, skrev Richard Hachel:
What does your theory predict the speed of the protons in the LHC is?
What is the measured speed of the protons in the LHC?
...
The real speed of your proton (not the one you measure) is therefore Vr=6947c.
Le 14/07/2024 à 22:25, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
If Stella leaves Terrence with the initial speed 0.8c
and accelerates toward Terrence (brakes) with a constant
proper acceleration, her speed in Terrence rest frame will
diminish with time to zero, and then increase until she
passes (hits?) Terrence with the speed 0.8c.
Everybody but complete morons will understand that the acceleration
will affect Stella's proper time when she is back at Terrence.
MAIS NON !!!
Oh my god!
Stella's acceleration does not change its own time in any way.
Breathe in, breathe out...
Damn it!
What will vary is not its own time, which is only related to its
chronotropy, and it is always immobile in relation to itself.
There is no absolute frame of reference, and time passes in the same way
in ALL frames of reference, that is to say by one second every second.
It is only for observers placed elsewhere and measuring with different watches that proper time becomes relative. But proper time is in itself invariant.
When Bella (the traveler from Tau Ceti) leaves the earth, her own time
does not change in any way. She will reach Tau Ceti in 4,776 years, and throughout the journey her time remains one second per second, as it was before she left. Only in the Earth's frame of reference does time seem
to expand more and more, and acceleration seems to decrease more and
more. I gave the equations.
In relativity, everything happens as if the observers were always
stationary, and that it was "others" who were moving in relation to
them. Even in rotating frames of reference (the most difficult concept)
the rotating object observes the universe as if it were the universe
rotating around it. In relativism everything always happens like this.
R.H.
Le 15/07/2024 à 14:23, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...
The real speed of your proton (not the one you measure) is therefore
Vr=6947c.
Richard, face it: physics is not your thing.
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?
Le 15/07/2024 à 13:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 14.07.2024 23:11, skrev Richard Hachel:
What does your theory predict the speed of the protons in the LHC is?
What is the measured speed of the protons in the LHC?
But I have already answered you a thousand times.
The observable, i.e. measurable, speed of the proton in the LHC is 0.999999989c.
I set Vo=0.999999989c.
It's still very simple to understand, and if you made more effort to
achieve coherent discussions, we wouldn't be talking such banalities.
I just pointed out, even if it may seem very destabilizing, that this is
only the observable, measured speed, but that it is not the deep reality
of things.
You know very well that the measurement of the shadow of a building is
not the measurement of the building itself. It depends on the position
of the sun.
We have the same thing in relativity.
When we measure, in our frame of reference, the distances to be covered,
we have a precise measurement to note.
But when we measure the time it takes to cover this distance, a huge
illusion appears because apart from the rocket or the particle, which
only have one watch, we are obliged to use two watches (even if we come
back to the same physical watch, after a long journey, it is no longer
really "the same watch").
Paul, breathe, exhale.
Measuring time with two watches placed in different places can only lead
to temporal aberrations.
Speed being the quotient of distance over time, we will no longer have the same notion of speed. An illusion will appear since our way of
measuring things becomes incorrect.
When you measure the observable speed Vo of your proton, you find Vo=0.999999989c but if you want to know the real speed
in the lab reference frame, you must convert (i.e. remove the bias from
the measurement).
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Conversely, if you know Vr, you use the reciprocal equation to find Vo.
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
The real speed of your proton (not the one you measure) is therefore Vr=6947c.
This is enormous speed.
If you know the mass of your proton, and if you know its momentum at
this instant, you just need to use p=m.v
You will see that v, in reality, is Vr=6947c and not Vo=0.999999989c.
R.H.
Den 15.07.2024 14:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
You know the answer.
The real speed of the protons is measured to be less than c.
Den 15.07.2024 14:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 15/07/2024 à 13:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 14.07.2024 23:11, skrev Richard Hachel:
What does your theory predict the speed of the protons in the LHC is?
What is the measured speed of the protons in the LHC?
But I have already answered you a thousand times.
The observable, i.e. measurable, speed of the proton in the LHC is
0.999999989c.
I set Vo=0.999999989c.
It's still very simple to understand, and if you made more effort to
achieve coherent discussions, we wouldn't be talking such banalities.
I just pointed out, even if it may seem very destabilizing, that this
is only the observable, measured speed, but that it is not the deep
reality of things.
You know very well that the measurement of the shadow of a building is
not the measurement of the building itself. It depends on the position
of the sun.
We have the same thing in relativity.
When we measure, in our frame of reference, the distances to be
covered, we have a precise measurement to note.
But when we measure the time it takes to cover this distance, a huge
illusion appears because apart from the rocket or the particle, which
only have one watch, we are obliged to use two watches (even if we
come back to the same physical watch, after a long journey, it is no
longer really "the same watch").
Paul, breathe, exhale.
Measuring time with two watches placed in different places can only
lead to temporal aberrations.
Speed being the quotient of distance over time, we will no longer
have the same notion of speed. An illusion will appear since our way
of measuring things becomes incorrect.
When you measure the observable speed Vo of your proton, you find
Vo=0.999999989c but if you want to know the real speed
in the lab reference frame, you must convert (i.e. remove the bias
from the measurement).
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
Conversely, if you know Vr, you use the reciprocal equation to find Vo.
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
The real speed of your proton (not the one you measure) is therefore
Vr=6947c.
Why so many words to give the simple answer:
Your theory predicts that the real speed of
the proton in the LHC is 6947c.
This is enormous speed.
If you know the mass of your proton, and if you know its momentum at
this instant, you just need to use p=m.v
You will see that v, in reality, is Vr=6947c and not Vo=0.999999989c.
R.H.
You failed to answer the second question.
"What is the measured speed of the protons in the LHC?"
You know the answer.
The real speed of the protons is measured to be less than c.
Le 15/07/2024 à 14:57, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
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?
But it's a very simple question.
Why don't you do it to show me you understand?
R.H.
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".
I can only give you the answer according to SR.
You will find all the equations and the method to
solve the problem here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Den 15.07.2024 15:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Le 15/07/2024 à 15:11, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 15.07.2024 14:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
The real speed of your proton (not the one you measure) is therefore Vr=6947c.
Why so many words to give the simple answer:
Your theory predicts that the real speed of
the proton in the LHC is 6947c.
You failed to answer the second question.
"What is the measured speed of the protons in the LHC?"
You know the answer.
The real speed of the protons is measured to be less than c.
So since the predicted speed is different from
the measured speed, your theory is falsified.
You are deliberately confusing Vo and Vr.
Vo is what we measure in the laboratory with
clocks placed in different locations.
The same clock, placed at the start and finish
of a large circular circuit, is not, in relativity,
one and the same clock.
These are two clocks, placed in two different places
and separated by the distance of the circuit, even if
they have been "fused" into one.
The only reality is the time measured by a watch that
could be attached to the proton, and which would give
the proper time in the proton's frame of reference,
because it always remains in the same place in its
frame of reference (accelerated or not). This is not
the case for the laboratory reference frame, which
measures a very “jumpy” proton.
Please note: the real speed is measured in the LAB reference frame.
The theory of
relativity is full of little traps, and the idea that
the real speed is in the reference frame of the proton,
since we use its own time, is a very powerful trap.
Den 15.07.2024 15:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
The physicists at CERN are measuring the speed
of the protons in the LHC to be less than c.
Putting different indexes on the V can't change that fact.
And of course this speed is real, and not imaginary.
Please note: the real speed is measured in the LAB reference frame.
Yes, of course!
Even a child would be able to calculate that when
the proton is moving around the 27 km circuit,
and it passes by the same point every slightly more
than 90 μs, then its real speed is slightly less than
27000m/0.000009s = 3000000000 m/s
On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Not only his age was a problem.
Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become
a genius:
he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a
week with ten hours each.
This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the
early 20th century.
He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who
would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left.
In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four
ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize.
Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der Physik'
in the same year.
(I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep).
But there a few more problems to overcome:
computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers.
Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own
posession.
This was expensive and also a lot to read.
Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're
the Thomas Heger that wrote
Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system for grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004)
and
T. Heger and M. Pandit, “Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung,” in Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002).
then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even science
at all (technology, rather).
Anyway, in 50 years of research I have frequently cited work in books
and jounals of which I don't own personal copies. Research would be impossible otherwise. The thing is, though, that unlike you I know about libraries and how to use them. That was surely true of Einstein as well.
If you belong to an appropriate institution that's not expensive, it's
free.
I have never worked in a patent office, but I feel sure that the work
would include studying what had already been described. For that, access
to a library would be essential.
It was also a lot to write, but without any kind of aid. Usual tools
were pens (or ocasionally feathers and ink).
Since only nights were left over for free thinking, he had to write
his masterpieces at the kitchen table, lit by candle light
Are you serious? Electric lighting was widespread by the beginning of
the 20th century, and had probably reached Switzerland by then.
Le 15/07/2024 à 22:13, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Even a child would be able to calculate that when
the proton is moving around the 27 km circuit,
and it passes by the same point every slightly more
than 90 μs, then its real speed is slightly less than
27000m/0.000009s = 3000000000 m/s
No one has ever said otherwise.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
Le 15/07/2024 à 20:14, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 15.07.2024 15:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ch2jfWaArdOfK3yzPPitxq9HA-A@jntp/Data.Media:1>
Le 15/07/2024 à 20:14, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 15.07.2024 15:10, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 15/07/2024 à 14:57, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
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?
But it's a very simple question.
Why don't you do it to show me you understand?
I can only give you the answer according to SR.
You will find all the equations and the method to
solve the problem here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
But you have told me that SR doesn't give the right answer
when acceleration is involved, so please give the answer according
to your corrected equations.
Or are you telling me that the greatest relativistic physicist
in the universe (Doctor Richard Hachel) is unable to answer
the simple question?
Lots of interesting things, but a lot of things repeated from what relativists say, and which is not a personal thought.
This is all very interesting but it is difficult to have an honest and coherent discussion on this for several reasons.
The first being that the position of the relativists is today a matter
of dogma, almost in the same way as Christian or Muslim dogmas. I agree
on some things (I'm not a crank who denies everything), but I disagree
on others.
It is very difficult today to attack the SR, even partially, even with enormous arguments. SR has apparently become more of a faith than a
science, and this is not normal.
It becomes almost impossible to correct errors that are however clear,
even if only in the correct explanation of Langevin. The SR is totally incoherent in the face of Hachel who will protest by saying that the
apparent speeds are contradictory if we do not apply the notion of reciprocity of relativistic effects on lengths AND DISTANCES, which will explain why OBSERVABLE speeds instantaneous are incorrect, and why the
use of real speeds brings a lot of understanding to the whole, which
will also explain that the metric of rotating frames of reference is
abstract and completely false.
But I repeat it clearly, the problem is human, and even in the face of theoretical evidence, humans will still say "it is impossible that I am wrong".
R.H.
So Richard Hachel has said that when the proton is movingI refer you to Blaise Pascal's advice: "When you don't understand
around the 27 km circuit, and is measured to pass by the same
point every ≈ 90 μs, then the proton has really made 6933
turns around the circuit during the ≈ 90 μs, which means that
the proton passes the point every ≈ 12.8 ns, and the speed of
the proton is 6927⋅c and not slightly less than c.I like your sense of humor.
It is a bit inappropriate in the sense that you do not understand what you are
reading (I never said that we could measure in the laboratory protons moving at
6927c in observable speed although it is obvious that physicists perform this feat
every day, at real speed, but without understanding the mechanism).
means that the direction of the acceleration (a vector) is
always toward Terrence, but since Stella at the first passing is
moving away from Terrence at the speed 0.8c, her speed will
first be reduced (she's braking) and eventually reach zero,
and thereafter she will move towards Terrence at increasing speed.
It should not be hard to guess what the speed is when she passes
Terrence the second time.
Paul
Am Montag000015, 15.07.2024 um 09:51 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-07-14 08:22:56 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Not only his age was a problem.
Einstein had a number of other problem, he had to overcome, to become
a genius:
he worked in the 'Patentamt' (patent office) of Bern for six days a
week with ten hours each.
This is a lot of time, but those were the conditions of work in the
early 20th century.
He had also a young family with a beautiful wife and a small kid, who
would certainly occupy a few of the few hours left.
In these few remaining hours he wrote in 1905 alone four
ground-breaking papers, of which one won him a Nobel prize.
Besides of that he also nwrote twenty reviews for 'Annalen der
Physik' in the same year.
(I wonder how he had managed to get at least some sleep).
But there a few more problems to overcome:
computers were not invented then, nor xerox copiers.
Therefore, he had to have all books in physical form in his own
posession.
This was expensive and also a lot to read.
Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? OK, if you're
the Thomas Heger that wrote
Thomas Heger and Madhukar C. Pandit "Optical wear assessment system
for grinding tools," Journal of Electronic Imaging 13(3), (2004)
and
T. Heger and M. Pandit, “Automatisierte Verschleißbeurteilung von
Schleifscheiben mit Mitteln der digitalen Bildverarbeitung,” in
Automat. Praxis 4, 50–56 (2002).
then maybe you have, though that's not exactly physics, or even
science at all (technology, rather).
I have never heard of that publication.
But the VERY funny thing is, that the topic of my 'Diplomarbeit' (kind
of 'master thesis' in German) was almost exactly the topic of this article.
I have absolutely no idea, how that is possible, since 'wear of grinding tools' is such an extremely unlikely topic to assume simple coincidence.
So: no idea how that happend!
Absolutely nada...
But my real name is really 'Thomas Heger' and I live really in Berlin
and have really studied at TU-Berlin and got a real Diploma from
professor Spur for a reasearch on wear on grinding tools.
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
So your theory predicts that Stella and Terrence ages equally.
According to SR Stella's proper time is τₛ ≈ 2.19722 years.
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally verified
to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
Le 16/07/2024 à 13:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :question.
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?
"she accelerates at the constant acceleration c per year (≈ 0.97g)
towards Terrence."
means that the direction of the acceleration (a vector) is
always toward Terrence, but since Stella at the first passing is
moving away from Terrence at the speed 0.8c, her speed will
first be reduced (she's braking) and eventually reach zero,
and thereafter she will move towards Terrence at increasing speed.
It should not be hard to guess what the speed is when she passes
Terrence the second time.
I speak English very poorly, and sometimes I may misunderstand a
Thank you for the linguistic clarifications you have just provided.it more specifically.
As for the question, I've already answered it indirectly, but I'll do
We are therefore in the presence of a Stella which crosses the earthat a constant uniform speed of Vo=0.8c.
According to the criteria of Richard Verret and Richard Hachel, wetherefore have Vr=(4/3)c.
At this precise moment, Stella transforms into a Bella, and sets upan acceleration system of approximately 10m/s², which we will assume to
In the Galilean reference frame of Stella (which has not yettransformed into Bella), we will have a distance for the earth which
When Bella (new Stella) crosses the earth, we will necessarily have x=x.crossings.
Let To.Vo=(c²/a).sqrt(1+a²To²/c).
This equation has two roots:
The first is To=0 and x=0.
This is the first crossing.
The second root gives: To=(40/9)ans.
Let x=32/9 al
This is the second observed crossing of the old Stella repository.
But this does not tell us the proper time of Bella (new Stella),
nor Terrence.
Note that so far, physicists agree with Doctor Hachel.
They will still be if we ask Terrence's own time between the two
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=24/9 years (or 8/3)
Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculateStella's own time (now Bella).
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame ofreference allows us to say:
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then theproper times will be equal”
Hence Tr=24/9 years for her too (or 8/3).
What physicists deny, but which I nevertheless confirm.
Note that if we have x and a, i.e. x=32/9 and a=1 we immediately haveTr for the Stella accelerated according to Tr=sqrt(2x/a) a very
Den 16.07.2024 20:56, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 16/07/2024 à 20:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
. .
They will still be if we ask Terrence's own time between the two crossings.
Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=24/9 years (or 8/3)
. .
Hence Tr=24/9 years for her too (or 8/3).
. .
So your theory predicts that Stella and Terrence ages equally.
According to SR Stella's proper time is τₛ ≈ 2.19722 years.
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally
verified to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
This is what I keep repeating to relativistic physicists, who can read
what I write on usenet (but I don't think they are interested).
Right.
I am not interested.
You have answered my question and showed that the predictions
of your "theory" are different from the predictions of SR.
I am not interested in your obviously inconsistent
theory which give predictions which are not in accordance
with reality.
Le 16/07/2024 à 20:28, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
. .
They will still be if we ask Terrence's own time between the two crossings. >>> Tr=To.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=24/9 years (or 8/3)
. .
Hence Tr=24/9 years for her too (or 8/3).
. .
So your theory predicts that Stella and Terrence ages equally.
According to SR Stella's proper time is τₛ ≈ 2.19722 years.
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally
verified to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
This is what I keep repeating to relativistic physicists, who can read
what I write on usenet (but I don't think they are interested).
Le 16/07/2024 à 12:57, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
So Richard Hachel has said that when the proton is moving
around the 27 km circuit, and is measured to pass by the same
point every ≈ 90 μs, then the proton has really made 6933
turns around the circuit during the ≈ 90 μs, which means that
the proton passes the point every ≈ 12.8 ns, and the speed of
the proton is 6927⋅c and not slightly less than c.
I like your sense of
humor. It is a bit inappropriate in the sense that you do not
understand what you are reading (I never said that we could measure in
the laboratory protons moving at 6927c in observable speed although it
is obvious that physicists perform this feat every day, at real speed,
but without understanding the mechanism).
I refer you to Blaise Pascal's advice: "When you don't understand
something, and a man's comments seem extravagant to you, and you don't
know if he is particularly stupid or particularly brilliant, go look elsewhere .If he is particularly stupid in other matters, or in his
usual behavior, it is very likely that he is stupid in what he says and
in what we read. On the other hand, if he shows. that elsewhere he
largely masters his subject, we must first think that what we do not understand perhaps comes from us, and not from him.
But I like your sense of humor anyway.
N.B. The color of the invisible proton, I haven't photographed it yet,
but I remain hopeful.
R.H.
I will however write this:
A proton is guided by RF-cavities and bending magnets around
the circuit in the LHC.
If the speed of the proton wasn't exactly right (slightly less than c)
the RF-cavities wouldn't work because each cavity has to be in the right phase when the proton passes it, and the bending magnets wouldn't guide
the proton around the bends because the deflection of the proton
is strongly dependent on its speed.
I do indeed understand what you are saying.
You are saying that when the physicists drifting the LHC know
that a proton has went around the circuit once, it has really
went around the circuit 6933 times.
This is an incredible stupid claim, and it is hard to believe
that a sane person can believe so.
Your "theory" isn't even wrong, it is only incoherent nonsense.
Enough now!
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:...
...
Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculateStella's own time (now Bella).
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame ofreference allows us to say:
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then theproper times will be equal”
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally verified
to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
Le 16/07/2024 à 20:33, Paul.B.Andersen a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
...
...Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculateStella's own time (now Bella).
;reference allows us to say:
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame of
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then theproper times will be equal”
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally
verified to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
I tried, in vain, to explain to Richard how his claim : “If the paths
W dniu 16.07.2024 o 23:07, Python pisze:
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
Le 16/07/2024 à 20:33, Paul.B.Andersen a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
...
...Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculateStella's own time (now Bella).
reference allows us to say:
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame of
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then theproper times will be equal”
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally verified
to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
I tried, in vain, to explain to Richard how his claim : “If the paths
are equal, and the observable times equal, then the proper times will be equal” is asinine :
1. Given two distincts trajectories, "equal paths" is a frame dependent
property it CANNOT implies something which is NOT frame-dependant
(equality of proper times)
2. "observable times equal" expresses nothing more than the equality of
difference of time between two events with... itself
Out of Galilean Relativity, where proper times are always equal (and
then the whole claim is void), this is logically impossible.
And also I pointed out with full details how his claims implies, as
you wrote, that this leads to equal times for any twin scenario.
Le 16/07/2024 à 23:07, Python a écrit :
Le 16/07/2024 à 20:33, Paul.B.Andersen a écrit :
...
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
...
Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculateStella's own time (now Bella).
;reference allows us to say:
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame of
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then theproper times will be equal”
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally
verified to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
I tried, in vain, to explain to Richard how his claim : “If the paths
are equal, and the observable times equal, then the proper times will be
equal” is asinine :
1. Given two distincts trajectories, "equal paths" is a frame dependent
property it CANNOT implies something which is NOT frame-dependant
(equality of proper times)
2. "observable times equal" expresses nothing more than the equality of
difference of time between two events with... itself
Out of Galilean Relativity, where proper times are always equal (and
then the whole claim is void), this is logically impossible.
My dear Jean-Pierre,
[snip whining]
And also I pointed out with full details how his claims implies, as
you wrote, that this leads to equal times for any twin scenario.
Absolutely not.
You lie.
Le 17/07/2024 à 00:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :
You contradict yourself and the principle of Relativity on your
claims about accelerated/inertial twins. I'm not the only one
who pointed that to you. You are insanely egotist and stupid,
Richard. You should not be allowed to practice medicine in France
as you currently are.
Le 17/07/2024 à 01:41, Python a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 00:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :
You contradict yourself and the principle of Relativity on your
claims about accelerated/inertial twins. I'm not the only one
who pointed that to you. You are insanely egotist and stupid,
Richard. You should not be allowed to practice medicine in France
as you currently are.
But no my dear Jean-Pierre,
I am not contradicting myself, and indeed, after 40 years of reflection
on the subject, I have achieved total mastery of RR on all these
essential principles.
You know, my darling, everything did not fall from the sky, it took me thousands of hours of reflection to obtain fairly good scientific bases,
and I thought I would never be able to to complete my personal mission:
to understand at least two or three important things about the universe
in its scientific, theological, philosophical whole.
It is also not excluded that I disappeared, nothing remains.
On the other hand, I have never stopped telling you, to you who is an
ugly brat who doesn't want to understand anything, it is true that the
RR contradicts itself on many things.
I have already given formal proof of this.
One of the best, incontestable proofs is the Langevin in apparent mode
which is perfectly absurd if we take the contraction of lengths at face value, but the resolution of the problem offends human navel-gazing.
Human navel-gazing is such that if you reveal a disturbing truth to him,
he will take, if he can, millennia to challenge it.
The truth (be careful, my darling) is that there is no contraction of distances by change of frame of reference, but on the contrary an
expansion of distances.
This is what Poincaré says in his transformation, and this explains all
the misunderstandings that have existed for 120 years.
You noticed that the quantity sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) of the transformation
of Poincaré-Lorentz is found in the denominator in x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
General dilatation, my dear Watson. Lorentz factor obliges.
Which also explains the 36 al that Stella sees traveling at 4c for 9 years. No, no, I'm not contradicting myself.
It is not the same for physicists who are still fighting among
themselves, because they have not understood the beauty, the clarity and
the evidence of the theory stripped of its conceptual dust. Because for
them again: ignorance is strength. But whose ignorance for whose strength?
[gna gna gna gna]
Le 17/07/2024 à 02:11, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 01:41, Python a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 00:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :
You contradict yourself and the principle of Relativity on your
claims about accelerated/inertial twins. I'm not the only one
who pointed that to you. You are insanely egotist and stupid,
Richard. You should not be allowed to practice medicine in France
as you currently are.
But no my dear Jean-Pierre,
I am not contradicting myself, and indeed, after 40 years of reflection
on the subject, I have achieved total mastery of RR on all these
essential principles.
You know, my darling, everything did not fall from the sky, it took me
thousands of hours of reflection to obtain fairly good scientific bases,
and I thought I would never be able to to complete my personal mission:
to understand at least two or three important things about the universe
in its scientific, theological, philosophical whole.
It is also not excluded that I disappeared, nothing remains.
On the other hand, I have never stopped telling you, to you who is an
ugly brat who doesn't want to understand anything, it is true that the
RR contradicts itself on many things.
I have already given formal proof of this.
One of the best, incontestable proofs is the Langevin in apparent mode
which is perfectly absurd if we take the contraction of lengths at face
value, but the resolution of the problem offends human navel-gazing.
Human navel-gazing is such that if you reveal a disturbing truth to him,
he will take, if he can, millennia to challenge it.
The truth (be careful, my darling) is that there is no contraction of
distances by change of frame of reference, but on the contrary an
expansion of distances.
This is what Poincaré says in his transformation, and this explains all
the misunderstandings that have existed for 120 years.
You noticed that the quantity sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) of the transformation
of Poincaré-Lorentz is found in the denominator in
x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
General dilatation, my dear Watson. Lorentz factor obliges.
Which also explains the 36 al that Stella sees traveling at 4c for 9 years. >> No, no, I'm not contradicting myself.
It is not the same for physicists who are still fighting among
themselves, because they have not understood the beauty, the clarity and
the evidence of the theory stripped of its conceptual dust. Because for
them again: ignorance is strength. But whose ignorance for whose strength?
Richard, you need to see a psychiatrist.
Le 17/07/2024 à 02:14, Python a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 02:11, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 01:41, Python a écrit :
Le 17/07/2024 à 00:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :
You contradict yourself and the principle of Relativity on your
claims about accelerated/inertial twins. I'm not the only one
who pointed that to you. You are insanely egotist and stupid,
Richard. You should not be allowed to practice medicine in France
as you currently are.
But no my dear Jean-Pierre,
I am not contradicting myself, and indeed, after 40 years of
reflection on the subject, I have achieved total mastery of RR on all
these essential principles.
You know, my darling, everything did not fall from the sky, it took
me thousands of hours of reflection to obtain fairly good scientific
bases, and I thought I would never be able to to complete my personal
mission: to understand at least two or three important things about
the universe in its scientific, theological, philosophical whole.
It is also not excluded that I disappeared, nothing remains.
On the other hand, I have never stopped telling you, to you who is an
ugly brat who doesn't want to understand anything, it is true that
the RR contradicts itself on many things.
I have already given formal proof of this.
One of the best, incontestable proofs is the Langevin in apparent
mode which is perfectly absurd if we take the contraction of lengths
at face value, but the resolution of the problem offends human
navel-gazing.
Human navel-gazing is such that if you reveal a disturbing truth to
him, he will take, if he can, millennia to challenge it.
The truth (be careful, my darling) is that there is no contraction of
distances by change of frame of reference, but on the contrary an
expansion of distances.
This is what Poincaré says in his transformation, and this explains
all the misunderstandings that have existed for 120 years.
You noticed that the quantity sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) of the transformation
of Poincaré-Lorentz is found in the denominator in
x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)?
General dilatation, my dear Watson. Lorentz factor obliges.
Which also explains the 36 al that Stella sees traveling at 4c for 9
years.
No, no, I'm not contradicting myself.
It is not the same for physicists who are still fighting among
themselves, because they have not understood the beauty, the clarity
and the evidence of the theory stripped of its conceptual dust.
Because for them again: ignorance is strength. But whose ignorance
for whose strength?
Richard, you need to see a psychiatrist.
Mais non.
Il y a simplement le fait que tu ne maitrises pas du tout la RR, et que
la plupart des gens qui interviennent sur les forums mondiaux n'en
savent pas beaucoup plus que toi.
Tout cela n'est qu'une immense frime où chacun cache son impuissance sexuelle de peur d'effrayer les gonzesse.
Tu n'as jamais remarqué que dès que j'attrape un mec par les couilles,
il se tire vite la queue entre les pattes, parce qu'il ne sait pas
répondre, et que "si ça se voit, on va se moquer de lui".
Mais encore ce jour, mon tendre chéri, je pose un problème tout simple.
Une petite transfo de merde, du style M=[0,0,60,0) ----> M'= ?
On donne v=0.8c.
Ne ris pas Jean-Pierre, mais personne ne comprends même pas le problème.
C'est pas pour y répondre, ils ne peuvent même pas tenter de répondre, parce qu'ils sont dans le noir tous, et que prendre le risque de
répondre à un Richard HAchel, c'est montrer qu'on en sait moins que lui,
et ça, c'est intolérable.
Un psychiatre... LOL... Nan mais je rêve.
Tu sais que tu m'amuses, Jean-Pierre?
R.H.
Richard, you need to see a psychiatrist.
Mais non.
Le 17/07/2024 à 02:35, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Richard, you need to see a psychiatrist.
Mais non.
Oh yes, you do.
Le 17/07/2024 à 00:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 16/07/2024 à 23:07, Python a écrit :
Le 16/07/2024 à 20:33, Paul.B.Andersen a écrit :
...
Den 16.07.2024 15:25, skrev Richard Hachel:
...
Where they will no longer be is when it is necessary to calculateStella's own time (now Bella).
;reference allows us to say:
The fact that Bella accelerates from rest in Stella's frame of
“If the paths are equal, and the observable times equal, then the >>>> proper times will be equal”
So "the travelling twin" ages less than the "stay at home twin".
The ageing of the twins in the "twin paradox" is experimentally
verified to be as predicted by SR.
Your theory is falsified.
I tried, in vain, to explain to Richard how his claim : “If the paths
are equal, and the observable times equal, then the proper times will be >>> equal” is asinine :
1. Given two distincts trajectories, "equal paths" is a frame dependent
property it CANNOT implies something which is NOT frame-dependant >>> (equality of proper times)
2. "observable times equal" expresses nothing more than the equality of
difference of time between two events with... itself
Out of Galilean Relativity, where proper times are always equal (and
then the whole claim is void), this is logically impossible.
My dear Jean-Pierre,
[snip whining]
Nothing but "I'm right, because I am right, and I am always right", no address of the issues I pointed out. As usual...
Le 16/07/2024 à 22:25, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I will however write this:
A proton is guided by RF-cavities and bending magnets around
the circuit in the LHC.
If the speed of the proton wasn't exactly right (slightly less than c)
the RF-cavities wouldn't work because each cavity has to be in the
right phase when the proton passes it, and the bending magnets
wouldn't guide the proton around the bends because the deflection of
the proton
is strongly dependent on its speed.
I do indeed understand what you are saying.
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC know
that a proton has went around the circuit once, it has really
went around the circuit 6933 times.
This is an incredible stupid claim, and it is hard to believe
that a sane person can believe so.
Your "theory" isn't even wrong, it is only incoherent nonsense.
Enough now!
I said that the proton was actually rotating in the system
6933 times faster than measured by the clocks placed in
the laboratory reference frame. This is a simple dilation
of durations in the laboratory reference frame.
I never said that when it spins once, it spins 6933 times.
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
Den 16.07.2024 22:43, skrev Richard Hachel:
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
Le 16/07/2024 à 21:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I am not interested in your obviously inconsistent
theory which give predictions which are not in accordance
with reality.
You are right.
A theory that does not agree with experimentation cannot be correct.
Le 17/07/2024 à 19:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
No one in their right mind has ever said that.
Your "theory" isn't even wrong, it is only incoherent nonsense.
Den 16.07.2024 21:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 16/07/2024 à 21:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I am not interested in your obviously inconsistent
theory which give predictions which are not in accordance
with reality.
You are right.
A theory that does not agree with experimentation cannot be correct.
Alors vous l'avez enfin compris !
Votre théorie prédit que la vitesse réelle de
le proton dans le LHC est 6947c.
La vitesse réelle des protons est mesurée comme étant inférieure à c.
Puisque la vitesse prévue est différente de
la vitesse mesurée, votre théorie est fausse.
Le 17/07/2024 à 19:37, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 16.07.2024 21:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 16/07/2024 à 21:26, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
I am not interested in your obviously inconsistent
theory which give predictions which are not in accordance
with reality.
You are right.
A theory that does not agree with experimentation cannot be correct.
So you finally got it!
Your theory predicts that the real speed of
the proton in the LHC is 6947c.
The real speed of protons is measured to be less than c.
Since the predicted speed is different from
the measured speed, your theory is falsified.
No. My theory predicts that the observable speed of
the proton will be Vo=0.9999998c
Le 17/07/2024 à 19:24, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
No one in their right mind has ever said that.
Den 17.07.2024 20:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
Your theory predicts that the real speed of the protons
in the LHC is 6947c.
The real speed of the protons in the LHC is measured
to be 0.9999998c.
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
Please keep insisting that if the speed of the protons is 6947c
and thus will move once around the ring in ≈ 13 ns,
then a clock
at a point in the ring will measure that the proton passes it
every ≈ 90 μs.
(I have a morbid sense of humour and love to rub it in.)
Le 18/07/2024 à 21:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Your theory predicts that the real speed of the protons
in the LHC is 6947c.
Yes, absolutly.
Vr=6947c
The relativistic world uses fantastic speeds.
The real speed of the protons in the LHC is measured
to be 0.9999998c.
No
Please stop.
Observable speed in the laboratory Vo=0.99999998c
Real Speed : Vr=6947c
You confuse the notions.
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
But no !!!
LOL !!!
Please keep insisting that if the speed of the protons is 6947c
and thus will move once around the ring in ≈ 13 ns,
then a clock
at a point in the ring will measure that the proton passes it
every ≈ 90 μs.
(I have a morbid sense of humour and love to rub it in.)
It's not humor, I just can't understand why you contradict everything I
write on usenet.
It would appear that you are doing this with honesty, not simply to
falsify the science, and with confidence in your right because you have memorized what others have said.
I now invite you to go further, to think for yourself, and to verify
that things are really sometimes wrong in the interpretations that men
have made of the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations (which are correct,
but interpreted anyhow and with an abstract, false, contradictory and
absurd Minkowskian metric).
I want to lead you to understand it or at least suspect it.
Then, it will be extraordinarily easy to show you that my metric poses
no problem of mathematical logic, physical evidence, or artistic beauty.
The time to go around the loop is measured to be ≈ 90 μs
You claim the proton will go around the loop in ≈ 13 ns
Please explain again why a clock on the circuit can't
measure the time between each time the proton passes it,
but only can measure the time between each time the 6933th
proton passes it.
It is something about time dilation, isn't it ?
And something about that the single clock really is two
clocks fused into one, right?
Please stop.
Nope. This is fun!
The result is that I know SR quite well.
Le 18/07/2024 à 21:33, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 17.07.2024 20:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
Your theory predicts that the real speed of the protons
in the LHC is 6947c.
Yes, absolutly.
Vr=6947c
The relativistic world uses fantastic speeds.
You know that if you could move at the same speed as this proton, in interstellar space, in a little over a year, you could visit any star in a huge sphere 7,000 light years around sun?
All physicists know this.
They know about time dilation, which is a real phenomenon, so they know
that at this speed, it's possible. But they also know that when we come to tell what we saw, we would have to tell it to our
great-great-grandchildren.
The real speed of the protons in the LHC is measured
to be 0.9999998c.
No.
Please stop.
Observable speed in the laboratory Vo=0.99999998c
Real Speed : Vr=6947c
You confuse the notions.
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
But no !!!
LOL !!!
Please keep insisting that if the speed of the protons is 6947c
and thus will move once around the ring in ≈ 13 ns,
Tr(tau)=x/Vr
then a clock
at a point in the ring will measure that the proton passes it
every ≈ 90 ?s.
To=x/Vo
(I have a morbid sense of humour and love to rub it in.)
It's not humor, I just can't understand why you contradict everything I
write on usenet.
It would appear that you are doing this with honesty, not simply to
falsify the science, and with confidence in your right because you have memorized what others have said.
I now invite you to go further, to think for yourself, and to verify that things are really sometimes wrong in the interpretations that men have
made of the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations (which are correct, but interpreted anyhow and with an abstract, false, contradictory and absurd Minkowskian metric).
Some relativistic storage rings can be operated in single partcle mode.
And it is possible, easy in fact,
to detect each passing of the particle.
So yo can just read your (electronic) stopwatch
to measure the once-round the ring time,
Jan
Le 19/07/2024 22:27, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :
Some relativistic storage rings can be operated in single partcle mode.
And it is possible, easy in fact,
to detect each passing of the particle.
So yo can just read your (electronic) stopwatch
to measure the once-round the ring time,
Jan
That's not what I'm talking about, and I'm saddened that Paul B. Andersen, who is not an idiot, who is not a thug, who is not a bandit, does not do
the effort to understand what I have been saying and why I have been
saying it for 40 years.
It is obvious that if I place a proton in a circular ring, I will have to calculate very precisely when the proton passes, and that this calculation can only be done by the laboratory watches.
But if I could put a watch on the proton, and I asked it how long it takes
to complete one revolution, the proton would tell me "much, much less time than the lab clocks say."
This is called duration dilation.
Why don't you ever read a book, or use standard terminology.
What you are talking about is called the proper velocity,
aka the celerity.
George Gamow was already making jokes about it
in Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, (1940)
Jan
Le 19/07/2024 23:21, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit :
Why don't you ever read a book, or use standard terminology.
What you are talking about is called the proper velocity,
aka the celerity.
George Gamow was already making jokes about it
in Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, (1940)
Jan
It is sometimes difficult to use standard terminology to say new things.
Le 19/07/2024 à 22:27, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Some relativistic storage rings can be operated in single partcle mode.
And it is possible, easy in fact,
to detect each passing of the particle.
So yo can just read your (electronic) stopwatch
to measure the once-round the ring time,
Jan
Paul thinks I'm telling him that when the proton makes one revolution,
in fact, it makes 6947 revolutions. This is absurd.
No one has ever said such stupidity.
Le 19/07/2024 à 22:27, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Some relativistic storage rings can be operated in single partcle mode.
And it is possible, easy in fact,
to detect each passing of the particle.
So yo can just read your (electronic) stopwatch
to measure the once-round the ring time,
Jan
That's not what I'm talking about, and I'm saddened that Paul B.
Andersen, who is not an idiot, who is not a thug, who is not a bandit,
does not do the effort to understand what I have been saying and why I
have been saying it for 40 years.
It is obvious that if I place a proton in a circular ring, I will have
to calculate very precisely when the proton passes, and that this
calculation can only be done by the laboratory watches.
But if I could put a watch on the proton, and I asked it how long it
takes to complete one revolution, the proton would tell me "much, much
less time than the lab clocks say."
This is called duration dilation.
Paul thinks I'm telling him that when the proton makes one revolution,
in fact, it makes 6947 revolutions. This is absurd.
No one has ever said such stupidity.
Le 19/07/2024 à 21:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
The time to go around the loop is measured to be ≈ 90 μs
Yes.
You claim the proton will go around the loop in ≈ 13 ns
Absolutely.
Den 19.07.2024 21:34, skrev Jean-Michel Affoinez y Lopez-Francos aka
Richard Hachel:
Le 19/07/2024 à 21:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
The time to go around the loop is measured to be ≈ 90 ?s
Yes.
You claim the proton will go around the loop in ≈ 13 ns
Absolutely.
Is it any particular reason why you keep snipping this
and pretend you never have said what you said? :-D
| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
|>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
|>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
|>
|> CERN physicists are doing their job.
|> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
|> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
|> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,
You are saying that when the physicists who are operating the LHC
know that a proton has gone around the circuit once, it has really
gone around the circuit 78000000/11250 = 6933 times.
You were right when you said:
"No one in their right mind has ever said that."
You were obviously not in your right mind when you claim that
the physicists who are operating the LHC don't know how many times
the protons are going around the ring per second.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:48:49 |
| Calls: | 7,467 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,691 |
| Messages: | 5,628,079 |
