Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to be very
>>>> good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x / v.
>>>> Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
>>> so you have t = / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ? Which country is
>>> that?
>>
>> 24 light years
>> 0.8c
>> 30 years.
>
> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
>
>
> PointedEars

Le 12/12/2021 à 21:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to be very
>>>>> good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x / v.
>>>>> Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
>>>> so you have t = / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ? Which country is
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> 24 light years
>>> 0.8c
>>> 30 years.
>>
>> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
>>
>>
>> PointedEars

When I see the difficulty with which you understand only simple notions, I
understand why no one manages to understand my relativistic explanations.

Let's go much further: are you, yes or no, able to understand that when
the twin arrives there, at the end of the race (we will call this his
aphelia), his watch marks 9 years, and he sees the earth placed only four
light years away, with a watch that only marks three years. He then has to
do a quick U-turn in a day, and at the end of his U-turn, his watch ALWAYS
marks 9 years, and he still sees the earth clock mark 3 years.
Simply, during the U-turn, a huge spatial zoom effect occurs, and the
earth is now 36 light years away.
It will then seem to come back very quickly (apparent speed 4c) and for 9
years.
Earth clocks seeming to turn, this time, three times faster.

This is how we really have to understand the evolution of Langevin's
traveler.

It is of a prodigious consistency.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
>>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to be
>>>>>> very good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x
>>>>>> / v. Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
>>>>> so you have t = / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ? Which country is
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> 24 light years
>>>> 0.8c
>>>> 30 years.
>>>
>>> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
>
> When I see the difficulty with which you understand only simple notions, I
> understand why no one manages to understand my relativistic explanations.

It matters in which frame of reference physical processes are discussed.

It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* work, and

“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.”

–Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist

HTH

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
>>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to be very
>>>>>> good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x / v.
>>>>>> Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
>>>>> so you have t = / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ? Which country is
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> 24 light years
>>>> 0.8c
>>>> 30 years.
>>>
>>> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
>>>
>>>
>>> PointedEars
>
> When I see the difficulty with which you understand only simple notions, I
> understand why no one manages to understand my relativistic explanations.

This is a foolish attempt to turn the tables. You do not understand
relativity as it is described by physicists. This you found unacceptable.
And so you found a possible out: you decided that the description by
physicists must be nonsense and that an explanation more amenable to your
mind must exist. And to that end, you invented your own idea of what
relativity is and what it should say. And it is pleasing to you because
this new one makes sense to you. Therefore, you tell yourself, this new one
must be right and the one held by physicists must be wrong. And then the
only forward plan for you is to hope that you can help others understand
your version. It bothers you that others don’t seem to understand or accept
what you say.

But the reason for all that, Richard, is simple. The relativity of
physicists, the one you find full of puzzles and contradictions, is the
correct one and your version is nonsense. Yours is incorrect. Flat out
wrong. Therefore your attempts to get people to listen to your version are
pointless. You are barking up the wrong tree. You have your car parked in a
handicapped space. You have lights on in the house but no one is home. You
have paddled your canoe upstream to a latrine.

>
> Let's go much further: are you, yes or no, able to understand that when
> the twin arrives there, at the end of the race (we will call this his
> aphelia), his watch marks 9 years, and he sees the earth placed only four
> light years away, with a watch that only marks three years. He then has to
> do a quick U-turn in a day, and at the end of his U-turn, his watch ALWAYS
> marks 9 years, and he still sees the earth clock mark 3 years.
> Simply, during the U-turn, a huge spatial zoom effect occurs, and the
> earth is now 36 light years away.
> It will then seem to come back very quickly (apparent speed 4c) and for 9
> years.
> Earth clocks seeming to turn, this time, three times faster.
>
> This is how we really have to understand the evolution of Langevin's
> traveler.
>
> It is of a prodigious consistency.
>
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Le 12/12/2021 à 22:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

> “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.”
>
> –Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist

> PointedEars

Neil de Grasse Tyson dit ce qu'il veut.

C'est SON problème.

J'ai une conception différente de l'univers,
et je pense que nous sommes apte à en comprendre les grands principes.

R.H.

Le 12/12/2021 à 23:10, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> You have paddled your canoe upstream to a latrine.

No.

YOU, you said I drow my canoe upstream to a latrine.

It's different.

R.H.

Richard 'Hachel' Lengran wrote:
> Le 12/12/2021 à 23:10, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> You have paddled your canoe upstream to a latrine.
>
> No.
>
> YOU, you said I drow my canoe upstream to a latrine.
>
> It's different.

It is. Anyway both are right.

Le 13/12/2021 à 00:28, Python a écrit :
> Richard 'Hachel' Lengran wrote:
>> Le 12/12/2021 à 23:10, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>
>>> You have paddled your canoe upstream to a latrine.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> YOU, you said I drow my canoe upstream to a latrine.
>>
>> It's different.
>
> It is. Anyway both are right.

Ah, te revoilà, Jean-Pierre. Je commençais à m'ennuyer de toi. Tu n'es
pas malade au moins?

Que te dire? Ah oui, pendant ton absence, j'ai essayé de convaincre que
la taille d'une fusée (effet Doppler transversal du second degré, plus
effet longitudinal Doppler simple) variait selon la position d'un
observateur.

Je ne pense pas y être parvenu.

Comme je sais que toi, tu comprends ces choses beaucoup plus facilement
qu'eux, je te laisse le soin de leur expliquer.

Allez, bisous.

A plus.

R.H.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :

Question: Why did you respond to "him"?

Still no answer?
Still no answer?

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 12/12/2021 à 22:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.”
>>
>> –Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist
>
> Neil de Grasse Tyson dit ce qu'il veut.
>
> C'est SON problème.
>
> J'ai une conception différente de l'univers,
> et je pense que nous sommes apte à en comprendre les grands principes.

Again, quoting the part of my posting that you did not quote (I can
understand how inconvenient it must be for you):

It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* *work*.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 13/12/2021 à 00:43, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Again, quoting the part of my posting that you did not quote (I can
> understand how inconvenient it must be for you):
>
> It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
> understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* *work*.

I didn't say they weren't working. I am simply saying that they are very
poorly explained, that there are falsehoods there, and paradoxes that
should be rooted out.
The description of Langevin is very poorly done, and what is really going
on, very poorly understood. Some words like chronotropy and simultaneity
are confused. Some ideas are false or pretend to be confused, for example
the idea that the notion of simulaneity is relative by change of frame of
reference. It's wrong. Two or more different observers present transiently
in the same place observe exactly the same visible world (but very
spatially distorted). What varies is their chronotropy, so it's something
else. Relativists don't define things well. That's what I approach them.
They obviously returned the ball to me, telling me that I express myself
even worse than them. It's fair game.

R.H.

If each twin has the slower clock
should they not be the same?

Le 13/12/2021 à 01:57, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> If each twin has the slower clock
> should they not be the same?

It is difficult to say the same things over and over again, especially
when some people purposely do not understand or distort what we are
saying.
I repeat, there is in the theory of relativity a strange transverse
Doppler effect, which plays on lengths (distances too), times and
wavelengths.
This effect causes a symmetrical slowing down of all watches. This is of
course a very astonishing effect to understand. Each clean watch then
appears to beat, the other's faster.
This effect may seem absurd and would be really absurd, if we forgot that
it is not the only effect. There is not only one effect on chronotropy.
There is also a first degree effect linked to the position of the
observer.
It is because they deny this effect that all the relativists in the world
arrive at the appalling paradox called Langevin's paradox.
A misfortune never comes alone, they try to hide the dust under the carpet
like bad housewives do, and they say "it is because there have been
accelerations", or "the twin who returns jumps from the frame of
reference" or "watches go crazy when the twin turns". This is all wrong.
Their explanation is fanciful. That's not why the other twin is actually
coming back younger. I explained all this for a very long time. The rest
is just a problem of human arrogance: "We don't want Richard Hachel to
give his opinion on this".
It’s just that.
It's stupid to cry.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 13/12/2021 à 00:43, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Again, quoting the part of my posting that you did not quote (I can
>> understand how inconvenient it must be for you):
>>
>> It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
>> understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* *work*.
>
> I didn't say they weren't working. I am simply saying that they are very
> poorly explained,

If you choose bad explanations and bad teachers, that is your problem, not
that of the theory. There are good explanations that are rather easy to
understand even without much prerequisite knowledge, and good teachers to
give them. For example, I can highly recommend the following course, as I
took it myself and passed (early, with a grade of 100 %) *before* I went to
university again to study Astrophysics:

<https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>

> that there are falsehoods there,

There are no falsehoods; the predictions have all been
experimentally/observationally confirmed a gazillion times – modern
technology is even based on the theory. You are bathing your hands
and eyes in its applications *daily*.

> and paradoxes that should be rooted out.

The *apparent* paradoxes that result from *wrong* application of the theory
can all be and have all been explained and resolved with *proper* reasoning,
i.e. *proper* application of the theory. I have already given you at least
one explanation, when I resolved the “twin paradox” in less than 50 lines,
using nothing but highschool-level algebra.

You are just too self-absorbed or simply not smart enough to understand it.
But that is *your* problem, not that of the theory. Thousands of Physics
students (if not more) in the past 100 years were open-minded and smart
enough to understand it – I daresay, me included.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 13/12/2021 à 02:26, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

You have been formatted with an interesting theory, which works quite
well.
I do not deny it.
That's not what I'm criticizing.
What I am criticizing is the lack of openness of scientists once their
minds are formatted.
We have a bit of the same thing in religion. It is very difficult to get
people out of their "beliefs".
As for the physical proofs of the theory of relativity, I know this as
well as you. This is not what I question. What I question is the bad
understanding and the bad description of things.
We can easily show that something is wrong with this theory, and that a
few small points need to be changed. Certain statements of relativists are
frankly absurd, but since we have no better explanation or equations, then
we keep them.
I asked you to put in your mind a "Langevin" speed APPARENT. That is, what
observers could SEE directly in their telescopes.
There are things that then become obvious from the start, and we see that
the theory does not hold up. I explained WHY it didn't hold. Because of
the confusion that physicists make between chronotropy and simultaneity.
If you have the time, and the courage to do it, study the Langevin in
apparent speeds, and ask yourself (because no one has ever been able to
answer me) how it is that a rocket which has an APPARENT speed of 4c, may
not see that, symmetrically, the earth is coming back towards it at the
same speed.
This is what is really happening.
This is the incredible beauty and the incredible precision of the SR that
you denigrate when it is ME talking about it.
At v = 0.8c, the apparent speed of the earth will be 4c. I am talking
about APPARENT SPEED.
I beg you to understand this.
And now, like in chess, I push the last point, and I win. At what distance
is an earth that will return to the rocket, for a period of 9 years at an
apparent speed of 4c?
Obviously at 36 al.
I beg you to understand this.
This means that again, the formula d '= d.sqrt (1-v² / c²) is not
correct.
But for this problem, you have to use the formula that I am using, and
which is d '= d. (1 + cosµ.v / c) / sqrt (1-v² / c²).
Everything then goes into order, and there is no longer a paradox.
The reasoning is incredibly simple, logical and beautiful.

R.H.

Le 13/12/2021 à 02:26, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

You have been formatted with an interesting theory, which works quite
well.
I do not deny it.
That's not what I'm criticizing.
What I am criticizing is the lack of openness of scientists once their
minds are formatted.
We have a bit of the same thing in religion. It is very difficult to get
people out of their "beliefs".
As for the physical proofs of the theory of relativity, I know this as
well as you. This is not what I question. What I question is the bad
understanding and the bad description of things.
We can easily show that something is wrong with this theory, and that a
few small points need to be changed. Certain statements of relativists are
frankly absurd, but since we have no better explanation or equations, then
we keep them.
I asked you to put in your mind a "Langevin" speed APPARENT. That is, what
observers could SEE directly in their telescopes.
There are things that then become obvious from the start, and we see that
the theory does not hold up. I explained WHY it didn't hold. Because of
the confusion that physicists make between chronotropy and simultaneity.
If you have the time, and the courage to do it, study the Langevin in
apparent speeds, and ask yourself (because no one has ever been able to
answer me) how it is that a rocket which has an APPARENT speed of 4c, may
not see that, symmetrically, the earth is coming back towards it at the
same speed.
This is what is really happening.
This is the incredible beauty and the incredible precision of the SR that
you denigrate when it is ME talking about it.
At v = 0.8c, the apparent speed of the earth will be 4c. I am talking
about APPARENT SPEED.
I beg you to understand this.
And now, like in chess, I push the last point, and I win. At what distance
is an earth that will return to the rocket, for a period of 9 years at an
apparent speed of 4c?
Obviously at 36 al.
I beg you to understand this.
This means that again, the formula d'= d.sqrt (1-v²/c²) is not correct.
d'=7.2 ly ? ? ?
But for this problem, you have to use the formula that I am using,
and which is d'= d.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+ cosµ.v/c) d'= 36 ly !!!
Important spatial zoom effet when twice turned.
Everything then goes into order, and there is no longer a paradox.
The reasoning is incredibly simple, logical and beautiful.

R.H.

On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 22:14:24 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 12/12/2021 à 21:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> >> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >>> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
> >>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to be
> >>>>>> very good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x
> >>>>>> / v. Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
> >>>>> so you have t = / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ? Which country is
> >>>>> that?
> >>>>
> >>>> 24 light years
> >>>> 0.8c
> >>>> 30 years.
> >>>
> >>> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
> >
> > When I see the difficulty with which you understand only simple notions, I
> > understand why no one manages to understand my relativistic explanations.
> It matters in which frame of reference physical processes are discussed.
>
> It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
> understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* work, and

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.”

Sure; if you're dumb it's your problem and the
universe doesn't care. Clocks and time are a different
matter, though. They have such obligation.

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 00:43:33 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 12/12/2021 à 22:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >> “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.”
> >>
> >> –Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist
> >
> > Neil de Grasse Tyson dit ce qu'il veut.
> >
> > C'est SON problème.
> >
> > J'ai une conception différente de l'univers,
> > et je pense que nous sommes apte à en comprendre les grands principes.
> Again, quoting the part of my posting that you did not quote (I can
> understand how inconvenient it must be for you):
> It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
> understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* *work*.

In the meantime *in the real world* *forbidden by your
moronic religion* GPS clocks *keep measuring t'=t*
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 02:26:07 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 13/12/2021 à 00:43, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >> Again, quoting the part of my posting that you did not quote (I can
> >> understand how inconvenient it must be for you):
> >>
> >> It does not matter that in your hubris you are unable or refuse to
> >> understand that. The theories of relativity *as formulated* *work*.
> >
> > I didn't say they weren't working. I am simply saying that they are very
> > poorly explained,
> If you choose bad explanations and bad teachers, that is your problem, not
> that of the theory. There are good explanations that are rather easy to
> understand even without much prerequisite knowledge, and good teachers to
> give them. For example, I can highly recommend the following course, as I
> took it myself and passed (early, with a grade of 100 %) *before* I went to
> university again to study Astrophysics:
>
> <https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>
> > that there are falsehoods there,
> There are no falsehoods; the predictions have all been
> experimentally/observationally confirmed a gazillion times – modern
> technology is even based on the theory. You are bathing your hands
> and eyes in its applications *daily*.

In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t
just like all serious clocks always did.

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> would they not have equal clocks
> by relative separation?

Time does not go slower for any twin,
and they do have identical clocks.
They happily live their lives in their own proper time.

The whole twin paradox has nothing to do with the twins,
or their clocks.
It is a property of the space-time they live in,

Jan

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 10:33:41 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > would they not have equal clocks
> > by relative separation?
>
> Time does not go slower for any twin,
> and they do have identical clocks.
> They happily live their lives in their own proper time.
>
> The whole twin paradox has nothing to do with the twins,
> or their clocks.
> It is a property of the space-time they live in,

As long as they're gedanken and living in your
delusions - it is. But tell me, poor idiot, where
from and when the requirement "identical
clocks" appeared? Even in 1905, when your idiot
guru lived and mumbled, it would be suicidal, as
the most precise clocks were still pendulums.

Den 12.12.2021 21:48, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
>>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to
>>>>>> be very
>>>>>> good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x / v.
>>>>>> Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
>>>>> so you have t =  / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ?  Which country is
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> 24 light years
>>>> 0.8c
>>>> 30 years.
>>>
>>> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
>>>
>>>
>>> PointedEars
>
> When I see the difficulty with which you understand only simple notions,
> I understand why no one manages to understand my relativistic explanations.
>
> Let's go much further: are you, yes or no, able to understand that when
> the twin arrives there, at the end of the race (we will call this his
> aphelia), his watch marks 9 years, and he sees the earth placed only
> four light years away, with a watch that only marks three years.

Let's stop there.

When the twin's clock show 9 years:
How can the twin "see" what the distance to the Earth is?
How can the twin "see" what the clock on the Earth shows?

What do you mean by "see"?
Visually observe (with telescope)?
Measure? How? What kind of instruments?

Please explain.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 10:53:18 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.12.2021 21:48, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Le 12/12/2021 à 21:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> >> Le 12/12/2021 à 21:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> >>> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Le 12/12/2021 à 12:38, Vidal Rhum a écrit :
> >>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> The terrestrial twin observes his brother, and you don't have to
> >>>>>> be very
> >>>>>> good at mathematics to understand that the trip will last t = 2x / v.
> >>>>>> Let t = 24 / 0.8c = 30 years.
> >>>>> so you have t = / [m/s] = [s^2 /m] = 30 years? ? Which country is
> >>>>> that?
> >>>>
> >>>> 24 light years
> >>>> 0.8c
> >>>> 30 years.
> >>>
> >>> In the rest frame of origin and destination only.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> PointedEars
> >
> > When I see the difficulty with which you understand only simple notions,
> > I understand why no one manages to understand my relativistic explanations.
> >
> > Let's go much further: are you, yes or no, able to understand that when
> > the twin arrives there, at the end of the race (we will call this his
> > aphelia), his watch marks 9 years, and he sees the earth placed only
> > four light years away, with a watch that only marks three years.
> Let's stop there.
>
> When the twin's clock show 9 years:
> How can the twin "see" what the distance to the Earth is?

Have you ever heard of things called "maps", poor halfbrain?
They're quite useful.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 13/12/2021 à 01:57, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>> If each twin has the slower clock
>> should they not be the same?
>
> It is difficult to say the same things over and over again, especially
> when some people purposely do not understand or distort what we are
> saying.
> I repeat, there is in the theory of relativity a strange transverse
> Doppler effect, which plays on lengths (distances too), times and
> wavelengths.
> This effect causes a symmetrical slowing down of all watches. This is of
> course a very astonishing effect to understand. Each clean watch then
> appears to beat, the other's faster.
> This effect may seem absurd and would be really absurd, if we forgot that
> it is not the only effect. There is not only one effect on chronotropy.
> There is also a first degree effect linked to the position of the
> observer.
> It is because they deny this effect that all the relativists in the world
> arrive at the appalling paradox called Langevin's paradox.

The twin’s puzzle is a TEACHING puzzle. It is neither a paradox nor
appalling. It is intended to teach students in their first few weeks of
exposure to special relativity how to think about things properly without
making a simple conceptual mistake. You are making the simple conceptual
mistake, and you are blaming physicists for causing it to be there. You do
not understand relativity and so are trying to propose an alternate that
you think you DO understand. Except, that is not relativity anymore.

> A misfortune never comes alone, they try to hide the dust under the carpet
> like bad housewives do, and they say "it is because there have been
> accelerations", or "the twin who returns jumps from the frame of
> reference" or "watches go crazy when the twin turns". This is all wrong.
> Their explanation is fanciful. That's not why the other twin is actually
> coming back younger. I explained all this for a very long time. The rest
> is just a problem of human arrogance: "We don't want Richard Hachel to
> give his opinion on this".

There are informed opinions and uninformed opinions, and the latter are
worth a lot less than the former. You may hold an opinion about relativity,
but it is an uninformed one, and so it is not given a lot of credence.

> It’s just that.
> It's stupid to cry.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel wrote:

> You have been formatted with an interesting theory,

I have not been formatted, you wannabe. I have studied it. You have not.

> which works quite well.

And yours does not. It predicts things that are NOT observed.

> I do not deny it.
> That's not what I'm criticizing.

You are not in any position to mount any criticism because you do not know
what you are talking about.

You are like a carpenter giving dentists advice in dentistry.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)