This is what is most difficult to do in the theory of relativity.
Explaining to the housewife that she has to bring back carrots, potatoes,
and two red peppers from the market is very easy.
And she will understand it easily. Explaining the theory of relativity is
more difficult, even if the equations are trivial.
The point is, it's jam-packed with counterintuitive phenomena and little
pitfalls.
One of the most famous pitfalls in the history of this theory has been the
confusion that all scientists have made between the notion of chronotropy
and the notion of measuring time by a given watch.
It's not the same thing.
If one thinks that it is the same thing, a paradox, that is to say a pure
absurdity, will immediately appear. We call this paradox that no one has
ever been able to solve (except by shouting from the rooftops that it has
been solved without having solved anything at all) the real paradox of
Langevin.
Indeed, to say that time passes less quickly for the two twins is absurd.
This is FACTLY absurd. The error stems from the confusion between
measurements taken by watches and the chronotropy of watches.
I want the chronotropy to be reciprocally lower on the other watch: To'=
To/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and that this phenomenon is constant and invariable
with the direction of movement of the observers.
But it is not the same with the time that these watches are going to note.
We must not forget that chronotropy is not the only measure to take into
account, but that the universal anisotropy must also be taken into
account: crossing space is not ONLY moving away in space is also crossing
time, it is also really moving away in the past of the other. Let t'=
t.(1+cosµ.v/c)
The real equation therefore becomes:
t'= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
There is no longer any paradox.
Although the watches have a chronotropy which makes the other watch really
beat and reciprocally less quickly, in the end, the effect on the times
themselves is not reciprocal, which would be, it is true, totally absurd.
, and the road open to all the critics of the world's cranks. And we could
only agree with them.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> One of the most famous pitfalls in the history of this theory has been the
> confusion that all scientists have made between the notion of chronotropy
> and the notion of measuring time by a given watch.

ROTFL.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 5:09:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> This is what is most difficult to do in the theory of relativity.
> Explaining to the housewife that she has to bring back carrots, potatoes,
> and two red peppers from the market is very easy.
> And she will understand it easily. Explaining the theory of relativity is
> more difficult, even if the equations are trivial.
> The point is, it's jam-packed with counterintuitive phenomena and little
> pitfalls.
> One of the most famous pitfalls in the history of this theory has been the
> confusion that all scientists have made between the notion of chronotropy
> and the notion of measuring time by a given watch.
> It's not the same thing.
> If one thinks that it is the same thing, a paradox, that is to say a pure
> absurdity, will immediately appear. We call this paradox that no one has
> ever been able to solve (except by shouting from the rooftops that it has
> been solved without having solved anything at all) the real paradox of
> Langevin.

Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"

> Indeed, to say that time passes less quickly for the two twins is absurd.
> This is FACTLY absurd.

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my
basement... let me go upstairs and check." -- M. C. Escher

I believe absurdities are only in the mind of the beholder :-)

> The error stems from the confusion between measurements taken by watches
> and the chronotropy of watches.

Chronotropy: "The rate of muscular contraction, especially of the heart."

So you believe watches are mechanically distorted because of velocity?

> I want the chronotropy to be reciprocally lower on the other watch:

What YOU want is irrelevant. What counts is what the universe wants.

> To'= To/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and that this phenomenon is constant and invariable
> with the direction of movement of the observers.

x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), t' = (t - vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

The twin's movement according to the stay-at-home twin is x = vt, so
t' = (1 - v²/c²)t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = sqrt(1-v²/c²)t, not the inverse that you assert.

It's useless to ascribe a mechanical explanation to the so-called "paradox.".

Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

Thank you for your reply.

> Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> "The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
> is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"

This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
sentence as if a genius had spoken.
It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
during the U-turn". This is all sad.
We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
The accelerations? LOL.
And why not the papal balls?

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=aoglnlw0wAAQHxsk8FrJMC9zKiw@jntp>

This is what is most difficult to do in the theory of relativity.
____________________________________________________________

SR is easy----------Maxwell's theory (ether and induction).

Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

> So you believe watches are mechanically distorted because of velocity?

No, the watches are in their normal state in all the repositories. They
simply beat each other less quickly (ie the one I'm looking at beats less
quickly than mine) by relative effect.
If I move at v = 0.8c, and I look at a watch at rest, or vice versa, a
strange but real phenomenon appears due to the nature of time. It will
appear to me to beat six seconds while mine beat ten seconds.
For her, the effect is the opposite. She looks at my watch in astonishment
and notices that on the contrary, it is mine which beats by six seconds
while hers beats by ten seconds. It is a phenomenon that should be taken
for granted and scientifically established. The fact remains that this
poses, in the end, a huge paradox that most scientists have exposed to
criticize this theory. The problem is that today, in 2022, we still do not
know how to respond correctly to this paradox (except me for decades).
We do not understand that there is a need for the local time differential
To and the proper time of the watch t.
Yes, chronotropy is reciprocally weaker "elsewhere". No, this does not
affect the final consistency of the theory if we do not forget that there
is also another effect: universal anisochrony and that the equation To '=
To / sqrt (1-v² / c²) is only part of the correction to be made to the
two (or more) travelers.

R.H.

Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit

> Chronotropy: "The rate of muscular contraction, especially of the heart."

Yes.

Chronotropy (in relativistic physics) : frequency of a given rhythm,
speed at which the watch hands turn.

Il faut bien donner un mot aux choses. On aime ou on n'aime pas.

Généralement quand le terme est nouveau, on aime pas.

Cent ans plus tard, on en raffole.

Allez savoir pourquoi...

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
>> Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>
>> "The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
>> is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
>
> This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
> phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
> could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
> sentence as if a genius had spoken.
> It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
> I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
> the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
> the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
> bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
> during the U-turn". This is all sad.
> We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
> explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
> right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
> explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
> the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
> The accelerations? LOL.
> And why not the papal balls?
>
> R.H.
>

Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
puzzle.

1. Why is it not a paradox?

2. What is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger?

The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But since motion is
relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
and coming back toward the traveling twin.

Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
question 1.

If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
“one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.

This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
understand the answer to question 1.

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

Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), t' = (t - vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>
> The twin's movement according to the stay-at-home twin is x = vt, so
> t' = (1 - v²/c²)t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = sqrt(1-v²/c²)t, not the inverse that you
> assert.
>
> It's useless to ascribe a mechanical explanation to the so-called "paradox.".

I don't understand the way you put it.
In Langevin's reasoning about the traveler, we have to cut things into
four parts.
The first part is the one where the terrestrial twin sees his brother go
to a star placed at 12 al. It could be Tau Ceti.
The journey takes place at a constant Galilean speed of v = 0.8c thanks to
new technology.
The second part is where the earthly brother sees his twin coming back to
him (this is called the return phase).
The third is the vision of the outward journey by the traveler himself,
and the fourth is the vision he has of his return journey.
In these four descriptions, only one and the same equation should be used:
t'= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
where t is the natural time of one of the twins, and t 'the time measured
by the other observer.
Always, always, always, you will come across this simple and devilishly
precise equation.
I don't mind people despising it, rejecting it, not believing it.
LOL.
You will not change the reality of the eternal equations.

R.H.

Le 06/01/2022 à 19:29, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
> question 1.

What must above all be understood is that a physicist is first and
foremost a man.
And that when a new idea appears, it is necessarily criticized in fact.
Whether it is correct or not does not matter. We criticize.
As for the Langevin paradox, as I said, the problem is human narcissism.
We made Einstein a religion. nothing is worse than wanting to give a drink
to a religious, and scientific theorists are religious who do not know
themselves.
I explain (and there, it's beautiful to cry about why there is a paradox,
and HOW we solve the paradox).
It is unheard of in the history of mankind. No one had ever done it.
But they answer me: "Uh ... no, there is no paradox, for the good reason
that there is no paradox!"
And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
"there are benchmarks", the situation is not symmetrical "," there is a
time-gap "...
I explained that all of these excuses are either "a dog is a dog, but you
can't explain why a dog is a dog" or are downright bogus. Like this dark
story of the Blessed Virgin which makes a time-gap when it revolves around
Tau Ceti. All that is pipe. From religion all learned. There is no
time-gap. When the twin spins he sees the earth which marks t = 3 years
and when he reappears on the other side he still sees the same earth which
still marks 3 years.
On the other hand, and there, we do not talk about it, there is a real
relativistic spatial zoom effect (elasticity of distances and loggers) and
the earth that he saw at 4 light years (longitudinal relativistic
contraction well understood) passes to 36 light years.
The distance the earth must now travel towards him, at an apparent speed
of 4c, and this for the remaining nine years of his journey.
It is a precision and an accomplished beauty.
But that's not what we teach on the college bench.
I know it.
But it's not me who makes the programs.
In fact, I don't exist.

R.H.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> [TP] it was not
> the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
> the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
> bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
> during the U-turn". This is all sad.

There are many variants of the twin paradox.
They have a Galilean phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame jumping.
There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".

If the twin paradox scenario under consideration has no acceleration, then there is no time dilation due to that non-existing phase.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:09:52 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",

Well, are there?

> the situation is not symmetrical "

Well, is it symmetrical or not?

> I explained that all of these excuses

My above questions to you are not excuses...they are QUESTIONS.

Le 06/01/2022 à 20:10, rotchm a écrit :
> There are many variants of the twin paradox.
> They have a Galilean phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame
> jumping.
> There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".
>
> If the twin paradox scenario under consideration has no acceleration, then there
> is no time dilation due to that non-existing phase.

If there are several variants, then none is true, because only one would
suffice.

What is strange is that most of them are broadcast, and that we study
them.

Except mine.

"- In this something strange is evident, if this one were as stupid as he
looks, he would not do all the miracles he does.
- He's a bullet hole, why are you following him?
- I don't know if it's a bullet hole or not, I only know one thing: I was
blind, and now I see. And how could a bullet hole open the eyes of a blind
man like that? "
Gospel according to Saint Machin.

R.H.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:10:20 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > [TP] it was not
> > the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
> > the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
> > bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
> > during the U-turn". This is all sad.
> There are many variants of the twin paradox.
> They have a Galilean phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame jumping.
> There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".

There are many, indeed; but in the meantime in the real
world - forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Le 06/01/2022 à 20:15, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:09:52 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
>
> Well, are there?
>
>> the situation is not symmetrical "
>
> Well, is it symmetrical or not?
>
>> I explained that all of these excuses
>
> My above questions to you are not excuses...they are QUESTIONS.

What must be understood (I beg you to be open-minded) is that the
acceleration phases do not matter, or so little that they can be
neglected. It is not the accelerations that induce the effects, but the
Galilean phases. The accelerations are negligible and neglected in the
problems.
When the twin takes off, and passes to 0.8c, we can assume that his
pendulum still marks To = 0 and t = 0.
When he goes from 0.8c to -0.8c there, bypassing Tau Ceti at 12 al, he is
9 years old, and comes out on the other side aged nine.
If I say that the bypass is done on a 24 hour semicircle of clean time,
the effect will be absolute, and the earthly brother will note a 40 hour
U-turn. These 16 hours, I want to be taken into account, but that is not
of capital importance for the final result.
I repeat, the paradox is NOT solved by accelerations. This is not where
the paradox is. That's just dust under the rug to keep the theory
consistent.
I want the theory to be beautiful, obvious, experiential.
But it is not by giving false arguments that we will validate it. This
only makes the opponents and the cranks more difficult, and on that, they
are right. It's up to us relativists to explain things clearly. We don't.
When we say we do it clearly we are lying. We all lie.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 06/01/2022 à 19:29, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
>> question 1.
>
>
> What must above all be understood is that a physicist is first and
> foremost a man.
> And that when a new idea appears, it is necessarily criticized in fact.
> Whether it is correct or not does not matter. We criticize.
> As for the Langevin paradox, as I said, the problem is human narcissism.
> We made Einstein a religion. nothing is worse than wanting to give a drink
> to a religious, and scientific theorists are religious who do not know
> themselves.

Sorry, Richard, but this is common crank babble.

It’s complaining that accepting relativity is simply religious faith,
rather that a scientifically validated theory. It’s dismissing the
scientific method and saying that people just believe blindly rather than
what they actually did, which is test the idea scientifically.

It’s also crank babble to insist that it’s the obligation of the thinking
mind to question everything, doubt everything, as though nothing is
understood.

It’s also crank babble to say, “If I do not understand it, then nobody
understands it, because I’m smarter than most people, so it’s impossible
that they understand something I do not.”

You are not being at all interesting or unique or original. Instead, you
are repeating all the standard crank babbles.

> I explain (and there, it's beautiful to cry about why there is a paradox,
> and HOW we solve the paradox).
> It is unheard of in the history of mankind. No one had ever done it.
> But they answer me: "Uh ... no, there is no paradox, for the good reason
> that there is no paradox!"
> And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
> "there are benchmarks", the situation is not symmetrical "," there is a
> time-gap "...
> I explained that all of these excuses are either "a dog is a dog, but you
> can't explain why a dog is a dog" or are downright bogus. Like this dark
> story of the Blessed Virgin which makes a time-gap when it revolves around
> Tau Ceti. All that is pipe. From religion all learned. There is no
> time-gap. When the twin spins he sees the earth which marks t = 3 years
> and when he reappears on the other side he still sees the same earth which
> still marks 3 years.
> On the other hand, and there, we do not talk about it, there is a real
> relativistic spatial zoom effect (elasticity of distances and loggers) and
> the earth that he saw at 4 light years (longitudinal relativistic
> contraction well understood) passes to 36 light years.
> The distance the earth must now travel towards him, at an apparent speed
> of 4c, and this for the remaining nine years of his journey.
> It is a precision and an accomplished beauty.
> But that's not what we teach on the college bench.
> I know it.
> But it's not me who makes the programs.
> In fact, I don't exist.
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 20:28:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 06/01/2022 à 19:29, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >
> >> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
> >> question 1.
> >
> >
> > What must above all be understood is that a physicist is first and
> > foremost a man.
> > And that when a new idea appears, it is necessarily criticized in fact.
> > Whether it is correct or not does not matter. We criticize.
> > As for the Langevin paradox, as I said, the problem is human narcissism..
> > We made Einstein a religion. nothing is worse than wanting to give a drink
> > to a religious, and scientific theorists are religious who do not know
> > themselves.
> Sorry, Richard, but this is common crank babble.
>
> It’s complaining that accepting relativity is simply religious faith,
> rather that a scientifically validated theory.

Well, it is and what can we do, por halfbrain?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:28:49 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/01/2022 à 20:15, rotchm a écrit :
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:09:52 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> >> And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
> >
> > Well, are there?

No anwer?
> >> the situation is not symmetrical "
> >
> > Well, is it symmetrical or not?

No answer?

> What must be understood (I beg you to be open-minded) is that the
> acceleration phases do not matter, or so little that they can be
> neglected.

That is just a claim on your part. Can you support your claims?
For instance, if the Galilean phase lasts only a few micro-seconds and the deceleration/acceleration last a few years, then which phase induces the most time dilation?

You see, it can't be neglected in this case. In some cases it can and some cases it can't. The computation will tell us if we should neglect it or not..

> It is not the accelerations that induce the effects, but the Galilean phases. The accelerations are negligible
> and neglected in the problems.

Those problems with accelerations, if they say it's neglected, they should ship port their claim, explain why it's me collected.

> When the twin takes off, and passes to 0.8c, we can assume that his
> pendulum still marks To = 0 and t = 0.

Pendulum? You mean, clock or wristwatch?
Better yet, which twin paradox and Ariel are you alluding too?
State it clearly here. (I did not read your past posts).

Le 06/01/2022 à 20:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Sorry, Richard, but this is common crank babble.
>
> It’s complaining that accepting relativity is simply religious faith,
> rather that a scientifically validated theory. It’s dismissing the
> scientific method and saying that people just believe blindly rather than
> what they actually did, which is test the idea scientifically.
>
> It’s also crank babble to insist that it’s the obligation of the thinking
> mind to question everything, doubt everything, as though nothing is
> understood.
>
> It’s also crank babble to say, “If I do not understand it, then nobody
> understands it, because I’m smarter than most people, so it’s impossible
> that they understand something I do not.”
>
> You are not being at all interesting or unique or original. Instead, you
> are repeating all the standard crank babbles.

I'm not saying the theory of relativity is wrong.
I am simply saying that it is very poorly explained.
Take the example of the traveler from Langevin, it is clear (and I do not
even ask myself the question) that the brother will come back younger than
his brother. I don't even need experimentation to find out. I say like
everyone else that the brother will be 18 years old, and the one left on
earth 30.
It is perfectly obvious.
Regarding particles in laboratories, I say the same thing. It is perfectly
obvious.
So no, I'm not criticizing. But I refine, I describe, I demonstrate.
It goes through amputations and pains that hurt men (I have experienced
the same thing in sociology and in theology). Therein lies the main
problem.
For example, this time-gap thing, I don't know where the scientists went
to look for it. It does not exist that. There is NO time-gap during the
U-turn. I don't need this.
Review my little comics on it. You will see that when the twin turns, he
is 9 years old from start to finish, and that the earth is seen there, as
it was at time t = 3 (it has aged three times slower than the traveler at
this moment) and that he still sees it at t = 3 when he reappears on the
other side of the star to begin his return.
There is no time-gap. On the other hand, as Einstein said, and on that, he
is right "space is a reference mollusk". When the traveler turns around
and goes from 0.8c to -0.8c, a relatiistic zoom effect will appear. There
is a colossal space-zoom that falls into place.
This, yes.
The time-gap is the pipe of sincere and honest people who want to explain
things. I wish to believe. But they are wrong.

R.H.

Le 06/01/2022 à 20:37, rotchm a écrit :

> No anwer?

J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.

> No answer?

J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.

R.H.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:44:29 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/01/2022 à 20:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> I'm not saying the theory of relativity is wrong.
> I am simply saying that it is very poorly explained.

That is true. Relativity is often poorly explained.
One needs to read a lot in the literature to sift out the better ones
and you finally understand what relativity is about.

> For example, this time-gap thing, I don't know where the scientists went
> to look for it. It does not exist that. There is NO time-gap during the
> U-turn. I don't need this.

And physicists, scientists, don't need it either. The idea is, "shut up and calculate".
Putting fancy & loose words to the results of computations does confuse many people.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:50:56 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/01/2022 à 20:37, rotchm a écrit :
>
> > No anwer?
>
> J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.
>
> > No answer?
>
> J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.

Ah, so you did not answer And you just change the language to try to confuse the situation more so.
Don't be a coward and answer the questions directly, yes or no. No word salad, no descriptions, just yes or no.

> >> And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
> >
> > Well, are there?

Yes or no?

> >> the situation is not symmetrical "
> >
> > Well, is it symmetrical or not?

Yes or no?

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 21:10:34 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:44:29 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 06/01/2022 à 20:28, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
> > I'm not saying the theory of relativity is wrong.
> > I am simply saying that it is very poorly explained.
> That is true. Relativity is often poorly explained.
> One needs to read a lot in the literature to sift out the better ones
> and you finally understand what relativity is about.

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

On 1/6/2022 2:18 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 06/01/2022 à 20:10, rotchm a écrit :
>> There are many variants of the twin paradox. They have a Galilean
>> phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame jumping.
>> There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".
>>
>> If the twin paradox scenario under consideration has no acceleration,
>> then there is no time dilation due to that non-existing phase.
>
> If there are several variants, then none is true, because only one would
> suffice.
>

Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.

Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.

They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 at 21:29:22 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/6/2022 2:18 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 06/01/2022 à 20:10, rotchm a écrit :
> >> There are many variants of the twin paradox. They have a Galilean
> >> phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame jumping.
> >> There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".
> >>
> >> If the twin paradox scenario under consideration has no acceleration,
> >> then there is no time dilation due to that non-existing phase.
> >
> > If there are several variants, then none is true, because only one would
> > suffice.
> >
> Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
> Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.
>
> Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
> instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
> traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.
>
> They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
> correct.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your bunch
of idiots had to announce its oldest, very important part
false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions. And speaking
of your twins idiocy, anyone can check that the clocks made
be serious people (GPS, TAI, UTC) keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.