LE PARADOXE DES JUMEAUX ET LA PLUPART DES PHYSICIENS

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0910/0910.5847.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "Special Relativity makes a different assumption,
namely that the speed of light in vacuum, c, remains the same for
every observer, whatever his state of motion. This assumption was
confirmed by the famous Michelson and Morley experiments (1887). (...)
But if an observer moves relative to a clock, he will measure a time
interval delta t longer and a space interval delta d shorter than the
observer at rest. These rather counter-intuitive effects are called
apparent time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly) and length
contraction (moving objects appear shortened in the direction of
motion)."

Jean-Pierre Luminet,

Let us imagine that John Norton, a high priest in Einsteinana, sends
to you the following letter:

"Brother Jean-Pierre Luminet, You have made a terrible mistake. In
1887, since the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis is not yet
advanced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the Michelson-Morley experiment
UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the variable speed of light c'=c+v predicted by
Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the assumption that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (the future
light postulate in special relativity)."

Then John Norton kindly refers you to his own papers:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Would John Norton's letter make you reconsider the "rather counter-
intuitive effects" time dilation and length contraction, Jean-Pierre
Luminet? Perhaps they are purely and simply absurd?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0910/0910.5847.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "Special Relativity makes a different assumption,
namely that the speed of light in vacuum, c, remains the same for
every observer, whatever his state of motion. This assumption was
confirmed by the famous Michelson and Morley experiments (1887). (...)
But if an observer moves relative to a clock, he will measure a time
interval delta t longer and a space interval delta d shorter than the
observer at rest. These rather counter-intuitive effects are called
apparent time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly) and length
contraction (moving objects appear shortened in the direction of
motion)."

Jean-Pierre Luminet,

Let us imagine that John Norton, a high priest in Einsteinana, sends
to you the following letter:

"Brother Jean-Pierre Luminet, You have made a terrible mistake. In
1887, since the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis is not yet
advanced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the Michelson-Morley experiment
UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the variable speed of light c'=c+v predicted by
Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the assumption that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (the future
light postulate in special relativity)."

Given that Norton could never write this, especially not "the
Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the variable speed of
light", we can confirm that Pentcho Valev is a fraudster and
a disgusting dishonest crank.