|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LE PARADOXE DES JUMEAUX ET LA PLUPART DES PHYSICIENS
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LE PARADOXE DES JUMEAUX : LA VÉRITÉ, ENFIN? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | June 19th 11 07:13 AM |