🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 15, 6:12 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 12:48 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Silly Brian is walking in an incomparably silly manner here:
>
> > http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm?author_number=989
> > Question: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can
> > influence the action of a sister particle on the other side of the
> > universe instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that
> > nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?"
> > Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would
> > say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from
> > place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's
> > enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a
> > cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but
> > as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums
> > surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled."
>
> > Even silly walkers at the Perimeter Institute are unable to produce
> > anything comparable to silly Brian's silly walk:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
>
> My last claim is not quite correct perhaps:
>
> http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
> Lee Smolin: "Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that
> the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that
> the speed of light THEREFORE must be always the same, no matter how
> the source or the observer moves."
>
> This particular silly walk of Lee Smolin's is undoubtedly sillier than
> (at least as silly as) silly Brian's silly walk.

Silly Smolin's silly walk presenting the idea that Einstein's 1905
false light postulate is a corollary of the principle of relativity is
performed in an incomparably better way by silly Vesselin Petkov:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Silly Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics
is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of
the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far,
however, little attention has been paid to the status of this
postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the
relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us
consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by
Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies":
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We
will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body" [1]. As
the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the
same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed
of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial
reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the
observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence
of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same
for all inertial observers."

Of course, neither silly Lee Smolin nor silly Vesselin Petkov is the
author of the silly walk: it is just one of Divine Albert's Divine
Silly Walks:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Divine Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage
is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and
that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its
velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of
propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is
obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous
section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking
along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative
to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative
to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a
ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity
set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature,
the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the
principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from
our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every
ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the
velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of
propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage
--a result contradictory to the principle of relativity."

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com