Re: Relativism Killer

Den 12.07.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 9:41:17 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

Den 12.07.2025 05:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:02:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 11.07.2025 08:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"Relativism Killer: The Collapse of Conceptual Relativity at the
Speed Limit"
Rub´en Yruretagoyena Conde

>
Why do you not give a link to the paper?
>
https://vixra.org/pdf/2507.0037v1.pdf

"Abstract
This article introduces a conceptual function named relativism killer(),
which demonstrates how the framework of relativity ceases to hold
coherence once a fundamental maximum is defined. We explore the
paradoxical boundary where relativistic logic collapses under its own
limit: the speed of light. At this precise threshold, the relative
becomes absolute, and the structure of reference frames disintegrates.
We introduce the concept of an ontological observer the definitional
entity, which reveals why the condition x = 1 terminates relativity.
This argument serves both as a philosophical reflection and as a
structural clarification of Einstein’s prediction, stripped of
assumptions and exposed as a necessary geometrical condition. It also
supports post relativistic models such as the Hijolum´ınic Theory."

>
>
Have you read the paper?
>
Quote of the first statement in the Introduction:
"Relativity, as introduced by Einstein, is based on the notion
  that measurements of space and time are relative to the motion
  of observers."
>
Do I have to explain why this is nonsense?
I do? OK:
>
A correct, but trivial statement would be:
"Physics is based on the notion that measurements of space
  and time are relative to the observer."
>
The measurements made by an observer are obviously relative
to himself. The speed of an object measured by the observer
is relative to the observer.
To say:
"The speed of an object measured by the observer is relative
  to the motion of the observer."
is a meaningless statement. Which "motion"?
>
The author is very confused about what "relativity" is,
and when the very first statement in the paper is meaningless,
the rest is bound to be nonsense.
>
Another quote:
"5. Philosophical Reflection: The Death of the Observer
   The observer, within relativity, is always external.
   But at the speed of light, there is no outside.
   The act of observation merges with the act of being.
   Thus, relativism killer(1) does not just signify a broken
   formula, but a shift in ontological perspective I dare to say.
   It is where duality ends, and unity begins."
>
I will leave to you to figure out why this is nonsense.
>

>

According to relativity the relative speed of light does not include the
relative speed of the observer so the observer finds the speed of light
relative to him to be C even if he is moving towards or away from the
source. This is not true of either particles or waves and is so
illogical as to be irrational and utterly stupid.

>
The statement:
"the relative speed of light does not include the
  relative speed of the observer"
is as meaningless as Conde's statement quoted above.
Same confusion!
>
The "speed of light" is the speed measured by an observer,
it is the speed relative to the observer.
So how do you imagine that the speed relative to the observer
could "include the speed of the observer"?
What "speed of the observer" are you referring to?
>
The point is that it is experimentally confirmed that all
observers will measure the same speed of light, even when
the observers are moving relative to each other.
>
That means that the speed of light is invariant, the same
in all frames of reference.
Or as you put it: "the observer finds the speed of light
relative to him to be c even if he is moving towards
or away from the source." (the second postulate of SR).
>
Experimental evidence trumps your opinion which
probably is that the speed of light is c only in
the rest frame of the source.
>
(I suppose that what you meant by your meaningless statement
  was something like:
  "According to relativity the measured speed of light does not
   include the speed of the source relative to the observer.")

To say that the relative speed of sound between source and (walking)
observer is not S ±3 mph is a meaningfully false statement.

So what?

The speed
measured by the observer includes his speed relative to the source.

The speed of sound measured by the observer is the speed of sound
relative to the observer. Let's call the measured speed of sound v.
The observer can measure the speed of the air relative to him,
let's call the measured wind speed w.
The observer can now deduce the speed of sound relative to the air,
c = v + w  (vector addition)
Which of the speeds c, v or w do you think "includes the observer's
speed relative to the source"?
Simpler put:
The speed of sound measured by the observer depends on his speed
relative to the air. His speed relative to the source is irrelevant.

All
observers will not measure the same speed of sound because they are
moving at different speeds relative to the source.

Or better: The observers will measure different speed of light because
they are moving at different speeds relative to each other.
This is an obvious triviality!
The speed of sound is not invariant.
The speed of sound is frame dependent.

Same for light.

You can kick and scream all you want, that the speed of
light is invariant is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed
that it can be considered a proven fact.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
Your opinion can't change facts.
You only demonstrate your ignorance.

The
speed of the (walking) observer is a speed within the frame of
reference. It is false to claim the speed is not composite or that the
experimental measurements do not confirm this. The observer finds the
speed of light to be C ± 3 mph, so the second postulate is false.

The following is rather funny! :-D

The
speed of light includes the speed of the observer. That is detected as a
change in frequency. You are denying that the frequency would be
affected, and that is stupid and irrational nonsense (relativity's
second postulate).

So you claim that if the speed of light is invariant
it follows that there is no Doppler shift!
One of you more hilarious misconceptions!  :-D
According to SR, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
  D = √((1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c))
where v is the relative speed source-observer.
----
BTW, as demonstrated above the measured speed of sound
depend only of the speed of the observer relative to the air.
The measured speed of sound doesn't change if you change
the speed of the source relative to the observer.
But the Doppler shift does!
The Doppler shift depends on the speed source-observer
for sound as for light.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/