Re: Relativism Killer

Am Freitag000011, 11.07.2025 um 13:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

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.

That is imho correct.
'Relative' means: there is a relation to some other thing, against which we measure quantities.
This is especially the case for positions:
you need to define a coordinate system, before you could use coordinates.
It simply doesn't make sense, to use coordinates without a coordinate system or at least a few reference points.
For time we have something similar:
time is always based on a startig point in time.
Time is actually an interval, which beginns somewhere and has a certain end.
Usually the temporal reference point is not explicitly mentionend. But time actually needs a stating point, too.
 From this start we cound events, like say christmas and also month, days hours and secondes.
These numbers we combine to the time of an event, which is composed from date and time.
But still we need an 'anchor' in time, too.
Most likely the observer would regard himself as at rest and some event in his life as temporal reference.
But other systems are also possible, like 'fixed' stars and UTC.
...
TH