Re: Relativism Killer

Den 12.07.2025 22:04, 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.
>

Laurence Clark Crossen gave 5 responses in 5 different posts,
and none of them addresses the issue, namely this paper:
https://vixra.org/pdf/2507.0037v1.pdf
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:> If Einstein only meant that the speed of the observer does not affect

the speed of the wave he would have been correct. If he meant the
relative speed remains unchanged that would be incorrect.

As explained in the post you are responding to,
this is a meaningless statement.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:> Then, what would "irrespective of the observer" mean if not the relative

motion of the observer and relative speed of the light as you yourself
have implicitly accepted? How can you now defend relativity and
Einstein?

A meaningless question!
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:> Otherwise, why did Einstein mention the observer in the second

postulate?

Otherwise of what?
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:> No one thinks the speed of a bullet or wave changes because they move

relative to it. What did Einstein think?

What's the point with stating the bleeding obvious
which no one disputes (including Einstein)?
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:> What remains of the second postulate now?
Is something removed from the second postulate?
----------------------------------------------------------
Please give ONE response to ONE post!
=====================================
And address what you are responding to!
Your posts show that you never read what you are responding to.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/