Re: Relativism Killer

Why have you not bothered to understand what you read? If you tried to
understand, you would see it's not meaningless. This is how relativity
defends itself. Ergo, by refusing to address the criticisms directly.
For example, you called a criticism of mine meaningless, which is not
true because you just want to disregard it.
"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."
To state that the speed of the observer does not affect the speed of the
wave is a meaningful statement. You missed the point by not bothering to
understand. The distinction has been made between the speed of light
relative to the air and to the observer. To deny that the relative speed
of the observer changes the relative speed of the sound is irrational.
This is true for both particles and waves.
The issue is that the second postulate is nonsense.
"> 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?"
Do you mean, so what if you made a false statement?
This is where you make an elementary error: "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."
No, it's the same difference when the air is still. No, because if you
move towards a stationary burglar alarm, the speed of the sound measured
by the observer is S plus his walking speed as determined by the
frequency of the sound detected by the pitch. The Doppler effect occurs
even when the ambulance is stationary and your car is passing by it (and
the air is still).
"So you claim that if the speed of light is invariant, it follows that
there is no Doppler shift!"
If it is invariant relative to a moving observer, there is no Doppler
shift. A Doppler shift occurs due to the motion of the observer, so it's
not invariant.
As I made clear previously, because there is a Doppler shift due to the
observer's motion, the relative speed of light is different for the
observer, contrary to the second postulate. That you cannot comprehend
this is a remarkable blind spot. When there is a Doppler shift due to
the motion of the observer, this necessarily involves a relative
velocity of C+-v. You misconstrued what I said by referring it to the
source when I was clearly referring to the observer.
"According to SR, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
  D = √((1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c))
where v is the relative speed source-observer."
It says "source" but you said, "the measured speed of sound depend only
of the speed of the observer relative to the air."
All that is necessary for sound or light is the normal Doppler formula:
For a stationary source and moving observer, the Doppler formula is f' =
f * ((v ± vo) / v), where vo is the speed of the observer.
Why do you pretend this SR formula is of any use? Is it the SR formula
for a two-way trip against the wind and with the wind? That would be for
the (ether) wind and not for the motion of the observer, which every
rational creature admits affects the frequency and relative velocity.
You said, "the measured speed of sound
depend only of the speed of the observer relative to the air."
That is the same as relative to the source when the air is still.
"The Doppler shift depends on the speed source-observer
for sound as for light."
The second postulate denies that.
What else can the second postulate be saying other than the motion of
the observer does not change the frequency of the light he perceives? It
does change the frequency, so it does change the relative speed.
"Repeat:
The speed of light is invariant so any inertial observer
will always measure the speed of light to be c."
A moving observer will always observe the speed of light to be c+-v
because the frequency will differ by the amount given in the normal
Doppler formula.
"The Doppler shift depends only on the relative speed
observer-source. So if the source _or_ the observer accelerate for
some time and then became inertial, the Doppler shift will change,
but the speed of light is still c."
When the frequency changes due to the motion of the observer, the
relative speed changes contrary to the second postulate. No experiment
ever showed otherwise.
"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!"
You refuse to answer the question: What does "irrespective of the
observer" mean, if not the relative speed of the light and the observer?
You are simply denying that this exists when the frequency changes,
which proves it does. If Einstein meant that the relative speed of light
is unaffected by that of the observer, that is ignorant nonsense.
The second postulate is ignorant nonsense. There never was anything to
it but nonsense.
When will you ever bother to understand the criticisms before replying?
Again and again, you totally fail to defend your pseudoscience.