Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #664931 > unrolled thread

Relativism Killer

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-11 06:06 +0000
    Re: Relativism Killer "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-11 13:02 +0200
      Re: Relativism Killer Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-11 13:54 +0200
      Re: Relativism Killer Merton Porokhovschikov <he@ooicici.ru> - 2025-07-11 14:48 +0000
      Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 03:55 +0000
        Re: Relativism Killer "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-12 11:41 +0200
          Re: Relativism Killer Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-12 13:37 +0200
            Re: Relativism Killer Carlis Poplawski <slli@spwk.pl> - 2025-07-12 11:43 +0000
          Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 18:25 +0000
            Re: Relativism Killer Theryon Gorbunov-Posadov <urtgo@bvouo.ru> - 2025-07-12 19:15 +0000
            Re: Relativism Killer "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-13 14:03 +0200
              Re: Relativism Killer Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-07-13 13:35 +0000
                Re: Relativism Killer Tobe Schuhmacher <hmomb@chsut.de> - 2025-07-13 14:13 +0000
                  Re: Relativism Killer Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-07-13 15:21 +0000
                    Re: Relativism Killer Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-13 16:03 +0000
                      Re: Relativism Killer Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-07-13 16:33 +0000
                        Re: Relativism Killer Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-14 08:22 +0200
                      Re: Relativism Killer Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-13 19:43 +0200
          Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 20:00 +0000
            Re: Relativism Killer "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-13 19:43 +0200
              Re: Relativism Killer Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-13 21:09 +0200
        Re: Relativism Killer guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-07-13 23:22 +0200
          Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-13 21:58 +0000
      Re: Relativism Killer Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-12 09:53 +0200
      Re: Relativism Killer nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-12 17:56 +0200
        Re: Relativism Killer Tyronne Poshibalov <tbe@lphn.ru> - 2025-07-12 19:08 +0000
          Re: Relativism Killer nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-12 23:04 +0200
            Re: Relativism Killer Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-13 07:02 +0200
              Re: Relativism Killer Bodie Wojewódka <waedoie@waw.pl> - 2025-07-13 09:22 +0000
                Re: Relativism Killer "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-13 03:07 -0700
                Re: Relativism Killer Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-13 12:25 +0200
      Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 20:04 +0000
        Re: Relativism Killer "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-13 20:42 +0200
          Re: Relativism Killer Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-13 21:20 +0200
          Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-13 21:47 +0000
            Re: Relativism Killer "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-15 22:41 +0200
              Re: Relativism Killer Gordon Matsievsky <esmm@drgoss.ru> - 2025-07-15 20:49 +0000
      Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 20:18 +0000
      Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 20:32 +0000
      Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 20:36 +0000
      Re: Relativism Killer clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-07-12 21:00 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#664931 — Relativism Killer

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

"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."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#664933

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.



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664934

On 7/11/2025 1:02 PM, 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."

And speaking of measurements, poor trash:

if a measurement of a property of an observed
object gives a result different than the real
value of the property, the measurement is
a)valid
b)erroneous
c)UUUUUUU!!!UUUUUUU!!!!!!!!UUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which of the above is the correct ansswer
taught by your idiotic religion?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664938

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> 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.

wannabe internet hackers

𝗔𝗟𝗟_𝗨𝗦𝗔_𝗙𝗨𝗖𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚_𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦_𝗦𝗨𝗖𝗞𝗘𝗗_𝗢𝗡_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗪𝗔𝗟𝗟_𝗢𝗙_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗥𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗡_𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦
https://www.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/hAaxV2NJIFsl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664946

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664953

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.")



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664954

On 7/12/2025 11:41 AM, 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?


And speaking of measurements, poor trash:

if a measurement of a property of an observed
object gives a result different than the real
value of the property, the measurement is
a)valid
b)erroneous
c)UUUUUUU!!!UUUUUUU!!!!!!!!UUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which of the above is the correct ansswer
taught by your idiotic religion?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664955

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> On 7/12/2025 11:41 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> And speaking of measurements, poor trash:
> 
> if a measurement of a property of an observed object gives a result
> different than the real value of the property, the measurement is
> a)valid b)erroneous c)UUUUUUU!!!UUUUUUU!!!!!!!!UUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!
> UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> PLONK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Which of the above is the correct ansswer taught by your idiotic
> religion?

what's a "real value of a property" fucking stoopid. Go out buy a brain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664957

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. The speed
measured by the observer includes his speed relative to the source. All
observers will not measure the same speed of sound because they are
moving at different speeds relative to the source. Same for light. 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
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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664959

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> moving at different speeds relative to the source. Same for light.

light is completely other domain entity, me frendo. Say, sound is matter 
waves, meanwhile light is something emitted from matter, waves or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664996

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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664997

Le 13/07/2025 à 14:02, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 12.07.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

> According to SR, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
>   D = √((1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c))
> where v is the relative speed source-observer.

The word "longitudinal" is a bit misleading here.
We should simply refer to the Doppler effect without specifying 
"longitudinal."
Indeed, there is an additional internal Doppler effect in the equation. 
This internal Doppler effect is often replaced by the transverse Doppler 
effect, a term that is also very misleading.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664998

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 13/07/2025 à 14:02, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 12.07.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> 
>> According to SR, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
>>   D = √((1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c))
>> where v is the relative speed source-observer.
> 
> The word "longitudinal" is a bit misleading here.
> We should simply refer to the Doppler effect without specifying
> "longitudinal."
> Indeed, there is an additional internal Doppler effect in the equation.
> This internal Doppler effect is often replaced by the transverse Doppler
> effect, a term that is also very misleading.
> 
> R.H.

light not travels transverse, my friend. If scattered that's reflection 
still longitudinal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664999

Le 13/07/2025 à 16:13, Tobe Schuhmacher a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
>> Le 13/07/2025 à 14:02, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>> Den 12.07.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> 
>>> According to SR, the longitudinal Doppler shift is:
>>>   D = √((1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c))
>>> where v is the relative speed source-observer.
>> 
>> The word "longitudinal" is a bit misleading here.
>> We should simply refer to the Doppler effect without specifying
>> "longitudinal."
>> Indeed, there is an additional internal Doppler effect in the equation.
>> This internal Doppler effect is often replaced by the transverse Doppler
>> effect, a term that is also very misleading.
>> 
>> R.H.
> 
> light not travels transverse, my friend. If scattered that's reflection 
> still longitudinal.

Absolutely.

Il y a un effet Doppler longitudinal. 

Mais avec un effet Doppler interne associé. 

Simplement cette notion "interne" semble incompréhensible pour 80° des 
relativistes.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#665000

Le 13/07/2025 à 17:21, Richard Hachel  a écrit :
> ... pour 80° des relativistes.

80° Celsius ou Fahrenheit ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#665001

Le 13/07/2025 à 18:03, Python a écrit :
> Le 13/07/2025 à 17:21, Richard Hachel  a écrit :
>> ... pour 80° des relativistes.
> 
> 80° Celsius ou Fahrenheit ?

Kelvin, évidemment. 

Soyons universel.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#665021

Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 18:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 13/07/2025 à 18:03, Python a écrit :
>> Le 13/07/2025 à 17:21, Richard Hachel  a écrit :
>>> ... pour 80° des relativistes.
>>
>> 80° Celsius ou Fahrenheit ?
> 
> Kelvin, évidemment.
> Soyons universel.
> 
Most likely % was actually meant, not degree.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#665004

On 2025-07-13 16:03:33 +0000, Python said:

> Le 13/07/2025 à 17:21, Richard Hachel  a écrit :
>> ... pour 80° des relativistes.
> 
> 80° Celsius ou Fahrenheit ?

Réaumur peut-être, pour donner le point d'ébullition. Une fois dans ma 
vie j'ai vu un thermomètre calibré en °Ré, dans un chambre à louer à 
Budapest. La calibration a été faite à la main, donc elle n'était pas 
vendu comme ça.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#664960

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.")
When the source of a wave changes speed, its frequency changes, but not
its speed. When the observer's speed changes, the wave's frequency
changes, proving that the relative speed of the wave has changed. To
claim that the speed of the observer does not affect the relative speed
is nonsense. Stupid, Ignorant, irrational nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#665003

Den 12.07.2025 22:00, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 9:41:17 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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.
>>

> When the source of a wave changes speed, its frequency changes, but not
> its speed. When the observer's speed changes, the wave's frequency
> changes, proving that the relative speed of the wave has changed. To
> claim that the speed of the observer does not affect the relative speed
> is nonsense. Stupid, Ignorant, irrational nonsense.

Do you never read what you are responding to?

Repeat:
The speed of light is invariant so any inertial observer
will always measure the speed of light to be c.
If the observer changes his state of motion by accelerating
for some time, and then be inertial again, he will still
measure the speed of light to be c.

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.


Remember:
Experimental evidence trumps your opinion.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web