"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."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> 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.

Any physics paper that contains 'ontological perspective'
can safely be thrown into the fire,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Otherwise, why did Einstein mention the observer in the second
postulate?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

No one thinks the speed of a bullet or wave changes because they move
relative to it. What did Einstein think?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

What remains of the second postulate now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/13/2025 7:43 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

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.

True - only because there is no "inertial
observer" as described by The Shit of
your idiot guru.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 12/07/2025 om 5:55 schreef LaurenceClarkCrossen:

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.

Funny though it be, constancy of light speed still baffling intelligent
people even nowadays is demonstrated by you (supposing you are that:).
Yet the truth and necessity of it are also accessible to highschool
teenagers. There are even nice intuitive axiomatic approaches to SRT,
where "c-o-l-s" doesn't need to be imposed as a counterintuitive
postulate, but where it follows kindly as a corollary, a provable
result. Mine for instance wugi's interactive relativity <https://www.wugi.be/srtinterac.html>.

--
guido wugi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:22:48 +0000, guido wugi wrote:

Op 12/07/2025 om 5:55 schreef LaurenceClarkCrossen:

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.

Funny though it be, constancy of light speed still baffling intelligent people even nowadays is demonstrated by you (supposing you are that:).
Yet the truth and necessity of it are also accessible to highschool teenagers. There are even nice intuitive axiomatic approaches to SRT,
where "c-o-l-s" doesn't need to be imposed as a counterintuitive
postulate, but where it follows kindly as a corollary, a provable
result. Mine for instance wugi's interactive relativity <https://www.wugi.be/srtinterac.html>.

We could steel-man Einstein's second postulate as meaning that an
observer at the interferometer of the MMX would always find the speed of
light to be invariant. That is for a round trip with the observer
stationary within the IRF. That does not mean the relative speed of
light observed by a moving observer is invariant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 13.07.2025 23:47, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

Paul B. Andersen wrote: "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."

If you don't understand that this is true, there is no hope for you.

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).

And from this it follows that thespeed of sound measured by the observer depends on his speed relative to the air _and_ the speed of the source
relative to the observer? :-D

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
"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.

"If it is invariant relative to a moving observer, there is no Doppler
shift."

Good grief!

I have told you several times in this thread what "invariant" means!
And you have still no clue!

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.

I won't try to explain why this is meaningless babble.

Enough now!

--------------------

> When will you ever bother to understand the criticisms before replying?

That would be when you begin to say something sensible.

I am not holding my breath.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)