Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativism Killer
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 20:42:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <1050uli$2tlu0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <f40c64bfda850777fbe034592f63d7b3@www.novabbs.com>
 <104qr02$1fhhd$1@dont-email.me>
 <4233a98c9b55d8b3f345029f5a451ab6@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e524ddd6d0d680500199d95ff51d58bf";
	logging-data="3069888"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pmaxWyZNZ9UOuyHKs1wbB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SHfxVCcKP/4EWH3Dj1BeJQJZIdM=
In-Reply-To: <4233a98c9b55d8b3f345029f5a451ab6@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB

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/