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.
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?
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
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,
moving at different speeds relative to the source. Same for light.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
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,
from the point of view of physics, yes, but not otherwise. The inquirer
aims to observe something which is not possibly observable, as observable
by multiple observers same time, and processed locally by one observer,
which clearly implies another domain, not palpable.
good post, more like that.
So as already said, nothing to do with physics,
so not possibly a 'relativism killer'
in a way that hat has anything to do with physics,
and hence reality.
On 7/12/2025 11:04 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So as already said, nothing to do with physics, so not possibly a
'relativism killer'
in a way that hat has anything to do with physics,
and hence reality.
Your precious physics is no way the reality,
it's a collection of delusions of a bunch of religious maniacs like
yourself.
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 7/12/2025 11:04 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So as already said, nothing to do with physics, so not possibly a
'relativism killer'
in a way that hat has anything to do with physics,
and hence reality.
Your precious physics is no way the reality,
it's a collection of delusions of a bunch of religious maniacs like
yourself.
my friend, please undrestand, the reality of this world is called
physics.
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.
... pour 80° des relativistes.
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.
Le 13/07/2025 à 17:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
... pour 80° des relativistes.
80° Celsius ou Fahrenheit ?
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.
> 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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 145:48:12 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,498 |