Dingle objected to a revised interpretion of relativity that was not what Einstein said. This interpretation arose in the 1950s regarding what cosmologists were saying about the twin paradox. Dingle, quite properly, thought this was not what Einstein meant.

The discussion which followed revealed some serious misunderstandings regarding the true meaning of relativity. Dingle then reexamined the theory to understand the source of the confusion and difficulities in interpretation. He discovered that the theory was ambigous, vague and confusing so that it allowed different contradictory interpretations. He then proceded to reveal these contradictory interpretations.

His objections were answered with contradictory statements from different viewpoints all contradicting each other. Hence Dingle decided to disown the theory because no one could explain the correct theory to him when he asked for the correct interpretation to be used.

Refutations of Dingle mostly refute an interpretation by agreeing that what Dingle said was correct but in a different language so that the refutation didnt seem to be in agreement with what Dingle said. In essence they said Dingle was wrong while fundamentally agreeing that the mathematics of the theory was flawed.

The fundamental problem in relativity is that for every statement that can be said about the theory, which is asserted to be true, there is always a different mathematical procedure that can be used to disprove that statement. So it is always possible to prove what Dingle said is false, and it is always possible to prove that that refutation of Dingle is false. Hence there is no way a statement in relativity can be proved true or proved false.

This explains why critics think relativity is false and why critics of the critics think they are wrong. Every statement that one asserts is true has a counter statement that refutes the statement. Hence there is no way to determine anything in relativity is true or that it is false. The only thing that can be concluded from this is that the theory is not logical and ought to be abandoned. Hence Dingle was correct. No sense can be made of a theory in which no true statement can be made.

Thank you Harry, well said. I have stated that SR is not circular logic, rather, it is spherical logic. Circular logic can be stopped and the error can be corrected but with spherical logic each time it is stopped the adherents of SR divert the issue in another direction and the argument goes on, and on and on. Special Relativity has no practical application to human endeavors. Special Relativity is fantasy and General Relativity is falsity. Dingle was right and still is right, SR is self contradictory.

bob s

Bob, I thank you for your kind observation. In my papers I try to explain how this arises. Many people do not understand the nature of Dingle's 1962 Inconsistency Note in Nature. There he showed that by Einstein's way of reasoning it is just as valid to conclude that moving clocks run fast as that they run slow. In fact the theory can't tell which statement is true and which one is false. That Einstein choose the conclusion that moving clocks run slow as the answer, therefore has no logical basis within the theory, and it is clear that he either borrowed this conclusion from the work of Larmor and Lorentz, or from the tentative results of Stark's canal ray measurements. That his guess was later apparently confirmed by experiment was simply a lucky thing for Einstein. It is generally ignored that the aether theory did correctly predict a slowing of clock time measurements before Einstein. Ives developed a detailed aether theory that explains all the same results of relativity without the contradictiory mathematics and metaphysics of space-time.

>.<

It's a shame I didn't get to talk to Dingle then, I could have explained his error easily.

He misunderstood what the principle of relativity was saying.

Dingle's interpretation: Observers in motion will measure the exact same passage of time as the other Observer.

Dingle's Disproof: Contradicts that interpretation, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

Actual interpretation: Observers in motion will claim they are experiencing a normal rate of time, and will measure the speed of light to be constant. Upon doing so, and factoring in their motion, they will conclude they are experiencing time dilation from their motion.

Correct outcome of Dingle's clock paradox: Both observers, co-moving at a set velocity, will measure time dilation. You cannot claim to be a stationary observer compared to someone else unless you could also claim you are both moving at the same steady rate.

Dingle overlooked that.

If he had calculated the time dilation for E1-E2 in frame k in his experiment, he would have seen that both clocks "ran slow" according to their independent motion, and that there was no paradox.

Max, I am quite sure Dingle's mail bag was quite full of letters saying exactly what you say here, and making as little sense as you make here.

If it doesn't make sense, then you don't understand the meaning of Relativity.

If you don't understand something, how can you logically make any claims as to the validity of it?

It's as simple as that.

An observer at rest compared to a beam of light will move through time at a rate determined only by his mass.


If that same observer accelerates, and is no longer at rest, he will move through time at a correspondingly reduced rate.


The clocks aren't running slow, they're moving through time slower.

The clocks, if they could be asked, would say they are running at their normal rate.

They would not be able to determine an adjustment in their motion through time unless they compared their motion through space to that of a beam of light.

Then the whole situation would become clear.

Max, Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that the reason relativity is false is that no one can give a clear logically understandable statement of what it means.

You have a certain amount of freedom to move through the 4 Dimensions of the Universe.

When you are not changing your location in the 3 spatial dimensions, your location change through the 1 temporal dimension is maximized.

When you change your location through any combination of the 3 spatial dimensions, you reduce your location change through the 1 temporal dimension.


EXTREMELY SIMPLE EXPLANATION AHEAD:

As you move faster through space, you move slower through time.

In the above I stated that Dingle disowned relativity because: "His objections were answered with contradictory statements from different viewpoints all contradicting each other. Hence Dingle decided to disown the theory because no one could explain the correct theory to him when he asked for the correct interpretation to be used."

The discussion here certainly confirms that interpretation. One can imagine all the refutations of his arguments and all of them contradicting each other and disagreeing among themselves, but all agreeing Dingle is wrong. That must have been quite a revelation to him. Faced with this, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the theory must be false rather than attempt to refute all of the contradictory and illogical statements that are all claimed to be the truth of the theory of relativity. Hence Dingle decided that the morass of confusion, called the theory of relativity, was too difficult to straighten out, and hence the only recourse was to reject the theory as entirely false. This is the only logical course of action when no one can define and explain the theory of relativity in a logically consistent manner.

HARRY: In the above I stated that Dingle disowned relativity because: "His objections were answered with contradictory statements from different viewpoints all contradicting each other. Hence Dingle decided to disown the theory because no one could explain the correct theory to him when he asked for the correct interpretation to be used."

cinci: Nothing in my analysis is contradictory and no explanation to Dingle was contradictory except to contradict his wrong-headed ideas.
****************************

Harry: The discussion here certainly confirms that interpretation. One can imagine all the refutations of his arguments and all of them contradicting each other and disagreeing among themselves, but all agreeing Dingle is wrong. That must have been quite a revelation to him. Faced with this, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the theory must be false rather than attempt to refute all of the contradictory and illogical statements that are all claimed to be the truth of the theory of relativity. Hence Dingle decided that the morass of confusion, called the theory of relativity, was too difficult to straighten out, and hence the only recourse was to reject the theory as entirely false. This is the only logical course of action when no one can define and explain the theory of relativity in a logically consistent manner.

cinci: I gave one simple analysis that shows Dingle's arguments to be a complete misunderstanding on his part. Show me whare Dingle used the equations of relativity to prove his point. He didn't because he couldn't. He jsut basically waves his arms and makes contraictory statements that are not concistent with relativity.

Cincirob, at 12:07 "Show me whare Dingle used the equations of relativity to prove his point."

In other words, you can prove him wrong but you have to do it the way he tell you to. Brilliant rob, just brilliant, you sound like a Bible salesman.

Bible Salesman: There is a God!
Novice: how can i be sure?

BS: Because this Bible tells you so!
N: how do i know that your bible is true?

BS: Because God wrote the Bible!
N: oh!
============================================================

Cr: Einstein was a genius!
N: how do you know?

Cr: Because he wrote special relativity!
N: how do i know that his relativity is true?

Cr: Because Einstein wrote it!

N: can relativity be proven false?
Cr: Oh sure, but you have to use relativity to do it!

N: but relativity doesn't make sense.
Cr: It doesn't have to!

N: why not?
Cr: Because it was written by Einstein, and Einstein was a genius!

Cincirob, at 12:07 "Show me whare Dingle used the equations of relativity to prove his point."

Inn: In other words, you can prove him wrong but you have to do it the way he tell you to. Brilliant rob, just brilliant, you sound like a Bible salesman.

cinci: You might want to try that first sentence again. But the point is Harry made a claim about what Dingle did and I asked him to show what he claimed.

So your appraoch to this is:

Harry: Dingle used relativity to say relativity was wrong.

cinci: What did he say?

Harry: He said relativity was wrong.

Absolutely devoid of any intellignence whatsoever...............as usual.
*****************************

Re: Cincirob, What Dingle Concluded Regarding Relativity September 30 2008, 2:18 P

That is a very interesting exchange Cinci. You used Innominate’s logic to show that Harry was wrong so therefore, Innominate’s logic about you must be correct. Dingle used Einstein’s logic to show Einstein was wrong, then you show Dingle’s logic to be wrong so therefore, Einstein’s logic must also be wrong. You needn't respond, I doubt you understand how logic works anyway.

bob s

Dingle's objection to relativity worked this way. He pointed out a contradiction in the logic of the theory and asked for explainations as to why this didn't disprove the theory. He received numerous illogical answers along with other contradictory answers such as are familiar from the likes of Cincirob. He specified the nature of the answer required and recieved no satisfactory responses just as Cincirob produces no satisfactory responses. They are contradictions, and do not address the point at issue. So Dingle disowned relativity as false, because no satisfactory answer could be obtained that explained why the theory wasn't the false theory, which it seemed to be. Hence claiming that Dingle is wrong doesnt answer the demand that the theory be shown to be correct, when it has been shown to produce a contradiction or a false conclusion.

HE DIDN'T DISPROVE RELATIVITY USING THE LOGIC OF RELATIVITY.

Seriously, when is that going to get through.


You don't disprove something by misunderstanding it, misapplying what it states, and garbling the results.

You only disprove your understanding of it.


YES, HE HAS TO ACTUALLY USE RELATIVITY TO DISPROVE IT, WHY WOULD IT BE ANY OTHER WAY?


He is basically saying this:

2+5 is wrong.

Why?

Because 3+3 doesn't equal 7.


I claim that our current form of quantum mechanics is wrong, and then I point out the reasons why USING THE FRAMEWORK OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.


Claiming something is wrong without disproving it only makes you look ignorant of the subject.

Bob S: That is a very interesting exchange Cinci. You used Innominate’s logic to show that Harry was wrong so therefore, Innominate’s logic about you must be correct. Dingle used Einstein’s logic to show Einstein was wrong, then you show Dingle’s logic to be wrong so therefore, Einstein’s logic must also be wrong. You needn't respond, I doubt you understand how logic works anyway.

cinci: Are you taking all your meds?
*******************

Harry: Dingle's objection to relativity worked this way. He pointed out a contradiction in the logic of the theory and asked for explainations as to why this didn't disprove the theory.

cinci: No, he didn't. There aren't any contradictions. so this is impossible. If you think there are, then point one out.
************************

Harry: He received numerous illogical answers along with other contradictory answers such as are familiar from the likes of Cincirob.

cinci: If he didn't understand that there aren't any contradictins, then he wouldn't understand the explanations either. Is this what you considedr to be scientific proof? Give me a break.
************************

Harry: He specified the nature of the answer required and recieved no satisfactory responses just as Cincirob produces no satisfactory responses. They are contradictions, and do not address the point at issue.

cinci: So tell us what the contradictions are. Surely you aren't going to make a scientific judgement based on hearsay. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
**************************

Harry: So Dingle disowned relativity as false, because no satisfactory answer could be obtained that explained why the theory wasn't the false theory, which it seemed to be. Hence claiming that Dingle is wrong doesnt answer the demand that the theory be shown to be correct, when it has been shown to produce a contradiction or a false conclusion.

cinci: Simple, all you have to do is show us the contradiction or false conclusion and prove Dingle's point. Surely youknow what the contradictions are and can explain them to us, can't you?
**************************

As I have said frequently and often, you do not understand relativity, so it is natural for someone who doesn't understand the mathematics to claim there is no contradiction. You dont understand the contradiction because you dont understand relativity and you dont understand the mathematics. So your argument is simply that there is no contradiction because you say so. That is not an argument. Dingle showed there was a contradiction. If you dont understand the mathematics of that, you should not be discussing this subject here.

No, Dingle didn't understand relativity and neither do you, Harry.
Here is one of many refutations of Dingle's erroneous concepts:

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

Here is another one:

http://www.savefile.com/client/file_stats.php?fid=1749073

One more:

http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html

Here is a different one:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm

Thank you for citing establishment internet links. Unfortunately they mean nothing. A valid proof stands no matter how many internet sites argue to the contrary. Dingle did indeed understand relativity. He published textbooks on the subject, and numerous papers. Did you do any of those things?? No, you didnt.

The issue is not whether Dingle understood relativity, but whether anyone does. Dingle asked for explainations of the theory from those who claimed he was wrong, they failed to provide the required explaination of why relativity was correct, when Dingle showed it was false. Hence he disowned the theory since no one could provide a explaination of what it really meant. The continured argument over relativity is ample proof that no one really understands relativity, so the theory has to be disowned for that reason alone.

Of course one can argue that it is correct without undrstanding it. You are ample proof of that conclusion.

What I would like to know is, does Isochronos promote the concept of time dilation. I would find a positive response most amusing.
Isocrchronos is Greek translated to isochronous.
isochronal means, uniform in time, having equal duration or recurring at regular intervals

bob s

Harry, you are such a clown

The best part is seeing people claim someone else misunderstood Relativity, while claiming that Now is important.


Time doesn't flow, you move through time.


Without realizing that, Relativity will undoubtedly seem absurd.

Cincirob: Want to try this one again....it sounds like a Bush's "You can fool some of the people...." speech only worse; at least you could tell what he was trying to say.


AAF: What is the matter with you, Cincirob? You're way wrong even in politics! You should have been politically conservative by now; shouldn't you? George Bush is just like Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, or that Bush is already known for giving "some of the most eloquent and visionary speeches ever delivered by an American President: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324614,00.html


Cincirob: Yes, the great American mystery is why anybody who has a couple of bucks in the banks suddenly decides he's a Republican. And I am politically conservative, George Bush is not. In the same way you butcher science, the people in this country have completely bastardized the term conservative. And using Fox News as a source for Presidential quality is also as bad as your science. Wake up.


AAF: It is not just a ' couple of bucks in the banks, Cincirob! You have to grow older and wiser as well! Besides, Fox News TV is a reliable source; and if science can be butchered, then it must not be called 'science' in the first place. Since science, by definition, is eternal and standing on its own forever.

AAF: It is not just a ' couple of bucks in the banks, Cincirob! You have to grow older and wiser as well! Besides, Fox News TV is a reliable source; and if science can be butchered, then it must not be called 'science' in the first place. Since science, by definition, is eternal and standing on its own forever.

cinci: Nah, it's the bucks. After Al Gore accused Bush of giving half of his tax reductions to the wealthiest 2% of the people in the country, a survey showed that 20% of the people in the country thought they were in that 2%.
****************

cinci: Thanks AAF for bringing this string back. I must have lost track of it while Iwas on vacation.
*************************

Harry: Thank you for citing establishment internet links. Unfortunately they mean nothing. A valid proof stands no matter how many internet sites argue to the contrary. Dingle did indeed understand relativity. He published textbooks on the subject, and numerous papers. Did you do any of those things?? No, you didnt.

cinci: More great logic. If publishing books and numerous papers means Dingle is right, it also means Einstein was right and so are hundreds of relativity supporters.
********************************

Harry: The issue is not whether Dingle understood relativity, but whether anyone does. Dingle asked for explainations of the theory from those who claimed he was wrong, they failed to provide the required explaination of why relativity was correct, when Dingle showed it was false.

cinci: Well, impeccable logic again. If Dignle didn't understanbd relativity, then he probably wouldn't understand the explanations. He would have to change his mind about his own errors and he, like you, wouldn't do that.
************************

Harry: Hence he disowned the theory since no one could provide a explaination of what it really meant. The continured argument over relativity is ample proof that no one really understands relativity, so the theory has to be disowned for that reason alone.

cinci: There are records of people, even in modern times who didn't believe the world was round and they responded to no explanation otherwise....does that mean the world isn't round?
****************************

Harry: Of course one can argue that it is correct without undrstanding it. You are ample proof of that conclusion.

cinci: And you are ample proof that you can argue against a theory without understanding it. In all these messages I have asked you to state whatever you think is paradoxical in relativity. No response. Why?
***************************