|
|
Re: Dingle and the Twins' Paradox (Tom and Paul Andersen are wrong)
Posted:
Feb 24, 2012 5:03 PM
|
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:42:23 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:
>I read Herbert Dingle's original paper. His claim that Special
>Relativity was inconsistent was based on working out the Twins Paradox
>in two ways and getting different answers - because in one case "time
>at a distance" was explicit, and because he didn't believe in it, he
>didn't use it.
>
>This is like proving arithmetic is inconsistent because you don't
>believe in carries, and so you add two numbers in two different ways,
>one in which the operation is hidden (so you get the right answer),
>and one in which carrying is explicit, and you intentionally neglect
>to do it - so you get the wrong answer, and the two answers don't
>agree.
>
>I'm sorry, but this sort of thing proves only that he can't be taken
>seriously.
As I have previously pointed out, until now, no critic of Einstein has been
able to find a flaw in SR's mathetical consistentcy because none has
identified the basic problem.
When faced with an apparent paradox, relativists merely pull out the RoS and
everything seems to fall into place. It does, but only because the reasoning
is circular. Everything about the theory assumes Einstein's P2 correct and
is consistent with it.
It is Einstein's definition of clock synching and the RoS itself that is
wrong, as I have pointed out many times.
That leaves the rest of the theory without any foundation at all...ie., it
is pure bullshit from start to finish.
see: www.scisite.info/ros.html (in which I explain Einstein's false logic in
a number of different ways.)
or run my animation: www.scisite.info/clocksynch.exe
>John Savard
|
|
