|
Tribute to Herbert Dingle (Born 2 August 1890 - Died 4 September 1978) "
It is ironical that, in the very field in which
Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for
example - in the abandoning of dogma and the
granting of absolute freedom to criticism - the
positions are now reversed. Science will not
tolerate criticism of special relativity, while
Theology talks freely about the death of God,
religionless Christianity, and so on." H.Dingle
This message is a tribute to professor Herbert Dingle, one of the greatest scientist's the world has ever seen. Professor Dingle's greatest achievement came in 1972 when his book, "SCIENCE at the Crossroads" was published by Martin Brian & O'Keeffe, London. In his book, prof. Dingle shows that Einstein's theory of special relativity is an irrational theory. For a man with prof. Dingle's background, (He wrote at least a dozen 'scientific' books before his rationality was restored ) to publish, " SCIENCE at the Crossroads" was indeed an act of courage unparalleled in recent times. I quote from page 17 of prof. Dingle's
book, " It would naturally be supposed that the
point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is
generally supposed to be, must still be to subtle
and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected
to understand it. On the contrary, it is one of the
most extreme simplicity. According to the theory, if
you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and
one is moving with respect to the other, they must
work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly
than the other. But the theory also requires that
you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving'
one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B
moves and that B rests while A moves. The question
therefore arises: how does one determine,
consistently with the theory, which clock works the
more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the
theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly
than B and B more slowly than A - which it requires
no super- intelligence to see is impossible. Now,
clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility
cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires,
therefore, either that the question just posed shall
be answered, or else that the theory shall be
acknowledged to be false. But as I have said, more
than 13 years of continuous effort has failed to
produce either response. The question is left by the
experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who
either ignore it or shroud it in various
obscurities, while experiments involving enormous
physical risk go on being performed. "
* Mr. Dingle continues: " It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this question is exactly what it appears to be, with every word and phrase bearing it's ordinary, generally understood, meaning; it is not a profoundly complicated question, artificially simplified to bring it within the scope of the non scientific readers intelligence. It is presented here in it's full scientific reality , and the ordinary reader is fully competent to understand whether a proffered answer is in fact an answer or an evasion as is the most learned physicist or mathematician - though, of course, he may not be able to judge whether the suggested answer is true or not." In the appendix of his book; II " THE CASE AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY " Mr. Dingle gives three reasons how Einstein's theory of special relativity can be saved. I quote Dingle: " (I) It is often held that the logical structure of the theory is is unassailable, and that therefore the theory can be disproved , if at all, only by experiment : hence , any such paper disproof as the forgoing must necessary be fallacious and there is no need to waste time in discovering where the fallacy lies." Page 231 " (II) The resistance most commonly felt by practical physicists to the disproof of the theory arises from the conviction that the experimental evidence for it is to strong to overcome by a mere piece of logical jugglery which, in face of it, has no more weight than Zeno's proof that Achilles could not overtake the tortoise. " (See my exposure of the Achilles fallacy - Chap2 para2) Page 232 " (III) Another apparent possibility of saving Einstein's theory lies in the supposition that equations 3 and 4(page230) are not really contradictory because they refer not to objective phenomena but merely to appearances: A appears to go slow when observed from B, and B appears to go slow as when observed from A...... .._ that if this were so the whole theory would be concerned merely with appearances and could not possibly lead to an explanation of any of the objective phenomena for which the theory was designed. "Page 236
There is no need to say much more about
Einstein's 'special theory of relativity', it
is clearly irrational, it was fabricated by
Einstein in order to correct a false premise.
On page 9 Chapter III of RELATIVITY (The
Special and the General Theory) Mr. Einstein
makes the following statement: I quote " I stand at the window of a railway carriage which is traveling uniformly, and drop a stone on the embankment , without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance , I see the stone descending in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from a footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. Now I ask: Do the "positions" traverses by the stone lie " in reality " on a straight line or on a parabola ? (my emphasis) The answer is : " a
parabolic curve ". Mr.
Einstein has ignored the 'moving earth' (even taking
the carriage as frame of reference, which is another
misdeed). It only appears
for Mr. Einstein(he
wrote 'I see') in the carriage, as if
the stone is falling in a straight line. Both
observers will plot the path of the falling stone as a
parabolic curve. The frame of reference for both
observers is the earth. There is no need for a
'special' theory of relativity, it is a false theory. Download
"Science at the Crossroads (2Mb)" click here List of books written by Prof. Herbert Dingle. 1. Relativity for all.1922 * Updated: 27 August
2015 |