What was wrong with Dingle?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Max</i> ut to this day I haven't got a grasp of SR solution to Dingle's challenge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Dingle’s challenge as I see it reads; "The habit has developed of assuming that a physical theory is necessarily sound if its mathematics are impeccable: the question of whether there is anything in nature corresponding to the impeccable mathematics is not regarded as a question; it is taken for granted." <i>H. Dingle</i> To that end I used Einstein’s equations and instead of just assuming all of the available charts were correct I plugged in some numbers and found the results to be somewhat disingenuous as to what they are supposed to represent. If you try it yourself be sure to include when v2 = c2, it would also be helpful to find the root of “1" as most of his maths rely on that solution.
For a more in depth analogy go to; www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm
Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

One of my articles was intended to help with understanding special relativity, symmetric twins, and relativity paradoxes, including the Dingle controversy. Please see metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp -|Tom|-

A person cannot aggressively disagree with spacetime science, and passively concede to spacetime math. Finding mathematical mistakes within spacetime equations is a necessity for strong dissention.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ebg</i>
<br />A person cannot aggressively disagree with spacetime science, and passively concede to spacetime math. Finding mathematical mistakes within spacetime equations is a necessity for strong dissention.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure what you mean. Your statement seems evasive and cryptic.

The math of special relativity (SR) is now generally agreed to be internally consistent, and there are no current issues with its math. However, Lorentzian relativity (LR) has now replaced SR, and there is no current reason to think that LR is not a valid description of reality. For example, it has no associated paradoxes, and agrees with the accepted results of all existing independent experiments.

Do you have any issues with that? -|Tom|-

As far as the accusation of vagueness: Math is a language, like English or French. Contrarily saying "I disagree with your scientific premise, but I agree with your mathematical explanation of your premise" is the same as contrarily saying "I disagree with your viewpoint spoken in English, but I agree with the same viewpoint spoken in French."

As for the question, what do I find wrong with Spacetime Physics without acting obstinate? Call it a subject of Lorentzian Relativity or Special Relativity, but time dilation is mathematically flawed. Sorry, but first don't show time dilation to be wrong by the "twin paradox", and then expect support for Special Relativity or Lorentzian Relativity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ebg</i>
<br />As far as the accusation of vagueness: Math is a language, like English or French. Contrarily saying "I disagree with your scientific premise, but agree with your mathematical explanation of your premise" is the same as contrarily saying "I disagree with your viewpoint spoken in English, but agree with the same viewpoint spoken in French."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry, but your cute analogy is not very accurate. Because the math of relativity has more than one physical interpretation, a better analogy would be the meaning of "M", not otherwise clarified. Is it the 13th letter of the English alphabet? Is it the Roman numeral for 1000? An abbreviation for one million? A designation of male sex? A unit of meters? A mass? Language is intrinsically ambiguous, and the language of math is no exception.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for the question, what do I find wrong with Lorentzian Relativity without being obstinate? Call it a subject of Lorentzian Relativity or Special Relativity, but time dilation is mathematically flawed. Sorry, but don't first show time dilation is wrong by the "twin paradox", and then expect support for Lorentzian Relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? Do you know anything about LR? It has no time dilation. As has long been known, motion and gravitational potential both affect the rate of ticking of clocks. But time is a dimension used for measuring intervals, and as such is as invariant in its rate of flow as we can make it. LR expects there to be a "universal time" and a universal instant of "now". One cannot even set up a twins paradox in LR because it claims no symmetry between fixed and moving frames.

Isn't that just the kind of theory you were looking for? -|Tom|-