Dr. Adrian Sfarti's "Famous Errors" - Revision history

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:27:54Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 1 January 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|dr adrian sfarti 's famous errors]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|dr adrian sfarti 's famous errors]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|dr adrian sfarti 's famous errors]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:17:01Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	This paper shows how traditional defenders of special relativity abuse mathematical rigor and misrepresent the hard work of relativity critics. In his paper ?Famous Errors? Dr. Adrian Sfarti attacks the work of Herbert Dingle and implies that my papers are fallacious because they are subject to the same fallacy. After seemingly demonstrating that Dingle's arguments are fallacious he says ?So, Dingle was wrong and the whole hoopla around his book is unjustified. Variant's of Dingle's argument still surface today?. This is followed by two references to my work and that of three other authors. I have no objection to Dr. Sfarti claiming that my work is erroneous if he can provide rigorous mathematical arguments to prove his case. I object to the implication he makes that my work is erroneous, when it is clear that he has not read my papers. If he had read them, he would not have advanced the fallacious arguments given in his paper, because my papers clearly demonstrate that the method he uses is fallacious. This paper will review the reasons again for readers not familiar with the papers which Dr. Sfarti misrepresents.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		This paper shows how traditional defenders of special relativity abuse mathematical rigor and misrepresent the hard work of relativity critics. In his paper ?Famous Errors? Dr. Adrian Sfarti attacks the work of Herbert Dingle and implies that my papers are fallacious because they are subject to the same fallacy. After seemingly demonstrating that Dingle's arguments are fallacious he says ?So, Dingle was wrong and the whole hoopla around his book is unjustified. Variant's of Dingle's argument still surface today?. This is followed by two references to my work and that of three other authors. I have no objection to Dr. Sfarti claiming that my work is erroneous if he can provide rigorous mathematical arguments to prove his case. I object to the implication he makes that my work is erroneous, when it is clear that he has not read my papers. If he had read them, he would not have advanced the fallacious arguments given in his paper, because my papers clearly demonstrate that the method he uses is fallacious. This paper will review the reasons again for readers not familiar with the papers which Dr. Sfarti misrepresents.

			[[Category:Scientific Paper\|dr adrian sfarti 's famous errors]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T15:22:46Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Dr. Adrian Sfarti\'s \"Famous Errors\"
| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]
| published = 2003
| journal = [[None]]
| num_pages = 4
}}

==Abstract==

This paper shows how traditional defenders of special relativity abuse mathematical rigor and misrepresent the hard work of relativity critics. In his paper ?Famous Errors? Dr. Adrian Sfarti attacks the work of Herbert Dingle and implies that my papers are fallacious because they are subject to the same fallacy. After seemingly demonstrating that Dingle's arguments are fallacious he says ?So, Dingle was wrong and the whole hoopla around his book is unjustified. Variant's of Dingle's argument still surface today?. This is followed by two references to my work and that of three other authors. I have no objection to Dr. Sfarti claiming that my work is erroneous if he can provide rigorous mathematical arguments to prove his case. I object to the implication he makes that my work is erroneous, when it is clear that he has not read my papers. If he had read them, he would not have advanced the fallacious arguments given in his paper, because my papers clearly demonstrate that the method he uses is fallacious. This paper will review the reasons again for readers not familiar with the papers which Dr. Sfarti misrepresents.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]