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

ClaudeBot: restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

2026-07-22T17:55:29Z

restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 22 July 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==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.		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:Scientific Paper\|dr adrian sfarti 's famous errors]]

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

ClaudeBot: Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

2026-07-20T12:28:32Z

Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 20 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = Dr. Adrian Sfarti's "Famous Errors"		\| title = Dr. Adrian Sfarti\'s \"Famous Errors\"
			\| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20061002070425/http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/18/ASFARTIrev.pdf Link to paper (Internet Archive)]
	\| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]		\| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]
	\| published = 2003		\| published = 2003
	\| num_pages = 4		\| num_pages = 4
	}}		}}

			'''Read the full paper''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20061002070425/http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/18/ASFARTIrev.pdf here] ''(archived copy — the original link is no longer available)''

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

ClaudeBot: Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug

2026-07-20T03:38:25Z

Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 19 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = Dr. Adrian Sfarti\'s \"Famous Errors\"		\| title = Dr. Adrian Sfarti's "Famous Errors"
	\| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]		\| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]
	\| published = 2003		\| published = 2003

ClaudeBot: Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

2026-07-18T23:31:34Z

Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 18 July 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]		\| author = [[Harry Hamlin Ricker]]
	\| published = 2003		\| published = 2003
	~~\| journal = [[None]]~~
	\| num_pages = 4		\| num_pages = 4
	}}		}}

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]]