Talk:Herbert Dingle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:51, 29 September 2007 edit72.84.72.142 (talk) →This Revision Is Just Another Porly Researched Dingle Bashing Excersise ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:31, 10 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,719,653 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(455 intermediate revisions by 81 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:pink; border:1px solid #5A8261; font-size:82.5%;">
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|listas=Dingle, Herbert\|blp=no\|1=
	{\| style="padding:0 0 0 0; background:transparent;"
			{{WikiProject Biography\|s&a-work-group=yes}}
	\| width=50px \|
			{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low\|bio=yes}}
	\|{{#if:{{{notready\|}}}\|<span style="color:lightred;">\|}}
			{{WikiProject Astronomy\|importance=Low}}
	<big>A revision of this article is being worked on and considered at ]. This revision is being discussed at ]</big>
	\|}</div>
	<br>

	{{WPBiography
	\|living=no
	\|class=Stub
	\|priority=
	\|s&a-work-group=yes
	}}		}}
			{{archives}}
	{{Physics\|class=Stub\|importance=\|}}

			==Reasons for Disagreeing with GregVolk's Dec24 Edits==
	{{Archive box\|auto=long}}

			In GregVolk's edits two well-documented facts are suppressed. First, that Dingle initially claimed relativity didn't predict unequal aging for round-trip twins and then acknowledged he had been wrong about that (and had been wrong for 40 years) and then switched to claiming that relativity was logically inconsistent. Dingle himself says admits this in his writing. This is not a contraversial point. There is no reason to suppress this important fact. Second, the fact that abundant experimental evidence supports the predictions of special relativity. Honestly, if it isn't even permissible in a Misplaced Pages article to state that special relativity has been experimentally verified, then we might as well just pack it in. I do, however, I agree with GregVolk that the summary of Dingle's work in the beginning of the article should mention Crossroads, so I may put that edit back in. I think it was previously assumed that this book was adequately covered under "Controveries".] (]) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	__TOC__

			I neglected to address one other part of GregVolk's edits that I don't agree with. GV wants the article to just say that someone (Whitrow) argued that the manifest reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation is not logically inconsistent. The article was written the way it is just because Whitrow was a convenient person to attribute that to, and some editors insisted on having a source that specifically refers to Dingle (rather than to the technical point at issue, for which there are literally thousands of solid references). There is no dispute about the fallacy of Dingle's claim. Even anti-relativists know that he was trivially wrong about that. In fact, the current article is written as charitably as can be, even at the expense of accuracy, because the reader isn't given any sense of just HOW absurdly wrong Dingle was. If some editors insist, we can pile up references, showing the near universal agreement on this point, but it sure seems like wasted effort because we all know the ultimate outcome.] (]) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	== "Assessments of Dingle's Anti-Relativity Arguments" ==
			:I note that you reverted the editors stylistic changes as well as those which changed the tone of certain sections. I fail to see how the two are connected? If you feel that such stylistic changes were detrimental, please state why.
	This section has been added and removed a couple of times. For those who haven't seen it:
			:In any case, the only part of the edit I feel strongly about is the use of "relatvists argue" and simliar phrases. --] (]) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
	:As stated in his obituary, "the last twenty years of Dingle's life were dominated by his campaign against the special theory of relativity". This campaign was split into two phases. Initially (1955-1963) Dingle argued that special relativity does not predict asymmetric aging of twins, one of whom completes a round trip at high speed while the other remains at home. During this phase, he still regarded the theory of relativity as "sound", and merely belived that everyone else totally misunderstood it. The second, and more vitriolic phase of his campaign began around 1964, when Dingle finally realized that his understanding of special relativity was completely wrong, and in fact it <i>did</i> predict asymmetric aging for the twins. At this stage, he reverted to a complete rejection of the theory, including the reciprocity of time dilation between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. At this point, scientists who had previously worked patiently to explain relativity to Dingle reacted in different ways. Some, such as Synge, decided that Dingle was simply pulling a gigantic prank, since he was unable to believe that Dingle was serious in his later allegations. Others responded with less equnimity, and, and G Whitrow said, "this treatment hardened Dingle's belief that he was right". Dingle came to believe that the scientific community was behaving dishonestly, and intentionally ignoring him, which prompted him to ever more shrill complaints and letters to editors, demanding that his fellow scientists be held to account for their mendacity. At this point, it because clear to all participants that Dingle was unwell, and the only decent thing to do was to let his tirades pass in silence.
			:: I don't know what "stylistic changes" you are referring to. I explained my reasons (above) for objecting to each of GV's proposed changes. If there are more specific change(s) that I failed to address, I'd be happy to do so if you can point them out.] (]) 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

			==Unsourced Statements Appearing In this Article==
	:On the other hand, an article by Chang (in the philosophy Journal founded by Dingle) about Dingle's "rebellion" argues that his objections were largely philosophical and not well understood. Nevertheless, the consensus in the physics community was and still is that Dingle was wrong.<ref name=chang />
	It seems like a lot of this could be sourced, if desired.
	] 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I'd like to point out, in response to this edit comment:
	::''Dingle himself repudiated the idea that his objections were "philosophical".''
	:that a person can incorrectly assess both the merit and nature of a claim they make. It certainly doesn't mean that we can't address how others (such as Chang) assessed his claims. --] 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

			The following statement apears as a conclusive statement although it is unsourced. Please supply a source or remove it. "However, most modern cosmologists subsequently accepted the validity of the hypothetico-deductive method of Milne." I doubt this is correct. In fact it is not clear what it means.
	In the late 1950s, Dingle decided that his approach to the argument, regarding the correct interpretation of relativity, was inadaquate. He decided upon a different approach. Instead of arguing for a correct interpretation of relativity, he argued that special relativity, as interpreted by his opponents, was false. In doing this he used the false interpretation of his opponents to prove that relativity was flawed. This resulted in a peculiar result. His opponents, in refuting him, actually agreeded with his position that the interpretation of relativity, that was being advanced by Dingle's opponents, was actually false. So in attempting to refute Dingle, his opponents actually showed why his arguments were correct. Hence the claimed refutations of Dingle amounted to nothing, because you can not refute an argument with an agrument that agrees with it. Such was the confusion among physicists, that they actually beleived that these arguments, that agreed with Dingle's position, actually refuted his claims. This is an example of how totally confused were the arguments about relativity. The confusion still exists as evidenced by these arguments in Misplaced Pages. Physicists continue to beleive that Dingle, who argued that the physical interpretation did not agree with the postulates and the mathematical formalism, was wrong. When what he actually argued for was the correct physical interpretation of relativity. What this shows is how polemical physics had become, such that it was advocating an incorrect interpretation of relativity in apparently refuting Dingle's correct interpretation of relativity.] 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

			: Two reputable reference sources have now been added to the article, demonstrating the verifiability of that statement.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
	: I reverted an uncorroborated claim that there is concensus about Einstein's 1918 GRT solution - rather the opposite is true, and it's hardly relevant. But as discussed here above, I will now add the much more relevant fact that Dingle made a faulty prediction of the clock problem (again citing the literature instead of ]). ] 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

			The following statement does not appear in the cited paper and misrepresents what is said in that paper. I think what when you attribute a conclusion to a source you should accurately report what has been said in that source. This is not exactly what appears there and it misinterprets what is said in the source.
	:: Einstein's 1918 paper contains the resolution of the "paradox" for special relativity, which is what's at issue here. There is complete concensus as to the validity of this resolution. For your information, there is also concensus as to the validity of the resolution of the "paradox" in general relativity described in that paper, along with recognition of the open issues alluded to therein, i.e., the origin of inertia, but Dingle was disdainful of any such philosophical scruples about inertia. He insisted that his point was logical inconsistency, which is thoroughly debunked in Einstein's 1918. In fact, one could cite earlier debunkings, including Einstein 1905, Lorentz in 1912, and I think Poincare in 1909. There is absolutely no doubt within the mainstream scientific community that Dingle's claim of logical inconsistency was bogus, and there is also no doubt that Dingle disavowed any philosophical interpretation of his criticism, so the Chang revisionism is irrelevant to this article.] 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
			::"The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β, t'=(t−vx/c2)β, and its algebraic inverse is x=(x'+vt')β, t=(t'+vx'/c2)β, where β=1/√(1−v2/c2). These equations imply t'=βt at x=0, and t=βt' at x'=0. Dingle alleged that these two facts are mutually contradictory, because the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β. However, these ratios apply to two different conditions, namely, x=0 and x'=0 respectively. Hence, contrary to Dingle's assertion, there is no contradiction, nor are these relations merely "appearances". They are the actual ratios of the inertial time coordinates along two different directions in space-time."

			: This footnote is a summary of the fallacy of Dingle's argument, as is explained numerous sources, including (but not limited to) Whitrow's obituary and many of the replies to Dingle in various publications, including (but not limited to) McRae's. There is no misrepresentation. The explanation summarized in this footnote is described in all these sources, and is perfectly accurate and representative of those sources.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
	:: Einstein's 1918 paper does ''not'' contain the resolution for special relativity: instead it provides Einstein's GRT solution. Moreover, Einstein's claims that those gravitsational fields are real is rarely agreed upon by mainstream science (see for example the web site by Baez), which aligns with Dingle's criticism. Anyway, you are citing yourself when you claim that Dingle's argument against that 1918 paper was debunked by that paper (now here you created a paradox of your own!).
	:: However, since Dingle did mention that paper it may be worth bringing up, but it certainly doesn't warrant the unreferenced claim that you made about it and it will certainly lead to a different section since most physicists even don't know that paper. Chang certainly correctly states the common opinion of physicists about Dingle. Also, you should respect that physicists are not in general specialists of philosophy. If you have a reliably sourced reference of another philosopher of science who disagrees with Chang, you are welcome to cite it. ] 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

	I dont know about anybody else, but I think the present state of the article makes it pretty clear about the mainstream view of Dingle's objections to SR. I dont think this article is the right place, for a detailed description of Dingle's arguments and the various refutations either. The details can be found in the references and links sections, if anyone should want to investigate the arguments in greater depth. I think it's time to stop pushing personal POV's within the article itself. - ] 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	Replies to Harald88's comments.
	:: ''"Einstein's 1918 paper does not contain the resolution for special relativity: instead it provides Einstein's GRT solution."''

	You’ve obviously never read the paper, or you would know that you’re wrong.

	:: ''"Moreover, Einstein's claims that those gravitsational fields are real is rarely agreed upon by mainstream science (see for example the web site by Baez), which aligns with Dingle's criticism."''

	As Einstein says in the paper you've never read, the distinction between “real” gravity and “not real” gravity is not very useful, and this is indeed the mainstream scientific view. This does not in any way "align with Dingle's criticism".

	:: ''"Anyway, you are citing yourself when you claim that Dingle's argument against that 1918 paper was debunked by that paper (now here you created a paradox of your own!)."''

	If you’re seriously claiming that mainstream physicists believe Dingle’s arguments were well founded (i.e., that special relativity is logically inconsistent), then we can certainly assemble one or two… THOUSAND... references giving the current mainstream physics view of special relativity, showing that the Lorentz transformation is not presently believed to be logically self-contradictory. But what on earth would be the point of this?

	:: ''"Chang certainly correctly states the common opinion of physicists about Dingle. Also, you should respect that physicists are not in general specialists of philosophy."''

	Dingle was an astronomer.

	:: ''"If you have a reliably sourced reference of another philosopher of science who disagrees with Chang, you are welcome to cite it."''

	Chang’s paper is not about Dingle’s contention in the 60’s and 70’s that special relativity is logically inconsistent. His paper is about the earlier dispute during the late 50’s, in which Dingle claimed (erroneously, as everyone including Dingle eventually agreed) that special relativity does not predict asymmetric aging of the twins. ] 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: Since I participated in ''translating'' Einsteins's paper into English, I obviously have read it. Chang describes Dingle's contentions in full. We also welcome citations of other papers about Dingle; but I agree with Swanzsteve that an article about Dingle is not appropriate for a detailed description of Dingle's arguments and the various refutations. Perhaps that topic is sufficiently notable to start an article about it. What do people think? But probably such an article will be a mess, with all kinds of pro- and anti-Dingle editors jumping in to write down their personal thoughts and starting edit wars. ] 09:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
	:: 63.24...., Please stop your vandalism of cited references. ] 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Actually, um... mainstream physicists think special relativity is entirely logically consistent, we just don't believe that an approach relying on gravitation is a necessary or useful way of resolving the Twin "Paradox." Einstein was a tremendously brilliant physicist, but subsequent generations have improved on his work ("shoulders of giants" and all that), and I can't think of any case in which one of his papers would be the best source for explaining any aspect of his theories. The modern approach to many problems—including the Twin Paradox—is clearer and more direct. -- ] 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: Harald88, if you have read Einstein's 1918 paper, then why do you assert that it does not present the resolution for special relativity? Have you simply forgotten the paper's contents? Or are you simply making false claims for the fun of it? Or what??? Please explain.

	:: SCZenz, the 1918 paper of Einstein first gives the simple resolution of the twins paradox in the context of special relativity (no logical inconsistency). Then the hypothetical critic of relativity (in the dialogue) challenges Einstein to explain it in the broader context of general relativity, i.e., without the special theory's uncritical reliance on the distinguished class of coordinate systems (inertial), so Einstein proceeds to give that explanation, along with acknowledgement of the open issue regarding the origin of inertia even in the general theory. This remains the mainstream view of the twin paradox, in terms of both special and general relativity.] 13:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::: In addition to the explanations of others below, I repeat (apparently I should have only told you the main point!): Einsteins' 1918 paper does ''not'' comment on Dingle's criticism on it - it can thus ''not'' be Misplaced Pages's source on Dingle. And please '''stop''' your deletion of essential material from the article. ] 08:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	::: Maybe I can claraify this: Einstein considered the 1918 article to be a "GR solution", but that is based on Einstein's view that accelerated frames of reference fall within the framework of "GR". A more modern interpretation is that the GR/SR dichitomy involves the use of or absense of spacetime curvature. In that case, much of what Einstein considered to be "GR" in fact is just how a SR spacetime appears in an accelerated reference frame. So IMO the 1918 article is a SR solution. (BTW - Please note that I wrote that this is "a" SR solution and not "the" SR solution. There are multiple ways of resolving the twin paradox.) --] \| ] 14:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::: EMS, the 1918 paper of Einstein first gives the simple resolution of the twins paradox in the context of special relativity, explaining why there is no logical inconsistency. Then the hypothetical critic of relativity (in the dialogue) challenges Einstein to explain it in the broader <b>context</b> of general relativity, i.e., without the special theory's uncritical reliance on the distinguished class of coordinate systems (inertial), so Einstein proceeds to explain this, along with acknowledgement of the open issue regarding the origin of inertia even in the general theory. When we say "in the context of general relativity" we mean that flat spacetime is not taken as "given" (as it is in special relativity), but is taken as a particular solution of the field equations of general relativity. So there are two different <b>contexts</b> in which flat spacetime can be discussed. Of course, curved spacetime can only be discussed in the context of the general theory, but nothing prevents us from considering flat spacetime in the context of the general theory. Naturally all results in the latter case are consistent with what we would get working strictly in the special theory, which after all is just a useful limiting special case of the general theory. This remains the mainstream view of the twin paradox, in terms of both special and general relativity.] 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	What looks to me like the relevant comment from Einstein's 1918 paper, is this one:
	: "Relativist:
	:Your last assertion is of course indisputable. However, the reason that that line of argument as a whole is untenable is that according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', which is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory."

	This doesnt look like a resolution to me, but more like he is saying that because one of the systems experiences acceleration, SR doesnt apply. - ] 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: You're mistaken. Acceleration poses no difficulty for the application of special relativity. The quoted statement resolves the "paradox", because the premise of the "paradox" is that the situation of the twins is symmetrical, so there can be no reason to differentiate between them, and assert that one ages more than the other. This "paradox" is shown to be fallacious merely by pointing out that it's premise is wrong, i.e., the twins are not symmetrical. The path of one is inertial, while the path of the other is not. Dingle could never accept this, basically because he labored his entire life under the mistaken belief that special relativity is a relational theory, ala Leibniz, which it is not. Special relativity, no less than Newtonian mechanics, is founded on Galileo's principle of inertia, not on the naive idea of relationism. (The fact that the words "relativity" and "relationism" are similar is just an unfortunate historical accident, and has contributed to much misunderstanding, of which Dingle is a prime example.) This is ironic in so many ways, because many of the crackpot critics of special relativity despise the theory because they think it embodies relationism, when in fact it is nearly the opposite of relationism.] 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	::: Anon - Please be careful about arguing the twin paradox physics here: Those of us who accept relativity will agree with you, while the anti-relativists will only see so much hand-waving and silly attempts to justify (what they see as) a falascious theory. The main point (that the situations of the twins are not identical) is the key here, and people will take it or leave it as they please. Given that, you are encouraged to return to discussing the article and to leave the physics largely aside. (This is not to say the how Dingle and his opponents viewed the physics cannot be discussed. Instead the concern is a discussion of the whether the physics of relativity is really true. That I have engaged in here and achieved nothing through it.) I also advise against speculating on Dingle's state of mind even in this discussion page. The fact that his arguments against SR were never accepted by the scientific community is what counts. --] \| ] 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	If I can paraphrase Einstein's statement:
	:"...Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems...Therefore...no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory."

	This is a pretty clear statement that the circumstances of the clock paradox, place it outside SR.

	Dingle asked, what entitled Einstein to deduce asymmetrical ageing from his 1905 theory? - ] 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	:# The stated conclusion (that the ] cannot be handled within SR) does not follow from the quoted text.
	:# This is becoming a discussion of the physics again instead of the article.

			Reference 13 is used improperly as it refers to a different dispute than the one it is supposed to refer to. The editors apparently don't understand anything about the controversies they are reporting on and mix them up in the references. This is so they can provide a lot of sources that seem to support their position. The following statement refers to the twins paradox dispute and not to the time dilation dispute.
	: Swanzsteve: Under ], this article cannot make any ruling on whether or not Dingle was right. Instead it only can (but IMO also should) report that the scientific community never accepted Dingles argument. (BTW - I for one liked your reference to Dingle's "ultimately unsuccessful" quest to overturn SR, and would not mind its return.)
			::For example, Dingle wrote in a Letter to Nature in 1957 "Dr. Frank S. Crawford's further communication is welcome as the first attempt to answer my arguments. Hitherto they have been ignored, and independent reasons, which I reject, have been adduced for the opposite conclusion." Sixteen years later he wrote wearily, "It would be profitless to deal separately with the latest "answers" to my question; their diversity tells its own tale, and the writers may see their misjudgments corrected in my book"

	: Anon - I one again remind you that a ] is not the same thing as a scientific point of view. "Neutral" not only means that the anti-relativists cannot say here that Dingle was right, but it also means that we cannot outright say that he was wrong. --] \| ] 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: Indeed, although Dingle '''was in fact wrong'''. So, under wich circumstances can a fact be not "neutral" here? Simply when a bunch of clueless amateurs with an agenda can't understand that fact. That is why this particular fact has no chance of surviving in a place like this. That is what is about, Anon.
	:: ] 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	EMS - I'm not suggesting we put anything into the article to suggest Dingle was right, my last post was intended as a reply to the people who think Einstein's 1918 paper contains a SR resolution to the paradox, which it clearly doesnt. As to the "ultimately unsuccessful" statement, everything we put in about Dingle's campaign was unceremoniously deleted by 63.24 or some other anon, feel free to put it back in. For some reason these people seem desperate to put the phrase 'Dingle was wrong' in somewhere.

	DVdm, my agenda is straightforward: Dingle should not be insulted or misrepresented. - ] 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

	Swanzsteve: Einstein's 1918 paper contains the resolution of the paradox in the context of special relativity. Once again, the paradox says: The twins can't age differently according to special relativity because their situations are perfectly symmetrical. The resolution is: No they are not symmetrical according to special relativity, because one follows an inertial path and the other does not. Now, you've claimed that "if one twin is accelerating, then special relativity doesn't apply", but that is false. Special relativity applies to accelerating objects just fine. (Look, Newton's laws of motion are only valid with respect to inertial coordinate systems, but it would be insane to say that, therefore, Newton's laws are inapplicable to accelerating objects. The situation is exactly the same in special relativity.) Hence you are mistaken on multiple levels. The bottom line is: Einstein's 1918 paper contains the resolution of the twin paradox for special relativity, and then it goes on to explain the resolution in the larger context of the general theory, and discusses open issues - all of which was beyond Dingle's comprehension.

	DVdm: I'm not quite so pessimistic. I have no illusions about "talking cures" for mentally ill people, but I've actually had some success in Misplaced Pages at getting decent articles on crackpot-intensive topics. It is, however, a long and laborious process. I've found that one of the first steps before any real progress can be made is getting Mr Parallax out of the way.] 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	: Anon - I am going to side with Swanzsteve on the mention of Einstein's 1918 article: I find it to be excessive in terms of making the point, and at least technically a citation is needed to back up the assertion that this resolves Dingle's objections.

	: To both the anon and DVdm - The subject here is Herbert Dingle, not the ] and not ] itself. Because of that, this article must document Dingle's views of SR and the twin paradox and what became of them. Please realize that ] not only blocks the anti-relativists from outright saying that Dingle was right, but it also blocks us relativists from outright saying that Dingle was wrong. However, step back and take a look at the situation: There are plenty of respected resources out there which document the standard scientific view that Dingle was wrong. So even though we cannot flat out say that Dingle was wrong, we can document that he is generally considered to have been wrong. That is really all that is needed here, and as long as that status is made clear I for one will be happy with this article. --] \| ] 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: I agree with ] \| ] - and his above message is also relevant for ] who just now deleted "Dingle's views of SR and the twin paradox and what became of them" as well as a respected resource "which document the standard scientific view that Dingle was wrong". (Thus I reverted). ] 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	63.24 - you may be satisfied with Einstein's 1918 'resolution', but Dingle was not. Since the clock paradox originated in SRT1905 (a paper in which no mention is made of acceleration in relation to moving clocks) , to say in 1918 that "no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory" because "this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems", i.e. one of the systems experiences accelerations, is a bit rich, to say the least. As I have said before, Dingle asked - what entitled Einstein to deduce asymmetrical ageing from his 1905 theory?

	:Dingle objected to the use of acceleration to 'resolve' the paradox. If Dingle objected to Einstein's 1918 interpretation, you cant say that objection was answered by Einstein's 1918 interpretation. That just doesnt make sense.

	I'll look for the quote from Dingle's book and post it here - ] 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	Harald - I've lost count of the times I have put in a statement to the effect that the mainstream consensus in the physics community was that Dingle's objections were unfounded. This apparently is not vitriolic enough for the fundamentalist relativists, who want to add critical quotes and POVs produced AFTER his death, when he was not around to answer them, as he surely would have. Einstein's paper cannot be quoted as a refutation of Dingle's views, because he disagreed that asymmetry due to acceleration was an appropriate 'resolution'. This is a HISTORICAL article, we should be talking about the debates during his life, and refutations he received during his life, everything afterwards is out of context. - ] 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	: Swanzsteve, we fully agree on this a^s see that you repeated a few of the comments I made above. Thus, why did you '''delete''' a '''citation''' of those historical remarks that I and EMS require and that you yourself claim you want to include in this article?!
	: Later this week I'll have another look at the article, and I'll reinsert that info if it's again/still lacking. ] 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

	Harald - I didnt delete any historical remark, I deleted the bit about Einsteins 1918 paper answering Dingle's objections, and the sneering paragraph from Davies' 1995 book. - ] 01:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

	:: But Harald88 was the one who asked for the Davies quotation to be included. And it was indeed a historical description of Dingle's story. Then as soon as I inserted it, you removed it. As far as I can tell, your ownly reason for removing this reference to a book published by a well respected physicist (who actually went to school at Imperial College, were Dingle taught) by a very reputable publisher, talking directly about the subject of this Misplaced Pages article, is that you don't like what he said. I decided to let it pass, because Dingle is such a pathetic and insignificant character there is no need to pile on. But by the same token, we are not going to allow the insertion of any crackpot narrative. It suffices to simply state the plain unadorned fact: The physics community regards Dingle's objections as unfounded. If you'd like, I'll be happy to back this up with quotations, such as the Royal Society saying that Dingle's error was so elementary it wasn't even worth publishing any more rebuttals. And that is the KINDEST remark I can quote. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: If that's true, then the system account is erroneous (BTW that '''can''' happen and I have seen it happen!):
	: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Herbert_Dingle&diff=prev&oldid=156468326
	: I will now repair it, if needed. ] 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

	Harald - that is indeed my edit, but it does not contain an historical remark, that his Chang's POV in 1993, which others have also removed before, because Chang seemed to be letting Dingle of the hook. The other edit I did was remove Davies' anti-Dingle POV in 1995. I have no objections to the statement that "The mainstream physics community regards Dingle's objections as unfounded", and nobody else seems to object to this, since the article has been relatively stable for almost a week. The current article seems to be a reasonable compromise, making the status of Dingle's objections clear, without being unnecessarily insulting. I think we should leave it alone for a while. - ] 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Suspect citations ==

	After rephrasing a few new sentences for proper sourcing, I suspect that they are in fact not properly sourced:

	"According to Taylor and Wheeler (?), the concensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfounded<ref>Taylor and Wheeler, "Spacetime Physics", W.H. Freeman & Co, 1966.</ref>
	Davies reviewed Dingle's complaint, and re-iterated Einstein's resolution (of the Twin paradox?) (really?) as the scientifically accepted view. <ref>Paul Davies, "About Time", Simon & Schuister, 1995.</ref>."

	Please provide accurate quotations, as it's uncommon for textbooks to discuss such things; and if the second citation is correct, it should be balanced by the common view that does ''not'' promote Einstein's GRT solution. Or - probably better - Davies' view could be inserted in the article on the Twin paradox.

	] 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	: After repairing references, I also found the following incomplete reference:
	''Whitrow, Obituary of Herbert Dingle, 1978'' . I'm afraid it's useless as such. What is it? where can it be found? ] 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

	OK the last one is now complete, it seems.
	But I now found one added again, as well as the following two ref. (and I move them here, for the same reason that they probably do NOT discuss Dingle):

	H. Reichenbach, "The Philosophy of Space and Time", 1927
	Rindler, ''Essential Relativity'', Springer-Verlag, 1969

			: Two general "controversies" are summarized in the article, the first on the methodology of cosmology, and the second on the twins paradox and time dilation. The issue of the twins paradox is nothing other than the issue of time dilation. None of the reputable references splits up Dingle's complaints aginst the twins paradox from his complaints about time dilation. Dingle's failure to understand time dilation was the reason he failed to understand the twins paradox. These do not constitute two disputes, but only one.
	] 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

			At the end of the article there appears a conclusion that is given the appearance that it is drawn from sources. The conclusion tries to state Dingle is wrong. One of the sources cited is reference 17 and it states the following:
	== Consensus ==
			::See also the earlier literature on the twin paradox, for example, Lorentz, H. A. , The Theory of Electrons 1909, and the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did, and gives the resolution. "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein... The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially, give rise to a remarkable paradox which on closer examination, however, vanishes." Miller, A.I., Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Springer, 1998.
	:"The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfounded.."
	These multiple references seem like piling on, and I wonder if any of them even ''mention'' Dingle, much less bother to refute his arguments. Can't we just say something to the effect that (A) in principle — like any scientific theory — the theory of special relativity may someday be found not to be a good description of reality, but (B) Dingle was simply wrong about SR being self-contradictory? With a link to ] somewhere in the article?
	<br/>] 06:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

			An examination of the cited Lorentz book did not verify the purported statement made by Lorentz and reported by Miller. One wonders where Miller got it, or if it was misreported by a wikipedia editor. In any event, this misrepresents the position of Lorentz who is merely commenting on Einstein's theory. Reference 17 should be deleted.
	The consensus statement, seems to be a reasonable compromise. There have been no edit wars for almost a week. Although I agree that the multiple references are "piling it on", its preferable to the vitriolic anti-Dingle statements that it has replaced, which really have no place in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. I like your comment that Relativity, like any scientific theory, may not be the complete answer, but this article is not about SR or the twins paradox, and there are multiple links and references to books on relativity and there is a link to the wiki page on SR. If we had a vote I would say leave this part of the article as it is, it makes the status of Dingle's objections clear, and is not insulting to him. - -] 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

			: No, you mis-read the reference. It refers both to Lorentz's book, where of course he describes the reciprocity of Einstein's interpretation, but also to "the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes" the reciprocity and from which the quoted words were taken. This is plainly stated in the words that you quoted, so there's no reason for you to wonder "where Miller got it". This is a perfectly legitimate and highly reputable and relevant source, which does indeed make it quite clear that Dingle's ideas were wrong, and moreover that they were known to be wrong decades before Dingle voiced them.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
	: There is an inherent difficulty with references refuting Dingle and/or Dingle's argument. Any reputable reference that explicitly refers to Herbert Dingle (like the PCW Davies reference I provided) is going to accurately characterize Dingle as a sad example of the kind of mental illness that can happen to an isolated octagenarian, and the neo-Dingles will be unable to tolerate this glimpse of reality, because it is too destructive to their world view. Basically, any accurate description of Dingle is going to be labeled "insulting" by a neo-Dingle, because Dingle was a dimwit to begin with, and he was a total nutcase by the time he was 82 and wrote Science at the Crossroads. Obviously any accurate description of such a person is not going to be flattering.

			All in all, I was able to find a number of pretty big mistakes in this article and I cant help but think that they were due to poor work on the part of wikipedia editors. I don't reccomend using any information from this article as accurate.] (]) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
	: But the only alternative is to leave ad hominum aside and cite references that refute Dingle's ARGUMENT rather than Dingle himself. After all, Dingle's argument is the same argument raised by every junior high school student when they first hear about relativity. Dingle did not invent the twin paradox, nor did he invent the inability to understand the implications of the relativity of simultaneity. The very question that Dingle called THE QUESTION in Science at the Crossroads is both posed and answered in countless text books. So these are prefectly legitimate references for refuting Dingle's ARGUMENT.

			: Each of the things that you thought were "pretty big mistakes" are entirely correct and fully supported by an abundance of reputable sources.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
	: But then the neo-Dingle's complain that the references don't explicitly mention Dingle! Obviously the only thing that would satisfy the neo-Dingles is a description of Dingle that portrays him as sane, and his ideas as at least marginally defensible. Unfortunately such a portrayal would be false on both counts.

			== A Misunderstood Rebellion ==
	: By the way, I checked with Chang, and he specifically told me that his paper does NOT defend Dingle's 1960's and 1970's campaign against special relativity. It addresses ONLY the phase of Dingle's arguments while he still believed relativity to be sound, and was trying to understand the origin of inertia... despite the fact that Dingle himself was too stupid to realize that this was at the root of his question, so Dingle actually wrote a paper ridiculing people who ask philosophical questions about the origin of inertia... the guy was just as dumb as a fence post (see any of his writings), even in his sane years, and this fact can't be altered by any modern apologists.

			An excellent secondary source on the second controversy:
	: All I can say is, if the neo-Dingle's want to insist on referencing refutations and diagnoses not just of Dingle's argument, but of Dingle himself, then I'll be more than happy to oblige... But I warn the neo-Dingle's, they will not like the results.] 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

			{{cite journal\|doi=10.1016/0039-3681(93)90063-P\|title=A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science\|year=1993\|last1=Chang\|first1=H\|journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A\|volume=24\|pages=741\|issue=5\|issn=0039-3681}}
	63.24, if that is indeed your name, you are currently the only raving lunatic on this page. Here is a summary of your last offering:-
	:......Dingle as a sad example of the kind of mental illness that can happen to an isolated octagenarian ..... Dingle was a dimwit to begin with, and he was a total nutcase by the time he was 82 .... the only thing that would satisfy the neo-Dingles is a description of Dingle that portrays him as sane, and his ideas as at least marginally defensible. Unfortunately such a portrayal would be false on both counts ..... Dingle himself was too stupid to realize that this ..... the guy was just as dumb as a fence post ... But I warn the neo-Dingle's, they will not like the results....

			I will provide a copy on request. Regards, ] (]) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
	I suggest a course in anger management, considering the object of your hatred has been dead for 30 years. I think you should stop 'contributing' to the article until you are cured, and then sign up and get a user name so we know who you are. There's something slightly sinister about you hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.

			== This article is full of lies ==
	If you actually read the article and Dingle's academic achievements, you might realise that he even though he disagreed with your POV, he was far from a dimwit. Such non-NPOV comments from you should disqualify you from editting this article. - ] 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

			The following fragments are '''wrong'''. Please remove them:
	: My feeling is that he has managed to create a stable contribution by rigorously documenting that which he wants included and at least marginally working towards consensus. I strongly advise follwing his lead in that regard if you want to "overthrow" him. There is a lot that can be done with this article in terms of expansion, and it can even include a softenning of the language which points out Dingle's failure to convince the scientific community that views on SR are correct. Personally, I see no reason why much of the material in ] cannot be documented similarly and then placed into the article itself. --] \| ] 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

			1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.
	== Tesla, Einstein, and Dingle ==

			I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"!
	I don't agree with DVdm. It's true that this article is about Dingle. Dingle disgreed with Einstein.
			So please remove that statement because it is wrong.

			2.) The formulae at link ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β...") are given '''without''' citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda here. Please don't say that everybody agrees with those contradictions (that "the first implies '''t'/t =β''' and the second implies '''t/t'=β''' "), while that has been the subject of '''controversy''' for over a century.
	If you are allowed to point out that most scientists disagreed with Dingle's objections to Einstein, then I think it is fair to equally allow a reference to the fact that Tesla was anti-Einstein.

			And also as you don't provide a citation, '''don't''' ask me for citation when I am removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!
	By saying that most scientists disagree with Dingle you are undermining Dingle. By pointing out that a heavyweight like Tesla was anti-Einstein, this has the effect of bolstering Dingle's position.

			This is a matter of logic and science: if the two systems are '''equivalent''', then their conditions are '''the same'''.
	I think we need to keep the article balanced.
			There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So your argument that "''these ratios apply to two different conditions''" fails.

			So there is a contradiction.
	Why is there a team of editors that are so determined to undermine Dingle's message? (] 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

			And '''it cannot be solved''' by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "''Einstein's General Theory of Relativity''" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.
	: If Tesla has ever said something about Dingle, it might be worth mentioning here, even though he ''"was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist''" (see ]). I can imagine that you would bot be prepared to include the following phrase in the article:
	:: ''"... although it should be remembered that the highly respected scientist, but ultimately ostracized and regarded as a ] ], who never mentioned Dingle, was fiercely opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity until his death in 1943"''
	: Reverted again. Mind ] - ] 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

			3.) The link which claims that Lorentz "describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did".
	It comes across very strongly that you are absolutely determined to undermine the credibility of Dingle. Has it never crossed your mind that Dingle might actually be right? If Tesla was right, then so was Dingle. That is the relevance of Tesla. Tesla is as relevant for Dingle supporters as your group of modern scientists is for Dingle's opponents.

			'''That is a blatant lie'''. What Lorentz treated there was the invariance of the Maxwell's equations, between '''ether''' and respectively a moving system S.
	Thanks for the warning about the three revert rule. Presumably it doesn't apply to you. Has truth become a product of who can win on the three revert rule? Jordan Sweet (] 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

			Here is a quote from Lorentz' document ("The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat"), page 223, paragraph 189., just before the claimed quote by this article "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity" which appears in Lorentz' document on page 226 paragraph 192., '''continuing with the same settings''' mentioned at paragraph 189.(settings about the ether S<sub>0</sub> and moving system S - which means NOT the two equivalent systems used by Dingle!):
	: Alas, ''"... that Dingle might actually be right"'' wouldn't matter a bit. The truth is that the consensus was and still is that he was tragically flatout wrong. That consensus is a fact and facts are what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide. I assume I don't have to ask you whether you want a list of eminent scientists who documented that Tesla, whatever he might have invented and whetever he should have been credited for, was barking mad... ] 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

			"''Let us imagine an observer, whom we shall call A<sub>0</sub> and to whom we shall assign a fixed position in the ether, to be engaged in the study of the phenomena going on in the stationary system S<sub>0</sub>''" "''Let A be a second observer, whose task it is to examine the phenomena in the system S, and who himself also moves through the ether with the velocity w''"
	==This Revision Is Just Another Porly Researched Dingle Bashing Excersise==

			4.) '''Another lie''' is the quote about "The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially..."
	Once again the editors of Misplaced Pages have demonstrated why Misplaced Pages has justly gained the reputation for presenting false and poorly researched information. It is an example of how bias colors the conclusions and the presentation. The article is basically worthless as it is not based on worthwhile scholarship, and is intended to present its subject in a negative manner. It is biased trash. Not worth reading. Useless as informative biography. I cant understand why the editors of this article can not acknowledge that Dingle was a very intelligent and thoughtful scientist. As biography it is useless. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			That is '''not''' from Lorentz' document.
	: The other contributing pro-Dinglians (sorry, guys) seemed quite happy with the current state of the article. Check the history of article and talk.
	: What I really don't see, is how Tesla could possibly have a place in a '''biography''' of Dingle. Besides, if you want ''truthfully and richly researched'' information about Tesla, it's not far away. ] 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

			'''So please delete all those fake references!''' <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	You have crap in this article. That is a fact you cant change. You are a biased group of very poor editors. Dont trust Misplaced Pages is my motto after reading your work.

			:<small>Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Thanks.</small>
	Oh! By the way. the references you cite as proof of the consensus that Dingle is wrong don't prove out. Please cite the page numbers so that they can be verified. I find no evidence of your claims in them. {{UnsignedIP\|72.64.54.95}}
			:* Re 1: See second halve of page 336 of Whitrow's cited
			:* Re 2: You are talking about the ], which describes a non-symmetric situation, whereas the note (see Whitrow) is about a symmetric situation: from the point of view of A some set of events is used to calculate a clock rate, but from the point of view of B ''another'' set of events is used. So they tak about ''different'' things. It is neatly explained in, for example, and, as it happens, on my user page ]. There you can see that in equations (3) and (4), Dingle twice used the term "Rate of A" for two entirely different things. Likewise for the term "Rate of B". You can see where the simple mistake occurs. Check the colors. An analogy: when they look at each other through a gap between their fingers, A says that B is much smaller than A, and B says that A is much smaller than B. They say the same thing about different objects. That does not mean that the laws of perspective are contradictory.
			:: Remarks about the twin paradox not being able to be solved by special relativity are not relevant here. Anyway, you can read in article ] that it can perfectly be solved bij SR. Grøn and Hervik seem to express a somewhat old fashioned and not generally accepted view here. But as I said, that is off topic here.
			:* Re 3: You probably mean ref . Looks properly sourced. Perhaps the one who has put this here can comment. - ] (]) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
			: See also the talk page archives and the section a bit higher here. All this was extensively discussed before and it looks there was a ] that there are no lies here. - ] (]) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

			::: IP user, please be ]. Accusing fellow editors of spreading lies is not. If there are disagreements, we can talk about them. It would be nice if you could dial down the emphases, too. In general, those who talk here are carefully reading what others write. Also, we generally use ''italics'' for emphasis on talk pages, rather than '''bolding'''.
	: You'll have to talk to the mix of relevant contributors of the article. If I had any final say in this, I would merely have included , in which (at least for everyone who understands pages one and two of special relativity,) he once and for all miserably demonstrated to fail to understand the concepts of proper time and coordinate time, both to be found on those first two pages. Be glad I don't have that final say ;-) - ] 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
			::: 1) Corrected the text so it correctly describes the cited source, I think that was the issue here.
			::: 2) Removed the ]d footnote, added description of Whitrow's reasoning.
			::: 3) Removed the contested footnote without prejudice. The claim in the article is already well supported by the other citations attached to it, and we're interested in the state of the scientific consensus anyway, not the particular arguments used to support that consensus. I call ] on this.
			::: 4) Not from the Lorentz document, that is correct. Nor has that been claimed. Please read the footnote again. ] (]) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

			:::: Probably a good call, this, specially in the long run. Thanks. - ] (]) 11:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I get it. Your references are BS. Oh course. You don't care if they are incorrect, it is only the image that is important. Your facts are made up, fictions.
			:] It's a pseudoscientific religious system, unfortunately. ] (]) 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:31, 10 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Herbert Dingle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

Reasons for Disagreeing with GregVolk's Dec24 Edits

In GregVolk's edits two well-documented facts are suppressed. First, that Dingle initially claimed relativity didn't predict unequal aging for round-trip twins and then acknowledged he had been wrong about that (and had been wrong for 40 years) and then switched to claiming that relativity was logically inconsistent. Dingle himself says admits this in his writing. This is not a contraversial point. There is no reason to suppress this important fact. Second, the fact that abundant experimental evidence supports the predictions of special relativity. Honestly, if it isn't even permissible in a Misplaced Pages article to state that special relativity has been experimentally verified, then we might as well just pack it in. I do, however, I agree with GregVolk that the summary of Dingle's work in the beginning of the article should mention Crossroads, so I may put that edit back in. I think it was previously assumed that this book was adequately covered under "Controveries".Denveron (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to address one other part of GregVolk's edits that I don't agree with. GV wants the article to just say that someone (Whitrow) argued that the manifest reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation is not logically inconsistent. The article was written the way it is just because Whitrow was a convenient person to attribute that to, and some editors insisted on having a source that specifically refers to Dingle (rather than to the technical point at issue, for which there are literally thousands of solid references). There is no dispute about the fallacy of Dingle's claim. Even anti-relativists know that he was trivially wrong about that. In fact, the current article is written as charitably as can be, even at the expense of accuracy, because the reader isn't given any sense of just HOW absurdly wrong Dingle was. If some editors insist, we can pile up references, showing the near universal agreement on this point, but it sure seems like wasted effort because we all know the ultimate outcome.Denveron (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that you reverted the editors stylistic changes as well as those which changed the tone of certain sections. I fail to see how the two are connected? If you feel that such stylistic changes were detrimental, please state why.

In any case, the only part of the edit I feel strongly about is the use of "relatvists argue" and simliar phrases. --Starwed (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "stylistic changes" you are referring to. I explained my reasons (above) for objecting to each of GV's proposed changes. If there are more specific change(s) that I failed to address, I'd be happy to do so if you can point them out.Denveron (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements Appearing In this Article

The following statement apears as a conclusive statement although it is unsourced. Please supply a source or remove it. "However, most modern cosmologists subsequently accepted the validity of the hypothetico-deductive method of Milne." I doubt this is correct. In fact it is not clear what it means.

Two reputable reference sources have now been added to the article, demonstrating the verifiability of that statement.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The following statement does not appear in the cited paper and misrepresents what is said in that paper. I think what when you attribute a conclusion to a source you should accurately report what has been said in that source. This is not exactly what appears there and it misinterprets what is said in the source.

"The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β, t'=(t−vx/c2)β, and its algebraic inverse is x=(x'+vt')β, t=(t'+vx'/c2)β, where β=1/√(1−v2/c2). These equations imply t'=βt at x=0, and t=βt' at x'=0. Dingle alleged that these two facts are mutually contradictory, because the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β. However, these ratios apply to two different conditions, namely, x=0 and x'=0 respectively. Hence, contrary to Dingle's assertion, there is no contradiction, nor are these relations merely "appearances". They are the actual ratios of the inertial time coordinates along two different directions in space-time."

This footnote is a summary of the fallacy of Dingle's argument, as is explained numerous sources, including (but not limited to) Whitrow's obituary and many of the replies to Dingle in various publications, including (but not limited to) McRae's. There is no misrepresentation. The explanation summarized in this footnote is described in all these sources, and is perfectly accurate and representative of those sources.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 13 is used improperly as it refers to a different dispute than the one it is supposed to refer to. The editors apparently don't understand anything about the controversies they are reporting on and mix them up in the references. This is so they can provide a lot of sources that seem to support their position. The following statement refers to the twins paradox dispute and not to the time dilation dispute.

For example, Dingle wrote in a Letter to Nature in 1957 "Dr. Frank S. Crawford's further communication is welcome as the first attempt to answer my arguments. Hitherto they have been ignored, and independent reasons, which I reject, have been adduced for the opposite conclusion." Sixteen years later he wrote wearily, "It would be profitless to deal separately with the latest "answers" to my question; their diversity tells its own tale, and the writers may see their misjudgments corrected in my book"

Two general "controversies" are summarized in the article, the first on the methodology of cosmology, and the second on the twins paradox and time dilation. The issue of the twins paradox is nothing other than the issue of time dilation. None of the reputable references splits up Dingle's complaints aginst the twins paradox from his complaints about time dilation. Dingle's failure to understand time dilation was the reason he failed to understand the twins paradox. These do not constitute two disputes, but only one.

At the end of the article there appears a conclusion that is given the appearance that it is drawn from sources. The conclusion tries to state Dingle is wrong. One of the sources cited is reference 17 and it states the following:

See also the earlier literature on the twin paradox, for example, Lorentz, H. A. , The Theory of Electrons 1909, and the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did, and gives the resolution. "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein... The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially, give rise to a remarkable paradox which on closer examination, however, vanishes." Miller, A.I., Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Springer, 1998.

An examination of the cited Lorentz book did not verify the purported statement made by Lorentz and reported by Miller. One wonders where Miller got it, or if it was misreported by a wikipedia editor. In any event, this misrepresents the position of Lorentz who is merely commenting on Einstein's theory. Reference 17 should be deleted.

No, you mis-read the reference. It refers both to Lorentz's book, where of course he describes the reciprocity of Einstein's interpretation, but also to "the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes" the reciprocity and from which the quoted words were taken. This is plainly stated in the words that you quoted, so there's no reason for you to wonder "where Miller got it". This is a perfectly legitimate and highly reputable and relevant source, which does indeed make it quite clear that Dingle's ideas were wrong, and moreover that they were known to be wrong decades before Dingle voiced them.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

All in all, I was able to find a number of pretty big mistakes in this article and I cant help but think that they were due to poor work on the part of wikipedia editors. I don't reccomend using any information from this article as accurate.72.84.64.254 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Each of the things that you thought were "pretty big mistakes" are entirely correct and fully supported by an abundance of reputable sources.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A Misunderstood Rebellion

An excellent secondary source on the second controversy:

Chang, H (1993). "A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 24 (5): 741. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(93)90063-P. ISSN 0039-3681.

I will provide a copy on request. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of lies

The following fragments are wrong. Please remove them:

1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.

I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"! So please remove that statement because it is wrong.

2.) The formulae at link ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β...") are given without citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda here. Please don't say that everybody agrees with those contradictions (that "the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β "), while that has been the subject of controversy for over a century.

And also as you don't provide a citation, don't ask me for citation when I am removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!

This is a matter of logic and science: if the two systems are equivalent, then their conditions are the same. There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that "these ratios apply to two different conditions" fails.

So there *is* a contradiction.

And it cannot be solved by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.

3.) The link which claims that Lorentz "describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did".

That is a blatant lie. What Lorentz treated there was the invariance of the Maxwell's equations, between ether and respectively a moving system S.

Here is a quote from Lorentz' document ("The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat"), page 223, paragraph 189., just before the claimed quote by this article "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity" which appears in Lorentz' document on page 226 paragraph 192., continuing with the same settings mentioned at paragraph 189.(settings about the ether S₀ and moving system S - which means NOT the two equivalent systems used by Dingle!):

"Let us imagine an observer, whom we shall call A₀ and to whom we shall assign a fixed position in the ether, to be engaged in the study of the phenomena going on in the stationary system S₀" "Let A be a second observer, whose task it is to examine the phenomena in the system S, and who himself also moves through the ether with the velocity w"

4.) Another lie is the quote about "The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially..."

That is not from Lorentz' document.

So please delete all those fake references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.238.66 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Re 1: See second halve of page 336 of Whitrow's cited Dingle obituary.
Re 2: You are talking about the twin paradox, which describes a non-symmetric situation, whereas the note (see Whitrow) is about a symmetric situation: from the point of view of A some set of events is used to calculate a clock rate, but from the point of view of B another set of events is used. So they tak about different things. It is neatly explained in, for example, and, as it happens, on my user page User:DVdm. There you can see that in equations (3) and (4), Dingle twice used the term "Rate of A" for two entirely different things. Likewise for the term "Rate of B". You can see where the simple mistake occurs. Check the colors. An analogy: when they look at each other through a gap between their fingers, A says that B is much smaller than A, and B says that A is much smaller than B. They say the same thing about different objects. That does not mean that the laws of perspective are contradictory.

Remarks about the twin paradox not being able to be solved by special relativity are not relevant here. Anyway, you can read in article Twin paradox that it can perfectly be solved bij SR. Grøn and Hervik seem to express a somewhat old fashioned and not generally accepted view here. But as I said, that is off topic here.

Re 3: You probably mean ref . Looks properly sourced. Perhaps the one who has put this here can comment. - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

See also the talk page archives and the section a bit higher here. All this was extensively discussed before and it looks there was a wp:CONSENSUS that there are no lies here. - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

IP user, please be WP:CIVIL. Accusing fellow editors of spreading lies is not. If there are disagreements, we can talk about them. It would be nice if you could dial down the emphases, too. In general, those who talk here are carefully reading what others write. Also, we generally use italics for emphasis on talk pages, rather than bolding.

1) Corrected the text so it correctly describes the cited source, I think that was the issue here.

2) Removed the WP:CHALLENGEd footnote, added description of Whitrow's reasoning.

3) Removed the contested footnote without prejudice. The claim in the article is already well supported by the other citations attached to it, and we're interested in the state of the scientific consensus anyway, not the particular arguments used to support that consensus. I call KISS on this.

4) Not from the Lorentz document, that is correct. Nor has that been claimed. Please read the footnote again. Paradoctor (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably a good call, this, specially in the long run. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@174.113.238.66 It's a pseudoscientific religious system, unfortunately. 2A02:A420:4A:6083:2:2:79F6:ACE8 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories: