Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 29 September 2007

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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

"Assessments of Dingle's Anti-Relativity Arguments"

This section has been added and removed a couple of times. For those who haven't seen it:

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 did 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.

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.

It seems like a lot of this could be sourced, if desired. —wwoods 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. --Starwed 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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.Electrodynamicist 22:03, 3 September 2007 (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 WP:OR). Harald88 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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.63.24.56.150 13:38, 5 September 2007 (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. Harald88 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. - Swanzsteve 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. 63.24.106.110 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. Harald88 09:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

63.24...., Please stop your vandalism of cited references. Harald88 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. -- SCZenz 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.63.24.118.57 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. Harald88 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.) --EMS | Talk 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 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 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 contexts 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.130.76.32.167 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. - Swanzsteve 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.63.24.51.79 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. --EMS | Talk 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? - Swanzsteve 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Swanzsteve: Under WP:NPOV, 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.)

Anon - I one again remind you that a neutral point of view 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. --EMS | Talk 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 Wiki-consensus is about, Anon.

DVdm 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. - Swanzsteve 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.63.24.59.247 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 twin paradox and not special relativity 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 WP:NPOV 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. --EMS | Talk 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EMS | Talk - and his above message is also relevant for Swanzsteve 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). Harald88 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 - Swanzsteve 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. - Swanzsteve 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. Harald88 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. - Swanzsteve 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.24.42.218 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Harald88 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. - Swanzsteve 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 Davies reviewed Dingle's complaint, and re-iterated Einstein's resolution (of the Twin paradox?) (really?) as the scientifically accepted view. ."

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.

Harald88 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? Harald88 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

Harald88 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

"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 twin paradox somewhere in the article?
—wwoods 06:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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. - -Swanzsteve 14:41, 16 September 2007 (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.63.24.61.65 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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 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.

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. - Swanzsteve 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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 the dreaft revision page cannot be documented similarly and then placed into the article itself. --EMS | Talk 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tesla, Einstein, and Dingle

I don't agree with DVdm. It's true that this article is about Dingle. Dingle disgreed with Einstein.

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.

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.

I think we need to keep the article balanced.

Why is there a team of editors that are so determined to undermine Dingle's message? (61.7.166.223 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

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 Nikola Tesla). 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 mad scientist Nikola Tesla, who never mentioned Dingle, was fiercely opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity until his death in 1943"

Reverted again. Mind wp:3rr - DVdm 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 (61.7.166.223 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

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... DVdm 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This Revision Is Just Another Porly Researched Dingle Bashing Excersise

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.54.95 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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. DVdm 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference chang was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Taylor and Wheeler, "Spacetime Physics", W.H. Freeman & Co, 1966.
3. Paul Davies, "About Time", Simon & Schuister, 1995.

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class physics articles
• Unknown-importance physics articles
• Stub-Class physics articles of Unknown-importance