Talk:Herbert Dingle

Five Citations

There are five citations listed to back up the fact that a Mr. Chang has stated that the scientific community think that Dingle was wrong.

Very unprofessional. This is the anti-Dingle bias coming through.

Simply state that Dingle was marginalized from the scientific community after adopting his anti-Einstein stance. And give no citations. No citations are necessary (61.7.167.211 09:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Please see WP:CITE! In Wikipedia, citations are important, and the more the merrier. It is though citations that a statement like Dingle's being marginalized is justified! Without citations, that statement takes on a air of unsourced opinion which can be changed at will. Believe it or not, some of the editors here very much dislike the fact than Dingle was marginalized and would rather the statement not be there at all. The citations are what defends that statement, and so they must stay. --EMS | Talk 14:20, 4 October 2007(UTC)

Right. References are the pillars of Wikipedia, this encyclopdia is worthless without them.

However, the allegation is wrong: There was only one citation of a reliable source about the general opinion of the scientific community. On top of that, the same source (and the citation of it) balanced it with criticism that the scientific community poorly understood DIngle, so that it's incorrect to call it "anti-Dingle". Due to its doubly-critical nature the citation was deleted by intolerant pro-Dingle and anti-Dingle editors. But such high quality reviews are certainly relevant and their use is highly encouraged: Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses - WP:NOR.

Harald88 10:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chang Articles

To those who are so keen to put in the 'Chang' references, put them in the main reference section. Who is Chang anyway? What makes his opinion so special that it has to take prime of place and act as the definitive word on Dingle's credibility? I was discussing this subject before Chang was born. (Brigadier Armstrong 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

No, there are no "Chang references". In peer-reviewed scientific publications, the name of the author is of little importance. If you discussed the topic in a respected journal (and thus passed peer review), please cite it!

Apart of that (I repeat): References are the pillars of Wikipedia, this encyclopdia is worthless without them.

There was only one citation of a reliable source about the general opinion of the scientific community. On top of that, the same source (and the citation of it) balanced it with criticism that the scientific community poorly understood Dingle. Due to its doubly-critical nature the citation was deleted by intolerant pro-Dingle and anti-Dingle editors. But such high quality reviews are certainly relevant and their use is highly encouraged: Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses - WP:NOR.

There is much more information on the Dingle controversy in that same review, and if you can find other reviews that would be nice. Harald88 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Harald88 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The editors are desperate to find some peer reviewed publication that they can use to cite as secondary source evidence to support their biased viewpoint that Dingle was wrong. Since there are basically no other such published secondary sources and they are incapable of interpreting the primary sources without bias, they have only that one to cite as evidence to support their biased viewpoint. It is typical of the editors that they use this paper in a negative way rather than using it as a source of information about Dingle and his arguments critical of relativity. The basic attempt of this article about Dingle is to say Dingle was wrong. But there is no proof of this only unsubstantiated opinion. Now since the consensus of the scientific community is simply just unsubstantiated opinion, mostly uninformed as to the actual facts of the case, they need some kind of expert opinion to cite that says Dingle was wrong. Hence the need to cite Chang as a source that says that for them. The basic facts are that no proof that Dingle was wrong has ever been produced. Claims that he was wrong basically consisted of unproved claims and slanders that were never backed up with solid proof. (They were never published in peer reviewed journals.) Hence the belief that Dingle was wrong is simply a matter of claims based on uninformed opinions of the matter.There is simply no proof of that opinion.

What this article fails to recognise is that Dingle's controversies were the result of his discoveries of flaws in the special theory. Rather than accept the proof of these flaws with the spirit of the search for scientific truth, his opponents refused to accept them as real. This denial of reality by Dingle's opponents eventually led to open war after many years of attacks upon Dingle and his attempts to correct flaws in the special theory. No evidence was ever produced that Dingle's discoveries were false. Hence we have the peculiar situation that flaws exist in the special theory, but they are being denied and ignored by the scientific community.72.64.40.71 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Argument going on outside of the mainstream

It has already been conceded that the mainstream are not convinced by Dingle's arguments and the article records that fact. The bit that you deleted was merely pointing out that the matter is still debated by dissidents outside of the mainstream. Do a google search on Einstein or relativity and you will find no end of websites critical of Einstein.

One of the journals that deals with this debate is Galilean Electrodynamics for which there exists a wikipedia article. (Brigadier Armstrong 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Subsequent to writing this, I have just noticed that Wwoods has removed the relevant clause again claiming that it is a crank statement. Can he clarify that claim? Can he look up the wikipedia article on Galilean Electrodynamics and then tell me that this subject is not being discussed by dissidents? Brigadier Armstrong 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, to make this statement, you need to find a reliable source that makes that statement verifiable and cite it in the article. Expecting readers to visit other articles and see debate would constitute original research. That said, "crank" edit summaries are not especially helpful.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the mainstream believes, since that is simply opinion. The facts are these. Dingle discovered flaws in the special theory of relativity. Refutations were produced by opponents. The truth of the matter is unresolved. What Wikipedia says the mainstream believes is is an opinion of an opinion with no factual basis. It would be hearsay.71.251.188.80 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dingle's error

How about including some version of Dingle's problem, e.g.

“ It would naturally be supposed that the point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is generally supposed to be, must still be too subtle and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it. On the contrary, it is of the most extreme simplicity. According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed.
Science at the Crossroads, p.7, via blog.hasslberger.com ”

, to show that apparently Dingle never did understand special relativity?

Something from "What Happened to Dingle?" would also be good.
—wwoods 23:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wwoods, this is not about discussing whether Dingle was right or wrong. You clearly have your opinion, and I have mine.

This dispute is not even about factual accuracy. Denveron's cricticisms of the article were highly POV. Denveron was merely stating that he believes that Dingle was wrong. The facts are that Dingle was once pro-relativity and in later years he turned anti-relativity and got into a dispute with his peers. The argument in Nature is exclusively with Prof. McCrea.

It is wrong that this article should be tagged as disputed on the grounds of factual accuracy.

It is disputed by DVdm and Denveron on the grounds that they feel totally uncomfortable about having an article that even exposes the fact that a man called Dingle should even dare to challenge Einstein's theories. That is what the dispute is all about.

Denveron wants to re-write the article to drown out that point and to emphasize his own belief that Dingle was wrong and confused. You are obviously party to that POV as well as has now been proved from you entry above, and this also explains your readiness to back up DVdm as soon as Dvdm blows the whistle. (Brigadier Armstrong 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Wwoods, I think that's a very good idea. Just include that piece of Dingle's own text - without of course mentioning anything about its validity or lack thereof. On the one hand it clearly shows to anyone who understands the first page of relativity, how wrong a person can be. On the other hand it clearly shows to anyone who fails to understand that first page, how wrong the greater part of mankind can be. Result: Everyone satisfied, no further discussion necessary. DVdm 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would actually agree. Put that quote from 'Science at the Crossroads' in the main article just after the reference to that book. You could say that here is a quote which illustrates Dingle's attitude to the relativity question.

No comments should be made either agreeing or disagreeing with this quote. (Brigadier Armstrong 11:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

I suggest that a link to Hafele-Keating experiment would be a good idea as well. - Ehheh 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The second half of the current (locked) article (the half written by the crackpot) contains several highly inaccurate statements, identified in the Discussion on "Why the Current Article is Bad" above. Also, the current article already contains a link to Dingle's "Crossroads" book, so anyone who is interested can see for themselves the sad condition of his mentality when he wrote that book (at the age of 82). However, the current article conscipuously fails to state the abundantly verifiable fact that the consensus of the scientific community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistence of special relativity were unfounded. (It's ironic that people here are agonizing over whether it's appropriate for the article to mention that a handful of crackpots agree with Dingle, while the article doesn't even mention that the entire scientific community disagrees with Dingle. So it goes...)

The consensus version of the article had it right. The only things lacking were some more detail on Dingle's life and career. For example, his major work was on spectroscopy, and it was on the strength of that work that he was elected President of the Royal Astronomical Society. Also the article should include a summary of his general philosophy of science (which seems appropriate for an article on a philosopher of science).

But the article is locked now (at the crackpot version), so none of these things can be fixed. For the time being, this is just another bogus Wikipedia article authored by a crackpot.Denveron 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron you're going to have to moderate your personal insults. Please don't take advantage of the fact that I am not that sneaky kind of character who plays out this game by leaving warning messages in the trays of the people that I am arguing with, or goes running off to squeal at that wikipedia administrators' notice board as soon as my edits are not sticking.

I like to debate these matters reasonably and rationally. It was my work colleague Brenda Seaweed that you referred to as a crackpot. She gave me the draft for the bits that you are referring to.

Please remember that this is not an article for the purposes of expressing our opinions on Dingle's stance. The facts are that Dingle started of pro-relativity and later did a U-turn. That U-Turn caused him to be marginalized from the mainstrean scientific community. The facts are all accurately recorded in the existing article.

The true reason that you don't like the existing article is because it is not worded in such a way as to undermine Dingle's credibility to the extent that you would prefer.

The existence of impalatable truths is a sign of a corrupt organization and it certainly appears that the very phenomenon of Dingle is a reminder of some by impalatable truths.(Brigadier Armstrong 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

To Ehheh, please feel free to include a link to the Keating-Hafele experiment if you believe that this reported event proves Dingle wrong. I wouldn't mind reading it again myself. I lost my copy 30 years ago. (Brigadier Armstrong 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

You can download it off of Science's website for 10 bucks. Link is in the references section at Hafele-Keating experiment. It's certainly interesting to note that just a few months after Dingle wrote (in the preface): 'Had we but world enough and time, or wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love (since I too like invoking the English, and even the Irish, poets), we could indeed make a direct test...' someone had published the results of a direct test. - Ehheh 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in an argument about whether Dingle was right or wrong. The Keating Hafele experiment doesn't prove anything unless you believe the theoretical calculations and approximations, and believe that the theoretical calculations are in line with Special relativity, and if you actually believe Keating and Hafele at all.

The proximity in time between Dingle's statement and that experiment has led other people to even suggest that they contrived that experiment as a direct consequence of Dingle's statement in order to put the matter to rest.

You are welcome to believe it if it suits you to, and by all means put it in the article. I don't believe in hiding any material facts.(Brigadier Armstrong 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

The article What Happened To Dingle on the internet is an absurd slander. It claims he had dimentia. No evidence to back this up. It is certainly not an example of an unbiased claim. Why dont you guys just stick to the real facts as they are and stop trying to prove Dingle was wrong when you have no proof of that, and have to cite hack internet sites based on the unproved claim that Dingle was mentally ill. Oh. By the way. The math in it is also false and incorrect, so it it bogus on two counts.71.251.188.80 11:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible."

Special relativity's answer to Dingle's question is counter-intuitive but quite clear and self-consistent: whichever clock is moving faster runs slower. There are frames of reference in which A is moving faster and others in which B is moving faster — and one in which they are moving at the same speed, so they run at the same rate.

This is not a matter of opinion; it's mathematics, and capable of proof. It becomes physics when you go on to say that SR is an accurate description of reality. Strictly speaking, that can't be proved, but a century of experience very strongly suggests that it's true.

Understanding this stuff is pretty basic to understanding SR. That Dingle was evidently incapable of accepting the answers he was given to variations of this question over a period of more than a decade shows that he didn't then have a real understanding of SR, and makes one wonder whether he ever did, or whether he lost it late in life.

—wwoods 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Confusion In the Facts Of This Article

The persistent confusion about the facts could be cleared up if the writers actually investigated Dingle's published material. The statement regarding Dingle's controversy with Milne in the article is not really relevant. It does show a difference in scientific philosophy, which was the issue in that debate.

In my view it is doubtful that Dingle was an "expert in relativity". I think it more reasonable to conclude he was a physicist who changed his primary interest from physics to natural philosophy. A fact proved by his change in academic position after the war. This needs to be mentioned in the article. So he was interpreting physics from a viewpoint of natural philosophy. This is reflected in his books which try to make relativity understandable to an audiance of non-physicists. While doing this he encountered anamolies which he felt needed explaination. The first was his discovery in the 1930s of clocks which did not obey the time dilation law. This discovery was rejected and severely criticised. To say that he misunderstood relativity is false, since no one ever proved he made a mistake in this claim.

Most people want to focus on the debates by assigning right and wrong. But that is a mistaken view of it. Dingle demonstrated flaws in the theory of relativity that have never been sufficiently answered. That is the main fact of the matter. Some people want to resolve this by asserting Dingle was wrong, or that he misunderstood relativity or all of that kind of nonsense. The best approach is to state what Dingle discovered in a clear and precise way, and leave it to the reader to decide if he is right or wrong.71.251.188.80 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting:

• "that he misunderstood relativity is false, since no one ever proved he made a mistake in this claim."
• "Dingle demonstrated flaws in the theory of relativity that have never been sufficiently answered"

==> Do you mean that Dingle demostrated flaws in the theory like, and no one ever proved a mistake, like this?

Unlike Dingle and the other neo-Dinglians here, do you understand page 1 of the theory? DVdm 19:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Stated clearly and precisely, what Dingle "discovered" is that 2 equals 1/2. This was the result of his failure to understand the relativity of simultaneity, which led him to think that the partial of t with respect to t' (at constant x')must equal the reciprocal of the partial of t' with respect to t (at constant x). There is no doubt at all (outside the minds of a few crackpots) that Dingle's "discovery" was erroneous.

The criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is verifiability from reputable sources. There is an abundance of reputable sources for the fact that special relativity is logically self-consistent, and for the fact that the "twin paradox" does not entail any inconsistency, and even for the specific fact that Dingle was wrong. No reputable source claims otherwise. Therefore, the article should state that the consensus of the scientific community is that Dingle's objection to the logical consistency of special relativity was unfounded.Denveron 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree totally with everything that 71.251.188.80 has said. The current version of the article reports that a controversy has occurred and it gives a historical background to the issues in question. It is not POV.

DVdm and Denveron have been attempting to get it overturned and replaced with an article that would emphasize their own personal prejudice that Dingle was wrong. DVdm has been very cleverly presenting a case to the administrators that he is the good boy in this, and that he is working to prevent vandalism. He uses the wikipedia regulations very cleverly and he knows how to falsely discredit his opponents. One of his tactics is to make lots of unsubstantiated complaints, and then later to point out to an administrator that this person cannot have any credibility because there have been many complaints made against him.

DVdm uses calumny against his opponnents just as he is using calumny against Dingle. DVdm's motives need to be investigated and DVdm needs to be monitored. (Brigadier Armstrong 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

I am answering a slander from Mr DVdm who insists upon denigrating people who have a valid right to think for themselves. I am certain that I understand the theory of relativity and that understanding leads me to conclude that it is false. Mr DVdm of course has an opinion that it is true. But this does not give him the right to enforce that opinion on others. This is his basic goal. His claim that I do not understand relativity is of course true in one sense. That is I do not understand beleiving in a theory I beleive is false. I do not beleive in false theories just because the DVdm and "the mainstream" tells me to. Sorry, I am insisting upon an unbiased version of this Dingle article and I reject your attempts to make be beleive in a false scientific theory.71.251.188.80 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that calling people who do not beleive this silly theory crackpots is not acceptable in my view and only illustrates your contemptibility as a person.71.251.188.80 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

DVdm's request for page protection

DVdm; I see that you put in a request for page protection. And you tried to insinuate that those who don't go along with your plans for a highly anti-Dingle POV version are vandals and disrupters who have been subject to allegations of such. Did you tell them that it was you who made all those allegations? (Brigadier Armstrong 11:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Wikipedia Policy

Some editors here seem to be operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the policies of Wikipedia, arguing against including the consensus view of the scientific community by calling it "hearsay" and "opinion". The policy of Wikipedia (indeed, one of it's guiding principles) is to be based on reputable sources, i.e., hearsay from reputable sources. Please note that the criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is NOT whether something is true or false, but whether it has been stated in a reputable source. This then places importance on the definition of a "reputable source". Wikipedia policy defines it (for science matters) as something published by an academic publishing house or an established publisher of journals or books with a good reputation in the scientific community. Now, on this basis, there is an abundance of reputable sources for the material that I believe needs to be in this article, and there are ZERO reputable sources for the material that I think should not be in this article.

For example, the assertion that special relativity is logically consistent (contrary to Herbert Dingle's claim) is verifiable from literally hundreds of highly reputable sources. On the other hand, the assertion that Werner Heisenberg and Hendrik Lorentz were "strongly opposed" to the logical consistency of special relativity is not supported by any reputable source. Therefore, the statement about Dingle being wrong meets the criteria established by Wikipedia for inclusion in the article, whereas the statements about Heisenberg and Lorentz does not. I think the mainstream editors of this article are actually bending over backwards to be fair, by stating that "it is the consensus of scientific opinion that Dingle was wrong", rather than insisting on the stronger (and still verifiable from reputable sources) statement that "Dingle was wrong".

This can all be resolved by simply adhering to the Wikipedia policies. Every statement in the article should be traceable to a reputable source. (Needless to say, "Galilean Electrodynamics" and similar crackpot literature does not qualify as reputable sources.)63.24.108.55 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, but do be aware of the fact that the crackpot contributors here take "Galilean Electrodycrankics" as the reliable source par excellence. DVdm 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you define a reputable source as that which agrees with your opinion of what should be true, I doubt if that is a good definition. Your attempts to justify your bias and write an article about Dingle that adheres to that bias are pathetic. Please do not use insults when referring to people who have a valid reason to disagree with your opinions. You only illustrate why Wikipedia is a poor source of information.71.251.188.80 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dvdm, if you agree with 63.24.108.55 that all we need to do is adhere to wikipedia policy, then you should know that you cannot push your own strong POV that Dingle was wrong, and that is exactly what you want to do as soon as the article becomes unblocked. (Brigadier Armstrong 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

For the information of editors, here is the verbatim quote of how Wikipedia defines a "reputable soure"

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

According to Wikipedia policy, the article is to be based entirely on material that is verifiable from reputable publications. (Please note that the above definition was crafted specifically to exclude things such as "Galilean Electrodynamics" and other obvious crackpot literature.) Some editors may feel that Wikipedia's policies inevitably result in articles that fail to reflect their own crackpot POV, but this is precisely what those policies were intended to accomplish. Yes, the article is going to end up stating the abundantly verifiable fact that the consensus of the scientific community is that Dingle was wrong. And in the end, the article is not going to state unverifiable things, such as the claim that Heisenberg and Lorentz strongly regarded special relativity as logically inconsistent. This is just how Wikipedia works. It represents verifiable views as found in reputable sources. Anyone who doesn't wish to adhere to these policies should refrain from participating here.63.24.35.145 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed again. But note that a certain class of contributors here will effectively not adhere to these policies, and shall not refrain from participating either. They will do everyting to wear you down with discussions over the "reputable quality" of there private electrodynamics :-) DVdm 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dvdm and EMS, the dispute about the entry regarding the dissident element is already over so why are you going on about it? That line was deleted and does not appear in the existing version. Galilean Electrodynamics was not being advocated to back up any particular theory or POV. I was using it to back up the statement that a dissident fringe existed. It was not accepted by the administrators and it was deleted. I argued with Isotope23 for a while, but that argument is now over. The offending section is gone so you don't need to labour that point.

On the other matter, Lorentz, Larmor and Tesla were definitely not in agreement with Einstein's theories. I had always believed that Heisenberg was also opposed to Einstein. Heisenberg worked for Hitler and my understanding is that the Nazi's objected to Einstein's theories.

However, I stand to be corrected as regards Heisenberg. Can you provide any sources that show that Heisenberg supported Einstein? At any rate it is irrelevant. The point is that it wasn't until the 1919 eclipse of the sun that existing scientists began to take Einstein seriously. There was a growing trend in favour of Einstein from that point in time, but I believe that something around the year 1938 swung it all more in Einstein's favour.

Dingle was an early supporter of Einstein and there are sources and references in the existing article to that extent.

The existing article also makes it clear that Dingle was not supported by the scientific establishement after he made is U-turn in the 1960's. So what more do you want? You really want to make a big issue about the fact that he was going against the establishment. But we all know that. That's why its a controversy.

But you have been trying to play the controversy down. Your ally Wwoods has already made it into two controversies despite the fact that the first one is hardly known. There has been no end of attempts to dilute the main controversy and the reason why Dingle is most well known.

You are the one who wanted to beef up the biography section and do away with all matters relating to the controversy. Shall we just remove the controversy section altogether and pretend that Dingle was just an ordinary man with a wife and kids and then finish off by stating your personal bias that he was a crackpot who didn't understand Einstein's theories?

That is not the professional manner in which encyclopaediae operate. We stick to the facts and let the readers decide who was right. We have already told the readers that Dingle was swimming against the tide. (Brigadier Armstrong 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

Brigadier, there are plenty references of Lorentz explaining (and thereby defending) SRT as his own theory and GRT as Einstein's theory. Even Dingle remarked that SRT is the theory of Einstein and Lorentz! But why write such claims in an article about Dingle?? For example, I know of no good source that claims that Tesla's opinion of relativity had anyhing to do with Dingle's opinions. The article must be based on reliable sources.Harald88 12:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Harald88, No matter who claimed what, Lorentz's theory was fundamentally different from Einstein's. Lorentz's theory involved an aether wind. Lorentz did not therefore agree with Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Lorentz and Tesla are both relevant to this article as examples of past heavyweights who disagreed with Einstein. Their mention is needed to counterbalance the insistence of the anti-Dingle editors that Dingle was a crackpot with no supporters.

We have all conceded that Dingle was swimming against the tide in the 1960's and that the tide today is still an Einstein tide. That is however no basis for castigating Dingle. Let the readers decide themselves.

The anti-Dingle brigade are actually trying to deny that anybody at all opposes Einstein. We have agreed that the mainstream don't oppose Einstein, but there are many dissidents who do. That is a true fact and it has not been permitted to include this fact into the main article.

If the anti-Dingle brigade insist on trying to insert insults about Dingle's credibility and insist in going over the top and labouring the issue about his non-acceptance by the mainstream, and denying that even a fringe element oppose him, then the pro-Dingle brigade will continue to undo it. The edit war will go on for a very long time.

The current version of the article is a compromise as it doesn't mention the dissident fringe. Can you please tell me what aspects of the article that you are not satisfied with. (Brigadier Armstrong 14:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)).

Wikipedia Policy Against "Physics Cranks"

Quote of Official Wikipedia Policy:

---

begin quote-------------

Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

---

end quote----------

Hopefully the above statement of Wikipedia policy helps to clarify for editors of this article the criteria for including statements and views in the article. The criterion is not whether something is true or false, it is whether you can back it up with a reputable source. Naturally this policy has the effect of excluding crackpot views, which is precisely the effect it was intended to have. Anyone who doesn't like this policy should go elsewhere to present their views.63.24.121.14 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting quote. Next time, please mention the source? Thanks. DVdm 19:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If this actually is a correct interpretation, then Wikipedia is just junk, as it appears to be. I certaintly would not reccomend using it to anybody. But I doubt if this claimed interpretation is really accurate. Is is just here to justify the POV of the editor who wrote it. Thanks, but I dont agree. Anyway, this article is not about a physics theory. It is about a famous reputable physicist, the article mistakenly refers to him as an astronomer, who demonstrated flaws in a theory of physics. This is all that needs to be said here since the conclusion regarding the correctness of the claims is still undecided.71.251.176.49 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

We are being reminded above about the wikipedia rules regarding original research. Who exactly is advocating original research? What original research are you referring to? It strikes me that you are stirring up a fuss about absolutely nothing just because you were unable to impose your own POV on this article. (Brigadier Armstrong 07:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

The Way Forward

The recent comments make it clear (if it wasn't clear already) that the numerous inaccuracies and blatent crackpot POV of the current (locked) article are the work of just a single crackpot individual, who has made statements in the article that all other editors realize are non-verifiable (not to mention false). The single individual has been given a detailed listing of the inaccuracies of his version, but he declines to acknowledge any of those inaccuracies.

The only real problem here is that someone unwisely sought "protection" for this page. Protection doesn't resolve edit conflicts with individuals of the sort we are dealing with here. This article needs only two steps to be taken to enable editors to fix it: (1) It needs to be unlocked (and LEFT unlocked), and (2) the 3rr rule needs to be enforced, taking into account sock puppetry. The individual in question will undoubtedly continue to revert the article to his crackpot version, but this will be of little consequence, because it will immediately be reverted back to a decent version, written in accord with Wikipedia policies. This will need to be done only three times per day if the 3rr rule is followed. Bear in mind that as soon as the Brigadier violates the 3rr rule (which he undoubtedly will), not only will his named account be banned, but so will his IP addresses, of which he can have only a limited number. It will become progressively more difficult for him to continue to vandalize the article, and eventually (not soon, but eventually) he will become frustrated and go away. In the mean time, the crackpot version will only show for about 3 minutes per day.

It isn't pretty, but historically this is how Wikipedia has dealt with individuals like the Brigadier, and it really is the only feasible way of dealing with them.Denveron 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

==> "The only real problem here is that someone unwisely sought "protection" for this page". That is not what happened. The invidual in question made an entry on the notice board and as a result the article got protected to the crackpot version. A bit later I filed a request to revert to the "stable" version of 2-Oct and keep it there for a while. Anyway, I think that the block will expire on 17-oct or so. Just be patient :-) DVdm 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the previous version; how should it be improved?

Dingle is best known for his participation in two highly public and polemical disputes. The first took place during the 1930s, triggered by Dingle's criticism of E. A. Milne's cosmological model and the associated theoretical methodology, which Dingle considered overly speculative and not based on empirical facts.[2] The second took place in the 1960s, and centered on Dingle's objection to Einstein's theory of special relativity.[3][4] This culminated in his 1972 book, Science at the Crossroads.[5][6] In both of these disputes, Dingle was opposed by (among others) the astrophysicist William H. McCrea. The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfounded.[7][8][9][10].

Dingle is also known for his 1922 essay, "Relativity for All", and his 1940 monograph The Special Theory of Relativity. A collection of Dingle's lectures on the history and philosophy of science was published in 1954.[11] He also took an interest in English literature, and published "Science and Literary Criticism" in 1949, and "The Mind of Emily Bronte" in 1974.

There's also this — Talk:Herbert Dingle/Draft revision — which I suppose can be worked on.

—wwoods 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This was and is okay with me. If I'm not mistaken it was the first version by Denveron of 10-oct which triggered the special purpose puppets to emerge. DVdm 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey you editors! Maybe you wouldnt have a problem if you did a good and fair writing job the first time around. But wait, that is not your purpose is it? You want the article to be biased to your views.71.251.176.49 14:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to unlock the article for the time being because it would appear there is a consensus here on the article in regards to the preferred version. That said I will be keeping an eye on the article and I want to remind everyone here to avoid edit warring, WP:3RR is not a "hard rule" to be gamed (editors can be blocked for less than 3RR), and be careful about accusations of sockpuppetry (and on a side note, there is an active RFCU which will hopefully clear that situation up).--Isotope23 ^talk 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted to the more or less 'stable' version before the edit war. We'll see where this leads... DVdm 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem... and I hope everyone who isn't familiar with the concept of consensus in the Wikipedia sense takes the time to read that policy link.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I (Still) Think the October 10 [17:35] Version Should Be Restored

There are some problems with the current version (in my opinion). I pointed these problems out previously, but it seems to have been forgotten, so here they are again (in no particular order):

(1) The current Oct 15 version says "Dingle claimed Einstein's prediction about a moving clock was in error and experiments showed Einstein right". That's completely garbled. In the late 1950's Dingle argued that special relativity does not predict different lapses of proper time for the twins after they re-unite, but by 1959 he realized that he was wrong about this, and that in fact special relativity DOES predict different lapses of proper time for the twins. He THEN changed his argument, and began to claim that special relativity is logically inconsistent. As to whether or not asymmetric aging actually occurs, he suspected that it didn't (and of course he was wrong about that), but this isn't relevant to either his pre-1960 or his post-1960 complaint. Experimental findings had no bearing on Dingle's views, one way or the other, certainly not up to the point of writing Science at the Crossroads in 1971.

(2) The Oct 15 version says "An article by Chang about Dingle's "rebellion" argues that his objections were largely philosophical and not well understood." This is bogus, because it is placed at the wrong point. I have specifically asked Chang about this, and he assured me that he did not (and does not) support the post-1960 Dingle position. His paper refers only to the late 1950's period, when Dingle still considered himself to be a proponent of special relativity (although he admitted later that he totally misunderstood it), and was advocating a relational theory of motion. It's totally misleading to put this statement in the article as if Chang is sympathetic to the post-1960 Dingle. Chang does NOT think (and his paper does not say) that Dingle was misunderstood when Dingle said special relativity is logically inconsistent, nor does Chang think that this is a philosophical point. And Dingle himself certainly denied that his charge of logical inconsistency was "philosophical". I think the Chang cite should stay in the article only if (a) It is presented accurately as referring to Dingle’s pro-relativity phase, and (b) it is balanced with the more widespread view in the scientific community. See for example the quote from P.C.W. Davies.

(3) The Oct 15 article says Dingle objected to Einstein's 1918 explanation, but this is redundant. Dingle (post 1960) objected to the relativistic explanation of the twins, and EVERY presentation of it, all of which make the same points. It's misleading to suggest that there was something special about Einstein's 1918 paper in this regard. Dingle equally objected to the explanation of time dilation in Einstein's 1905 paper.

(4) If the article is really going to include an assessment of (and opinions on) Dingle's ideas, then his ideas (and how they changed over time) must be presented accurately. He didn't just promote a single coherent set of ideas. He believed (erroneously but understandably) one set of ideas for 40 years, and then when his misunderstandings came to light (in the late 1950’s, after his retirement), he switched to belief in a completely loony set of ideas. It is these latter ideas that the neo-Dingles espouse, but they try to claim for these ideas some of the respect that accorded to Dingle's sane ideas, before he went off the deep end. One must distinguish clearly between the two phases of Dingle's thinking. The boundary between them was roughly his 70th birthday. But do we really WANT to get into this?

(5) I disagree with the removal of the date of the death of Dingle’s wife. This is a biography of the man. It's perfectly appropriate to state when his wife died. Whoever deleted that fact gave their reason as follows: "It is trying to dilute the main point of the article". I think that is an invalid reason. The article's "point" is to present a biography of Herbert Dingle. This article is not about "Herbert Dingle's Campaign Against Special Relativity During His Retirement Years". It should cover his whole life, and all his activities.

(6) The current (Oct 15) version includes a kooky statement about "ruthless suppression". Can anyone read that with a straight face? We should get rid of that kind of kooky talk (in my opinion). However, I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning Dingle's eventual paranoia, but I doubt that any accurate words would be acceptable to the neo-Dingles, and I don't think it's necessary. The article present has links to the most damning possible document for Dingle's reputation (namely, Science at the Crossroads). No sane person who actually reads that book can be left with any doubt as to the man's mental state.

(7) The current (Oct 15) version says Dingle regarded Milne’s philosophy as pernicious, which it true, but the Oct 10 version was better, because it explained why Dingle thought this, i.e., overly speculative and not based on empirical facts.

So, for the reasons noted above, I still think the October 10 17:35 version is the better baseline from which to build. For future improvements, I’d suggest a few more words on Dingle’s work in spectroscopy, and we should also mention his scathing appraisal of his fellow Quaker Eddington’s philosophy of science.Denveron 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. DVdm 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you really serious? The statements made here are factually incorrect. You seem to think that factual inaccuracies are OK as long as you have a reference to justify the mistakes. The notice that the article contains disputed facts should be restored. It needs to warn readers that the editors are incapable of obtaining the correct facts, because they are entirely biased and do not understand the issues involved.71.251.176.49 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, factual inaccuracies are indeed OK as long as there are enough sufficiently reliable references to justify the "mistakes". Read the remark from the founder of Wikipedia above. You don't have to repeat your response - it is still there. If indeed you think that "Wikipedia is just junk, as it appears to be", and if you "certaintly would not reccomend using it to anybody", then perhaps it is not a good idea to continue contributing to it? DVdm 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Latest Version

I don't think the extended quote from Dingle's book adds much to the article, because it's redundant to the summary of Dingle's position given in the preceding paragraph. I suppose it doesn't hurt, although I would edit out the parenthetical reference to a previous page of the book, which doesn't have much value here. More importantly, I suggest improving the resolution statement following the Dingle quote. Naturally there are infinitely many ways of explaining Dingle's error, but I don't think the current statement at the end of the article really addresses Dingle's objection. In fact, to some extent it buys into (and re-enforces) his misconception. Dingle asks "Which clock works the more slowly?", and the current answer at the end of the article says "whichever clock is moving faster runs slower... There are frames in which A is moving faster and others in which B is moving faster...". Suitably interpreted and adjusted, these words could be made true, but they essentially just repeat Dingle's argument, i.e., we can get different answers for which clock is running the slower depending on which frame of reference we choose. This doesn't answer Dingle, it simply re-capitulates what he said. The real problem is in Dingle's implicit notion of clocks "running slow", and with his asertion that this state of affairs is logically inconsistent (because each clock cannot be running slower than the other, according to Dingle). This is what needs to be answered, and in fact it has been answered previously in the article. This is why I don't think the whole quote plus resolution that has been added really helps the article. It is redundant for Dingle's argument, and it doesn't really provide the answer to his objection. In effect, we end up with THREE statements of Dingle's argument: The summary, The Crossroads quote, and then The attempted resolution which is really just a re-statement of Dingle's premise. The previous version of the article was better, because it accurately described Dingle's complaint and then gave the resolution. Denveron 17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: I don't think making a separate section entitled "The Dingle Controversies" is appropriate, because the first was a genuine controversy of which Dingle was only one of the vocal participants (should it wasn't really Dingle's controversy exclusively), whereas the second was exclusively focused on Dingle but wasn't really a controversy (precisely because it was focused exclusively on the misconceptions of a single individual and his letter-writing campaign). Again, the previous version was better. If anything, it could stand to be economized a bit.Denveron 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the big quote (it's almost overkill) is probably better left out, and indeed the 'resolution' doesn't really sound well. Wwoods, agree?

And indeed, the section header is better left out. DVdm 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote does look big... The parentheses should go, and maybe the last sentence, since Dingle's fear of '"immeasurably calamitous" (though unspecified) consequences' is also mentioned. Maybe everything after '--which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.'

But IMHO it's easier to see where he's going when the subject is the relativity of time dilation rather than the twin paradox, which is time dilation compounded. Dingle's claim is that 'SR says A is running slower than B, and B is running slower than A, which is impossible' — but it's not, they're just two different but equally valid perspectives. I thought of moving the discussion of the Lorentz transformation below the quote ... but jeez, I had three edit conflicts just adding the quote and the rest of that edit! Also, I wasn't sure what to say; dropped in like that, I don't think the equations will help anyone who doesn't already know what they mean.

I thought it was better to pull the controversy out of the general biography and bibliography, since that's inevitably going to take a more involved explication than the rest of his career, but I'm not wedded to that.

—wwoods 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the presence of the section header really should depend on the length of the article, and ... let's keep the article as short as possible :-) DVdm 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I added some section headers, since they're very much implied in the way the article is currently written. If the "controversies" were inserted chronologically into the biographical material, I might feel differently. But they're discussed separately, and so should probably have a separate header. I am in no way wedded to the particular section names I chose. --Starwed 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As a seperate issue, the crude insertion of the Lorentz transformation into the text is kind of ugly. :) I'm not at all sure that the mathematical details of the argument belong in the article, but if they're there at all they should be formatted more nicely. --Starwed 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Starwed's point about the Lorentz transformations. I have only just looked at the latest version and I can see that it is drifting back into a technical ramble about the details of Dingle's arguments, and certain person's opinions as to why Dingle must be wrong. Nobody will read that.

It was better the way it was recently. It simply mentioned that Dingle challenged Einstein's special theory of relativity and the debate with McCrea can be read in a 1967 Nature magazine. That is all that is necessary because the details of the argument are too technical for an encyclopaedia article. All we need is references where the reader can go to if he/she wants to know the finer details. (Dr. Seaweed 09:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't agree. You can't know that "Nobody will read that". I would certainly read it for starters. It nicely captures the essence of the matter. The level of technicality in the article seems just right now. DVdm 09:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The level of technicality is at exactly the right level to ensure that nobody knows what the argument is all about. Dingle's argument can be put in more simple terms but I don't even think that they should go in the main article either. But if they did, it would be something along the lines of stating that the symmetry in Einstein's special theory of relativity make it unclear as to which observer is the one that will experience the slowing down of time. (58.10.102.42 09:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

"... stating that the symmetry in Einstein's special theory of relativity make it unclear as to which observer is the one that will experience the slowing down of time" ==> You sound very confused yourself. Alas, this is not really the place to help you. Have you tried a good introduction to the theory? I'd recommend Taylor and Wheeler's 'Spacetime Physics" and going to, say, Usenet if you need assistance. DVdm 10:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DVdm, I could equally say that you are the one that is totally confused, and start recommending reading material for you. That's a classic university lecturer's tactic that you have obviously experienced yourself. Instead of arguing about a topic, tell your opponent to go away and read a book. You are very presumptious indeed to think that you might be able to help me. It is yourself that needs the help.

You are so transparent. You are a jumped up little university student who has just discovered relativity. You think it is really cool and you think that nobody but yourself could possibly understand it. You are actually the one that is too stupid to see that Einstein's theories are symmetrical, but you are hiding behind the fact that the establishemnt are on your side. Dingle pointed out the symmetry and for some reason you want to hide and cloud this fact and stamp it over with your own opinion that Dingle was wrong.

Why not come clean and tell us all what your motive is? What is driving you to fanatically defend the ludicrous theories of Einstein? Have you got some kind of inferiority complex that makes you want to pose as an intellectual, and you find solace with believing in Einstein?

You have got alot to learn. (Dr. Seaweed 11:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Still Factually Incorrect And Biased

I see that the facts are still incorrect and the tone is clearly biased and negative. Dingle was not the only critic of the new philosophical trend in the 19030s yet you make it seem as if he was overly critical. This is a bit over the top and unnecessary. You still have the historical facts wrong as usual. Again, get your facts straight and drop the biased argumentive tone. You really do have a long way to go to fix the problems. It would be better if you would take a factual stance and objective tone. You should replace the comments I entered as they are factually correct yet you deleted them.71.251.176.49 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can identify the specific inaccuracies, I'm sure all the editors would be happy to have them corrected. No one wants the article to be inaccurate. Of course, accuracy doesn't mean "truth". We're not here to argue about what we personally think is true, we're here to report what has been written in reputable and verifiable sources.

I don't think the current article states or implies that Dingle was alone in his objection to the methodology of Milne, et al. In fact, the article specifically says that others (notably de Sitter) agreed with Dingle. Admittedly the article mentions Dingle's very agressive rhetoric, but every article about Dingle makes note of the fact that he wrote in a very inflamatory way, telling people that they were "delusional" and were "treacherous" and traitors, and so on. This is the language he used, and he was well known for it throughout his career. It is notable, in my opinion. Granted, it isn't flattering, but there is no rule that says everything in a biography has to be flattering.130.76.32.181 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He obviously didn't suffer fools gladly. (Herbert Dingle 08:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

What is Denveron still whinging about?

I've just looked at the current article in its frozen state. I don't know who locked it, or why. What is Denveron not happy about? There is a biographical section where he is free to write everything that he knows about Alice.

There is also a section dealing with the issues for which Dingle is known. It explains exactly what those controversies were.

It states that the physics community disagreed with Dingle. That is more or less true although there are quite a few exceptions.

So what is Denveron still whinging about? Does he want the whole article removed completely and replaced with a single sentence saying that Herbert Dingle was wrong and he had a wife called Alice? (125.27.174.0 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the controversies, where all the controversies of equal magnitude? I would have thought that the Einstein controversy was the main controversy. I never heard of that other controversy before, but then that's the benefit of an encyclopaedia. We read and we learn. (Fagrah Sawdust 08:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

The Lorentz Transformation - Placement?

I suppose it might be better to move the sentence containing the Lorentz transformation down to a footnote, so that it wouldn't disrupt the flow of the article for readers with an aversion to 4th grade algebra (which is probably 99% of the readers). The only reason I'm reluctant to move it down is that it's really the only way of conveying briefly both Dingle's argument and it's invalidity. But I suppose most people who read the article don't really want to understand for themselves, they just want to find out if Dingle is considered (by the scientific community) to have been right or not. The few readers who really want to understand it themselves can check the footnote... as well as a link to the twin paradox article. Denveron 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron, it's not your business to impose your own opinion that Dingle's argument is invalid. Besides, everybody knows that Einstein's theories are the ruling theories of the day, so I don't know why you are so fanatical about making sure that everybody is made aware of this fact. (Dr. Seaweed 09:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Improper reference and possible link to copyvio

“ "Challenging Einstein's Special Relativity: Herbert Dingle — Science at the Crossroads" This article links two PDF files: The body and the appendices of Herbert Dingle's book Science at the Crossroads. ”

Actually, that "article" is an antirelativity blog, which is not a reliable source. While having a direct link to Dingle's book would be useful for the reader, I have to wonder about its copyright status, given that the two places it has been linked here so far are an attachment to a blog and a very strangely formatted Russian "alternative" physics site. If Dingle's "Crossroads" book is copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to dodgy sites that violate the copyright. As best as I can determine, it is copyrighted material. Tim Shuba 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems unlikely that a book published in 1972 would be out of copywrite. The legal presumption should be that something is copywrite protected unless there is evidence to the contrary.Denveron 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, it surely is a downright silly blog, but o.t.o.h. is it so nicely shooting itself in the foot that I really don't mind keeping it ;-) DVdm 09:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is seems reliable enough for this purpose; i.e., I don't think the text of the book has been altered to make Dingle look bad. Quotes aren't copyright violations on our part, and the link allows those who care to check that we haven't altered the text.

—wwoods 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is a perfectly valid source for explaining Dingle's position which is what the article is all about. The copyright is no big deal because wikipedia is not using it for financial gain. You only want to remove this source as part of your on going attempts to have Dingle's message deleted forever. You want a world in which everybody has to believe in Einstein and in which there is absolutely no record that anybody at any time in history has ever been opposed to Einstein's theories. You are a couple of sick head thought police. (58.8.189.135 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

It's funny how only a few days ago, the anti-Dingle trolls were all in favour of pushing Dingle's book to the fore. They thought that the contents would have made it self evident that Dingle was wrong.

So they began by copying large quotes from the book into the main article. Then they started removing them again. And now they are talking about removing access from that book altogether.

It's as if the quotes made them even have doubts themselves. (Dr. Seaweed 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I think everyone agree that the link to Crossroads is a very valuable resource and it would be great if we could keep it. However, that isn't really the issue. If it is under copywrite (which I suspect it is, although I don't know for sure), it is a violation of Wikipedia policy (not the mention the Digital Millennium Copywrite Act) to include a link to that article. And of course whoever owns that site is also violating the law (assuming it is under copywrite). We don't really have the option, I'm sorry to say. I guess I will try to find out if it's under copywrite.Denveron 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why The Swan Edits are Inappropriate

Edit #1 The first inappropriate edit was the removal of the explanation of Dingle's error, which was sourced to the Whitrow obituary of Dingle. The explanation in the article is an accurate paraphrase of Whitrow's explanation - as well as the explanation given to Dingle by dozens of others, as well as being incredibly obvious to anyone who understands special relativity. To prove that the paraphrase conveys the same explanation as Whitrow gives, here is the verbatim quote from Whitrow. It is expressed in unnecessarily convoluted terms, so I don't think it's an ideal verbiage for the article, but if people insist I wouldn't mind substituting this. It would make the article less intelligible, but if the crackpot contingent here insists on it, I suppose we could work these words into the article:

The essential point at issue was the way in which Dingle used the particular concept that he called 'rate of clock'. He exemplified this by taking A and B to be together at epoch zero according to each and introducing two other clocks H and N at rest relative to A and B, respectively, but not spatially coincident with them. He compared the times t1, t1' assigned to the epoch of B's momentary coincidence with H by the observers using the clocks A, B respectively, and the corresponding times t2, t2' assigned by them to the epoch of A's momentary coincidence with N. He argued that, since special relativity led to the formulae t1 = B t1', t2' = B t2 where B is the reciprocal of sqrt(1 — v^2/c^2), a contradiction results. This is because in the former case the ratio of the 'rates' of clocks A and B is given by t1/t1' and in the latter case by t2/t2', and hence this ratio has two incompatible values.

The difficulty can be resolved by rejecting Dingle's assumption that ratios such as t1/t1' determine invariant relative 'rates' of clocks A and B. His implicit requirement that the epochs assigned to any event by A and B, respectively, should always be in the same ratio would imply that by a new choice of time unit for one of these clocks it could be arranged that the times assigned to any given event by A and B would be the same. Dingle's requirement is therefore equivalent to adopting the Newtonian concept of universal time, and this is incompatible with special relativity.

There is an exact correspondence between what Whitrow says and what is presently in the article, the only difference being that the article is both more brief and more complete. For example, Whitrow just says "special relativity led to the formula..." whereas the current article shows exactly how the formula result from the Lorentz transformation. But precisely the same formula result (with more economical nomenclature), and the invalidity of Dingle's "proof of contradiction" in special relativity is exactly the same, i.e., Dingle's assumption that the ratios of the times refer to fixed quantities is "incompatible with special relativity". In short, I stand by the current paraphrase in the article, and suggest that the neo-Dingle who removed it on the pretext that it was improperly sourced to Whitrow reconsider his opinion.

Edit #2 Stating that someone is elected Professor Emeritus is idiotic. Emeritus simply means "retired". We've been over this before. There is no distinction whatsoever in a retired professor having the title "emeritus". I ask the neo-Dingle to re-consider his insistence on including this ridiculous statement. (And by the way, I'm restraining myself from accusing you of "agism" by trying to insinuate that Dingle was retired. Sheesh... you guys are something else. First you try to delete the statement that Dingle was retired, and then you try to insert the statement that he was Professor Emeritus. At fancy restaurants, do you order the soup du jour of the day?)

Edit #3 The quote about Dingle's concern for the safety of the world having something to do with nuclear power plants is not illuminating, and it misrepresents what Dingle himself actual reports in Crossroads. There are at least five quotes in Crossroads where he alludes to unspecified danger to the world, due to "experiments" of some kind, and one of his correspondents asked him what danger he was talking about:

"I do not find in your letter any clear statement of the nature of the dangers which you imagine might follow the use of the special theory of relativity. You say the possibility of danger is vividly real to you and yet I cannot find in your letter, or in anything you have written, a clear statement of the nature of the danger you anticipate..."

Dingle answered

"On the matter of specifying the danger involved, I can only say that if this could be foreseen, steps could be taken to prevent it, but since we know only of what character this might be, it seems wiser to start at the shadow than passively to await the arrival of the substance casting it."

So, once again, the article is perfectly accurate in stating, based on Dingle's own account, as well as a review of his correspondence and letters to editors, that he repeatedly warned of dangers to the safety of the whole world, but never could articulate what precise danger we are in from special relativity, and even explicitly stated that he could not forsee the danger. Again, all this is sourced from Dingle's own account, and he certainly never explained how the theory of special relativity could cause an accident at an atomic energy establishment. (I do, however, like the irony in how anti-relativity people usually argue that special relativity has absolutely nothing to do with atomic energy, but then they claim that somehow special relativity could cause an accident at a nuclear power plant.)

In summary, none of the three edits made by Swanzsteve is appropriate, so I removed them. I ask that they not be re-instated without addressing the reasons I've given. Denveron 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And no doubt Denveron, your requests will be granted with sick heads like Tim Shuba and Wwoods as your loyal allies in the administrator classes. (58.8.189.135 08:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

The Page Protection

How come Denveron, who is a new account and special purpose user, and almost certainly a sockpuppet for DVdm, is allowed to edit the main article even though it is locked?

I see that he is working together with a Tim Shuba to gradually put the article back into a state in which Herbert Dingle is totally castigated.

Well these guys are obviously sick in the head. They have spent years working the wikipedia system and establishing sleeper sock puppets and infiltrating the administration just so as they can ensure that their own point of view is refelected on wikipedia.

There is Wwoods, Tim Shuba, EMS, DVdm/Denveron and they have absolutely nothing better to do with their time than sit guard over wikipedia articles in order to ensure the survival of the Einstein myth.

I expect that we would find the same kind of sick head team editors hovering over any article that was in any way politically sensitive. Bosnia, Palestine, Cyprus? I'm not even going to bother looking to find out. I've seen wikipedia for what it is. (58.8.189.135 08:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Talk page semi-protection?

In order to avoid disruption by unfounded anonymous attacks like this, this, this, and this perhaps it might be a good idea to semi-protect the talk page as well? DVdm 09:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DVdm, you are a bastard! You want to erase any edit that exposes you/Denveron for what you are. You are a wee wretch, and I'll explain exactly why. Most people in this debate simply argue about the matter in hand. But you go snivelling around behind the scenes giving warnings to your opponents in official format about the 3RR which you yourself breach freely, and you're always conspiring with the administrators to get your opponents blocked out of the debate. You really are a cowardly snivelling wretch of a character. I'll bet, the next time that I open my account, I'll find this section deleted on the grounds of 'personal insults' and a warning in my tray or maybe even the account blocked. That will be fully expected from such cowardly opposition. (Dr. Seaweed 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

• No. protecting article talkpages is a big no-no. I'd also say I'm not a big fan of the unexplained semi-protection of the main page as it appears to me (as an outside observer) to be leveraging protection of one side in an edit war (not to mention that the admin who protected it version changed after protection and appears to have been involved in the edit war). The IPs appear fairly static. If they are being disruptive, report or block them. Same goes for registered editors. If the article needs to be protected, fully protect it. In my opinion at least this isn't a legitimate use of semi-protection.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. DVdm 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. User talkpages do occasionally get protected, but article talkpages really need to be open, especially when the article is protected. I've warned the editor for that unseemly personal attack.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article after yet another flurry of edits and reverts by anons, which seemed likely to continue. I didn't see it as blocking one side since, as you can see, there are several registered editors active on that side. If you think it improper, by all means remove the protection. (Why this obscure individual has attracted so much interest remains a mystery to me.)

—wwoods 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stating my view as an outside observer. Other than a real simple heading change I've not edited this article, nor am I going to. I'm not going to mess with the protection at all right now, unless the registered edit warring continues (and please note I'm not referring to good faith edits involving discussion), though blocking of edit warring parties is an option as well. I will most definitely agree with you though that I'm a bit surprised at the level of activity here, but I've seen way lamer stuff in the time I've been at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one welcome your actions so far, and think it would be great to have others without obvious agendas looking at this article. It's been out of control for several months. As you can see, I make one post to this talk page suggesting that a clearly inappropriate reference to a blog site should be removed and that we consider policy and law about copyrights, and get a flurry of insults and accusations. I can understand the mystery and surprise that an unimportant backwater in the history of relativity would generate this level of vitriol (from various users, I'm not willing to buy into 'us versus them' mentality). There is, of course, something else going on here which at its root is actually quite interesting, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Herbert Dingle. Let the lameness continue! Now, back to my sock puppets... ;) Tim Shuba 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

The article is once against degenerating into a soapbox for Denveron to explain why he thinks that Einstein was right and why Dingle was wrong.

I suggest that in the 'Controversies' section that the basic outlines should replace those mathematical details.

We lost all the historical progression that was in the older version that was frozen by isotope23.

What we need is a statement of the fact that Dingle challenged Einstein's theories on the grounds that they contained logical inconsistencies. The argument can be read in a 1967 copy of the Nature magazine. The physics community nevertheless stuck with Einstein, and in his frustration, Dingle published a book in 1972 entitled 'Science at the Crossroads'.

We don't need to hear Denveron/DVdm's reasons for why he thinks that Dingle was wrong. Looking through the talk pages, I am very much of the opinion that DVdm and Denveron are one and the same person and that he has friends such as Wwoods and Tim Shuba who are administrators.

As long as this corruption continues, then the edit warring is likely to continue. (Brigadier Armstrong 12:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

"Looking through the talk pages, I am very much of the opinion that DVdm and Denveron are one and the same person and that he has friends such as Wwoods and Tim Shuba who are administrators." ==> Go ahead and file complaints for sockpuppetery and for abuse of administrative rights. When you do, make sure you don't use the wrong username ;-) DVdm 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

Since the article can now only be edited on request, I am requesting that the paragraph,

"The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g where g2=1/(1-v2), and its algebraic inverse is x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g.[6] The former implies t'=gt at x=0, and the latter implies t=gt' at x'=0. Dingle maintained that these two facts are mutually contradictory, but as Whitrow explained in Dingle's obituary, this is not correct. Dingle assumed that the ratios of t and t' in these two cases refer to the same quantities, but they do not, so his conclusion was invalid.[7]"

be removed from the 'controversies' section. This is clearly electioneering on the part of Denveron/Dvdm. He is showing off that he knows about relativity. I could easily get into an argument about what he is saying but this is not the correct place to do so. That paragraph simply should not be in the article.

I hope my request will be honoured by the totally impartial administrators. (Brigadier Armstrong 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

That section is the heart of the controversy and since it is properly referenced, it certainly belongs in the section with that title. DVdm 12:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DVdm, the heart of this controversy is the fact that you want it to be unequivocally stated that Dingle was wrong. That is not how an encyclopaedia works.

I hold a different opinion to you on the issue of whether Dingle was wrong or not, and I am not alone. But here is not the place to argue about that.

It is quite sufficient to state that Dingle challenged Einstein but that his challenge has been largely ignored by the mainstream scientific establishment. There is no need to go that bit further, as you clearly wish to do, and set out your reasons, or indeed anybody's reasons as to why they think that Dingle was wrong.

You are cheating at the moment because you are friends with administrator Wwoods and you have got the article locked in such a way that you can make changes and nobody else can. You are a fanatic, and I would say a very misinformed fanatic. I tried to warn the administrators about you but it turns out that Wwoods was with you all along as is probably Tim Shuba.

Is there some reason why you don't want readers to make up their own minds on the Dingle controversy? Are you worried that some readers might read this article and then go away and question Einstein's theories? (Brigadier Armstrong 13:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

• "You are cheating at the moment because you are friends with administrator Wwoods..."
• "you have got the article locked in such a way that you can make changes and nobody else can"
• "it turns out that Wwoods was with you all along as is probably Tim Shuba."

==> In order to avoid disrupting this talk page, consider filing formal complaints. DVdm 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No Sir, I won't be filing any complaint. It is not my style. I argue on merit alone. I notice however that you have been busy again today filing a string of complaints to the wikipedia administrators notice board. (Brigadier Armstrong 13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Well then, in that case you will have to continue arguing "on merit alone" in a vacuum, since I tend to avoid arguing with people who don't play by any set of rules. DVdm 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I'm going to again remind all parties not to edit war. I will up the protection on this article to sysop only if this continues.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Logical Consistency of the Lorentz Transformation an "Open" Question?

In one of the comments above, someone asked for removal of the two-sentence summary of Whitrow's explanation of Dingle's central assertion and the error in that assertion. I tend to agree with the other editor who said these sentences are the heart of the Controversy, so they are certainly very relevant. Also, I don't see any problem with sourcing or verifiability, because the view expressed by Whitrow (in Dingle's obituary) is the same as the view found in literally hunderds of other reputable sources. Moreover, no reputable source (that I know of) disputes the logical consistency of the Lorentz transformation. Very few statements in all of science are as well verified as the statement that the Lorentz transformation is logicially consistent. If needed, we could add as many references as you wish (you name the number) in support of this statement.

It appears to me that one or more editor(s) here believe strongly that the Lorentz transformation (which is after all just 4th grade algebra, formally identical to Euclidean rotations in space) is somehow logically inconsistent, and although they cannot cite any reputable source in support of their belief, they want to prevent the article from asserting the abundantly verifiable statement that the Lorentz transformation is logically consistent. Essentially they want the article to leave this as an "open" question. I think if this was really a controversial point, with reputable sources on both sides, it would be appropriate to write the article that way, but it doesn't appear to be the case. No one has brought forward a reputable source asserting that the Lorentz transformation (or Euclidean geometry) is logically inconsistent. In view of this, I don't think the article should be contorted to suggest that it's an "open" question, because that is a "novel narrative" and a point of view that is held by only an exceedingly small number of individuals (neo-Dingleian physics cranks), none of whom are represented in any reputable sources. This is a textbook example of the kind of view that, according to Wikipedia policies, does not belong in Wikipedia. (See the policy statements quoted previously in this Discussion page.) Denveron 15:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dingle never said that the Lorentz transformation was logically inconsistent. Your argument is completely bogus. - Swanzsteve 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask you reconsider this. Surely you agree that Dingle said (a verbatim quote is given in the article) that the equations of special relativity (which surely you agree refers to the Lorentz transformation) imply that clock A works more slowly than B, and also that clock B works more slowly than clock A. This is indeed what the Lorentz transformation implies. Then Dingle says "it takes no super-intelligence to see that this is impossible". Don't you agree that, by making this statement, he is asserting that the Lorentz transformation, which implies that A works faster than B, and that B works faster than A, is logically inconsistent? Are you arguing that he said "impossible" rather than "inconsistent"? Or are you arguing that he was not referring to the Lorentz transformation (and its inverse) when he said A is slower than B and vice versa? Or are you arguing something else? Honestly, I am having a hard time seeing how you can object to the current statements in the article. Can you clarify your point? Denveron 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a detailed explanation for why I reverted your "emeritus" and other edits was presented way up above in this Discussion page. Unfortunately, just since yesterday there have been a ton of other discussion comments, so you might not have seen the comments I provided to justify reversion of your earlier edits. I really did make an effort to give a sound justification, so hopefully you can take a look before restoring your edits (again).Denveron 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your continued harping on about "fourth-grade algebra" is a bit silly. There are plenty of transformation laws one can write down which are internally consistent; the question is not just whether the algebra is correct, but whether they actually describe physical reality. When Dingle said that the Lorentz transformation was "impossible" I'd take that to mean that it contradicted what he considered self-evident reality. --Starwed 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. The question of whether the predictions of special relativity agree with "reality" (i.e., experiment/observation) was regarded by Dingle and every other participant in the dispute as separate and distinct from the question of whether special relativity was SELF-contradictory. Dingle was equivocal about the experimental results - he tended to argue that it was not presently feasible to actually test special relativity, because he believed the speeds required could not be achieved with present technology. (He was obviously wrong about that, but that's what he argued.) So, his argument against special relativity (post 1959) was NOT that it was empirically wrong (i.e., disagreed with "reality"), but that it was SELF-contradictory. He points out that the Lorentz transformation implies A is slower than B AND B is slower than A. He says this is logically impossible, not just empirically false. This was his entire argument, and this was his obvious error. It is not impossible for A to be slower than B and for B to be slower than A. This is what Dingle was told by Born, McCrea, Synge, and dozens of other people who took the trouble to answer him. The answer is indeed 4th grade algebra. This is verifiable in hundreds of highly reputable sources (as well as being self-evident).Denveron 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There has never been an experiment to test symmetrical time dilation.

you say: "It is not impossible for A to be slower than B and for B to be slower than A." -- ??

I'm afraid that IS impossible, but is not impossible for A to APPEAR to be slower than B, when viewed from B, and for B to APPEAR to be slower than A, when viewed from A.

BTW, are you 63.24? - Swanzsteve 01:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - you say - "Edit #3 The quote about Dingle's concern for the safety of the world having something to do with nuclear power plants is not illuminating, and it misrepresents what Dingle himself actual reports in Crossroads."

if you care to read SATC, you will find that is a direct quote from the book, in disagreement with your "unspecified" phrase. There is no justification for removing this from the article, whereas your little "unspecified" dig is factually inaccurate.

Professor Emeritus is not an automatic title, it has to be bestowed on somebody by the University. Why on earth would you want to delete this fact? It was his title when he wrote SATC and appears in the book and various papers and articles after 1955.

Whitrow incidentally had an axe to grind with Dingle since he worked with Milne, with whom Dingle had several disagreements. - Swanzsteve 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve, you're obviously laboring under the same misconception as was Dingle. You say "I'm afraid that IS impossible" but you are wrong. Read what I wrote again. I meant exactly what I said, just as all of the people who explained Dingle's error to him meant exactly what they said. Dingle was wrong about the very thing that he was most certain of.

Look, it really isn't proper for you to come here and demand to be taught the fundamentals of special relativity or else you will persist in vandalizing the article, but in the interest of trying to be constructive, please (please) think about this: Dingle considered two inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' in terms of which A and B respectively are at rest. Dingle then defined "the rate of A with respect to B" as the change in t for a given change in t' at constant x, and he defined "the rate of B with respect to A" as the change in t' for a given change in t at constant x'. Now, according to the Lorentz transformation, both of those rates are less than 1. Dingle expressed this by saying "A runs slower than B, and B runs slower than A". He said this is impossible. But it obviously is NOT impossible, as explained by the sentence you keep deleting from the article. This fact is fully verifiable by hundreds of reputable sources, and it is simple 4th grade algebra. There is nothing mysterious or difficult about it, and it most certainly is not an "open" question. If you honestly don't understand, and if you honestly WANT to understand, we could probably help, but Wikipedia is not really intended for the purpose of providing free tutorials. The only thing that matters here is that my version of the article is fully suppoted by verifiable reputable sources and your version of the article is not.

On another point, you claim that Dingle specified how the safety of the world was endangered by belief in special relativity, and in support of this you cite his mention of nuclear power plants, but (1) that does not tell us how belief in special relativity endangers us, and (2) I provided MULTIPLE quotes from Crossroads in which Dingle refers vaguely to unspecified dangerous experiments, and I provided a quote of his correspondent pointing out that he never specified the nature of the danger, AND I provided a quote from Crossroads of Dingle ADMITTING that he could not specify the danger. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more thoroughly refuted than you are on this point. Again, my version is abundantly supported by verifiable sources, and yours is not.

Lastly, you insist on list among Dingle's achievements the fact that when he retired he became Professor Emeritus. How many times must you be told that "Professor Emeritus" simply means "retired Professor"? And why are you trying to insert your blatently "ageist" bias against Dingle into the article. Why must you emphasize that he was retired? And by the way, I have checked the charter of the University of London, and the Emeritus label is automatic upon retirement.Denveron 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - its very generous of you to offer a tutorial, but since you're only ability seems to be to be able to spout from standard textbooks, I think the benefits would be limited.

You may be aware that graduates of Oxford and Cambridge are automatically awarded Masters degrees, after a certain period, do you think that these should not be listed amongst their qualifications? Its far more informative for people reading this article, which is after all supposed to be an encyclopaedia (not a soapbox) to see that Dingle's title was Professor Emeritus, click on the wiki link and find out what this means. Why must this title, which incidentally appears in SATC and numerous articles after 1955, be expunged from his biography. You relativist fundamentalist Dingle-haters are truly sad. Also some other member of your crowd has already put in the article that he was retired, so your little joke about ageism doesnt really make a lot of sense.

BTW - when 2 clocks are brought together it is truly impossible for them both to be slower than the other. If you cant see that - well what can I say? - apart from stick to your textbooks, and keep deluding yourself that you are a physicist.

To include a little dig about unspecified dangers, is also pretty pathetic, I'm sure there were people who warned against inadequate safety procedures at three mile island and Chernobyl, who were ignored because they couldnt specify exactly what might happen. The number of possible failure modes in such areas is almost infinite, as are the possibilities for human error.

You didnt answer the question as to whether or not you were 63.24

There is already a link to the Lorentz transformation in the article why do you insist on cluttering up this article with the Lorentz transformation? Oh, I forgot, its to show everyone how clever you are (or think you are) - Swanzsteve 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve, here are answers to your questions and comments:

”Denveron - your only ability seems to be to be able to spout from standard textbooks…”

The policy of Wikipedia requires that we do nothing but “spout from textbooks” and other reputable sources. We (editors) are not permitted to insert original research or even novel narratives into the articles. So your attempted insult is misguided.

”It's far more informative for people reading this article, which is after all supposed to be an encyclopaedia (not a soapbox) to see that Dingle's title was Professor Emeritus, click on the wiki link and find out what this means. Why must this title, which incidentally appears in SATC and numerous articles after 1955, be expunged from his biography?”

The appelation “emeritus” is just a qualifier signifying that the professor is retired. It’s a step down, not a step up, as you seem to imagine. When a professor retires he is allowed to still call himself professor (because tenure is theoretically for life), but only with the qualifier “emeritus”, signifying that he is retired. Being “professor emeritus” is less (not more) prestegious than being “professor”. It is redundant to say “Dingle was professor until his retirement in 1955, at which time he became professor emeritus (i.e., a retired professor).” Must you insist that the article be written in such a sophomoric way? The only people who are impressed by the title “Professor Emeritus” are people (like yourself) who don’t understand it’s meaning and connotations.

”BTW - when 2 clocks are brought together it is truly impossible for them both to be slower than the other.”

Irrelevant to Dingle’s argument, and therefore to the article. Read Science at the Crossroads, especially “The Question”. You will see that Dingle’s two clocks are not brought back together. Dingle explicitly restricted consideration to the pure reciprocity of time dilation between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. I'm not making this up. Read it for yourself.

Frankly, the difficulty you are having in recognizing Dingle’s argument (not to mention the invalidity of it) strongly implies that the portion of the article you keep deleting is vital. Those two sentences that you keep deleting explain everything you need to know about Dingle’s erroneous charge of logical inconsistency. I urge you to actually read it some time, instead of deleting it. It would save you from writing more non sequiturs like the one above.

”To include a little dig about unspecified dangers, is also pretty pathetic…”

I’ve given the source of that characterization. Dingle’s own book recounts how he repeatedly warned of imminent dangers posed to the safety of the world by the special theory of relativity, and how it was pointed out to him that he never actually specified the danger, and how he acknowledged that he could not be specific. I could even add another reference, quoting his 1967 letter to Nature, in which he cites as an example of the kind of calamity that may befall us if we don’t recognize the falsity of special relativity the Aberfan tragedy, in which over 100 school children were killed by an avalance near a coal mine. What precisely this has to do with the dangers posed by special relativity is not clear. I personally think it is being generous to simply say, parenthetically, that his warnings were not specific. If I actually inserted the quotes of all his warnings, I believe the impression made on the reader would be much worse. The reader would surely conclude that the guy was off his rocker. If you really want to go that route, I’ll go ahead and insert the actual quotes, but I’d prefer to just leave it as "(unspecified)".

”There is already a link to the Lorentz transformation in the article why do you insist on cluttering up this article with the Lorentz transformation? “

It isn’t clutter and it isn’t just the Lorentz transformation. The point is to precisely and accurately present Dingle’s argument, which can be given in just a single sentence. Those few equations are taken virtually verbatim from Dingle’s letter to Nature in 1967. This was his holy grail, his entire message, his irrefutable proof. And you call this “cluttering up the article”?

I honestly don’t understand how you can seriously object to giving a clear statement of Dingle’s alleged “proof” in the article, along with the abundantly well-sourced statement that his reasoning was wrong (which is almost superfluous, since a clear statement of Dingle’s “proof” is its own refutation... If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect was the reason you don’t want Dingle’s “proof” to be clearly stated).Denveron 06:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Reasons for the Edit war

First of all, I see that the page has been semi-protected again to allow Denveron to edit freely. Have the administrators not yet caught on to what this edit war is all about? It is about the fact that Denveron/DVdm wants to get into the centre of the main article and get on his soapbox and give us all a lecture on why he personally believes that Dingle was wrong.

All that maths and Lorentz transformation stuff needs to be removed from the main article. This article is not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of Dingle's argument. But as we can all see now, DVD,/Denveron has openly admitted that this is the heart of the matter. He wants to have his wee POV lecture in the heart of the article, and some of the administrators, notably Wwoods and Tim Shuba are assisting him to this end. (58.8.192.18 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

If you would identify the statements in the article that you believe are not representative of the views contained in reputable sources, point them out, and they can be addressed. So far the only specific thing you've mentioned is "all that maths and Lorentz transformation stuff", which consists of two short sentences, which are surely among the best supported sentences in the entire article. Every reputable source on the subject of special relativity (and even some marginally reputable sources, such as Herbert Dingle's 1940 monograph) states that the readings of relatively moving clocks and their positions in space are related according to the Lorentz transformation, and I believe the current article states this correctly. Also, Dingle himself (such as in his 1967 letters in Nature) as well as every reputable source says that the time coordinates are related as stated in the article. None of this "maths and Lorentz transformation stuff" is controversial at all. Dingle could be cited for those sentences just as well as Whitrow or anyone else. Dingle differed from every reputable source ONLY at the very last step, AFTER all the "maths and Lorentz transformation stuff". Dingle and everyone else agreed (as can be supported by any number of references you wish) that, according to special relativity, the rate of change of t as a function of t' at constant x is less than 1, as is the rate of change of t' as a function of t at constant x'. There is no controversy at all up to this point. The "controversy" simply consisted of Dingle's erroneous claim that this is logically impossible, whereas every reputable source says it is perfectly possible, and the proof is the simple 4th grade algebra that explicitly gives a one-to-one linear correspondence between the two systems of coordinates. This is abundantly verifiable from any number of reputable sources, and no reputable source disputes it. So, you are wrong to repeatedly charge that these statements are in the article just because they are my opinion. My opinion has nothing to do with it. All the statements in the article are solidly sourced. If you can identify a statement that you think is not representative of a reputable source, then point it out. Denveron 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, the main article points out that Dingle objected to Einstein's theories and it then goes on to state that his views were not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

I don't see the necessity of including a demonstration to support the view that Dingle was wrong. I could quite easily refute the demonstration on the main article. The demonstration that is there right now, and which is the heart of the controversy, doesn't actually make any sense at all. I doubt if any readers would follow the point that is being made.

So why is it there? It is highly POV and extremely unprofessional.

You need a lesson in encyclopaedia writing styles. It doesn't only come down to sources. It comes down to coherence and presentation as well. The main points have already been made. By adding in that extra 'so-called' proof it comes over as having been written by somebody who is worried that there might even be any doubt at all surrounding the issue of who was right.

That clause needs to be removed. And contrary to your claim that nobody has been supporting Swanzsteve's edits, I would like to point out that I have been supporting them.(58.136.72.238 06:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

"I could quite easily refute the demonstration on the main article." ==> As you well know, it doesn't matter whether you or any contributor can do that, unless "REASSIGN TO CSLOXINFO ADSL, KRUNG THEP MAHANAKHON, BANGKOK, THAILAND" can be established as a reliable source. Have another (closer) look at this and/or, until it is moved to the archive, at this. Please pass this important message to any future sock- and Meatpuppets? - DVdm 09:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Was Dingle actually wrong?

The scientific community have not accepted Dingle's arguments. In the main article there is a source in which Whitrow explains why he thinks Dingle is wrong. Does that automatically mean that Dingle was wrong? If somebody puts their reasons in writing as to why they think that Dingle was wrong, and if those reasons get published in a peer reviewed journal, does that prove beyond all doubt that Dingle was wrong? (Fagrah Sawdust 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

At the very end of the article, immediately following the statement that Dingle was not accepted by the physics community, there are four references. Not one of those references relates to the assertion. This in my view is dishonest. It looks like somebody is protesting too much about Dingle and trying to make the case against him appear to be stronger than it really is. (Fagrah Sawdust 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Also, why is the main article locked in such a way that only Denveron can edit it? (Fagrah Sawdust 06:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

As you well know, it doesn't matter whether Dingle was actually wrong. Have another (closer) look at this and/or, until it is moved to the archive, at this. DVdm 09:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So why is Denveron being allowed to insert his 'Dingle was wrong POV' into the main article? (58.10.102.168 09:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

The Fanatics

I read Swanzsteve's personal page and I see now exactly what he means. The fanatics are in control of this article.

At the risk of getting another sneaky wee warning in my tray from DVdm, I'd just like to state that I find DVdm a particularly snakish kind of fanatic.

He zealously guards this article waiting for his opportunity to get his anti-Dingle POV stamped all over it. And as for those who argue with him, he goes behind the scenes trying to get them blocked and discredited.

If somebody removes his POV entries, he immediately squeals 'Vandalism' and then adopts some abnoxious bureacratic line like 'please do your experiments in the sandbox'.

I think that most people would agree with me that DVdm/Denveron is the root cause of all the trouble on this article. He is a particularly abnoxious little jumped up nobody who has probably read a book on relativity and thinks it's cool. And in order to convince himself that he understands it, he spends his days slagging off Herbert Dingle knowing that it will gain him brownie points with the establishment.

I think there really must be a pimple faced cult of undergraduates in the USA who thrive on posing as intellects that can understand Einstein. (Dr. Seaweed 10:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

A few blocked puppets

• blocked Dr. Seaweed
• blocked Brigadier Armstrong
• blocked Nurse_Hilditch
• blocked The Marmosets
• blocked Fagrah Sawdust

DVdm 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So DVdm has worked very hard to get all opposition to his edits blocked. What a sneaky cowardly character. And the wikipedia staff have totally pandered to him.

Fagrah Sawdust only came in as a new account a couple of days ago. I personally thought his remarks were quite benign.

In a respectable encyclopaedia when a dissident is being documented, it is sufficient to point out the essence of his disagreement with the establishment. That is the normal and dignified way in which it should be done.

But in wikipedia, they have to let DVdm/Denveron get on their soap box in the centre of the main article and have their say as to why they think the establishment must be right. It looks so cheap. In fact it looks as though they are protesting too much.

I personally believe that Dingle was right and that Einstein is just a cult that attracts young pimple faced undergraduates with inferiority complexes who want to pose as geniuses.

Obviously the wikipedia administration is teaming with those kind, and like spirits support like spirits. That's why they have been supporting DVdm contrary to all their rules about POV. They see DVdm in their own likeness and they are probably also relativity fanatics.

DVdm thinks that he can rhyme off a few equations and that that perfectly accounts for the dilemma of how two clocks can both run slower than each other.

I read Swanzsteve's user page and he is correct. The Herbert Dingle page has been vandalized by creeps who want to appear to be experts on Einstein. No better way to lick up to the establishment than to bash a dissident. Dissidents are generally more vulnerable than those who tow the party line. It's easy and cowardly to attack a dissident with the establishment behind you, and especially a dead dissident who can't defend himself. And that's what we are witnessing with DVdm/Denveron. We are witnessing cheap and cowardly attacks on a great scientist.

Shame on the wikipedia for backing the likes of DVdm. We can't even edit the main article anymore. It was locked as soon as Dr. Seaweed's last edit was reverted by DVdm. The 3RR rule never applied to DVdm. Wikipedia is a total farce. 58.8.180.181 12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grow up everybody

As an outsider on this issue it is clear that there are lots of people who are passionate about this issue but do not agree. The article should therefore accommodate these sourced views. People should refrain from suppressing information on the debate that they do not agree with and allow all side to be aired. Chendy 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chendy. Quite right, although I don't think that "it is clear that there are lots of people passionate...". There are indeed lots of usernames and ip-addresses passionate about this. See here and here. Cheers, DVdm 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly reasonable advice to grow up. But exactly what information are you claiming is being suppressed? Please be specific. I gave a reference by Clifford Will which was removed by someone who thinks that a clear, modern position about the consistency of special relativity doesn't belong here. I found it very unfortunate that no one raised a peep about its removal, but I wouldn't necessarily call it suppression. Part of the problem is when people claim the debate is about a logical contradiction in special relativity, then when they cannot back up their claim with sources they end up getting frustrated and do things like calling another person a two-faced little shit. It certainly best to attempt to rise above such incivility and not respond in kind. It's easy to find dozens of reliable sources about the consistency of relativity. Dingle knew his position was way outside the mainstream and had very little support, and therefore wrote his "crossroads" book not for others in the field, but for outsiders. Today, Dingle's position is even worse, as advances in the teaching of group theory and linear algebra have given thousands of students the ability to understand why relativity is consistent. If you or anyone finds a modern, reliable source claiming that special relativity is inconsistent for the reasons Dingle gave, please provide it, and perhaps it should be included as an extreme minority position. Tim Shuba 14:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Chendy - talk about the pot calling the kettle black:-) Tim Shuba hasnt quite given you the whole story, he was the one who STARTED throwing insults around, unfortunately he got upset when he had some back - Swanzsteve 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Source for the Current Article

The verifiability of a couple of the sentences in the article has been questioned, specifically the summary of Dingle's objection, saying that Dingle asserted that that reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation was logically inconsistent. I referenced Whitrow's obituary of Dingle for a brief overview, but we can also add the summary provided by "Nature" (surely a reputable source) in presenting the 1967 letters from Dingle and McCrea. The Nature commentary is reproduced in Dingle's book "Science at the Crossroads". Here is the relevant passage from Nature, which agrees perfectly with the current article:

"It is therefore important to be clear about the nature of Dingle's protest. He says, quite accurately, that Einstein's postulates in special relativity lead directly to the familiar Lorentz transformation for the co-ordinates of space and time and, in particular, to the notion that the time recorded by moving systems - clocks, for example - appears to be dilated when matched against a stationary system for recording time... But time dilation works in both directions... All this is entirely consistent with ... Einstein's special theory... Dingle claims to show that this reciprocity of time dilation implies a contradiction."

Hopefully will lay to rest the claims that the summary of Dingle's position in the article is just my unsupported opinion. Dingle himself never denied that this was an entirely accurate summary of his claim.Denveron 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

McCrea's refutation in Nature is flawed, and Dingle criticised it. The editorial to which you refer was titled "Dont Bring back the Ether", which makes it pretty obvious where they stood on the issue. The editorial writer accepted McCrea's refutation without question, and clearly wanted an end to the matter. Have a look at McCrea's refutation and tell me what you think of it. Swanzsteve 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Consolidate "Biography" and "Selected Publications"?

I'm thinking the article might be less dis-jointed if the Selected Publications section was consolidated up into the Biography section. It was moved to the end when the article had no sections, to make it all one piece, but since the overall article is now split by headers, I think it would make sense to move the publications to the end of the bio. We could also add some more of his publications, especially mentioning "The Sources of Eddington's Philosophy". If we really wanted to be ambitious, we could add another Controversy... the one with Epstein over whether Dingle's 1940 monograph on special relativity was valid. On the other hand, it might be a bit much... Denveron 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Does the Well Sourced Explanation Keep Getting Deleted?

I've noticed that the exceedingly verifiable summary of Dingle's error has been deleted again from the article. I've gone to a lot of trouble to cite very reputable sources, including the journal Nature, all of whom agree that Dingle's error was exactly as explained in the article (in the now deleted text and footnote). Why should this well documented fact being suppressed? I think it should be restored to the article. I haven't yet seen any valid justification for removing it.Denveron 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about SR or the Lorentz Transformation, the bit you keep putting in is superfluous. It makes the article look like its been cobbled together by a bunch of amateurs. Put it on the SR page if you have to it somewhere. - Swanzsteve 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Whitrow refutation

Pardon my ignorance. I was looking at the Whitrow refutation of Dingle's argument at reference number 8. I am a bit confused. Dingle pointed out a scenario about clocks reading different times and pointed out that this was impossible.

Would it be possible for somebody to explain more clearly in the English language what those equations are actually saying in relation to the flaw in Dingle's assertion? I'd be most grateful because I would really like to understand exactly where Dingle went wrong. Herbert Dingle 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Before that can be answered, there needs to be a framework established linking clock A and clock B with the two times t and t'. It says that Dingle thought that the ratio of t and t' referred to the same quantity. The same quantity as what? And if it is not the same quantity, what is the different quantity that it refers to? Hamset Jeejeeboy 11:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an analogy (adapted from Taylor & Wheeler): Two people start at the same point and travel due north. However, one (M) uses his magnetic compass for guidance, and the other (S) takes his direction from Polaris. The second direction is east of the first; the difference between them is θ. When both have gone 1 kilometre, M looks around and sees that S has only gone cos θ km north (while also going sin θ km east). For his part, S looks around and sees that M has only gone cos θ km north (while going sin θ km west). So each sees himself as standing farther north than the other. Contradiction? No, it's a consequence of their using different frames of reference to determine the coordinates of their positions.

It would probably help to draw diagrams of the situation in the two frames of reference.

In this diagram (→), M sees himself at position [D] and sees S at position [B]. S sees himself at [D] and sees M at [A].

A more complicated version: the two people go north several km, dropping markers as they go. On the way back to the start, M notices that S has had to travel sec θ as far, to reach a position due east of his own. I.e., if M is at [A], S has to travel to [E] to be as far north. Meanwhile, for his part, S sees M as having to travel farther, i.e. if S is at [B], M has to travel to [E].

The geometry of spacetime differs from Euclidean geometry. Back in July, I posted a diagram of the situation here (scroll down a bit), using the Lorentz transformation to get the positions of the relevant points.

—wwoods 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Swanzsteve Edits

The editor Swanzsteve has been making numerous edits without discussion, and when people explain why they wrote the article a certain way, and ask him to discuss and justify his changes, he still declines to discuss, and instead simply reverts back to his preferred version, which doesn't seem to be a constructive approach.

The latest batch of edits made by Swanzsteve were (again) unaccompanied by any discussion, but in the hope of generating some discussion, I've collected his "edit comments" for each of these changes, and added my replies:

These references are too old to support the statement about the "current consensus")

I don't think this is a justifiable edit. The consensus on special relativity hasn't changed since any of those references were written. Furthermore, if anyone wants more recent references, all they have to do is ask. Hundreds are available.

added British Society for the History of Science

I'm okay with that, provided it is well sourced.

restored sourced fact

This refers to the bestowing of the emeritus title. I personally find this comment redundant to "retired", since that's all the "emeritus" qualifier means, and it strikes me as a lame and transparent attempt to pad someone's resume', but I guess if everyone else is happy with it, I could accept it.

factual inaccuracy

This refers to Dingle's warnings about the danger which the special theory of relativity posed to the safety of the entire world. The fact that they were unspecified was plainly discussed and acknowleded in "Crossroads" by Dingle himself, as has been explained here previously. I think Swanzsteve's repeated removal (with no discussion) of this well supported fact borders on vandalism.

Removed Factual inaccuracy

This refers to the statement in the article that experimental evidence showed that Dingle was mistaken in his belief that relativistic time dilation was false. There is an abundance of highly reputable sources for this statement, so I think the only valid criticism is that no source was directly linked to that statement. Rather than deleting the statement, I think we should just include a reference.

the phrase "in other words" implies OR this section is also iadequately referenced - no page number

I've changed the wording, since the "other words" are essentially verbatim from both Nature's commentary and Dingle's own words in 1967. This clarifying statement is fully supported by multiple reputable sources.

(incorrect reference - p.7 of SATC is the contents page)

Presumably any page numbering error can be easily fixed.

(Removed idiotic duplication of Lorentx Transformation)

This has been discussed extensively on this Discussion page, with a request for Swanzsteve to participate and offer support for this position. He has declined to offer any support, so I think his repeated removal of a section (without discussion) that clearly has the support of multiple editors borders on vandalism.

(Removed reference to Einsteins 1918 paper which is heavily criticised by Dingle in SATC)

The fact that Dingle criticized it does not alter the fact that this paper represents the current scientific consensus on the resolution of Dingle's charge of logical inconsistency of special relativity. Also, it is highly relevant precisely because Dingle criticized it, whereas the other references cited (and hundred more that can be provided on request) are all in accord with the Einstein paper. So I don't agree with removing that reference. In fact, it's one of THE most relevant references in the article. Denveron 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - its a bit rich you complaining about a lack of discussion, since it was you that came to this page several weeks ago and added various passages about "Dingle's dementia" without discussion. I have added comments to my edits which clearly explain what is wrong with them, I have also answered you on this talk page. I'm pretty sure I would have some support for my edits if everyone else wants to stop this page turning into a Dingle bashing page wasnt banned from contributing, for whatever reason.

in greater detail "current consensus" - this is supported by references from 1927 to 1969 - since Dingle wrote his book in 1972 how can these be relevant? find some publication which answers Dingle's criticisms, not any old random publication from 80 years ago.

"Presumably any page numbering error can be easily fixed" - quotes need to properly referenced so that others can confirm them, I cant find your quote in the book.

(Removed idiotic duplication of Lorentx Transformation) - this page is not about SR in particular or the Lorentz Transformation, there is a separate Wiki page for these topics, which are already linked in the article. Putting this stuff in makes the article look a mess. This page is also not supposed to pass judgement on whether Dingle was right or wrong, we have been trying for months to produce an NPOV article, which is informative, Dingle-bashing will not achieve this end.

"The fact that Dingle criticized it does not alter the fact that this paper represents the current scientific consensus" I dont believe that is true, several editors have criticised this paper. It states at one point that in regard to the clock paradox "no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory." because one of the clocks experiences accelerations, yet Einstein created the clock paradox in his 1905 paper with no mention of acceleration in regard to clocks. And the example using GR is beyond belief.

"This refers to Dingle's warnings about the danger which the special theory of relativity posed to the safety of the entire world." - Dingle specifies a Nuclear plant in the book, I have already told you this before.

When someone edits a page at least look at what they have done,. some are improvements. I have looked at your edits and I disagree with some of them, for the reasons stated. I suspect your agenda is not improve the page but to pile on the Dingle-bashing, I hope I am wrong in this. - Swanzsteve 03:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve goes berserk

Swanzsteve has now performed three reverts since 01:27.

• at 01:27
• at 02:11
• at 02:48

Therefore, any more reverts by Swanzsteve before 01:27 tomorrow will put him in clear violation of WP:3RR. I am going to revert back to the revision of 2007-10-20 15:25:59 before Swanzsteve started his out-of-consensus edit spree, and changes can be discussed on the talk page. The time has come to insist that Swanzsteve cannot ride roughshod over this article, and edit warring is not the solution. This will be my only revert on this article today. Tim Shuba 03:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now now Tim, your lying again, 1.27 was not a revert as you well know, get your facts right. Didnt your little "chum" Denveron alert you quickly though, to my 2 reverts, are you sleeping together?? So I suppose now your little team will go into team-revert mode, and return this article to the Dingle-bashing shambles that you have turned it into. Unfortunately I'm outnumbered, but I can still do my bit and hope to get some support. BTW - I was making edits when Denveron did a complete revert to a previous version, have you warned him about his 2 reverts as well? - Swanzsteve 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)