Talk:Herbert Dingle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh Dingle paradox Hi I think Dingle ,he was right in questioning Ensteins special relativity of uniform motion and time.My question is the same as Dingles.Einstein said,that the time of the moving observer will slow from the point of view of the resting observer. If I consider ,the moving observer at rest then the previously resting observer will be in motion,so his time will slow.(Ignoring acceleration of course).Can both observers be right?Dingles answer is that they cannot becouse this would invalidate the theory of time dilation. I tried to find a simple answer on the internet in defence of Einstein, but without any success.Its strange,becouse this is such an obvious question that it should have been answered clearly by now. Thanks sr

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents 1 clocks 2 accuracy 3 Mc Crea's argument 4 Dingle's claim 5 Disgraceful error on article page 6 This is not the place for anti-relativists essays 7 "Newtonian ideas"? 8 Reversion

[edit] clocks

Should the two clocks eperiment get its own listing? If I understand correctly one of the clocks speeds up while the other slows down, but it's asymetrical and it holds in relationship to all other clocks in existance.

[edit] accuracy

I twice visited the late Louis Essen FRS, who developed the clock used to fly round the world. He told me the following; When he read that the two couter-travelling clocks proved Einstein, he Essen wrote in to say the clocks were not accurate enough to justify the claim. Nature refused to publish his comment. Ivor Catt. 9june06

That's correct and has been debated in the literature. However, later experiments were sufficiently accurate.

Thus almost certainly the claims of this article about that accuracy are erroneous. To be verified! Harald88 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mc Crea's argument

I have read most of that debate, but don't recall that argument of McCrea about "Newtonian". Where exactly? Harald88 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dingle's claim

I remember that Dingle stated that there should be no real time dilation in Einsteinian relativity, but I'm not sure if he really claimed that there will be no time dilation. Where exactly did he state that?

When we have the exact passage, that should be cited before stating that "he was wrong", so that the readers may know about what he was wrong when they read that sentence. Harald88 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald: I read an article by Herbert Dingle which was published in Wireless World in the late 1970s after being rejected by the mainstream. He did not claim that there was no time dilation, he knew muon decay rates slow down at high speed, and that time dilation is predicted by aetherial work such as the Lorentz contraction of 1893. He wasn't trying to disprove facts, and his article was merely discrediting the first postulate of relativity. Nigel 172.203.34.221 08:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disgraceful error on article page

May I please point out a very serious error in the paragraph on the article page which states: "Direct evidence that Dingle was wrong came in 1971, when two scientists from the US Naval Observatory took two high-precision atomic clocks on flights around the world in different directions. Einstein's theory not only predicted the existence of a difference in elapsed time as measured by each clock - in flat contradiction of Dingle's claim - but quantified the difference as 275 billionths of a second. The measured difference was 273 plus or minus 7 billionths of a second."

It may be true that the atomic clocks were accurate enough for the purpose (contrary to Catt and Essen, below), but what is false is the claim that the 'correct' experimental results prove special relativity. In fact, the opposite is the case. In 1995, physicist Professor Paul Davies - who won the Templeton Prize for religion (I think it was $1,000,000), wrote on pp54-57 of his book About Time:

‘Whenever I read dissenting views of time, I cannot help thinking of Herbert Dingle... who wrote ... Relativity for All, published in 1922. He became Professor ... at University College London... In his later years, Dingle began seriously to doubt Einstein's concept ... Dingle ... wrote papers for journals pointing out Einstein’s errors and had them rejected ... In October 1971, J.C. Hafele [used atomic clocks to defend Einstein] ... You can't get much closer to Dingle's ‘everyday’ language than that.’

Now, let's check out J.C. Hafele [1]:

J. C. Hafele is against crackpot science: Hafele writes in Science vol. 177 (1972) pp 166-8 that he uses ‘G. Builder (1958)’ for analysis of the atomic clocks. We then need to follow the paper trail to source by finding the Builder article. It is astonishing:

G. Builder (1958) is an article called 'Ether and Relativity' in the Australian Journal of Physics, v11, 1958, p279, which states:

‘... we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks... does indeed compel us to recognise the causal significance of absolute velocities.’ (Emphasis added.)

So, the clock experiment actually discredits special relativity, instead of confirming it!

Here are some more comments. First Eddington, who validated general relativity, exposes the flaws in special relativity principles:

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.... The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

Next, Einstein exposes the fact that the principle special relativity is false and needs replacing by general covariance (general relativity):

‘The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion ... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity... The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).' - Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

Next, Einstein says it again (thanks to Dr Thomas Love for this quotation):

‘... the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But ... the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present.’ - Albert Einstein, Relativity, The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111.

Next, Einstein says yet again (more credit to Dr Love):

‘... the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognise that the path of a ray of light ... must in general be curvilinear...’ - Albert Einstein, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114.

Einstein also publishes the fact that general relativity is a heresy to SR due to fabric:

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23. Source of all these quotes: [2].

However, I now know why all of this makes no impact on modern physics, thanks to Dr Lubos Motl, assistant professor of physics at Harvard, and a string 'theorist' (note: there is no string theory that predicts anything yet). I had an argument with Motl. Motl views general relativity as special relativity plus gravity. He can't bring himself to grasp that general relativity is a massive revision of the foundations laid in special relativity. He thinks you just add in gravity, transform the maths into tensor calculus, correct for energy conservation with the field equation contraction, and then you are set. No modern physicist seems to be concerned by the failure of the principle of special relativity in gravitational fields.

It is exactly the same mindset whereby kids are taught the Bohr atom model at school aged 16 and the Schroedinger wave equation at university aged 18. There is no contradiction perceived, and nobody worries about 'truth'. Nobody worries that kids are being lied to aged 16, because they think it is fine to teach false models because the maths level of the false model is in keeping with what the person knows at school. But the problem here is that many kids leave school knowing the Bohr atom and special relativity, usually without going on to find out at university that the Schroedinger atom and general relativity are closer to truth. No wonder the public distrusts physicists! George Orwell explains in his novel 1984 [3]:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to (an authority) and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Compare this to the end of the story, the Emperor's New Clothes [4]:

"The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle."

This Hans Christian Anderson quotation is absolutely crucial. There are no true believers in the religion of special relativity. Those who believe it also know that Einstein discredited the principle of special relativity in general relativity, and that the deflection of starlight which Eddington claimed to verify general relativity in 1919 by the same token disproved special relativity, because it showed that the direction of light (and hence its velocity, a vector that contains both speed and direction) is not constant in a gravitational field. Special relativity is a limiting approximation which applies to uniform motions only. Since in the universe we live in, all motion is non-uniform (1) when starting (accelerating), (2) when crusing (you can't escape gravitational fields and curvature in the real world), and (3) when stopping (decelerating), there is never any case in the real world where the principle of special relativity actually applies without reservation. All you can say is that its equations (which are also produced in other ways by FitzGerald, Lorentz, Larmor, Poincare, etc., etc.) are useful where gravitational fields are weak. Nigel Cook 172.202.158.145 14:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, I didn't know that Hafele consulted Builder's paper, that's interesting. It certainly was a good pick. Builder stressed in his paper that SR is fully conpatible with the concept of absolute velocities in Newtonian sense, and even argues that SR implies the absoluteness of velocities.

In other words, it's incompatible with your sources (Builder, Eddington) to claim that "the clock experiment actually discredits special relativity, instead of confirming it". Instead, it certainly supports SR. It would be correct to state that some authors argue that the clock experiment discredits certain interpretations (philosophy) of SR.

Apart of that, it is a known shortcoming of SR that it doesn't account for gravitation; nevertheless (and this is another issue!) you're correct about your allegation that GR was intended to be a revision of SR and that this is shoveled under the carpet. GR of today is not what it was intended to mean at the start.

Note also that "velocity" in old, international papers is synonym with "speed" in modern American physics jargon, and that your last phrase sketches very well how physics works. Nothing more is pretended than that.

All in all, I don't see what is wrong with the criticized sentence, except perhaps the statement of an opinion as fact. How would you propose to phrase it differently?

Cheers, Harald88 21:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald, you state:

"Builder stressed in his paper that SR is fully conpatible with the concept of absolute velocities in Newtonian sense, and even argues that SR implies the absoluteness of velocities."

If we look at the Wikipedia page on special relativity [5] we find:

"First postulate - Special principle of relativity ... there are no privileged frames of reference."

Absolute velocity (Builder) is incompatible with the first postulate of special relativity. This is because you can't measure anything absolutely unless you have a privileged frame of reference to use.

Quantum field theory now clearly demonstrates that this absolute background exists because quantum field theory has a vacuum filled with virtual particles (ground state of Dirac sea), which look different to an observer who is moving than to an observer who is stationary. See [6] page 85:

"In Quantum Field Theory in Minkowski space-time the vacuum state is invariant under the Poincare group and this, together with the covariance of the theory under Lorentz transformations, implies that all inertial observers agree on the number of particles contained in a quantum state. The breaking of such invariance, as happened in the case of coupling to a time-varying source analyzed above, implies that it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognized as the vacuum by all observers." (Emphasis added to the disproof of special relativity postulate 1 by quantum field theory.)

As for the background to us to determine absolute motion: the cosmic background radiation is ideal. By measuring time from the big bang, you have absolute time. You can easily work out the corrections for gravitation and motion. It is easy to work out gravitational field strength because it causes accelerations which are measurable. Your absolute motion is given by the anisotropy in the cosmic background radiation due to your motion. See

Muller, R. A., 'The cosmic background radiation and the new aether drift', Scientific American, vol. 238, May 1978, p. 64-74 [7]:

"U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 km/s."

After all, if the Milky Way has an absolute motion of 600 km/s according to the CBR, that is a small value compared to c, so time dilation is small. Presumably galaxies at immense distances have higher speeds.

The current picture of cosmology is an infinitely big currant bun, expanding in an infinitely big oven with no edges so that each currant moves away from the others with no common centre or "middle".

However, the universe is something like 15,000,000,000 years old and that although the 600 km/s motion of the Milky Way is mainly due to attraction toward Andromeda which is a bigger galaxy, we can still estimate that 600 km/s is an order-of-magnitude estimate of our velocity since the big bang.

In that case we are at a distance of about s = vt = 600,000t m/s = 0.002R where R = ct = radius of universe. Hence we are at 0.2% of the radius of the universe, or very near the "middle". The problem is that the steady state (infinite, expanding) cosmology model was only finally discredited in favour of the BB by the discovery of the CBR in 1965, and so people still today tend to hold on to the steady-state vestage that states it is nonsensical to talk about the "middle" of a big bang fireball! In fact, it is perfectly sensible to do so until someone actually goes to a distant galaxy and disproves it, which nobody has. There is plenty of orthodoxy masquerading as fact in cosmology, not just in string theory!

Once you have found your absolutely known velocity and position in the universe, you can calculate the absolute amount of motion and gravity-caused time dilation (if the observer can see the observable distribution of mass around them and can determine the velocity through the universe as given by the fact that the CBR temperature is about 0.005 Kelvin hotter in the direction the Milky Way is going in than in the opposite direction, due to blueshift as we move into a radiation field, and redshift as we recede from one).

The matter distribution around us tells us how to correct our clocks for time-dilation. Hence, relativity of time disappears, because we can know for absolutely what the time is from time of the BB. (This is similar to the corrections you need to apply when using a sundial, where you have to apply a correction called the "equation of time", for the time of year. For old clocks you would need to correct for temperature because that made the clock run at different rates when it was locally hot or cold. Time dilations are not a variation in the absolute chronology of the universe where time is determined by the perpetual expansion of matter in the big bang. Time dilations only apply to the matter which is moving and/or subject to gravitation. Time dilation to a high energy muon in an accelerator doesn't cause the entire universe to run more slowly, it just slows down the quark field interactions and the muon decays more slowly. There is no doubt that all "relativistic" effects are local!)

Also, you can always tell the absolute time by looking at the recession of the stars. Measure the Hubble constant H, and since the universe isn't decelerating ("... the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating..." - Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson, [http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901 ]), the age of the universe is t = 1/H (if the universe was slowing due to critical density, the Friedmann solution to GR would be not t = 1/H but rather t = (2/3)/H, however the reason for the classical Friedmann critical density solution failing is probably that gravitons are redshifted by cosmic expansion and so the quantum gravity coupling constant falls over vast distances in the expanding universe, preventing gravitational retardation of expansion, and this effect is not accounted for in GR which ignores quantum gravity effects; instead an ad hoc cosmological constant is simply added by the mainstream to force GR to conform to the latest observations).

Alternatively, all you need to observe to determine absolute time is the value of the CBR temperature. This tells you the absolute time after the BB, regardless of what your watch says: just measure the ~2.728 Kelvin microwave background.

The average temperature of that is a clock, telling you absolute time. When the temperature of the CBR is below 3000 Kelvin, the universe is matter dominated so:

Absolute time after big bang = [current age of universe].(2.728/T)^1.5, where T is the CBR temperature in Kelvin.

For T above 3000 Kelvin, the universe was of course opaque due to ionisation of hydrogen so it was radiation dominated and the formula for time in that era more strongly dependent on temperature and is

Absolute time after big bang = [current age of universe].(2.728/T)^2.

Reference: [8]. Although the Friedmann equation used on that page is wrong according to a gravity mechanism [9], the error in it is only a dimensionless multiplying factor of 0.5e^3, so the underlying scaling relationship (ie the power-law dependence between time and temperature) is still correct.

Defining absolute time from the CBR temperature averaged in every direction around the observer gets away from local time-dilation effects. Of course it is not possible to accurately measure time this way like a clock for small intervals, but the principle is that the expansion of the universe sets up a universal time scale which can in principle be used to avoid the problem of local time dilations.

There is a limitation with the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. This caused FitzGerald and Lorentz to come up with the contraction of spacetime to save aether. It was measuring effects of the motion of the light receiver, not of the motion of the light emitter. If light speed varies with redshift, then the CBR radiation will be approaching us at a speed of 6 km/s instead of c. This comes from: c x (300,000 years / 15,000,000,000 years) = 0.00002c = 6 km/second compared to the standard value of c = 300,000 km/second. This would be easily measurable by a simple instrument to confirm what the velocity of severely redshifted light is. For suggested experimental equipment, see: [10]. Nigel 172.143.228.34 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out a little error in the SR article: it should be inertial frames. I correct that now.

Physics is about measurements, and SR is (was) meant to be a theory of physics, not meta-physics. The absolute frame is a metaphysical model that according to theory can't be used as reference for measurements. All inertial frames are equivalent for physics experiments (at least for mechanics and EM), just as the founders of SR claimed and agreed by Builder. It is true that this is not always understood, if I remember well also Dingle was inconsistent about that even after pointing it out himself.

Also, a theory cannot demonstrate reality: only the failure of a theory demonstrates the failure of its underlying models.

But Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, and I notice that you aren't really discussing this article anymore and didn't answer my question for your suggested improvement. Please stick to improving the article. Harald88 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald: the planes flying around the world are not in an inertial frame, they are in an asbolute frame because there is absolute acceleration of (v^2)/r where v is their speed and r is their radius from the middle of the earth.

With all due respect, the topic of the article is concerned with Dingle's problems with special relativity. In his 1978 Wireless World article on special relativity, Dingle makes the point that if SR is a measurement based "theory of physics, not of metaphysics" then it is surplus to requirements because we have the FitzGerald-Lorentz theory. Name ONE thing special relativity predicts correctly! Nothing. Everything mathematical it produces which has been properly checked is either (1) wrong, (2) not even wrong, or (3) a plagarism of FitzGerald, Lorentz contraction, Larmor's time-dilation, Poincare, etc. He was objective.

My suggestion is that that a summary of Dingle's argument be inserted in the article. Dingle pointed out all the hype of special relativity and asked what it achieved apart from attempting to stop people thinking about physical dynamics, by imposing metaphysics. Nigel 172.203.34.221 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, from a quick look at your edits I have the impression that you don't know the basic policies of Wikipedia. They are WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make yourself a Wikipedia editor, you will (or should) be automatically informed about these policies and you will receive some editing aids as well.

I any case, please read these policies carefully and try to apply them to your edits. Harald88 11:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald, the article was anti-Wiki POV policies before my edits, because it claimed that Dingle had been disproved by the 1971 clocks experiment which proves that the first postulate of special relativity is false. I've restored it to a neutral point of view, by keeping it to checkable facts. Nigel 172.203.34.221 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, writing should be at least as neutral and source-based as the standard set by for example BBC journalists. Even more: it should be able to stand criticism by those who have an opinion that opposes yours.

For a start, I'll put a note next to some unsourced factual claims to put your attenton to them and I'll also add corresponding banners. In particular:

- the claim (whose claim?!) that Dingle was "right" based on the correctness of asymmetrical time dilation seems to contradict the preceding section;

- much of the article is not at all about Dingle, and therefore doesn't belong in it.

Cheers, Harald88 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald, there aren't any opinions involved when you stick to the facts. If there is any contrary evidence, such as evidence that the clocks experiment discredited Dingle, what is it? It doesn't exist. Dingle's life was focussed on the first postulate of SR, so the article isn't off topic. Builder's article should be online somewhere. In any case, it is a peer-reviewed paper which forms the basis for Hafele's experiment and totally discredit's Paul Davies' claim that the Hafele experiment proves that Dingle was wrong. Nigel 172.209.84.241 12:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To start with, Builder's paper disagrees with the statement (apparently your wording) that "Hafele's clock experiment discredits the first postulate of special relativity, instead of confirming it", but you forgot to mention that fact. It's even unclear whose opinion you cite there. And so on! Harald88 12:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald, G. Builder (1958),'Ether and Relativity', Australian Journal of Physics, v11, 1958, p279: ‘... we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks... does indeed compel us to recognise the causal significance of absolute velocities.’ (Emphasis added.)

Hence, Builder showed theoretically that the clock experiment discredits the 1st postulate of relativity (no preferred reference frames, no absolute velocities). Hafele experimentally confirmed Builder. Nigel 172.203.243.23 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, Builder did no such thing. As I told you, your "hence" is your own original research based on your interpretation of the first postulate (WP:NOR) that even doesn't stand verification (WP:V): Builder summarized that the causal significance of absolute velocites "is implied [..] even by the formulation of the restricted theory itself. [...] It is shown that [the ether hypothesis] is compatible with the restricted theory of relativity".

He does however give Dingle some credit in that paper while in an earlier paper he strongly criticized Dingle.

If you send me an email, I'll send you both his 1957 and 1958 papers (in PDF) so that you can read them.

Next week I plan to clean up whatever is POV, unsourced or unencyclopedic in this article.

Harald88 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald, I read one of the Builder papers some years ago, but thanks anyway for the kind offer. Regarding the first postulate, I've already quoted Einstein saying the opposite:

‘The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion ... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity... The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).' - Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916. Next, Einstein says it again (thanks to Dr Thomas Love for this quotation):

‘... the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But ... the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present.’ - Albert Einstein, Relativity, The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111. Next, Einstein says yet again (more credit to Dr Love):

‘... the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognise that the path of a ray of light ... must in general be curvilinear...’ - Albert Einstein, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114.

Regards your quotation from Builder, "is implied [..] even by the formulation of the restricted theory itself. [...] It is shown that [the ether hypothesis] is compatible with the restricted theory of relativity", you can see that the 1905 first postulate of special relativity is wrong. Einstein says so, Builder's analysis confirms it, and Hafele experimentally delivers the goods. I've quoted the absolute reference frames equivalence of the first postulate which is wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of rewriting Einstein's early papers on special relativity to eliminate error, and then use that fudge to ridicule Dingle? That's what Davies does in the quote I inserted. Please explain exactly what the problem you see is, if you have one. I don't see it. Nigel 172.201.182.113 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple really: Builder explains why he deems an absolute reference frame to be a logical consequence of special relativity, which happens to include the first postulate. It is therefore a misrepresentation to allege that according to Builder "the restricted theory", as he called it, is wrong - quite to the contrary, he argues that it is correct. Effectively you are "correcting" Builder. Probably you would do the same with Newton.

And, as you know, that is only one point of several that I marked for correction.

Harald88 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I'm not correcting Builder but using his argument against the original 1st postulate of SR. You and I know that Einstein repudiated his original version of SR, but in a somewhat sneaky manner, not unmixed with bluster, and made believe that he knew all about it when he was a small boy. But the average person reading Wikipedia is not aware anything is amiss between the conventionally taught SR postulate 1 (which is the 1905 denial of absolute frames of reference) and the corrections Einstein made later, and which Builder demonstrated necessary in theory (validated experimentally by Hafele). The average reader has the right to know the facts. Builder is right so I'm not saying let's correct him! Nigel 172.203.246.116 09:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, once more: please provide a precise citation of Builder argumenting against what he calls (or you?) the "original 1st postulate of SR". Harald88 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Harald, we're going around in circles now. For the final time:

‘... we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks... does indeed compel us to recognise the causal significance of absolute velocities.’ - G. Builder (1958),'Ether and Relativity', Australian Journal of Physics, v11, 1958, p279.

Indeed, as I tried to make clear to you: he did not attack the first postulate but instead stressed that there is no incompatibility between SRT and absolute velocities. BTW that's nothing new: it was the same in Newton's theory.

Thus I'll correct those unsupported claims. Harald88 07:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I never said Builder attacked the first postulate, just that he validated Einstein's suppressed discovery that STR is compatible with absolute velocities! Why can't you understand the point. This is an article about Dingle not about Builder who comes into the picture as supporting the specific claim Dingle made that STR is an aether theory (see also [11] unless it is deleted by the time you read this!). Best, Nigel 172.141.25.247 09:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I never saw such a claim about "Einstein's suppressed discovery", and the error in the article is not reproduced with your statement here. Apart of thart, indeed this is an article about Dingle and not about Builder or Einstein, Essen or Andersen. Harald88 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, stop asking him for more 'evidence' from other people, then! There is quite enough evidence from others quoted in the article as it is! Also, don't revert my edit without discussing with me first. If you have any specific problems with sources, let me know and I'll get them in PDF format and email them to you if needed. Thanks. Photocopier 08:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I already discussed it more than could be reasonably expected of me. Much of your writing is in direct violation of WP:NOR and WP:V as well as WP:NPOV as I tried to explain, without repeating everything that's written on those pages. Harald88 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald: STOP VIOLATING THE WIKI POV POLICY! The references above are peer-reviewed and are mainstream. You clearly do not understand general relativity, which is not special relativity. Special relativity is wrong because there is no uniform motion in this universe due to mass. This is mainstream physics. Now please stop VANDALISING this article and BREAKING WIKI POV rules. Photocopier 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, your statement that "Special relativity is wrong [...] This is mainstream physics" says it all...Harald88 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I thought that Nigel and photocopier are the same person. However, from the difference in courtesy as well as in writing style, I think that they are really two different persons. My excuses to Nigel. Harald88 18:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not the place for anti-relativists essays

If you think you can show that SRT is wrong, convince the scientific community first, then come back to Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh... Read the facts above! THIS IS PRO-RELATIVITY as stated!!!! Dooooo! 172.188.197.109 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi: general relativity is well known to disprove special relativity, see section above for MAINSTREAM view, and STOP VANDALISING MY WORK IN EDITING THIS ARTICLE. Do not assert your own non-mainstream POV, you go away and find one person who is not a crackpot to support you. As proved above, Einstein supports this edit. Also, discuss proposed changes before reverting them. I suggest you do a post-doc in applications of general relativity as I have before making such as fool of yourself. Photocopier 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this edit of yours at this time because unlike you, I PLAY BY FAIR and discuss all proposed changes here first. You should do too. I'm sich of reading rubbish from you and seeing this sort of abuse of other users and want you to be banned as a Wiki editor, but I'll give you time to respond first to see if you are just going to behave foolishly again, or are going to apologise and revert your edit yourself. Attacking Dingle personally when he is mainstream general relativity is disgraceful! ;-) Photocopier 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You even may be right, but this is of no concern regarding Wikipedia. Reliable sources say otherwise, and so your essay has to stay out.

If you want to try to convince me that I erred here, please give a summary style statement list for the things you want to add, so that it is easier to assess them.

Pjacobi 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See above... I have nothing to add! Harald88 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi: you say "Reliable sources say otherwise...", you mean UNRELIABLE sources! You say "your essay has to stay out", where you mean that the facts discovered by Einstein et al regarding general relativity, not some contributor here, must be edited out. I thought Einstein was considered reliable as regards "special relativity" and "general relativity"? Name your "reliable sources" for a start. Stop vandalising this encyclopedia immediately. 172.201.106.146 11:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter, had you read the above discussion, you'd know that the main problem is the neutral and correct rendering of what sources state.

Regards, Harald88 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

P Jacobi says that if we think that Einstein's Special theory of Relativity is wrong, then we should convince the scientific community first. But what happens if the scientific community are fools? It would seem to me that they are fools, because SRT tells us that two clocks moving apart would both go slower than each other, and the scientific community believe this. That in my mind proves that the scientific community are fools. So why should we have to convince a bunch of fools that a ridiculous theory is false, before we are allowed to publish the truth? P Jacobi talks about 'reliable sources'. I wouldn't rely on these sources if they are telling us that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.93.192.106 (talk • contribs) 03:34, October 22, 2006.

As it happens, above I pointed out that (among other things) you (assuming that you're the same one) relied on a source that claims that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is both correct and compatible with a certain interpretation, to claim that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is not correct. I also indicated that such original use of sources is not allowed as explained in WP:NOR. And now you declare your own promoted source "not reliable" because you disagree with it? -> that is another unallowed editors approach, see WP:V. Harald88 07:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is becuase of most people who would call that physics community "fools" turn out to be quite mistaken that WP:CITE and WP:NPOV (which are the basis of Pjacobi's request) are stricly enforced policies here. Wikipedia exists to document human knowledge as it is, not as someone woudl like it to be. Human knowledge is that special relativity (SR) is correct, and that general relativity does not so much disprove SR as is turns it SR into a limiting case of the more general theory. In fact, SR holding true on small scales or in the absense of gravitation is one of the cornerstones of general relativity. --EMS | Talk 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, SR holding true on small scales or in the absense of gravitation is one of the cornerstones of general relativity." - WRONG because GR actually breaks down on small scales (ever heard of the reasons why quantum gravity are needed because quantum effects become BIG on small scales?) and there is no way of getting away from mass in the universe. Einstein is quoted above saying the 1st postulate of SR is not valid in curved spacetime, and we live in a universe where there is always curvature. Perhaps there is a parallel universe made without mass/energy residing perhaps inside your head, where SR applies perfectly. But that is not mainstream physics, which replaces SR's lie with GR's general covariance and is replacing GR with quantum gravity because GR fails on small scales where quantum effects become (1) overwhelming and (2) even more anti-SR (Dirac sea aether doesn't obey SR postulate 1 because observers in different motion see a different state of the Dirac sea, etc, see [12]). 172.201.49.106 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

@Photocopier: The case that the scientific community consists of fools is not a question to handly by an encyclopedia project. An encyclopedia documents establisged knowledge. --Pjacobi 08:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi: stop being so patronising! The established knowledge in physics is not bad obsolete understanding and obsolete emotions. Einstein replaced 1st postulate of special relativity with general covariance, Dirac replaced special relativity (which forms a Hamiltonian with inconsistencies when plugged into Schroedinger's equation) with a modification (see Dirac sea) which changes Einstein's E = mc² to a completely different :E = ± mc² which can only be interpreted with an aether or Dirac sea. The whole of modern physics is based not on horsesh*t of Mr Einstein and his wonderful SR, but upon later developments stemming from 1915 and 1929 by Dr Einstein and by Dr Dirac, which are really remarkable theories. An encyclopedia edited by moronic crackpots like EMS who above says GR applies on small scales, where even the most simple minded fool knows that quantum effects become important on small scales, is a failure of an encyclopedia, a disgrace to physics and humanity, and is not covering up scientific folly but is enforcing it. You have already claimed falsely that the facts on relativity are an attack on SR, when it isn't - facts don't attack people. Scientific facts are well established and the sources have been cited on this page. If you have a specific dispute over the established facts then raise it. But don't falsely claim that the established knowledge here is not established. Thanks! I'll revert your edit in a couple of days if you don't, just to give you time to do it yourself if you prefer to act honourably. Photocopier 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Herbert Dingle, not quantum gravity. Also please note that even quantum gravity expects SR and GR to hold at macroscopic (and even most microscopic) scales. --EMS | Talk 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

EMS; since you are so keen to stick to Dingle, why did you claim falsely that GR applies on small scales which is such a lie due to quantum phenomena becoming important on small scales? GR is a classical field theory! Go back to school and learn how to behave without being patronising and also where GR is valid if you want to continue editing Wiki, please. I don't like your lies, abuse, and patronising attitude, which have no place on Wikipedia. Do I make myself clear? Photocopier 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You have made yourself quite clear. I will cease to argue with you, but I also will 100% oppose any attempt to revert this article to your prefered state. --EMS | Talk 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not my preferred state (I never knew Dingle), but is the mainstream fact of general relativity (which you apparently don't like as I note from your own page). General relativity is well known to be an absolute motion theory because it includes accelerations which are not relative (if you are put in a box and rotated, you detect absolute motion of acceleration, which is not relative). General relativity is wrong because it is a classical field theory, which needs to be replaced by a quantum gravity urgently. But you should not use your preferred ideas to oppose the insertion of mainstream physics facts into an article about Dingle, when those facts show Dingle to be at least partly correct. Photocopier 12:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You really don't understand general relativity (GR) if you call it an "absolute motion" theory. The busines of being in a box which is rotated applies in special relativity (SR) just the same as GR. In fact, GR by its identification of geodesics as inertia instead of maintaining Newton's view of intertia as continuing "in the same direction" is much less absolute than SR is. I do indeed have issues with GR, but those are at the detail level. My theory accepts the end results of Einstein's math and then sends it through one more step. So my starting point is GR as it is understood in the mainstream scientific community! BTW - It is known that the inability to reconcile GR and QM is trouble for GR, but that does not make GR any less sucessful a theory (as it does conform to observation and recently passed it most stringent test ever in the vicinity of a binary pulsar). So it is your assertions that relativity is invalid that are not mainstream. In fact, due to the correspondence principle any valid quantum gravity theory must become identical to GR at atomic and macroscopic scales. --EMS | Talk 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Newtonian ideas"?

Some time ago I read the whole (unconcluded) debate between Dingle and McCrea, but I don't recall talk about "Newtonian ideas", nor do I remember reading the claim by one of his critics that such ideas are invalid. Thus I challenge the editor who put that there to back it up -or someone else who knows. Harald88 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Hello. I'm a graduate student in physics, and I couldn't help noticing this page, or the people trying to claim that Herbert Dingle had a point when he most definitely did not. I thought it was especially atrocious to include a specific reference to a perceived problem in general relativity at the end of the article. While it is true that this specific issue Dingle brought up is not addressed in the paper at the end of the article, the article makes it flagrantly clear that he did not understand Special Relativity in any depth. General relativity is a tricky subject. It is self-consistent and consistent with experiments we have performed to test it (and it performs better than other proposed theories), but explaining the subtle ins and outs in a complex case like a clock on the surface of the Earth (the Earth is rotating, and has a gravitational field) is well beyond any reasonable scope for this particular article. This is why I reverted the edits that included this sizable chunk of material. Dingle's misconceptions in this area should have no precendence over his other misconceptions at much more fundamental levels.

Incidentally, I know for a fact that the issues with clocks on the surface of the Earth have been resolved (against Dingle), but I don't know references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.106.74 (talk • contribs) 13:29, February 22, 2007.

See Hafele-Keating experiment and Pound-Rebka experiment. --EMS | Talk 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the theoretical "contradictions" he claimed are actually well-understood and not contradictions at all. The experimental data is all in favor of General Relativity, of course. If it wasn't, we would have moved on to something else by now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.106.74 (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC).