Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

STOP PRESS - Herbert Dingle Vindicated by Wikipedia!!!

Look at the Wikipedia entry on Time Dilation, specifically the paragraph headed: "Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers".

This was exactly the point that Herbert Dingle was trying to make, and exactly what McCrea, amongst many others, refused to acknowledge.
Einstein's SRT paper of 1905 asserts that time dilation is ASYMMETRIC between two inertial observers.
If we can use Wikipedia as a reliable reference source:-) then Herbert Dingle was right all along.
It would be nice to see this added to his Wiki page. Let's see how long it takes.
BTW: I think HD himself might have enjoyed this inconsistency in Wikipedia:-)
(swanzsteve 213.107.15.23 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC))


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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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).


This comment expresses a common misconception. In his 1905 paper Einstein mistakenly asserted that time dilation would be asymetrical, which contradicted his statement about length contraction, which he claimed was symmetrical. He corrected this in his 1907 paper, where he said "apparent" time dilation would be symmetrical, (or at least implied it) because he deleted the previous language that said it was asymmetrical. Therefore it is possible to claim he supported both conclusions. He seemes to have waffled on this point for years. Therefore it is possible to find supporting statements that Einstein asserted both asymmetrical and symmetrical time dilation. Because of this, it is impossible for Einstein to be wrong, but does it make it possible for him to be right? He basically takes both sides of the argument and the resulting confusion is amazing. Dingle was not the first to point out the mistake, but he is the most well known critic, and he was the first to give a physical argument that symmetrical "real" time dilation, not "apparent" time dilation, was impossible within the special theory of relativity. Dingle was apparently refuted by claims that Einstein asserted that time dilation was asymmetrical. But since Einstein asserted both at different places and times, he really should not be credited with a correct statement about it. It is clear that the asymmetrical time dilation claim is inconsistent with the principle of relativity and the mathematical formalism of Minkowski. Hence Einstein's asymmetrical time claim must be considered invalid, because it is contradicted by his symmetrical length contraction claim given in the same 1905 paper. He was consistent in claiming that length contraction was symetrical, but inconsistent in his claims about time dilation.71.251.186.95 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of spam links.

An anon keeps adding all or part of this set of links:

These links are to a set of unpublished essays which obviously have had little impact on the scientific community. As such they violate WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:SCI. In addition, since they represent a strong "Dingle was correct" which is only held by an extremely limited minority these days, the inclusion of those links violates WP:NPOV. Overall, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --EMS | Talk 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is simply your opinion. And you are violating the policy by imposing your biased opinion upon the readers of this article. You are suppressing access to the truth, because you falsely beleive that the sceintific community agrees with your opinion. Please submit proof that the scientific community agrees with your opinion, and before you do this return the links. There is no proof that Dingle was wrong, since that is simply an indiviual opinion, and as such has no place in science. This article lacks objective focus, is biased, and therefore is in violation of the policy. Please correct this by returning the links to the previous location on the page. Electrodynamicist 11:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a provider of truth! Instead the purpose of Wikipedia is to document existing human knowledge. If you want proof that the scientific community (and especially the physics community) is united in favor of relativity, just see the the references for special relativity and general relativity, including those in general relativity resources. Even the references given here provide adequate evidence that Dingle is generally considered to be wrong.
As for there being "no proof that Dingle was wrong", please see the USENET Relativity FAQ experiments page. Maybe you don't care to accept the evidence that Dingle was not correct, but plenty of it exists. Overall, the burden of proof is very much on you and not myself and the others. More importantly, what is needed from you is evidence that there is substantial support for Dingle's positions in the scientific community instead of enthusiasm for a very small fringe group. Otherwise I stand by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, which says in part:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
--EMS | Talk 16:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we have the proof that a minority are using Wikipedia to advance their false and erronous opinions. What more is needed to show they are biased?

EMS Your opinion that experiment proves that Dingle is wrong is a common misconception which reveals that you have not the slightest inkling of understanding the issue which you are discussing. Dingle never denied time dilation. You need to get the facts. What he said was that there is an inconsistency in the mathematical formalism that produced mathematical contradictions and that therefore the mathematical formalism must be in error. Your failure to understand this basic point of the discussion disqualifies your opinion. Experimental evidence has nothing to do with the correctness of the mathematics. Dont you get that basic fact? What this demonstrates is that the editors dont have a clue about what they are doing.Electrodynamicist 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a point there, but then I refer you to "Space and Time" by Hermann Minkowski, which may be found in the book The Principle of Relativity. This is the article that first established the self-consistency of relativity. You also should see the anti-Dingle citations listed in this article. Just realize that IMO it is you who are part of "a minority are [trying to use] Wikipedia to advance their false and erronous opinions." Even so, if yours was not an extremely limited minority I would feel obliged to permit that. --EMS | Talk 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to read and understand the history of relativity. That could be rectified by reading the links which you removed. What Dingle said is that the claim by Einstein in his 1905 paper is inconsistent with the mathematical formalism of Minkowski. Now since Minkowski did his work after Einstein's 1905 paper that paper was contradicted by Minkowski's work. To fix the contradiction, Einstein corrected his time dilation predictions in his 1907 paper On The relativity Principle And The Conclusions Drawn From It. Probably based on comments from Minkowski. Anyway, the correction in 1907 removed the famous statements which are the basis for the arguments. However, not many people paid attention to this change in the theory, and it caused confusion, which is the reason for this disagreement here. The error that the 1905 paper contradicts the later mathematical formalism of Minkowski was pointed out before Dingle revived it. Dingle however was more persistent in pointing out that the problem remained unsolved, but he was ignored and vilified to suppress his view. The contradiction still exists, because of the mistake in the 1905 paper. Now Einstein tried to fix this problem by asserting that it was a valid prediction of general relativity in a paper published in 1918 as a response to critics who had pointed out the error. But the general relativity solution has not been viewed as successful in resolving the contradiction. Essentially, the statements in the 1905 paper are a mistake that has not been corrected even though the 1907 paper deleted them. Electrodynamicist 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of hand-waving but neither math nor references to back up your allegations. At the least I need to know what article represented a "change in theory" and why you think it removed the twin "paradox" issue. I am familiar with the "GR" solution, but I see it as
  1. effectively hitting a fly with a sledge hammer and
  2. not really using GR at all, since spacetime curvature is not a part of the argument.
(IMO, gravitational time dilation appears just fine is SR and the twin paradox situation as it is viewed by the traveling twin is dealt with just fine as a pure SR problem.)
I guess that the bottom line is that I am happy with SR and with a Minkowski spacetime as it is viewed by an accelerating observer. I certainly see no theoretical contradiction betweem the accelerated and inertial viewpoints, but instead a change of situation from the interial one that Einstein dealt with exclusively in the 1905 article to an accelerated viewpoint that only makles sense in the context of SR theory as it was presented in the 1905 article. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dingle and McCrea

Mr. Shuba, this is an article about Professor Herbert Dingle who is most famous for having challenged Einstein's special theory of relativity. The fact that Professor McCrea disagreed with Dingle has already been mentioned in the article. There is no need for further opinionated assertions claiming that McCrea was correct. The argument in the Nature magazine in 1962 is available for all to read. Anybody reading this wikipedia article who is interested in the controversy will go and read that Nature article and make up their own minds.

It is totally over the top to have statements of support for McCrea stamped over this article. Obviously you support McCrea. But I know many people who support Dingle.

Leave the matter open for the readers to decide. (217.44.98.235 10:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Here are my suggestions, anonymous:
(1) Sign up for an account so I don't have to call you anonymous
(2) Be bold, and make the corrective edits you believe are necessary - make sure to include authoritative references, please!
(3) Important: Make sure to read and absorb the following warning which is printed below the edit box:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
(4) Also Important: Make sure to read and absorb this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Regards, Alfred Centauri 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

leave Article Alone Now

The article as it presently stands is clearly inadaquate and in need of improvement. But much of the false and incorrect opinion has been removed so as to make it neutral in viewpoint. Therefore it should be left alone. However, it would be desirable to make it much better if the problem of bias and misinformation can be solved.71.251.178.128 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions, anonymous:
(1) Sign up for an account so I don't have to call you anonymous
(2) Be bold, and make the corrective edits you believe are necessary - make sure to include authoritative references, please!
(3) Important: Make sure to read and absorb the following warning which is printed below the edit box:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
(4) Also Important: Make sure to read and absorb this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Regards, Alfred Centauri 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The editors have ignored this request and returned the article to its previous biased state and then locked the page. This is not how readers expect the editors of a preputable encyclopaedia to behave. Shame on you editors. The conclusion is that Wikipedia supports the perpetuation of bias, distortion, and false information.

Ingorance Now Cast In Concrete

Why has this article been locked? Is it because the editors think that false information is better than objectivity and truth? Wikipedia has a widespread reputation for false information, is this how it is to be maintined that way? The article should have been left alone when it had no bias and did not present false views.

Here are my suggestions, anonymous:
(1) Sign up for an account so I don't have to call you anonymous
(2) Be bold, and make the corrective edits you believe are necessary - make sure to include authoritative references, please!
(3) Important: Make sure to read and absorb the following warning which is printed below the edit box:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
(4) Also Important: Make sure to read and absorb this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Regards, Alfred Centauri 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Locking of the Article

Mr. Wwoods, you reverted my edits and then locked the article. I removed the opinion bit which was against wikipedia policy. Somebody had expressed their opinion, that in the argument between Dingle and McCrea, that Dingle was wrong.

Many people think that Dingle was right. So why are you supporting the opinion that Dingle was wrong and then locking the article?

Dingle pointed out the fact that we can't have two clocks both going slower than each other.

And you are supporting people who think that Dingle was wrong? You obviously then think that we can have two clocks both going slower than each other.

I would think more carefully in future before jumping in to support the likes of Tim Shuba.

Leave the facts alone and let the readers decide. The facts are that Dingle pointed out a paradox in Einstein's theory and that McCrea didn't agree with Dingle that it was a paradox. We don't need people butting in to say that McCrea was right. (217.44.98.235 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Also Mr. Wwoods, was it not a little bit too presumptious of you to state that those who were disagreeing with Tim Shuba must necessarily be vandals. Is Tim Shuba some kind of sage who you automatically assume to be correct without checking up on the facts? Why did you support Tim Shuba's position over mine without first discussing it?

The wikipedia is beginning to look like a total farce. (217.44.98.235 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Here are my suggestions, anonymous:
(1) Sign up for an account so I don't have to call you anonymous
(2) Be bold, and make the corrective edits you believe are necessary - make sure to include authoritative references, please!
(3) Important: Make sure to read and absorb the following warning which is printed below the edit box:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
(4) Also Important: Make sure to read and absorb this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Regards, Alfred Centauri 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vilification

Late in life — and posthumously on the Internet — Dingle was vilified and misrepresented by his opponents, often trivially e.g. the claim that he suffered from dementia.

This is kind of weasel-wordy. Who made what claims, and how are they false? All these things need sources. There should also be a source as to why the mistaken claim of death is "more important." And that whole second part of the paragraph is horribly written, and needs to be cleaned up.--Starwed 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the trivial vilification aimed at dingle, which this article seems to disagree with whole-heartedly, is contained in one of the two references cited to 'disprove' dingle, the mathpages article. The mathpages article itself has no sources and consists of a short, dismissive and, in my view (but that doesn't matter :)), unsatisfactory rebuttal of dingle's argument followed by a nine paragraph diatribe culminating in the unsubstantiated claim that he had dementia! "Could there have been some psychological connection between the death of Einstein and the onset of Dingle’s dementia, or was this just coincidental?" Excellent, unbiased encyclopedic sourcing! The fact that this page has been locked is shocking; demonstrating the POV of the locker and what dingle was battling against all through his later life. I agree that this page is not a forum for discussing the SRT but a document on dingle's life, therefore it seems unnecessary to include any mention of who was 'right' in the dingle-mcrea dispute, since there is no consensus on who was right, and so, by definition, including it in the article demonstrates POV. The clock paradox may not be at the forefront of the physics world at the moment, but it is not a dead issue as some editors of this page would have us believe, see: http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html for a feb 2007 claim to have solved it by an LSU professor. The article describes the paradox as "one of the most enduring puzzles of modern-day physics", so apparently we aren't just crackpots on wikipedia!

I think that the last paragraph which you refer to was a mistake by the editors, because they failed to remove it before locking the page. It reflects the fact that Dingle has been vilified unfairly, and I dont think the editors would agree with that. They think he was fairly vilified.

Please learn the difference between a scholarly article and a press release before attempting to edit any more scientific pages. --Starwed 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph I refer to above; a section about how he is viewed by various groups might be worthwhile, but the current state of it was just a mess. While I was at it, I removed an irrelevant portion about how SR was conclusively proved; unless Dingle responded to that specifically, it doesn't really have anything to do with him. --Starwed 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the part that says 'Dingles errors are well understood" and the references since that is bias and false information. It asserts a conclusion.Electrodynamicist 14:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Alfred Centauri, What kind of references are you looking for to show that stating that McCrea was right is an opinion? Wikipedia is a total farce. (217.44.98.235 11:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

The Apalling Attitude of Editor Wwoods

Wwoods is a wikipedia editor with blocking powers who balatantly breaks wikipedia's rules. Wwoods openly admits that he supports McCrea and he openly declares that McCrea's opinion is the one which should be promoted on this article. He swiftly censors any attempts to neutralize the article.

Wwoods only tolerates this article on the basis that it is made quite clear that we should all be thinking that Dingle was wrong.

Wwoods points to the fact that references exist which clearly point out Dingle's errors. I doubt very much if Wwoods remotely understands these arguments but nevertheless he is determined to make sure that everybody thinks that Dingle is wrong.

Wwoods doesn't even try to defend himself. Wwoods simply locks the article, and goes away leaving a note to say that he is trying to prevent vanadalism. By the term 'vandalism' Wwoods is referring to attempts to neutralize the article.

Wwoods is in fact the greatest vandal of all working under full cover of a responsible senior wikipedia editor. (217.44.98.235 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Anonymous is objectively in violation of WP:CIVIL and Behavior that is unacceptable. Anonymous owes Wwoods an apology. Alfred Centauri 12:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
An edit war was going on between several editors and an anonymous person (or possibly more than one, though I doubt it). I didn't lock the article, just reverted it to the version favored by the established editors and semi-protected it. If Anon wants to participate, he should get an identity.
I don't recall saying anything about McCrea's opinion, and the last time I touched this article was last December.
If you really think there's a flaw in relativity, why are you wasting your time on Wikipedia? Get yourself published in peer-reviewed journals and collect your Nobel Prize.
—wwoods 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wwoods, You seem to be pretty naive regarding the issue of publishing anti-relativity stuff in peer reviewed journals. You ought to read a book entitled 'Science at the Crossroads' (1972) by a Professor Herbert Dingle. It explains the difficulties and resistances that are involved in trying to dispute this theory with modern physicists.

I actually read the argument between Dingle and MCrea in the 1962 Nature magazine. I could clearly see that Dingle was saying that it is impossible to have two clocks both going slower than each other. McCrea, in my opinion, was being deliberately thran and buck stupid and refusing to admit to this most fundamental of realizations.

That of course is my opinion. You obviously have your opinion too, and your opinion is stated in the article.

Can we not please remove the line that says 'Dingle's errors are well known' and leave the readers to make up their own minds on the Dingle v. McCrea dispute?

I'll bet that you didn't understand what McCrea was saying at all. (217.44.98.235 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

More Strange Biased Actions By Editors

I see that the vilification paragraph has now been removed but the article is still locked. This prevents me from removing anti-Dingle bias and false information contained in the references and links. I see a reference to a Frank Crawford letter remains. That is a reflection of the continued bias of the editors.Electrodynamicist 14:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki and I am still scratching my own head about whether to restore all or part of the deleted text. (The editor doing the removal made good points in the edit summary, although I am temped to at least restore the SR confirmation paragraph.) Beyond that, I cannot help but note that those who complain most loudly about bias are often quite biased themselves. --EMS | Talk 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UT
I don't believe that the SR paragraph belongs, unless it had a substantial impact on Dingle's life or opinions about him (in which case this should be mentioned.) It's already stated that mainstream physicists consider the "twin paradox" a resolved nonissue, I don't think details in support of this belong on the page. (Remember that this experiment confirmed what was already widely accepted.)
See above for my comments on the vilification paragraph. --Starwed 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)