User talk:Swanzsteve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Herbert Dingle article

First, glad to see you now have a username. It's hard to tell people apart when there are several IP names at one time. You may wish to put something (anything will do) on your user page, and then the links to your name will appear in blue instead of red.

Due to the high noise to signal ratio on the Dingle talk page at the present time, I'll say a few things here. To your question "is time dilation under inertial motion symmetric or asymmetric?", the answer is that it is symmetric, with the caveat that the question isn't very precisely phrased, though I think I know what is being asked. It is true that \left( \frac{ \partial t'}{\partial t} \right)_x = \left( \frac{ \partial t}{\partial t'} \right)_{x'} to use the phrasing in the detested mathpages article. However, it doesn't follow that special relativity is inconsistent due to that reciprocity. Dingle was in error on that last point (as per vast majority of physicists and per my own understanding of special relativity, linear algebra and group theory). How exactly that fits into the historical debates between Dingle and McCrea, I can't say, because I haven't read them. It's silly that some have labeled this an issue of editors taking sides between Dingle and McCrea, as the article is about Dingle. His claim is clearly wrong. Anyway, enough about that; I don't intend to get into a drawn-out debate.

Yes, there are plenty of details of Dingle's life that should be included in the article. Some of the current wording should also be changed. I agree that the sentence talking about the "commonsense" method is totally unclear. Even the statement that the Dingle-McCrea debates are well-known isn't entirely accurate either, but I couldn't think of a quick way to improve it in my last edit.

Happy editing and try not to take any of it too seriously. Tim Shuba 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My reply [edit] Herbert Dingle Article Tim,

Thanks for your reply

The question "is time dilation under inertial motion symmetric or asymmetric?", seems pretty straightforward to me, I have taken the wording more or less directly from the wiki article on time dilation, what is it you dont understand? The exact wording there is: "Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers", would you prefer that wording?

Unfortunately, I cant find any mention of the equation, you quote, in Einstein's 1905 paper, Dingles book, or McCrae's replies, so I don't how it is relevant. Do you have a reference for this equation so I can see where Dingle used it? However, since we are dealing with a logical inconsistency/contradiction, it cannot be answered by a mathematical proof or by experiment.

The exchange between Dingle and McCrae, should have been straightforward, except that Dingle made the mistake of answering the mathematical irrelevancies put forward by McCrae. In my experience, this is quite a common ploy with mathematicians in an attempt to win an argument. I cant recommend Dingles book as a good read, he does go on a bit, but it does give you an idea of how his argument was dismissed out-of-hand without actually being answered satisfactorily. I'm a bit surprised that you twice state that Dingle was wrong, and yet you havent read letters that passed between him and McCrae. Dingle was not a random crackpot who picked up Einsteins paper one day and decided he knew better, he wrote and collaborated on several textbooks on relativity and wrote the Encycopaedia Britannica section on the subject. He was clearly well respected in this area, over a long period of time. He even discussed it with Einstein, I believe. I would think the least you could do is read what he had to say.

In the meantime, let me summarise briefly, Einsteins paper of 1905 performs a calculation on a 'stationary' clock and a 'moving' clock, and produces the result that the 'moving' clock is ACTUALLY running slower than the 'stationary' clock. This is not just the appearance that it is running slower from the point of view of the 'stationary' clock, but actually showing an earlier time when they are brought together. Dingle's point was simply that, according to the postulate of relativity, either one of the clocks could be considered to 'stationary' and the other 'moving'. Then identical calculations could be performed with the clocks reversed, producing exactly the same result, but now it is the other clock that is running slow. Obviously they cant both be running slower than the other one. This is why I said that no mathematics need be used to disprove this, since before you do any calculating, you have to decide which clock you consider to be stationary and which moving. Einstein calculated the slowing of only one of the clocks but not the other with the roles reversed. Dingles question was simply, why did he pick only one of them? what distinguished this clock from the other? What also has to be borne in mind is that in the section of the paper on length contraction of moving rigid bodies, he stated that this particular effect was reciprocal!, I think you would have to agree that there is an inconsistency there. McCrea in his replies maintained that Einstein's 1905 paper was correct and that slowing of the clock was ACTUAL and asymmetrical, and produced large quantities of equations and spacetime diagrams, to show why the situation was asymmetrical. The current view as I have said before appears to be that the 'moving' clocks only appear to slow down when viewed from the 'stationary' system and that this effect is symmetric. A point, apparently, that Einstein conceded in a book in 1922, although I dont have a reference for this book. This last bit I find baffling, since Dingle didnt mention this book of Einsteins throughout the debate, it surely would have convinced McCrea. Anyhow, I would like to hear your views on this, and also get rid of the mathpages article which I hope you can now see is irrelevant and insulting. BTW do you know who wrote it?

Swanzsteve 05:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quick follow up to that equation you quoted from the mathpages, this is a quote from McCrea himself: "Dingle has not made any mistake in the algebra..." [W.H.McCrea in Nature, October 14, 1967, p.122] That doesnt really square with the mathpages, does it? Where did that equation come from?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim_Shuba"

The equation shows the symmetry of time dilation, and by the careful use of the variable held constant (x or x'), also shows why there is no contradiction due to a clock running "absolutely faster and slower" as is nonsensically claimed by some. The "moving clocks run slow" maxim is a great source of confusion for many, quite likely Dingle himself, from the quotes I've seen. There is an asymmetry in the paths of the clocks in the 'clock paradox' or 'twin paradox', but that is a different issue.
I recall that the mathpages author used the name Kevin Brown at some point. There were a couple of guesses as to who that might be, but it's a rather common name. Could be a pseudonym as well, I have no special information. It is certainly someone with a good grasp of mathematics and physics, and some knowledge about the histories of those subjects. Tim Shuba 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, This is the first time I have seen anyone claim that there is no contradiction in a clock ACTUALLY running both faster and slower at the same time, this is an incredible claim. It was certainly not said by ANYONE during Dingles life. I dont think that the mathpages article even makes this claim. Dingle certainly argued for the symmetry of time dilation, and that if it was symmetrical (in line with the first postulate), and it was an actual effect this would lead to the contradiction of a clock both running faster and slower than the other one. The current interpretation appears to be that both clocks only appear to run slow from the point of view of the other one. Dingle considered this option himself, and concluded that if this were the case, then the theory says nothing physical and was of little use in practice. I think you you should stop for a minute and consider what you have said there, and try to imagine the impossibilty of a clock running faster AND slower than the other clock. You say it is a nonsensical claim that this is a contradiction, I would say the opposite is true. In fact, if you can find ANY reliable reference source which makes this claim, then I will give up on this completely, but I dont think you will find such a source. I can only think that I have misunderstood your claim, in some way, please let me know if this is the case.

As to the mathpages equation, it clearly implies that Dingle has made some elementary error in his algebra, you say the author was "certainly someone with a good grasp of mathematics and physics", McCrea (head of the mathematics department at the Queen's University of Belfast.) as I said before, stated "Dingle has not made any mistake in the algebra...", this statement is from a reliable reference source (Nature) and as far as I know, has never been challenged. There is a serious discrepancy here, I think again you should provide a reliable reference source which confirms the mathpages claim that Dingle has made a mathematical error. Since this equation only appears on the mathpages, and is produced by someone with a clearly non-neutral point of view on Dingle, it should be removed.

As I have said before mathematics cannot be used to disprove a LOGICAL contradiction, you now appear to be taking a different approach and say that there is actually no contradiction in the physical impossibity of a clock running both faster AND slower than another clock. I look forward to your reply backing up this claim (Swanzsteve 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

My own comment may have been slightly ambiguous. I was trying to say that the claim that a clock runs "absolutely faster and slower" is nonsensical. There is no logical contradiction because the argument you keep repeating, perhaps influenced by Dingle's confusion, introduces a false premise. Your idea that a clock experiences an "actual physical change" of rate is not to be found in Einstein's writings and is in direct violation of relativity principle. Do you really think that Einstein was saying that by moving away from a clock, we can influence something intrinsic about the clock?
I can see no mention in the mathpages article about Dingle's algebra at all, just a concise explanation of Dingle's conceptual error in claiming a logical contradiction in special relativity. Tim Shuba 16:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I'm glad you cleared that up, I was beginning to think you had taken leave of your senses:-)

But I'm now a bit confused about your next statement:
"Your idea that a clock experiences an "actual physical change" of rate is not to be found in Einstein's writings"
That is not my idea, that is EXACTLY what Einstein says in his 1905 paper - read the bit about clock A moving to clock B.
you then say: "and is in direct violation of relativity principle" again this is correct and this was EXACTLY Dingle's point.
this next bit: "Do you really think that Einstein was saying that by moving away from a clock, we can influence something intrinsic about the clock?" - he didnt put it this way around, he said that when a clock moves it runs slower.

Throughout the Dingle/McCrea debate, they were talking about clocks actually, physically running slower (or faster), not just the appearance of them running slower(or faster).

Dingle wasnt confused about this point, but you appear to be.

your next statement: "I can see no mention in the mathpages article about Dingle's algebra at all, just a concise explanation of Dingle's conceptual error in claiming a logical contradiction in special relativity" - again I would have to disagree strongly with this, to quote from the mathpages:

"In a nutshell, Dingle considers two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' with a relative velocity of v, and then considers the partial derivative of t' with respect to t at constant x, and the partial derivative of t with respect to t' at constant x’. He notes that these partials are equal, and declares this to be logically inconsistent for any v other than 0. Needless to say, Dingle’s “reasoning” is incorrect, because partial derivatives cannot be algebraically inverted"......."Dingle's confusion is due to the fact that (like some befuddled freshman calculus students)........"
It is clearly saying that his reasoning is incorrect, because he didnt realise that " partial derivatives cannot be algebraically inverted", this then would be an algebraic error, wouldnt it? - I would repeat that McCrea, a considerably more distinguished mathematician, than the person who wrote the mathpages article, considered that "Dingle has not made any mistake in the algebra..." - I find it hard to believe that McCrea would not have pounced on such a 'freshman calculus students error' had this been the case. Apart from this, the argument used to discredit Dingle in the mathpages article has the look of a 'homebrewed' argument. If it has not been published elsewhere and peer-reviewed, it should not be included.

FYI - here is the relevant paragraph from SRT 1905 (available at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)

"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by ½tv²/c²(up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Note: the effect of acceleration is not considered, the clock retardation is supposedly caused, purely by the inertial motion.

Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the source of confusion is that you think the clock retardation predicted by Einstein is not a REAL effect.

Indeed, if this were not an "actual physical change of rate", as you put it, how could somebody try to measure it experimentally?

{Swanzsteve 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

A clock going from "stationary" to nonzero velocity v necessarily undergoes acceleration. There simply is no inconsistency between the clock paradox and time dilation. As for Dingle's algebra, I have yet to see it, but he likely didn't use partial derivatives in that particular argument.
Time dilation is a real effect in the sense that it's a measurable phenomenon, but it is a relationship between two inertial frames. It's similar to the Doppler effect in that regard. A clock happily ticks away at an unchanging rate of one tick per second as measured in whatever frame in which it happens to be momentarily at rest. Tim Shuba 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tim but this answers none of the points I raised. You are telling me that a change in velocity means there has been acceleration - WOW, hold the front page. There IS an inconsistency between the clock paradox and time dilation and SRT 1905. - you keep missing this point, you arent allowed to bring up the red herring of acceleration, McCrea never did, why should you? You havent seen Dingle's algebra, so presumably you havent even read the exchange between them in Nature, do you really think you can fault his algebra, when McCrea, one of the leading mathematicians of relativity of the day could not? The mathpages article example from Dingle merely shows that time dialation is symmetrical, something you have already acknowledged. It produces a contradiction when the time dilation is REAL not APPARENT. Dont you think you should do some background reading before getting involved in this debate. Your second paragraph, says nothing.

I can only assume you have no answers to the points I raised.

If you are unable to explain the clock paradox of SRT 1905, without invoking the effect of acceleration, then you have lost the argument, and have to accept that, in this particular case, Dingle was right.(Swanzsteve 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Here's a quote by Feynman, taken from here:

...if we have a set of "strange" ideas, such as that time goes slower when one moves, and so forth, whether we like them or not like them is an irrelevant question. The only relevant question is whether the ideas are consistent with what is found experimentally. In other words, the "strange ideas" need only agree with experiment, and the only reason that we have to discuss the behavior of clocks and so forth is to demonstrate that although the notion of time dilation is strange, it is CONSISTENT with the way we measure time.

This seems to get at the heart of your disagreement with SR. I'm not going to try to waste time teaching you physics, but I'd suggest that you're very emotionally attached to a particular position, and that you won't "see the light" until you're willing to self criticize and take an honest go at learning SR. --Starwed 10:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Feyman is saying that TIME DILATION is a strange idea, Who could argue with that? This is not a dispute about a STRANGE IDEA, this is about a LOGICAL CONTRADICTION, show me a Feynman quote that says a logical contradiction can be resolved by experiment. The last comment, you have backwards, you are the one with the closed mind, who thinks anyone who disagrees with him, just doesnt understand SR. Although its quite interesting that, you think, the reason you cannot answer Dingle's question is because _I_ dont understand SR. Dismissive comments, such as, these, just show that you are unable to resolve the contradiction. Stick to the point, resolve the contradiction of SYMMETRICAL and REAL time dilation, of two clocks/observers under uniform translatory motion, and I will bow to your superior knowledge. (Swanzsteve 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC))


I like to say something about the last paragraph of current article: ""Dingle carried on a highly public and contentious campaign to get this conclusion accepted by the scientific community, mostly through letters to the editors of various scientific periodicals, including Nature. Dozens of scientists responded with answers to Dingle's claims, explaining why the reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation does not entail any logical inconsistency[10], but Dingle rejected all the explanations.[11] This culminated in his 1972 book, Science at the Crossroads in which Dingle stated that "a proof that Einstein's special theory of relativity is false has been advanced; and ignored, evaded, suppressed and, indeed, treated in every possible way except that of answering it, by the whole scientific world". He also warned: "Since this theory is basic to practically all physical experiments, the consequences if it is false, modern atomic experiments being what they are, may be immeasurably calamitous."[12] The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded.[1][13][14][15]""

1. It will be nice to provide the main question asked by that book, Science at the Crossroads, in his preface: "Suppose clocks A and B move along the same straight line at uniform speeds differing by 161,000 miles a second: we call A 'stationary' and B 'moving', but that is merely nominal. At the instant at which B passes A both read noon. Then, according to special relativity, at the instants when B reads 1 and 2 o'clock, A reads 2 and 4 o'clock respectively. Of course, A is not at B to allow a direct comparison, but Einstein's theory is based on a particular process for finding a clock-reading for a distant event, and it demands these values. Einstein himself made just this calculation, but using general symbols instead of these numerical values, and concluded that since B recorded a smaller interval than A between the same events, it was working more slowly. But if he had similarly calculated the reading of B (still 'moving') for the readings 1 and 2 o'clock of A (still 'stationary') he would have got 2 and 4 o'clock respectively, and must have reached the opposite conclusion: he did not do this, so missed the contradiction."

2. Since Einstein allowed two clocks be actually running at different rate like in the Twin Paradox provided in Wikipedia: ""Einstein considered this to be a natural consequence of Special Relativity, not a paradox as some suggested, and in 1911, he restated and elaborated on this result in the following form: If we placed a living organism in a box ... one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations. For the moving organism the lengthy time of the journey was a mere instant, provided the motion took place with approximately the speed of light. (in Resnick and Halliday, 1992)"" That means Einstein's STR suggests two clocks actually run at different rate, not just the result of measurements. Then obviously Dr. Dingle's main question in that book is a very good question so that the current article will provide enough information regarding why Dr. Dingle fought so hard for the general public.

I think the new article is a lot better than the current one. :)

John C. Huang (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

You're definitely not being civil towards Tim Shuba. Please don't resort to insults and other incivility in the course of a debate. --Starwed 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you have this the wrong way round. You should have you sent this to your buddy two-faced tim. He insulted me and I merely insulted him back - seems reasonable to me. (Swanzsteve 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Talk:Herbert Dingle

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Herbert Dingle, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Corvus cornix 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off, or you will be reported for vandalism. I say this as a person who has no idea what the edit war is about. Corvus cornix 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Herbert Dingle, you will be blocked from editing. Corvus cornix 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clock experiment.

In talk:Herbert Dingle you wrote:

We do not know for example if an observer travelling with the muons would see our clocks running slow.

Please see Hafele-Keating experiment. In that experiment the slowing effect of the Earth's rotation on our clocks was detected. --EMS | Talk 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? I dont see how an experimental result involving rotational motion, is evidence in favour of a theory which deals only with inertial motion. Whats your point? ---Swanzsteve

The issue is time dilation with respect to an Earth-centered inertial reference frame. Rotational motion is time dilated under special relativity. The muon is not in rotational motion, and by showing that the movement of a ground-based clock (albeit as part of the Earth's rotation) slows its time down, evidence is gathered that the muon did see the Earth's clock run slow. --EMS | Talk 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like you made it up yourself, or can I read it in some reliable reference source? ---Swanzsteve 05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See Hafele-Keating_experiment#References, as well as the morerecent entries in Special_relativity#Textbooks and general relativity resources. --EMS | Talk 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of muons in regard to the round the world experiments, and your last reference is to GR - come on admit it, you just made it up:-). ---Swanzsteve 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your question about Einstein's 1918 paper

Hi indeed I have that paper and I also have an English translation of it (partly by myself but mostly by user:Cleonis). Note that also Dingle paraphrased a significant part of it.

As to your question about 'if the Einstein quote "There is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity.", actually appears in his 1918 paper': I don't think so (was that a real quote? By whom?). I quote from our translation:

"according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, [...] Therefore, [...] no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory."

Probably that was the passage that you referred to. It becomes more interesting with GRT:

"For according to this theory, coordinate systems in arbitrary states of motion are qualified, hence the proceedings described earlier can equally well be referred to the coordinate system K' that is continuously connected to U2, as to the system K."

Einstein attempted to achieve a general principle of relativity, while SRT only achieved the PoR for inertial frames.

Cheers, Harald88 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied more on my page. Note that it's clear to me that Dingle was interested in Einstein's general PoR, and indeed that is also what the Twin Paradox is about.
BTW: Chang stressed that Dingle occupied himself with such philosophical issues many years before he attacked special relativity.
Cheers, Harald88 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't delete relevant information but add to it where needed

Dear Swanzsteve, I noticed that in the Dingle article you deleted some basic information that was demanded and elaborately discussed on its Talk page. Since you are in possession of the sources, instead of deleting what you find not pleasing (effectively "whitewashing"), we suggest that you elaborate where needed, in order to help to unstub the article.

Thanks in advance! Harald88 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald - I have replied to this in the Herbert Dingle talk page - Swanzsteve 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed - apparently you didn't read the text that you deleted, since you claim that you also want that information included! Harald88 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald - I'm not sure which 'information' you mean, I left in the statement "The concensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfounded" - Swanzsteve 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disregard my Warning

My mistake. I saw a large amount of blanking and immediately assumed vandalism. I will revert to your last version.

Alexbrewer 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

It has become painfully obvious that you are the individual behind the Dr. Seaweed et al accounts. As such, you have been blocked indefinitely and are effectively banned from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong - I have sent you an email concerning this outrageous claim. Since you cannot possibly have any evidence for this accusation, I will expect to be unblocked in the near future. --Swanzsteve 00:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your activities as well as other behavioral evidence shows that you are the same person. Your only edits have been to that page, as have been the edits of all of the Dr. Seaweed types. I am awaiting checkuser evidence to confirm my suspicions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous, I am to be banned for only being interested in one page. I have been through the Dingle talk page to find the different sockpuppets, so far I have found these: Fagrah Sawdust, Brigadier Armstrong, Dr_ Seaweed, Hamset Jeejeeboy, Herbert Dingle, Nurse Hilditch, The Marmosets.

Seven different accounts! - where am I supposed to find the time to be all these people? All these peoples User pages have my name plastered across them, saying they are my sockpuppets and they are blocked indefinitely - If you were a newspaper you would be sued for libel. And now you are "awaiting checkuser evidence to confirm my suspicions", shouldnt you get some evidence first?

Their writing styles are not the same as mine, neither are the points they are making, nor the edits they make. Plus, some of these merely vandalised the page, my edits are an attempt to return it to NPOV and most of the recent edits are still on the page. Incidentally, most of the other editors on Dingle's page are as surprised as me, even though I disagree with most of them. I look forward to seeing your "evidence", since there cannot possibly be any evidence at all. - Swanzsteve 02:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryolung - I have just been looking at your user page, at the section "On Dr. Seaweed puppeteer". and it seems from there that you have labelled people as sockpuppets based on the fact that they have put brackets around their signatures. Is this your "evidence"? - Swanzsteve 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank "Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy" for pointing out the error made by Ryolung, but I fear that the powers-that-be will deduce that you are yet another one of my sockpuppets:-)

but thanks anyway - Swanzsteve 07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Sockpuppet Contradiction/Logical Inconsistency

Things are looking up:-) Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy has been banned but is not listed as my sockpuppet, and yet his previous incarnation "Hamset Jeejeeboy" is still listed as my sockpuppet. This gets stranger and stranger. --Swanzsteve 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely that you run any abusive sockpuppets, and I have unblocked you in line with this evidence. --Deskana (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that the opinion of a "two-faced bastard" (as I've so lovingly been portrayed by Dr. Seaweed above) probably matters, but I support the unblock as circumstantially it would appear that you (and at least one of the other accounts blocked as Dr. Seaweed socks for that matter) are actually a distinct individual separate from the good doctor. Beyond that I will simply say that if you are encountering issues on any particular article with content, your best bet is to follow the dispute resolution process.--Isotope23 talk 19:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for having assumed that you were the sockpuppeteer in this case, and I fully support the unblock based on the evidence at hand now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen, for a speedy resolution, Ryulong, in particular for an apology. All I would ask is that you announce this error/unblock on the Herbert Dingle Talk Page, in the same way you announced the block.

I'm pleased to see that the wiki checking procedures work - Swanzsteve 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You will no doubt notice that (just like Denveron) you are blocked for a day. This is because edit wars are annoying.

I have moved his draft version of the article to User:Denveron/Herbert Dingle (draft).

Once your blocks have expired, you and Denveron will STILL not be allowed to edit the article, until such time as you have reached an agreement by arguing on your use talk pages. Keep the drama out of the article.

If either of you tries to edit the article without having the other's agreement, I'll block you both.

Got it? DS 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DS - this is hardly fair, I have added relevant, properly-sourced NPOV quotes from the reputable peer-reviewed journal Nature, and from a published book, to the article, which were immediately reverted by Denveron, because they clash with his non-neutral POV. Why do I need the agreement of a nutcase to add content which is in line with Wiki policies? - Swanzsteve 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DS, I agree wholeheartedly with Swanzsteve. Denveron did the exact same to me. He deleted a web link which I inserted giving access to the Dingle debate with McCrea as recorded in Nature. That link also contained at the top a reference to Essen.
Essen's views are recorded in Nature and Denveron has got absolutely no right to delete them on the grounds of them being crackpottery. Clearly Denveron is trying to impose his anti-Dingle POV on this article whereas Swanzsteve seems to be battling in vain to keep it neutral. Arthur Spool 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - it was late and I acted in haste. Denveron most definitely IS blocked, for one minute longer than you are. The reason is that edit wars are annoying. This will give me, as a non-involved party, the chance to read through the article and figure out what the situation actually is. (Frankly, I'd never heard of Dingle before.) DS 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked 1 week

For edit warring at Herbert Dingle.--Isotope23 talk 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 - Once again, this is unfair. After being unblocked I did not edit the article, but waited to hear from DS. However, Denveron went straight in and reverted the very passage that caused the original block, a sourced quote, incidentally, from Nature, which he has no right to revert anyway. His action is clearly in contravention of the terms of the block, so I reverted it. Since he is the one who broke the rules, why am I being blocked? - Swanzsteve 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked because you are dealing with a team of 'Pontius Pilate' administrators. Surely you should see by now that you are totally wasting your time. You have attended a party where you are not welcome. The party is for young insecure boys who are still trying to prove themselves. They are trying to convince themselves that Einstein's theories are for real.
My advice to you is to walk away now. Your allies have all been permanently blocked. Let these children have their virtual game, because that's all it is. It is a virtual computer game. They believe that they are controlling the world machinery of knowledge. Let them believe it.
Walk away now otherwise you will perpetually torment yourself. This game is tailor made for the likes of Denveron and DVdm and all the sympathetic kindred spirit administrators. Tempus Krilly 09:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I responded to you via email, but please use the unblock template and another admin will review the block. I blocked both you and Denveron for continuing to edit war over the article. If you post that template, an uninvolved editor will review.
Pilate good Doctor? That is a new one. Usually I just get the old Godwin's Law analogies. Thanks for changing it up and going classic.--Isotope23 talk 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Isotope23, as you can see I'm still in red ink. Brand new username today and it's good to see that you have a sense of humour.

Student politicians have decided that Dingle is politically incorrect and so they are going to picket him.

On the one hand we have Swanzsteve wanting a dignified article about a dissident Professor who stood up against Einstein. He's quite willing that the article should reflect the fact that Dingle was swimming against the tide.

What seems to be annoying him is that fact that two students (Denveron and DVdm) want to stand in front of the article holding up placards claiming that Dingle was wrong.

That's what it's all about. The administrators need to ask themselves is it dignified to allow student pickets to stand in front of wiki pages.

How about if I start vandalizing the Eric Laithwaite pages by constantly inserting 'Laithwaite was wrong about the textbooks being wrong because the textbooks say that the textbooks are right'? Would I get the VIP treatment that is afforded to DVdm? Benzit Fingo 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an unblock request that was handled by an impersonator, User:Barnecaration, who was not authorized to accept or decline an unblock. To keep the flow of the discussion intact, I'm not erasing the conversation, but I am removing the unblock template, and Swanzsteve is not abusing the unblock template by reposting one below. --barneca (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) original unblock request: I was waiting for the decision of the admin (DS), The other person in the dispute ignored an Admin request not edit the Herbert Dingle page. I noticed that he had reverted the quote, without permission, so I put it back then complained to the administrator concerned. Whereupon I was blocked. I believe I acted properly, in returning the page to the previous version and reporting the action of the other editor, and as such I should not be blocked. original unblock decline: You were warned not to edit war and yet persisted for some time, this is your second block in under a week. A page can easily be reverted by a third party or admin if deemed necessary, you should have just notified the admin and let them handle it. As such this block is justified. — --barneca 05:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Please note: this was not me (barneca), but an impersonator, User:Barnecaration. To verify, please see the history of this page.

Barneca - you say: "You were warned not to edit war and yet persisted for some time", this is not true, after the request not to edit the page, I did not edit the page until it was vandalised. I made one change to revert it and notified the admin immediately. The previous block again was due to someone repeatedly reverting a sourced quote without discussion. - Swanzsteve 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The page was not vandalised, this was the same content dispute you had already been warned about. The proper course of action would have been to notify the admin and let them handle it, but instead you chose to continue your edit warring, and as such the block is justified. --barneca 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Please note: this was not me (barneca), but an impersonator, User:Barnecaration. To verify, please see the history of this page.

Hmmm, OK, I made a mistake in reverting it before contacting the admin, but it still hardly warrants the same length of block as the person, who deliberately started it. The length of my block should be reduced - Swanzsteve 03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW - what happens after this block, are we allowed to edit the page?, I'm still waiting to hear from DS about the previous block, although he has contacted the person who deliberately ignored his instructions, to tell him that he is on his side - Swanzsteve 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. DS went to Denveron and more or less told him that he was on his side. Isotope23 did the same as regards DVdm. That's why I am suggesting to you that you leave this circus altogether. I am on your side but I can clearly see that you can't win this. You will only annoy yourself indefinitely. Even if you ever get the article written correctly and in a dignified manner, you will always be checking it to see if DVDm or Denveron have arrived in front of it to picket it with their anti-Dingle placards.
Your allies get blocked as soon as they open a new account, always on the grounds of being sockpuppets of Dr. Seaweed, but never with any evidence. Even though new accounts are very easy to open up, and even though the new accounts are not engaging in sock puppet abuse, DVdm never fails to go to the notice board and squeal. The administrators always oblige instantly. DVdm likes to then get the new blocked name added to the list of Dr. Seaweed sockpuppets like he is a hunter wanting to be seen coming in from the forest with as many boars heads impaled on his pole as possible. And notice how the administrators never do a checkuser on DVdm, Denveron or EMS? Even if they did, you would never hear the result.
That is the kind of children that you are up against in this circus.
You don't want to be addicted to checking this article everyday. Let them write it in their childish style and forget about. They will be the losers having to check it everyday in case Dr. Seaweed returns with another mask on. It's not going to make any difference in the larger scheme of things. It was worth trying to help you out for a while until it became so obvious that it is a circus full of pretentious and ambitious young pseudo-intellects that all gel together in a brotherhood.
Take my advice and walk away from it for good. Don't bother returning to it when your block has expired. That's what they want. They want someone like you to argue with to justify their own insecurity about Einstein. We both know that anybody who believes in Einstein must be a fool. Just ignore their precious article and walk away. You have done all you can. There's not a single administrator on your side. Ivan Chalmers 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCrea's Refutation

I will try to answer your question 8-6-07 on the title I copied above. Your question is: "McCrea said that Dingle was not allowed to say that A read the same time as H, because A was not _AT_ event 1, and it didnt matter that the two clocks were synchronised. To allow this would restore the notion of distant simultaneity. Therefore all of Dingle's results were meaningless, and there was no contradiction. I would be interested to hear from the relativity crowd, whether they think McCrea's argument is valid. Is Dingle allowed to say what the time on clock A is, when B is adjacent to H? Swanzsteve 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

1. McCrea's argument is not good. Because in his answer on page 122 of Nature 10-14-1967 at (vii) he said "Indeed, if any observer ^ anywhere in the universe takes a motion picture of A or B and if one exposure shows the encounter of A with B, then we say that ^ has observed the event E0." so that McCrea could just let A watch event E1 to make (3) meaningful. He did not do so but he provided solution to make the problem disappear. Since the problem was solved by himself he should just suggest a modification after his argument. I think his argument is valid but meaningless.

2. Even if McCrea try to modify (3), he might have made a mistake. Because at (iii) he said "Naturally there is an event E1A, say, at which A read t1." looked like he would use E1A as an event that A observed E1 and read t1. If he did so, that would provide exactly the same result as (3). Thus, between events E0 and E1, A advances by t1 and B by t'1 = at1 by (1). McCrea would have solved a problem for Dingle.

3. Dingle is not allowed to say the time on clock A is t1 when B is adjacent to H. Because if we ignore the distance between B and H when B is adjacent to H then the time on clock A is t1A = t1+(AH/C) where C is the speed of light. If we replace t1 by t1A in (3) it would make (3) even larger so that (3) is still good.

4. The time formula in STR is not correct, because the correct time formula is hiding in the above paragraph. For some reason McCrea did not disclose it in (vii) where he stopped at "This is because the various light-travel times from the clocks to ^ and to ^* are all different." We let the observer ^ use a camcorder with a built-in timer and recorded t0^ and t1^ for the first two events. We also ignore the distance when two clocks adjacent to one another and let t0^ = T+(A^/C). Then t1^ = T+t1+(H^/C) so that the recorded time period from E0 to E1 is t1^-t0^ = t1+((H^-A^)/C). To observer ^, the measured time for t1 is t1+((H^-A^)/C). It is a very straight forward result if we rewrite it as the following paragraph.

5. For an event started Ta at point a and ended Tb at point b, the time period Tab = Tb-Ta is recorded as Tab' = Tab+((bo-ao)/C) by a camcorder at point o. When a person walks at constant speed 0<V<C away from the camcorder, bo-ao = ba, so that the recorded time period is larger than the actual time period, T' = ((C+V)/C)T. However, if the person walks at constant speed 0<V<C toward the camcorder, bo-ao = -ba, we have different result as T' = ((C-V)/C)T.

6. When V is approaching (V^3)+2C(V^2)-2(C^3) = 0 the formula T' = ((C+V)/C)T will be approaching the time formula in STR. That V is about 0.85C. I think the time formula in STR is just a special case of correct time formula.

John C. Huang (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)