Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Discussion For Article Improvement

I would like to get beyond the personal arguments and discuss how this article can be made into a worthwile discussion of Dingle's life work that reflects positively on Wikipedia and its editors. I think that we first need to agree that it is not the place to criticise a man's life work by labeling it wrong. Can we agree on this first point? Second, we need a plan to provide correct biographical information. I suggest as a start using the obituary by McCrea, without the Dingle is wrong bias. Can we agree on a plan that adds correct biographical information as the next step?72.84.64.47 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Any expansion of this article to better cover Dingle's life and works will be an asset. Certainly if you find the obituary by McCrea to be acceptable even though McCrea criticized Dingle, that speaks well of it. I certainly can support this article not outright saying the Dingle was wrong. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV calld for just that. However, the article cannot go off claiming the Dingle was right either, nor can it imply that by containing a large number of links to non-scolarly pro-Dingle web sites. Also, the criticism of Dingle must be covered in this article (but can be balanced by briefly noting the ongoing existance of a small but vocal pro-Dingle minority). Even if this article does not say that Dingle was wrong, it should make it fairly obvious that the consensus scientific opinion is that he was wrong.

I am a bit of an anti-relativist myself in my opposition to black holes, but do overall support the theories of relativity and their foundation principles. What that means here is that I am willing to shed the pro-relativity bias in this article, but will not permit it to be replaced by an anti-relativity bias. So my advice is to propose additions to the text in this talk page and see if a supporting consensus develops on them. If you show a willingness and ability to find a reasonable middle ground here, the page protection will quickly enough be removed. --EMS | Talk 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, most physicists say that Dingle was wrong, it's a well known part of his life, and thus wikipedia must document this. I'd agree that very little of the rest of his life is mentioned, and some more general biographical details could be useful. It's quite possible that undue weight is given to his later life; what was he known for before the relativity "flame war"? --Starwed 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV permits the opposition of the physics community to Dingle's views to be documented. What that policy prohibits is this article outright saying the Dingle was wrong (or right), although proper coverage of the opposition will make the fact that Dingle is almost universally considered to have been wrong hard to miss. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I agree that there is a controvery, it is appropriate to mention that. I disagree that you can state that most scientists agree Dingle is wrong, since that is a factually false statement, and implies a conclusion. I think that no statements that imply a conclusion are to be included and what you suggest implies a conclusion. However, we are not discussing that yet. We are discussing biographical information and stuff like what he did in his professional life. Can we agree on this? Next, I am merely suggesting the McCrea obit as a template or starting point, since it has a good overview of his work in it. Do you have access to the Nature files in pdf format? If you do I will tell you how to find it.Electrodynamicist 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will second you on focussing on achieving more biogrphical detail in this article. However, on the issue of the level of support for Dingle's ideas I find you to be just plain wrong. As for the obit, I do have access to the Nature web site, but am not sure about others. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you disagree with the plan as proposed. Is that right? What about the others?72.84.64.47 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the plan as proposed, its goal is to make this a larger and more thorough article. That I wholeheartedly support. You also want to make this article less biased to towards relativity theory (and against Dingle). Based on Wikipedia policies I support that in principle, but the devil is in the details: if your edits only replace the current bias with a strong pro-Dingle one, then they will not be placed into the article or stick once they are there. OTOH, if you don't go off claiming that there is currently broad support for Dingle there may be little argument with you and your edits.

Overall, there is broad room for improvement in this article, and in a direction that you at least somewhat would like to go. Try not to be a POV warrier on this. One item to note is that a link to that pro-Dingle web site may be acceptable in a larger article as evidence of ongoing support of Dingle's positions. (I offer no guarentees, but to be NPOV an article needs to be balanced, although you how one balances positions and parcels out coverage very much is a funtion of the popularity and/or notability of the various position. Let's just say that we have very different ideas of what the popularity of Dingle's work is, and that will affect how the article is balanced.) --EMS | Talk 18:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are now proposing a catch 22 situation, in which I agree that I will not defend Dingle when you assert he is wrong. You can say that there is a disagreement and we can agree on how to present this. It will present both sides and not state or imply a conclusion as to which side is right or wrong. For any argument against Dingle you agree that a counter argument is allowed. If you provide references to arguments that say he is wrong you will provide references to arguments that say he is right. External links may be provided that say he is wrong and that he is right. Finally you will not add material that changes the balance of the views expressed, nor suggest a conclusion regarding who is right or wrong. That is a fair thing to do. Electrodynamicist 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

At university, many of my physics lecturers privately voiced their doubts about relativity. However, they told me that anybody who spoke out against relativity would be shunned by the scientific community. I rather got the impression that official physics policy is being dictated by a select few.

So I'm not convinced that most physicists think that Dingle was wrong. Many physicists in fact operate in areas of physics that don't impinge directly on this controversy and they duck the issue when questioned on it.

My own observations have been that those who defend relativity most zealously are usually those who understand it least but are fascinated by its implications.

This article doesn't need to take either a pro- or and anti-Dingle stance. It should be sufficient to simply draw attention to the argument between Dingle and McCrea in the Nature magazine and the fact that Dingle wrote a book called 'Science at the Crossroads' which draws attention to the prejudice which is directed against anybody who speaks out against Einstein's theories.

The present wording of the article since Tim Shuba's latest edit is a great improvement in the right direction. (217.44.98.235 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Agreed: The article does not need to take a stand on Dingle's claims. Just let people have the basic facts and let those fact speak for themselves. I suspect that there is an area of agreement between us based on that parameter, and hope that we can work within it. --EMS | Talk 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a definitive agreement on a first objective of adding biographical and information on Dingle's life work as a scientist. We should not address the controversial aspects until after we have made a substantial biography. To the editors. I notice that biographical articles have a summary "Box" on the right hand side. I would like to start there with list of what should go into that box. Since I know nothing of how to format the box, an editior will have to do this. In my view Dingle should be described as a physicist, science author, philosopher of science, historian of science, and critical commentator on science. I think this last is the important aspect of his work that leads to controversy and needs to be understood in the light of the previous items on the list. Essentially Dingle approached sience from a philosophical viewpoint, and this influenced his approach to science and criticism of it. So lets try to set up the summary box and decide what items to put into it.Electrodynamicist 12:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Eventhough I sympathise with Dingle I disagree that it's clearly biased against him - IMHO, it's one of the rare articles on fringe scientists that has become reasonably neutral in tone. I do agree that the article is still little more than a stub. As the stub is not bad, I don't think it's useful to start a complete revision in parallel. Better to gradually expand the stub, that helps to keep the discussions together. Harald88 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Symmetry and time dilation

Can I just point something out here: there is a line in the present article, which says "...According to this, a clock that moves relative to another will appear to run more slowly as judged by the stationary clock and inversely" - REPEAT "AND INVERSELY" - This is exactly the point that HD was trying to make, that the situation was perfectly symmetrical. SRT (1905) says that the situation is asymmetrical, this was what HD disagreed with. How can you say that HD was generally considered to be wrong, then include a line which concedes the exact point he was trying to make and therefore shows he was right. Has anybody here actually READ Prof Dingles book, and the very simple point he was trying to make? (swanzsteve 213.107.15.23 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC) )

Actually noone disagrees with that observation, and I will even concede that the symmetrical time dilation associated with inertial motion in relativity on its own is self-contradictory. However, time dilation does not exist in its own in special relativity, but instead is also associated with the Lorentz contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. It is the totality of all three effects in the context of the Lorentz transformations which makes relativity self-consistent. --EMS | Talk 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say that "NO-ONE DISAGREES WITH SYMMETRICAL TIME DILATION", then you are agreeing with Herbert Dingle. At the time, McCrea, Max Born, Einstein and everyone else who debated the issue with Dingle disagreed with this. Dingles one and only point was that time dilation, under uniform translatory motion should be symmetrical, in line with the postulate of relativity, and in the same way that length contraction was symmetrical. Symmetrical time dilation is not self-contradictory. Unfortunately you throw in a couple of irrelevant buzz words/phrases like 'Lorentz contraction' and 'relativity of simultaneity' at the end, much like Dingles opponents were prone to do, to confuse the issue. Stick to the point, if you agree that time dilation is symmetric under inertial motion then you are agreeing with Herbert Dingle.

If everybody arguing over this Wiki page agrees that time dilation is symmetric under inertial motion, then what is all the fuss about? You are all agreeing that Herbert Dingle was right, without even realsing it.

I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW IF IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO DOES DISAGREE (213.107.15.23 13:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC) swanzsteve)

Dingle's claim is that this symmetry leads to a contradiction when the twin paradox is considered. That is what the argument is about. --EMS | Talk 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

of course it leads to a contradiction, Einstein's 1905 paper, says that only one of the clocks runs slow, i.e. the effect is asymmetrical, the current general consensus is that, both clocks only appear to run slow, a point which Einstein himself conceded some years later, therefore the 1905 paper was wrong, which is what Dingle pointed out. How can Dingle still be wrong after Einstein has conceded the point?

Swanzsteve 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The nature reference claims specifically that

It would be inappropriate to give here an additional derivation of the asymmetrical relative ageing of twin brothers predicted by relativity theory for the familiar round trip. In his first paper on relativity, A. Einstein derives the well-known result; he does not, as claimed by Prof. H. Dingle, make a "regrettable error".

So if you claim that Einstein did, in fact, make this error, please provide a source saying this, not your own interpretation of his paper. --Starwed 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Although is this even the debate you're referring to? The Nature debate took place after Einstein's death... --Starwed 14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not my interpretation, it is Dingle's, the source would be "Science at the Crossroads".

Note that this quote confirms that Einstein derives a result showing ASYMMETRICAL ageing, in his first paper on relativity, i.e. 1905. In deriving this result he makes no mention of ACCELERATION at all. Yet if you look at Time Dilation in Wiki or Encyclopaedia Brtitannica, It says that time dilation between two observers in inertial motion is SYMMETRICAL. You will find no-one today, certainly, no-one on this page, not even the editors, who can explain ASYMMETRICAL time dilation WITHOUT invoking ACCELERATION. So how did Einstein manage it in 1905 ??? possibly this was, in fact, an error on his part. And given that he appears to have changed his mind, on this point, in later publications, perhaps it was. (Swanzsteve 01:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Factual Inaccuracy in article

I would just like to raise a point about the factual accuracy of the article, there is a line in it which says "Dingle claimed that Einstein's results were inconsistent with those worked out using a "commonsense" method" - this is not true, Dingle always used the same methods that Einstein himself used. 213.107.15.23 13:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are certainly correct about this. At the present time the article is locked to changes. The above discussion regarding what to do regarding article improvement reflects a desire to develop a plan that fixes the problems of this article. However, no definitive agreement seems to have been reached on how to proceed in this. There is still an opinion that the article should take a position that Dingle was wrong. That was clearly the view of the previous versions of the article, and we are working to remove this bias. I am sure the editors will make the change you requested as soon as they can, after they decide that they really dont want a controversial article about Dingle, that presents a false conclusion about his life's work.Electrodynamicist 14:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Some documentation of these claims is needed. Also do be advised the Dingle's claiming that he was using Einstein's math/methods does not mean that he was actually doing so. --EMS | Talk 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of references from the Dingle-McCrea debate in Nature:

"I have enough mathematical insight to see that it is a waste of time to look for mathematical flaws in the theory", H.Dingle in Nature, October 14, 1968, p.19.

"Dingle has not made any mistake in the algebra", W.H.McCrea in Nature, October 14,1967, p.122 Swanzsteve 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reference in NOTES section of article

Does anybody know who wrote the page that appears in the NOTES section of this article at http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm ? , Is it, perhaps, one of the overseers of this article? The sole purpose of this page seems to be to criticise Dingle. The mathematics, as usual, are irrelevant, and only serve to confuse the issue.

The only question that needs to be answered is this:

"is time dilation under inertial motion symmetric or asymmetric?"

If your answer is "symmetric" then you agree with Dingle

If you answer is "asymmetric" then you agree with McCrea, Born, Einstein and numerous other distinguished physicists/mathematicians of the time.

No mathematics is required to answer this question (213.107.15.23 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

The above posting is a false choice and only displays a gross misunderstanding of relativity on the part of the poster. As I noted above, the issue is whether said symmetry created a contradiction in the case of the twin paradox or not. That is where the argument is. --EMS | Talk 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a false choice?

Here is a quote from Dingle: "One of the chief objectors to the view that asymmetrical ageing is compatible with the relativity postulate was the philosopher Bergson"

This is a quote from one of McCrea's rebuttals:

"Dingle's false step is that Dingle regards the situation treated by relativity as the symmetric comparison of one single clock with another identical single clock (in relative motion). This is not the situation..."

They are involved in a dispute about the symmetry of the clock paradox. Dingle is arguing for symmetry, McCrae was arguing for asymmetry. McCrea never disputed that if it was symmetrical, this lead to a contradiction. In your fanatical desire to defend relativity against the slightest criticism, you seem to lost your sense of reason. You also keep saying that everybody misunderstands relativity, do you really think you understand it better than McCrea? you keep coming up with refutations that he never thought of.

What you keep missing is this, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT CLOCKS ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY SLOWING DOWN, NOT JUST APPEARING TO DO SO. - please stop for moment and think about this point, it is crucial to the debate.

(Swanzsteve 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

That page was rebutted in one of the links given above, which was removed by the editors. (See reversion of spam links setion above) That action precipitated the recent controversy regarding the bias against Dingle, since the editors refused to restore the links which specifically rebutted the allegations against Dingle. They were removed, of course, because they effectively refute the claims that Dingle was wrong. The excuse given was they were not peer reviewed. The link which you refer to was not peer reviewed, but it remained anyway. Frankly I dont object to having it stay. It is an embarrasment to the article and reflects badly upon the editors and Wikipedia, since it says Dingle had dimentia but cites no references or sources to support this claim. That is curious since the editors always demand these when arguments supporting Dingle are presented. Electrodynamicist 14:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally added the mathpages link to this article, but I support its inclusion. Not all sources need be peer-reviewed, just reliable. I think you will be hard pressed to assert that a consensus among editors across a broad spectrum of articles has not been reached regarding that source, as by my count the mathpages site is currently linked from fifty-one other articles in the encyclopedia: 1729 (number), Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal, Born rigidity, Bézout's theorem, Carmichael number, Cross-ratio, Cube root, Deutsche Physik, Discovery of the Martian moons, Eclipse, Egyptian mathematics, Exotic probability, Faster-than-light, Friedrich Hasenöhrl, General relativity resources, Gravitational slingshot, History of calculus, Invalid proof, Jupiter, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Mass–energy equivalence, Mediant (mathematics), Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, Musical keyboard, Napoleon's theorem, Odd greedy expansion, Olinto De Pretto, Palindromic polynomial, Paradox, Perrin number, Polarization, Polyomino, Principle of relativity, Ptolemy's theorem, Radiation reaction, Roger Cotes, Sagnac effect, Schrödinger's cat, Shifting nth-root algorithm, Special relativity, Speed of gravity, Supersonic, Sylvester's sequence, Tests of general relativity, Theory of relativity, Timaeus (dialogue), Woldemar Voigt, Year 10,000 problem, Zeisel number, and Zeno's paradoxes.

In contrast, the links mentioned in the other section above are from the General Science Journal, a notoriously crappy and unreliable source. Some of those same papers have also been linked from a site called Millennium Relativity, an antirelativity fringe site. Such extreme minority views do not belong in this article; please see WP:UNDUE for an explanation of this policy. Tim Shuba 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the other mathpages references, deal with mathematical problems, whilst the one about SRT spends most of its time slagging off Herbert Dingle. Shouldnt mathpages confine itself purely to the mathematics of the issue, not the personalities it happens to disagree with? I think we need to know who wrote this particular page. The content of the page is enough to discredit the source. Could you imagine that page appearing in any mathematics textbook for instance? It's a disgrace that it should appear on the mathpages site and an even greater disgrace that it should be linked to by Herbert Dingles Wiki page.

Incidentally, since Tim Shuba is here, could I ask you Tim, whether you consider time dilation under inertial motion to be symmetric or asymmetric? (swanzsteve 213.107.15.23 18:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Since the mathpages link didn't get the math correct in the Dingle article, I would be hesitant to ever go there again for any reason.71.251.179.21 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have found an error on the mathpages article, can you post it? Perhaps then it will be removed. I can hardly believe that it hasnt already been removed, it clearly violates, several of Wiki's policy statements. (Swanzsteve 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

General Consensus appears to be that time Dilation is symmetric in inertial motion

Its a few years since I last looked at Herbert Dingle and SRT 1905, so I have looked around on the internet a bit to see what the general consensus of opinion is. As far as I can tell there seems to a general agreement that time dilation is symmetrical under inertial motion, I include one reference from The Encyclopaedia Brittanica

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9072511/time-dilation

"If the first observer's notion of simultaneity is used, it is found that the second observer's clock runs slower than his by a factor of (1 - v2/c2), where v is the relative velocity of the observers and c equals 300,000 km (186,000 miles) per second—i.e., the speed of light. Similarly, using the second observer's notion of simultaneity, it is found that the first observer's clock runs slower by the same factor. Thus each inertial observer determines that all clocks in motion relative to him run slower than his own clock."

I assume The Encyclopaedia Brittanica is considered a reliable resource, (hopefully at least as reliable as mathpages:-) ) Anyhow, time dilation under inertial motion is now generally considered to be symmetric, as Dingle said, and not asymmetric as McCrea said. I think this should be included in the article. It is statement of Dingles point of view and a statement of McCreas point of view and a reference from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica agreeing with Dingles point of view. How can anyone object to that?

Incidentally, there are a couple of things not mentioned in the article which should be included if it is to reflect his life's work

Dingle was the author of "The Special Theory of Relativity" (Menthuen, 1940) which was a standard textbook in English and :American Universities in 4 editions well into the 1970's; that is for over 30 years.

He wrote the section on Relativity in The Encyclopaedia Brittanica in the 1920s

He was the man chosen by the BBC to give the eulogy on Einstein when he died

(Swanzsteve 19:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

I believe that this should have been posted at the twins Paradox discussion page. There they seem to be unaware to the facts which you cite here. What you state is the basis for the Minkowski mathematical formalism of special relativity. Dingle pointed out during the twins paradox controversy, that the solution of the paradox was a contradiction to this formalism. McCrea and others disagreed thereby supporting the view that there is an absolute rest frame. Dingle was vilified in this case for supporting the established Minkowski formalism. This was one of the reasons he began to doubt relativity since the supporters of Einstein's asymmetric time dilation claim, based their evidence for that conclusion on an analysis which contradiced the principle of relativity and the accepted Minkowski formalism. A position which made the paradox of the twins seem even more of a contradiction in Dingle's view. 71.251.179.21 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who wrote this nonsense above, but you really should read Dingle's book before posting here, and could you stick to the point and answer the simple question

"is time dilation under inertial motion symmetric or asymmetric?"

the answer requires one word only, no mathematics, no 'Lorentz contraction' no 'relativity of simultaneity', no 'Minkowski formalism', no acceleration, no gravitation, no switch of reference frames, in other words, none of the gibberish routinely used to confuse the issue (see Dingles book for numerous examples of this tactic). And incidentally, this isnt the twins paradox, so why would I post it there? Dingle deliberately avoided the twins paradox, because it gives people the opportunity to cloud the issue with all sorts of irrelevancies. Dingles example is the same as Einsteins in his original 1905 paper. Since all the reliable reference sources I've seen on the internet appear to agree that time dilation under inertial motion is symmetric, it looks like Dingle's view has gradually been accepted "on the quiet" over the last 40-odd years. (Swanzsteve 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

The Claim that the Majority of Scientists support McCrea

First of all, Dingle pointed out a very simple aspect of symmetry that is inherent in Einstein's special theory of relativity. The theory states than any observer moving at speed v will experience time going slower than a stationary observer. It is one simple equation linking two times with a relativistic gamma factor.

Since the equation is quite obviously a reciprocal agreement, Dingle asked the very obvious question 'How can we have two clocks both moving slower than each other?'

Professor Dingle attacked an extremely illogical theory.

Professor McCrea came along, and from what I could read, he used totally illogical and dishonest reasoning to back up a totally illogical theory.

And now we are being told that most scientists agree with McCrea.

That was not my experience at university. My experience was that most lectureres didn't understand Einstein's theories but merely parroted the implications that stemmed from his theories. They never parroted these implications with any conviction. They would stand there with tongue and cheek expressions on their faces and state 'that's what the theory says'. I never detected any deep rooted belief in Einstein's theories amongst the staff. More generally it was a controversy that most lecturers seemed to like to avoid.

It is far too easy for men like McCrea to try to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending to fully understand what even the average street sweeper knows is total nonsense.

My support for Dingle may well be dismissed as opinion, but I want concrete evidence to prove that most scientists agree with McCrea. If they do, then they must be total fools.

When are wikipedia going to organize the private ballot referendum amongst physics university lectureres? (217.44.98.235 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

The anon wrote:

My experience was that most lecturers didn't understand Einstein's theories

I don't know where you went to college, but I find that circumstance to be most unfortunate. Because they did not understand Einstein's theory (and apparently did not care to try to), they could not help you to understand Einstein's theory. I assure you that special relativity is a well conceived theory that has indeed been tested and retested for logical and mathematical flaws as well as being experimentally verified. It has passed all of those tests, and Minkowski's work is considered to be a proof of the theory's self-consistency.

I can understand your distaste at being told "I don't know why such-and-such is true. All that I can tell you is that this is the existing orthodoxy". I find that to be totally appropriate. However, the failure of the incompetents at your college to answer your questions does not mean that good answers don't exist. --EMS | Talk 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered why this clock paradox is still in dispute after over 100 years? It's because there is a LOGICAL contradiction in the 1905 version of the theory, that is why nobody can explain it logically. Asymmetrical time dilation (clock running slow) between 2 clocks in inertial motion conflicts with the first postulate of relativity, i.e. you have no right say which clock is moving and which is stationary. A logical contradiction such as this cannot be resolved by any amount of mathematics or any number of experiments. It's such an obvious logical contradiction that anyone can see it, except apparently for mathematicians, who persist in filling pages with equations, to "prove" their point of view. Listen guys before you start writing out your sums you have to decide which clock is moving and which is stationary, since according to the Principle of Relativity either clock could be moving or stationary, you can perform identical calculations on either clock and get identical answers for time dilation for both clocks. Now if you are going to take the view that the slowing down is only apparent, fair enough - no contradiction, but if you are going to say that it is ACTUAL time dilation, and the clock is REALLY running slow, relative to the other one then you have a contradiction, because they cant both be running slower than the other one. Einstein said that the clock he considered to be moving was ACTUALLY running slow, then mysteriously forgot his first postulate of relativity, and didnt do the same calculation for the other clock. So his 1905 paper contains this glaring LOGICAL contradiction. Get over it, he made mistake. And Herbert Dingle spotted it, and was foolish enough to point it out. Swanzsteve 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Filling this talk page with your own ideas and reasoning doesn't help the article. Find reliable sources saying the same thing you do, and it can go in the article. If you're unable to find such sources, nothing you say here will make any difference. --Starwed 15:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be about Herbert Dingle, I am putting forward, HIS ideas and reasoning. Unsurprisingly, I have already found a reliable source for his ideas and reasoning: his book "Science at the Crossroads". It is clear from your comment you have not read his book. The very least, I would expect from contributors to this page would be that have actually read, Dingle's book, including his exchanges with McCrae, and Einstein's 1905 paper. In view of the fact, that this page is such a battleground, could we confine it to people who actually know something about the subject and his work.

Swanzsteve 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it will help, but here's a diagram to show that, yes, both observers see the other's clock running slow. After time T in the unprimed coordinates, the observer at rest WRT that frame is at position A, and sees the other at position B, and sees that his clock is slowed down by a factor of 1/γ. Meanwhile, when the observer at rest WRT the primed frame reaches B, he sees the other at position C, and sees that his clock is slowed down — by the same factor of 1/γ. There's no contradiction, they just don't agree on whether A or C is simultaneous with B.

    t                          :                     t            t'       :
    ^           t'             :                   `  \           ^        :
    |          /  ,      .     :             .         A          |        :
    A - - - - B        .       :               .        \  `      |        :
    |      , /       .         :                 .       \     `  |        :
    |  ,    /      .           :   x               .      C - - - B        :
    C      /     .             :      `              .     \      |   `    :
 ,  |     /    .          ,x'  :          `            .    \     |        :
    |    /   .        ,        :              `          .   \    |        :
    |   /  .      ,            :                  `        .  \   |        :
    |  / .    ,                :                      `      . \  |        :
    | /.  ,                    :                          `    .\ |        :
    |/,                        :                              `  \|        :
----O--------------------> x   :   -------------------------------O--> x'  :

         x , t    |   x'  ,  t'
       -------------------------
   O:    0 , 0    |   0   ,  0
   A:    0 , T    | -γvT  , γT
   B:   vT , T    |   0   , T/γ
   C:    0 , T/γ² | -vT/γ , T/γ

—wwoods 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this diagram showing me that there is no contradiction, but I have already made this point in my previous post. If both observers see the others clock running slow, and it is only a matter of appearance, then there is no contradiction involved. However, this is not what Einstein says in his 1905 paper and not what McCrae said. They both argued for ASYMMETRIC time dilation, and an ACTUAL slowing down of only ONE of the clocks. Unfortunately, neither specified how you determine which of the clocks runs slow, THIS was the question that Dingle tried to get McCrae to answer, but he never did answer it. You can read this in Dingle's book.

It seems that, over time, the obvious symmetry of the situation has been accepted, and since Dingle was arguing for the symmetry of the situation, that is why I say he now appears to be vindicated.

Swanzsteve 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This above point is a very important one. To understand what it means in a different way, consider Dingle's 1962 note in which he shows, using Einstein's procedure, that it is a valid conclusion of the theory that moving clocks run fast. So, now the question becomes: by what mathematical procedure is it possible to conclude that in the twins paradox the traveling twin returns younger? It is just as valid a conclusion to say that he returns older. This follows because it is not possible to say which clock was the slow clock. Since McCrea, nor anyone else, could not answer this question, the theory must be false because it predicts that clocks in motion are both slow and fast at the same time. Now that is a contradiction!71.251.179.21 18:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions in this talk page

I am going to breifly deal with the three big misconceptions that have appeared here recently. As this page is for discussing the article and not the theory, I cannot go into details here (altough some others are doing so), but I will try to describe these issues as seen from a relativist's viewpoint.

The misconceptions are:

1. The disagreement between Dingle and the supporters of relativity are on whether there is symmetrical time dilation. This is false. Both sides agree that there is symmetrical time dilation for inertially moving SR observers.
2. The twin paradox exposes a fundamental flaw in relativity related to symmetrical time dilation. This is also false. The supposed statement of contradiction assumes that the situation for the twins is also symmetrical. In fact, the is not the case: One twin accelerates into another frame of reference in order to return to the first twin (who is not accelerated). That acceleration changes the first twin's view of spacetime. See a USENET posting of mine for a full explantion and example of this.
3. The problem of symmetrical time dilation was fixed in a 1907 article by Einstein. This is also false, but does have a grain of truth in it. The 1907 article introduced gravitational time dilation, which is indeed asymmetrical. However, that effect is built on the SR effect of inertial time dilation, and does not amend or remove the symmetry of the inertial effect at all.

--EMS | Talk 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for making it even more confusing than it was before you posted this. The misconception arises from a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper.71.251.179.21 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no mistakes in Einstein's 1905 paper introducing SR: Instead you are merely confused. --EMS | Talk 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Question to EMS, regarding Einstein's 1905 paper introducing SR - What is your view on the part where he works out that one of the clocks ACTUALLY slows down but not the other. What I have previously referred to as asymmetrical and actual time dilation. Swanzsteve 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That you have to make up your own terms to describe how you see the issue shows that you do not understand SR. A moving clock ticks "slow" as viewed by the chosen "stationary" observer. I have no problem with that or with the "moving" and "stationary" clocks exchanging roles. See the above illustration. As I wrote above: Time dilation own its own is indeed self-contrdictory. However, it is not present on its own in special relativity. "Relativity of simultaneity" and "Lorentz contraction" are not mere buzzwords and they are not irrelevant to this discussion. Instead they are the other parts of a self-consistent toallity of effects that is special relativity. --EMS | Talk 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

EMS - what is it you dont understand about the terms "asymmetrical" and "actual"? let me explain:-

you say:- "A moving clock ticks "slow" as viewed by the chosen "stationary" observer" - this is APPARENT time dilation not ACTUAL.

you say:- "I have no problem with that or with the "moving" and "stationary" clocks exchanging roles" - this is SYMMETRICAL

you say:- "As I wrote above: Time dilation own its own is indeed self-contrdictory" - As a matter of LOGIC - "a self-consistent toallity of effects", cannot include a contradictory statement.

Its becoming increasingly clear that you understand very little of what you say, but appear to be spouting from textbooks, hence the irrelevant buzzwords you regularly throw in to try to appear knowledgeable. You should stay out of this discussion until you have something useful to contribute, and have also read (and understood) the documents under discussion (oh yes, plus an introductory book on logic). (Swanzsteve 15:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

It is becoming increasingly clear that you do not care to listen to reason on this issue. Given that, I strongly suggest that we abandon these threads and try to find areas of agreement. I won't let this article become an anti-relativity rant, but I will let an expanded describe Dingle's anti-relativity rant with NPOV treatment. --EMS | Talk 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know about anybody else, but I am not anti-relativity, I just think that this page should not be a rant against Herbert Dingle. I have put forward his arguments as accurately as I can, and as yet, nobody has been able to refute them. I have tried to clear up any misconceptions, concerning his point of view, and referenced my sources as much as possible. Dingle's main concerns were only with SRT, not GRT. He took the definitive version to be Einstein's 1905 paper. He was worried that people were using SRT in relation to very dangerous experiments, and this could led to disaster. As it turns out, it wasnt SRT that caused nuclear disasters, but good old human error. As you have said yourself, it is not possible to refute Dingles Syllogism using the 1905 version of SRT (i.e. without using acceleration). No-one has ever refuted it using only SRT 1905. In view of this, it doesnt seem right that this page should be a rant against Dingle. If you cant bring yourself to say that he was right, then take a neutral point of view, and treat his exchanges with McCrea, as a difference of opinion which was never satisfactorily resolved. There is no need to say who was right or wrong, since there seems to be a genuine disagreement about who was right. That said, I would not agree , that yours is the voice of reason on this matter. You have acknowledged that there is no solution to Dingle's syllogism without considering acceleration, which is not in SRT 1905, this should make you stop and think that maybe he had a point. Anyhow the current state of this article is appalling, and it needs to be made as neutral as possible. (Swanzsteve 04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

IMO, it's time to stop arguing and time to start building a better article. Let's return to brass tacks as they affect actual edits. This discussion is going nowhere! --EMS | Talk 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions in the "Misconceptions in this talk page" section

1. There are currently no disagreements between Dingle and the supporters of relativity - Dingle is dead. At the time (50s, 60s and 70s), when Dingle was involved in this dispute, Dingle argued for SYMMETRY, McCrae argued for ASYMMETRY. - read the book.

2. The TWIN paradox as popularly described, involves acceleration, and as such is completely IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

3. In the dispute between Dingle and McCrae, they used Einsteins 1905 paper as the standard definition of SRT not the 1907 paper.

Discussions on this page should be referring to the dispute between Dingle and McCrae AT THAT TIME, not disputes in the present day. Since Dingles time, as you point out:- "Both sides agree that there is symmetrical time dilation for inertially moving SR observers." This is the exact point that Dingle was trying to make. I know its hard to believe but McCrae argued for ASYMMETRY. I dont think this should be viewed as relativists V anti-relativists. What Dingle pointed out was a relatively minor error in Einsteins 1905 paper, which now seems to have been modified anyway. I dont think it invalidates the whole of relativity theory.

Swanzsteve 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Dingle decided that the theory was flawed, because of the inability to specify, without contradiction, which clock is the slow clock and which the fast one, since this is a fatal flaw. Read his book again. Einstein in his 1905 paper asserted that the moving clock runs slow, but Dingle showed that it was equally correct to say that it runs fast. This contradiction arises irrespective of whether the time dilation is symmetric or asymmetric.71.251.179.21 19:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here, he was able to show that it ran fast and slow by using symmetry. Both sides at the time assumed Einstein meant that there was an ACTUAL physical change in the speed of the clock (which he did) in which case, symmetry would mean that both clocks would ACTUALLY run slow, clearly a contradiction. The current interpretation seems to be that both clocks only APPEAR to run slow when viewed from the other clock, this is symmetric but is not a contradiction. Dingle argued that the situation was symmetric, McCrae that it was asymmetric Swanzsteve 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that I will have to read the material and see what is what. However, the statement of self-contradition is known to be false. My advice is for those of you who are anti-relativity to get ahold of a good introduction on the topic such as Rindler's Introduction to special relativity and read that carefully. *Sigh*. I know that this theory blows people's minds. However, the inability to understand it does not invaidate it. --EMS | Talk 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---*Sigh* it must be difficult for someone as gifted as you, having to deal with all these ignorant people, who dont understand it, as well as you do:-) But, hang on a minute, Prof Herbert Dingle spent several decades not only reading, but also writing text books on special relativity, in fact he wrote "The Special Theory of Relativity" (Menthuen, 1940)" used for 30 years in British and American Universities, and yet he still didnt understand it as well as you do. Now thats strange isnt it? if only you had been there to explain it to him properly, how different things might be. He would never have written his book and we wouldnt be here now arguing about it. If only you had been born 50 years earlier. And yes - you should read the material and see what is what, you could start with Dingles book and Einstein's 1905 paper. Oh yes, my advice is for you to get ahold of a good introduction on the topic of LOGIC and read that carefully. *Sigh* Swanzsteve 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to know what caused Dingle's position to change. Was he just following the party line because it was the party line before he broke ranks? That is one possibility, and as one of the anons has shown a number of people actually do that. All that I can tell you is that for everyone like Dingle there are hundreds of professors who do grasp the theory and who refuse to go down Dingle's path, and many of those have or ended up with 30+ years of experience with relativity too. --EMS | Talk 03:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of your questions could be easily answered by reading the following:

• Herbert Dingle was Correct
• The Second refutation Of Relativity
• I.J. Good's Failed Attempt To Prove Dingle's Arguments Fallacious
• What Happened To Dingle Examined (refers to link four above)
• The Dingle Epstein debate
• The Dingle McCrea debate
• G.J. Whitrow's Refutation Attempt
• Dingle And The Twins Paradox
• A Metaphysical Philosopher attacks Dingle
• Adolf Grunbaum's Attack

I suggest reading Dingle and the Twins Paradox, followed by The Dingle Epstein Debate. The other links should also be read and you will have your answer.Electrodynamicist 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I started reading "Dingle and The Twins Paradox", and found myself dealing with a bunch of falascious bunk! "Asymmetric time dilation", "Einstein changed his theory in 1907", etc. I can only refer you back to the statements I made in #Misconceptions in this talk page.

It really is not productive to continue this bickering. We just need to respect each other's positions and reach some broad agreement on how to structure this article. Your "asymmetrical time dilation" business is just as OR as my personal refutation of Dingles arguemnt below, Let's just stick to the fact surrounding Dingle and leave the discussions on the thoery for later. One thing to warn you about however: I am beginning to see where McCrea was coming from, and IMO he just chooses to bring the issue of acceleration in immediately instead of later on. In other words, the words "constant inertial" was assumed as the "motion" Dingle was refering to in his argument. --EMS | Talk 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you meant to say lascivious bunk, in which case I can see why you are afraid of being titilated and want to censor it.Electrodynamicist 21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your view of relativity has little to do with the actual theory, and is at such odds with my understanding of it as to be worthless to me. As for censorship, see WP:NOR, which incidentally also applies to my own original research in the area of general relativity. Once again, it is time to focus on Dingle and his work and less on which side is right. We are (or should be) here to write good articles and to hold scientific debates.--EMS | Talk 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have to read it and agree with it, all you had to do was read it and find out what papers Dingle published when and what he said in them. You might also have learned a little about the history of the twins paradox debate and different opinions about it. But that is your choice. It would have saved you a lot of time and trouble doing research for this article. I guess it really was too much of a titilating experience for you to read.Electrodynamicist 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)