Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 11

Why I (Still) Think the October 10 [17:35] Version Should Be Restored
There are some problems with the current version (in my opinion). I pointed these problems out previously, but it seems to have been forgotten, so here they are again (in no particular order):

(1) The current Oct 15 version says "Dingle claimed Einstein's prediction about a moving clock was in error and experiments showed Einstein right". That's completely garbled. In the late 1950's Dingle argued that special relativity does not predict different lapses of proper time for the twins after they re-unite, but by 1959 he realized that he was wrong about this, and that in fact special relativity DOES predict different lapses of proper time for the twins. He THEN changed his argument, and began to claim that special relativity is logically inconsistent. As to whether or not asymmetric aging actually occurs, he suspected that it didn't (and of course he was wrong about that), but this isn't relevant to either his pre-1960 or his post-1960 complaint. Experimental findings had no bearing on Dingle's views, one way or the other, certainly not up to the point of writing Science at the Crossroads in 1971. (2) The Oct 15 version says "An article by Chang about Dingle's "rebellion" argues that his objections were largely philosophical and not well understood." This is bogus, because it is placed at the wrong point. I have specifically asked Chang about this, and he assured me that he did not (and does not) support the post-1960 Dingle position. His paper refers only to the late 1950's period, when Dingle still considered himself to be a proponent of special relativity (although he admitted later that he totally misunderstood it), and was advocating a relational theory of motion. It's totally misleading to put this statement in the article as if Chang is sympathetic to the post-1960 Dingle. Chang does NOT think (and his paper does not say) that Dingle was misunderstood when Dingle said special relativity is logically inconsistent, nor does Chang think that this is a philosophical point. And Dingle himself certainly denied that his charge of logical inconsistency was "philosophical". I think the Chang cite should stay in the article only if (a) It is presented accurately as referring to Dingle’s pro-relativity phase, and (b) it is balanced with the more widespread view in the scientific community. See for example the quote from P.C.W. Davies. (3) The Oct 15 article says Dingle objected to Einstein's 1918 explanation, but this is redundant. Dingle (post 1960) objected to the relativistic explanation of the twins, and EVERY presentation of it, all of which make the same points. It's misleading to suggest that there was something special about Einstein's 1918 paper in this regard. Dingle equally objected to the explanation of time dilation in Einstein's 1905 paper. (4) If the article is really going to include an assessment of (and opinions on) Dingle's ideas, then his ideas (and how they changed over time) must be presented accurately. He didn't just promote a single coherent set of ideas. He believed (erroneously but understandably) one set of ideas for 40 years, and then when his misunderstandings came to light (in the late 1950’s, after his retirement), he switched to belief in a completely loony set of ideas. It is these latter ideas that the neo-Dingles espouse, but they try to claim for these ideas some of the respect that accorded to Dingle's sane ideas, before he went off the deep end. One must distinguish clearly between the two phases of Dingle's thinking. The boundary between them was roughly his 70th birthday. But do we really WANT to get into this?

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * Yes, I agree that the big quote (it's almost overkill) is probably better left out, and indeed the 'resolution' doesn't really sound well. Wwoods, agree?
 * And indeed, the section header is better left out. DVdm 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * I thought it was better to pull the controversy out of the general biography and bibliography, since that's inevitably going to take a more involved explication than the rest of his career, but I'm not wedded to that.
 * —wwoods 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the presence of the section header really should depend on the length of the article, and ... let's keep the article as short as possible :-) DVdm 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some section headers, since they're very much implied in the way the article is currently written. If the "controversies" were inserted chronologically into the biographical material, I might feel differently.  But they're discussed separately, and so should probably have a separate header.  I am in no way wedded to the particular section names I chose.  --Starwed 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As a seperate issue, the crude insertion of the Lorentz transformation into the text is kind of ugly. :) I'm not at all sure that the mathematical details of the argument belong in the article, but if they're there at all they should be formatted more nicely.  --Starwed 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


 * Is seems reliable enough for this purpose; i.e., I don't think the text of the book has been altered to make Dingle look bad. Quotes aren't copyright violations on our part, and the link allows those who care to check that we haven't altered the text.
 * —wwoods 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

Dingle answered


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


 * Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. DVdm 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. User talkpages do occasionally get protected, but article talkpages really need to be open, especially when the article is protected.  I've warned the editor for that unseemly personal attack.--Isotope23 talk 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected the article after yet another flurry of edits and reverts by anons, which seemed likely to continue. I didn't see it as blocking one side since, as you can see, there are several registered editors active on that side. If you think it improper, by all means remove the protection.  (Why this obscure individual has attracted so much interest remains a mystery to me.)
 * —wwoods 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just stating my view as an outside observer. Other than a real simple heading change I've not edited this article, nor am I going to.  I'm not going to mess with the protection at all right now, unless the registered edit warring continues (and please note I'm not referring to good faith edits involving discussion), though blocking of edit warring parties is an option as well.  I will most definitely agree with you though that I'm a bit surprised at the level of activity here, but I've seen way lamer stuff in the time I've been at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 talk 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I for one welcome your actions so far, and think it would be great to have others without obvious agendas looking at this article. It's been out of control for several months. As you can see, I make one post to this talk page suggesting that a clearly inappropriate reference to a blog site should be removed and that we consider policy and law about copyrights, and get a flurry of insults and accusations. I can understand the mystery and surprise that an unimportant backwater in the history of relativity would generate this level of vitriol (from various users, I'm not willing to buy into 'us versus them' mentality). There is, of course, something else going on here which at its root is actually quite interesting, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Herbert Dingle. Let the lameness continue! Now, back to my sock puppets... ;) Tim Shuba 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

There has never been an experiment to test symmetrical time dilation.
 * you say: "It is not impossible for A to be slower than B and for B to be slower than A." -- ??
 * I'm afraid that IS impossible, but is not impossible for A to APPEAR to be slower than B, when viewed from B, and for B to APPEAR to be slower than A, when viewed from A.
 * BTW, are you 63.24? - Swanzsteve 01:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - you say - "Edit #3 The quote about Dingle's concern for the safety of the world having something to do with nuclear power plants is not illuminating, and it misrepresents what Dingle himself actual reports in Crossroads."
 * if you care to read SATC, you will find that is a direct quote from the book, in disagreement with your "unspecified" phrase. There is no justification for removing this from the article, whereas your little "unspecified" dig is factually inaccurate.
 * Professor Emeritus is not an automatic title, it has to be bestowed on somebody by the University. Why on earth would you want to delete this fact? It was his title when he wrote SATC and appears in the book and various papers and articles after 1955.
 * Whitrow incidentally had an axe to grind with Dingle since he worked with Milne, with whom Dingle had several disagreements. - Swanzsteve 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Denveron - its very generous of you to offer a tutorial, but since you're only ability seems to be to be able to spout from standard textbooks, I think the benefits would be limited.
 * You may be aware that graduates of Oxford and Cambridge are automatically awarded Masters degrees, after a certain period, do you think that these should not be listed amongst their qualifications? Its far more informative for people reading this article, which is after all supposed to be an encyclopaedia (not a soapbox) to see that Dingle's title was Professor Emeritus, click on the wiki link and find out what this means. Why must this title, which incidentally appears in SATC and numerous articles after 1955, be expunged from his biography. You relativist fundamentalist Dingle-haters are truly sad. Also some other member of your crowd has already put in the article that he was retired, so your little joke about ageism doesnt really make a lot of sense.
 * BTW - when 2 clocks are brought together it is truly impossible for them both to be slower than the other. If you cant see that - well what can I say? - apart from stick to your textbooks, and keep deluding yourself that you are a physicist.
 * To include a little dig about unspecified dangers, is also pretty pathetic, I'm sure there were people who warned against inadequate safety procedures at three mile island and Chernobyl, who were ignored because they couldnt specify exactly what might happen. The number of possible failure modes in such areas is almost infinite, as are the possibilities for human error.
 * You didnt answer the question as to whether or not you were 63.24
 * There is already a link to the Lorentz transformation in the article why do you insist on cluttering up this article with the Lorentz transformation? Oh, I forgot, its to show everyone how clever you are (or think you are) - Swanzsteve 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve, here are answers to your questions and comments:


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * added British Society for the History of Science

I'm okay with that, provided it is well sourced. >>have you read Whitrow's obituary? its in there


 * restored sourced fact

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

>>its an undisputed fact, and should not be deleted from the article.


 * factual inaccuracy

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

>>Dingle makes several relevant statements in SATC:

"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."

"there is the undeniable fact that modern physical experiments are of such a character that an error in theoretical expectations might have the most dire consequences. Should a disaster occur at an atomic energy establishment, the cause might be undiscoverable,..."

"A failure of special relativity, however, revolutionises the whole of physics here and now, and its immediate consequences are quite incalculable. ('At present [1955] special relativity is taken for granted, the whole of atomic physics is merged with it', wrote Professor Max Born,7 and I think there would be general agreement with this)."


 * Removed Factual inaccuracy

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


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

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


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

Presumably any page numbering error can be easily fixed.


 * (Removed idiotic duplication of Lorentx Transformation)

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

>>I'm not sure that your gang operating in concert constitutes "multiple editors" more like "virtual >>sockpuppets" - the Lorentz transformation is superfluous, there is already a Wiki page on it. It inflates the >>page to no purpose. Should I put in a section that explains what Professor Emeritus means or what Special >>relativity means, or what an eclipse is, spectroscopy ...etc. etc. - clearly not, they all have links to >>relevant wiki pages - Swanzsteve 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Denveron - its a bit rich you complaining about a lack of discussion, since it was you that came to this page several weeks ago and added various passages about "Dingle's dementia" without discussion.


 * I think you're mistaken. I don't recall adding passages to the article mentioning "Dingle's dementia". Can you point out the edit where I did that?Denveron 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - I certainly can, this is your first contribution from 25th August, incidentally after the page had reached concensus and been stable for 17 days: "Dingle himself had written about the reciprocity of relativistic effects decades earlier, but when he was reminded of it during his retirement years, he suddenly found himself unable to understand his own earlier explanations."

Since then you have been trawling the internet to find sources to cite, backing up your view that Dingle was wrong and/or suffering from dementia.

The current wording is not much better: "but he then came to realize and acknowledge that his understanding had been mistaken. He then began to argue that special relativity was empirically wrong in its predictions, although experimental evidence showed he was mistaken about this" - this POV is not backed up with a source and again should be removed.

The references backing up the last sentence "The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded", do not back up the consensus view of Dingle's objections, they are sources which back up the consensus interpretation of SR, which is a completely different thing. Therefore they are not appropriate references and should be removed. - Swanzsteve 00:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added comments to my edits which clearly explain what is wrong with them...


 * ''Now wait just one minute. Here is a sampling of your "clear explanations" from your last flurry of edits:


 * restored sourced fact
 * factual inaccuracy
 * Removed Factual inaccuracy


 * Each of these covered edits that have been objected to before, with reasons given, and you simply go and revert them with the above "clear explanations". Your comments are clearly not clear explanations at all.Denveron 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

>>let me clarify then: "sourced fact" is a fact which has been sourced >>"factual inaccuracy" would be something presented as a fact which is, in fact, not a fact, i.e. inaccurate, does that help - Swanzsteve 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

, I have also answered you on this talk page. I'm pretty sure I would have some support for my edits if everyone else wants to stop this page turning into a Dingle bashing page wasnt banned from contributing, for whatever reason.

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


 * This has been discussed multiple times already. Once again, "Dingle's criticisms" were not original to Dingle. The questions he posed were identical (not just similar, mind you, but identical) to the questions and misconceptions that had been voiced and thoroughly aired decades before, with people like Bergson. The misconceptions that people have, and the answers to those misconceptions, have not changed. Now, as has also been pointed out previously, if you insist on citing references to ad hominum replies to Dingle, the results will be even less to your liking. Having said all that, I'm quite happy to provide more recent refences, but just remember that YOU ASKED FOR IT. I say this because we've already had complaints from people saying we have too many references for the statement that Dingle was wrong. Now you are demanding that we add even more. I'm happy to do so, and I trust you will support me when other neo-Dingles charge me with "piling on".Denveron 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * First, it isn't "my" quote - I wasn't the one who introduced it to the article. All I did was trim it down from the whole paragraph to a single sentence. Second, I had no trouble finding it on page 7 of the pdf file version of the book (linked in the article). Perhaps the page numbering is different in your copy. Third, that particular sentence (in which Dingle says it requires no super-intelligence to see that the Lorentz transformation is impossible) is sort of the signature line of the whole book, so I'm amazed you didn't instantly recognize it. I wonder if it would be better for only people who are actually familiar with Dingle's writing to edit this article. Denveron 04:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Your position is simply preposterous, and this has been fully answered before. For heavens sakes, the section to which you object is virtually taken VERBATIM from Dingle's 1967 letter to Nature. It is his central message that he was trying to deliver. It was his entire point, as he himself emphasized. There is no justification for omitting it from the article. None.


 * Now, if your objection is just cosmetic, I'd agree that Wiki formatting of equations is poor, so I personally would prefer to simply type them in text format. The equations are simple enough. But other editors prefer to use the equation format, so I have gone along with it. But I absolutely do not agree to omitting this crucial information from the article. Look, we even have people here in this Discussion page asking for explanations of Dingle's position and Whitrows refutation.Denveron 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that Dingle criticized it does not alter the fact that this paper represents the current scientific consensus" I dont believe that is true, several editors have criticised this paper.


 * Your beliefs, and those of "several editors" are irrelevant. We are not here to present any of our own beliefs. We are here to present verifiable material from reputable sources.Denveron 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It states at one point that in regard to the clock paradox "no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory." because one of the clocks experiences accelerations, yet Einstein created the clock paradox in his 1905 paper with no mention of acceleration in regard to clocks. And the example using GR is beyond belief.

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


 * And I have answered that referring to a nuclear plant does not tell us what danger is posed by the special theory of relativity... any more than Dingle pointing to the Aberfan tragedy does. If you went around telling people that Tim Shuba poses a danger to the safety of the world because of nuclear power plants, I would still have to say you haven't really told me specifically what threat he poses. Moreover, if you yourself wrote a book in which you acknowledge that you can't be specific about the threat Tim Shuba poses, but you are nevertheless convinced that he poses a threat, I think it would be prefectly appropriate and accurate for someone writing an article about you to state that you warned of (unspecified) threats posed by Tim Shuba to the worlds safety.


 * As I also said, I'm quite willing to simply insert all the quotes of Dingle on the danger of special relativity, along with all the quotes of Dingle trying to blackmail poor Lawrence Bragg into supporting him in his campaign to compell the journal Nature to publically condemn the Royal Society for saying that Dingle's claims were too trivially wrong to even be worth publishing the refutations. And so on... Just let the reader decide.  But I suspect you would strongly object to that too. Basically you're trying to suppress all unflattering facts about Dingle. That isn't an appropriate basis for editing an article.Denveron 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * You accuse me of not even looking at what you've done??? I just went through and prepared a carefully summary of each one of your recent flurry of changes, and described them here in the Discussion page (this very section that you are typing in NOW), and still you accuse me of not looking at your edits?  Clearly you need to cogitate a bit more before typing.


 * ''Look, I strongly disagree with the bulk of your edits, for reasons that I have carefully and thoroughly explained (multiple times now). Your responses, when you respond at all, are just repetitive canned statements that are totally senseless as far as I can tell. Denveron 06:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Denveron - you did a complete page revert TWICE while I was in the process of editting. You have indeed answered some points here, but after the fact. Clearly when you reverted you had not read them all. - Swanzsteve 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I come in here Denveron? It might be better if you were to explain to Swanzsteve why Whitrow's claim that Dingle thought that the ratio of t to t' referred to the same thing undermines Dingle's belief that the symmetry of the Lorentz transformations results in a physical reality which is impossible.

From what I can see Dingle had a point, whereas this article is using the word of one man called Whitrow to try and make out that Dingle didn't have a point. I don't follow Whitrow's argument. Wwoods above admits the fact that Einstein's theory implies that the same object could be observed to be in two places by different observers, and he states his own belief that this is not illogical.

From what I can see, this dispute comes down to the singular issue of whether or not we are comfortable with the symmetrical implications of Einstein's theories. Dingle was not comfortable. Wwoods and Whitrow are comfortable.

But I don't think that this issue is straightforward enough simply to be resolved on the word of Whitrow who I see as having used a false argument to argue that Dingle really should have seen the Emperor's invisible clothes. You seem to be far too over confidant about criticizing Swanzsteve by assuming that everybody ought to be quite comfortable with the idea of 'same object in different locations for different observers'.

I suspect that those who claim to be comfortable with Einstein either possess an extra special intelligence beyond my understanding or else they are lying or else they are plain dim. Hamset Jeejeeboy 06:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hamset, do I read this correctly? Do you suspect that people like Denveron and Tim (and, say, 99.99% of the scientific physics community on this planet) "possess an extra special intelligence beyond your understanding or else they are lying or else they are plain dim"? Which meaning of the adjective "dim" do you have in mind here? DVdm 09:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and sum up what I mean. I read the main article which stated Dingle's belief that the Lorentz transformations lead to an absurd symmetrical conclusion. Wwoods has since confirmed that conclusion but claims that he doesn't believe it to be absurd.

We are then referred to an obitury article by a Whitrow who claims that Dingle's belief that the idea is absurd is misinformed because Dingle wrongly assumed the ratio of t to t' to be referring to the same quantity.

I can't understand Whitrow's point at all.

I can see that there exists a major clash of ideaology between Dingle on the one hand and Wwoods on the other hand. And I am also aware that the Wwoods position is the consensus opinion within the mainstream.

But from what I can see, the matter is not settled based on the logic that has been applied by Whitrow. I'll try and illustrate Whitrow's logic using a simple analogy.

A man comes up with a theory that allows for a cow called Daisy to appear to be in room A for some observers but to be in room B for other observers.

Prof. Dingle announces that he believes this theory to be absurd. Wwoods on the other hand announces that he is happy enough with the theory. A majority vote is taken and the Wwoods position emerges as a clear winner.

Then Whitrow comes along and explains to Dingle that the situation is not absurd because the ratio of the floor area of room A to room B does not refer to the same quantity.

Of course your encyclopaedia must reflect the current state of human knowledge (or the current state of human ignorance as the case may be), and so it is correct to point out that Dingle's objections to Einstein were not supported by the mainstream. In fact, if they had been there wouldn't even be a Dingle controversy in the first place and this page wouldn't exist.

Any reader will undoubtedly have his own point of view. There will be the pro-Dinglites like Swanzsteve who will nod his head in agreement at Dingle's assertion, and there will be the anti-Dinglites like Wwoods who will take comfort from the fact that they are part of that majority who believe that Dingle was mistaken.

However, the likes of Swanzsteve will naturally be stricken with a sense of indignation when he reads that Dingle's objections have been thoroughly disproven by what appears to be a totally illogical statement by a man called Whitrow.

That is why this article has to be perpetually under protection. This is not a normal situation. This is a situation in which an established theory is being rubber stamped by seemingly illogical statements by the likes of Whitrow.

As such, those that agree with Dingle's position must be forgiven for believing that those who refuse to see Dingle's argument are either lying, stupid, or super intelligent beyond the comprehension of the likes of myself.

I'm of mixed opinion as to whether the Whitrow reference should remain in the main article. An anti-Dingle reader will read the article and when he comes to the Witrow reference, he will nod his head, stand up and exclaim 'Amen!'

A pro-Dingle reader will read the article, and when he comes to the Whitrow bit, he will get a sense of indignation that total rubbish is being shoved down his throat in order to steer him into believing in the absurd.

A freshman reading the article who has just been introduced to the Einstein controvsersy might be instantly swayed by Whitrow. He might think, 'Ah well! The experts have said that Dingle was wrong, so he must have been wrong'. Some seed always falls on stoney ground. Another freshman reading the article might think 'Hey! This is bullshit. They're trying to hide something here'.

Professionally, I believe that the Whitrow reference should not be in the article. But I'm inclined towards leaving it there because it makes the article more interesting.

Meanwhile, excuse me because I have to rush, as I'm going to be late for Fire Temple. Hamset Jeejeeboy 10:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem :-)
 * I see what you mean, but I will merely comment on your line above: "I am totally lost because I don't know what Whitrow means when he says that Dingle thought that the ratio of t to t' refers to the same thing but that it doesn't". Perhaps you can have a look at this. It think (and hope) that this might explain something about that ratio. DVdm 10:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just read your aticle and I think I can see your point. Dingle claims that there is an inconsistency between the two inequalities (3) and (4). I have divided the inequalities through by a and I can't see where the inconsistency is.


 * ==> If one understands the physical meanings of the variables in the equations, there is indeed no inconsistency - quite on the contrary. It is clear that Dingle really failed to do that when he write this. - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did read some time back that some pro-Dinglites did indeed concede that Dingle made an error. But if this is indeed that error, then I don't think that it actually undermines his wider point.


 * ==> But his wider point crumbles away by a fumble like this. This is so elementary. This really is page one of relativity. - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that Dingle has stated the opinion that the symmetry in the Lorentz transformations leads to absurd physical consequences, but has then gone on to try and expose this mathematically and made an error in doing so.


 * ==> hm... in his words: "Hence, without in the least rejecting the Lorentz transformation as a mathematical solution of the problem, we can say at once that it is not a possible physical solution. Nevertheless, in modern physics it is universally assumed to be so, on the sole ground of its mathematical validity." - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I have interpreted this correctly then it is somewhat specious to use Dingle's error to undermine his wider point. Dingle's wider point is stated clearly in the article. It brings him into dispute with the wider physics community. But this is clearly an ideaological dispute between those that are comfortable with the physical implications of the symmetry of the Lorentz transformations and those that are not.


 * ==> I don't think it is an ideological dispute. It really is a dispute between those who do understand page one and those who don't. - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dingle is essentially saying 'How can you have two clocks both running slower than each other?'. The physics community, such as Wwoods are simply replying 'Because you can'.

That's the dispute in a nutshell.


 * ==> Perhaps physicists should say that it all depends on what one means with "to run slower than", specially when talking about separated clocks, there being no problem with "colocal" clocks. They sometimes express themselves somewhat sloppily, carelessly assuming more knowledge and understanding from the conversation partner than there is is present. Compare this with two people looking at each other through a small gap between their fingers. They both say that the other one looks shorter. How can that be? It depends on what they mean with "to look shorter than". So yes, they sometimes say: "Because it can". - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I am more clear on Dingle's error, and there does indeed appear to be an error, I am also now of the opinion that the use of the Whitrow obitury to undermine Dingle's position, is somewhat specious.


 * ==> It might sound sloppily expressed. - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an unresolved controversy and a clash of ideaology. I think it will keep recurring on and off over the years.


 * ==> Yes, there will always be people around who understand the trivial mathematics of the theory, but sadly fail to understand the physical meanings of the variables in the equations. We won't find that often in mathematically more challenging physical theories like QM and GR. - DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There will always be claims that Einstein's theories have been proved experimentally but none of those experiments are in the public domain. I think that the pro-Dinglites will have to wait until such times, if ever, that the big unexpected experimental disproof of Einstein's theories lands itself upon us, probably in a most unwelcome manner, but such as to leave the matter resolved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hamset Jeejeeboy 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ==> On the contrary, I think that such a hypothetical experimental disproof of Einstein's theories will be extremely exciting and welcome. Cheers, DVdm 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Replies to Editor Swanzsteve
(1) Swanzsteve accused me of inserting the phrase “Dingle’s dementia” into the article. I replied that I didn’t believe I had done so, and asked if he could direct me to the edit where I did so. Instead of apologizing for the false claim, after being caught in this lie, he has responded by pointing to an edit that nowhere includes the words “Dingle’s dementia”. Here is the passage that for some reason enrages Swanzsteve:

“Dingle himself had written about the reciprocity of relativistic effects decades earlier, but when he was reminded of it during his retirement years, he suddenly found himself unable to understand his own earlier explanations.”

These words are a straightforward expression of well-documented facts. Compare them with Dingle’s own account of his epiphany in 1955, when he “adverted” to the old and well-known problem called the twins paradox, and he “awoke from his dogmatic slumber”. And compare with Whitrow’s account, in which he points out that Dingle had written on the subject decades earlier, but in 1957 (sic) “it suddenly occurred to him” that it didn’t make sense, and so “the last 20 years of his life were dominated by his campaign against the special theory of relativity”. Some people may wish to express it in different words than I suggested, but it’s quite clear that my proposed words were solidly based on documented facts. And this was in stark contrast to the novel narrative that I replaced, which implied that Dingle had never heard of the twin paradox before, and that when he did hear of it, he immediately rejected special relativity. That was a blatently false representation, and it totally suppressed the most salient feature of Dingle’s story, which is that he “had written about the reciprocity of relativistic effects decades earlier, but when he was reminded of it [adverted to it?] during his retirement years, he suddenly found himself unable to understand [accept?] his own earlier explanations.”

It was Swantzsteve, not I, who interpreted these documented facts as indicating that Dingle was suffering from “dementia”. I conceeded (in the Discussion page) that Swanzsteve might be right about that, but I did not (and do not) consider it proper to include such an assertion in the article. However, I object just as strongly to allowing crackpot mythology and “novel narratives” into the article.

(2) Swantzsteve had repeated again his claim that the references supporting the concluding statement in the article (“The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded.") are inappropriate. He says they do not actually address Dingle’s objections. He is mistaken, as has been explained at length previously. Each of those references specifically explains the fallacy of one or more of the misconceptions discussed by Dingle. Many more can be added, but unfortunately some other neo-Dingles have objected to having any references at all. They say everyone agrees with the statement, so there is no need for references. So do we need more references, or fewer, or none at all? And do we need references that specifically mention Dingle (like the Davies book “About Time”, and the Prohokivik book “The Logic of Special Relativity”)? My opinion is that we should cite whatever references would be helpful to give readers a full understanding of Dingle’s claims and how the scientific community has refuted them.

At this point I should add that a previous fairly stable version of this article simply said Dingle claimed special relativity was logically inconsistent and the consensus of the scientific community is that his claim was unfounded. It was a short but acceptable account of Dingle’s retirement phase, and most of the article was devoted to genuine biography of the man and his working career. It was the neo-Dingles who complained that the only reason anyone wants to read about Dingle is to find out about his campaign against special relativity, so they said the article should focus much more attention on special relativity and Dingle’s claims. Of course, the “attention” the neo-Dingles wanted was of the favorable variety. I pointed out at the time that they would not like the results if they insisted on shining the spotlight on Dingle’s anti-relativity crusade, but they went ahead anyway. And now they don’t like the results, so Swanzsteve now argues that the article is devoting too much space to discussing special relativity or Dingle’s erroneous claims during his retirement years.

I think the cat is now out of the bag, and people have put in too much effort preparing a well-documented account of the emeritus professor Dingle’s battle with special relativity. I don’t think it should be suppressed now, just because the documented facts are not to Swanzsteve’s liking.

(3) Swanzsteve says “let me clarify then: "sourced fact" is a fact which has been sourced, "factual inaccuracy" would be something presented as a fact which is, in fact, not a fact, i.e. inaccurate, does that help?” No, that does not help at all. As explained previously, detailed reasons for opposing your edits had already been given in the Discussion page, explaining why what you call a “factual inaccuracy” is not actually a factual inaccuracy, and so on. Hence, for you to make the edits again and simply re-state “factual inaccuracy” is not constructive editing. Does this help you understand?

(4) Swanzsteve wrote: “Denveron - you did a complete page revert TWICE while I was in the process of editting. You have indeed answered some points here, but after the fact. Clearly when you reverted you had not read them all.” Again, you are mistaken. You performed a series of at least FIVE separate edits (whether as an intentional gaming of the 3rr strategy I wouldn’t want to speculate). I read each edit, and when I found that I disagreed with an edit, I changed it, and presented full explanations of my changes in the Discussion page.Denveron 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning for Swanzsteve
Swanzsteve has now performed three reverts since 01:27. Therefore, any more reverts by Swanzsteve before 01:27 tomorrow will put him in clear violation of WP:3RR. I am going to revert back to the revision of 2007-10-20 15:25:59 before Swanzsteve started his out-of-consensus edit spree, and changes can be discussed on the talk page. The time has come to insist that Swanzsteve cannot ride roughshod over this article, and edit warring is not the solution. This will be my only revert on this article today. Tim Shuba 03:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * at 01:27
 * at 02:11
 * at 02:48

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


 * Excellent. I knew I could count on more insults from Swanzsteve; that's why I waited a few minutes before going ahead with the revert. I suggest you read WP:3RR carefully, because your edit at 01:27 is quite clearly a revert - in fact it's not the first time you've done that particular revert. But if you'd like to get the opinion of an administrator, by all means continue to edit war and we'll find out. Yes, I also caution Denveron about edit warring, as well as all others. Do enjoy the rest of the day! Tim Shuba 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I have checked WP:3RR and it appears you are correct, as much as it upsets me, I have to thank you for the warning. I cant find a similar warning to Denveron though. ---Swanzsteve 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

After all that ranting I need some help, does anyone know how to put a second link within the article to the same reference? - Swanzsteve 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Swanzsteve, if your opponents don't actually believe in what they are saying, you are on to a loser. You are outnumbered and you might as well go home.


 * If they do really believe what they are saying, they will explain to you in clear terms why it is not illogical to have two observers each viewing the same object on opposite sides of a painted line. They will further explain why Witrow's assertion that Dingle wrongly thought that the ratio of t to t' means that it is not illogical to have two people observing the same object in different locations, and they will also explain to you what the ratio t to t' does actually refer to.


 * We don't need any more links. That's not the nature of this dispute. Hamset Jeejeeboy 06:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamset - I am still trying to improve this article, we succeeded for a few weeks before, I'm sure we can do it again. The fundamentalist relativists just need to realise that this article is not about SR or why Dingle was right or wrong. - Swanzsteve 19:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "...we succeeded for a few weeks before, I'm sure we can do it again." ==> It is known by your own testimony that your are a special purpose account, but be careful when you take "we" too literately - DVdm 20:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

DVdm - I'm not exactly sure what you are implying, but I am an SPA, I dont believe Dingle should have the worst page on Wikipedia. We achieved a reasonable page with the help of EMS, who I dont see much on here anymore. This is unfortunate since he seemed to have the best interests of the page at heart Swanzsteve 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve banned
Due to the same behavioral evidence that I linked all of the other accounts with, I have determined that Swanzsteve is the individual behind the Dr. Seaweed et. al accounts, and he is hereby banned from the site, as a topic ban from editting about Herbert Dingle will be the same thing. Should he return under any name, contact me on my talk page, and I will seek a solution to the issues surrounding this page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this one comes a bit as a surprise. Sigh. - DVdm 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think Ryulong's determination is probably not correct in this case, though it's easy to see why it would be made. Swanzsteve has benefited in some ways from the interference run by the puppets, and Swanzsteve has not once to my knowledge indicated any objection to their behavior. Should the block be lifted, which I would support, he may wish to consider that contributions like this do draw the attention of admins trying to sort out blatant, abusive sockpuppetry. Tim Shuba 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ... surprize, but it does explain a lot. DVdm 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Are you insinuating I should have looked at the format of the signature in the comment just above this section? How dare you! (Tim Shuba 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Good catch ;-) (DVdm 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

No DVDm, it was an appalling blunder on Gyulong's part. Why not wait until the checkuser is complete before making your ass licking comments. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamma or Beta?
I originally prepared the footnote equations using the greek gamma for the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), since that is the most common convention. However, two things caused me to change it to beta, which has historically been the second most common symbol used for that factor. First, I noticed that the lower-case gamma symbol doesn't render very well in HTML. At least on my browser, the lower part gets truncated, so it's unrecognizable, looking more like a V. Second, I noticed that Whitrow actually used beta, so it is actually more consistent with the reference to use beta. (Also, note that Einsein's 1905 paper used beta.) Dingle in 1967 used 1/a, so that doesn't agree with either convention. So, on balance, it seemed (and seems) to me that beta is the better choice. Denveron 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the little gamma looks like a capital V now. As long as the math is inline and in the notes section, keeping the notation more or less intact is good. However, if the math is to be unburried (which I think should be done, since it is central) to the main article, I think it's better to use current notation (with gamma). The gamma we have now really looks... ugly :-) - DVdm 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, hadn't heard that before. I'm used to seeing β for v/c. However, as long as it's defined right there, I guess it'll be okay.
 * —wwoods 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Denveron, in the process of changing the gammas to betas, you reverted all the other formatting changes I made, including fixing the spelling of "alledged". Did you mean to do that?
 * —wwoods 07:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Housecleaning
This seems like an appropriate time to straighten things out. I have a few suggestions. Please add your own, implement them, disagree with them, et cetera. Tim Shuba 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete these subpages (MfD or whatever)
 * Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Draft_revision
 * Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Draft_revision_talk
 * Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Comments
 * Remove the top banner from this talk page about the draft version
 * Pull some version of the 'Chang' reference into the main article
 * Remove the disputed tag (can be re-added with reason, of course)
 * Archive the entire talk page


 * Yes Tim, nothing to beat a good bit of censorship. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 06:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, the talk page still being disrupted, I think perhaps it's a bit too soon? - DVdm 10:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Purge
Sockpuppetry is perfectly legitimate under the rules of wikipedia. It is sockpuppetry abuse that is illegal. As such I am unapologetic about the fact that I am a sock puppet for Hamset Jeejeeboy and I have no choice but to take this course of action because I was blocked for no reason whatsoever.

Ryulong has got it all wrong. I know exactly who the sockpuppets were. The Marmosets were Dr. Seaweed. They keep a team of these South American animals on their river raft. But the Brigadier was not a sockpuppet. He is married to Brenda Seaweed. I suspect that Sawdust and Hilditch were also sockpuppets for Brenda Seaweed, but I'm not so sure about Herbert Dingle.

Brigadier Armstrong telephoned me when he was blocked and told me to advise Swanzsteve to get out of it all as it is a den of nutters.

Neither of us know who Swanzsteve is and so Gyulong has got it badly wrong. We were on Swanzsteve's side and wanted to help him initially.

Yesterday I genuinely attempted to end the edit war by advising Swansteve to pull out. I could see that they were building up to blocking him. I knew he would either be blocked or reduced as was the case with Harald88.

I hope he doesn't enter this hall of madness again because nobody would want to wake up every morning having to read through the kind of dribble that Denveron has just addressed to him. And it truly is total dribble.

But Swanzsteve should have the right to decide for himself. He has been banned on a totally wrong assumption on the part of Gyulong.

I also note that Isotope23 banned a Virginia IP server who I know nothing about. Isotope23 was of course the adminstrator who told the Brigadier that he couldn't get involved in all this but then went on to ban him for reverting reversions of his edits by DVdm. Isotope23 has proved beyong any doubt that he is the classic two faced bureacrat.

By all means keep your blocks on Seaweed, and the Brigadier because they have learned all they need to know about wikipedia. And you can bann me if you like because I've also learned all that I need to know.

But just don't get too trigger happy on anonymous IP servers. You're not as good at guessing as you think you are. I haven't got a clue who Swanzsteve is but I know for sure he was not involved in Dr. Seaweed's edits.

And if you block people merely on the basis that they are arguing the same point, then what is stopping you from blocking Denveron for echoing the same views as EMS and DVdm? Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Swanzsteve
When Gyulong does his user check on you, he is going to be exposed as a total ass hole. Gyulong incidentally deleted a reply which I sent to you yesterday using my now blocked username, but you can still read it by clicking on one of the Hamset Jeejeeboy messages in the history section.

Isotope23 told the Brigadier that he can't intervene in these matters and that he (the Brigadier) should discuss his differences with DVdm on the talk pages. Meanwhile in separate discussions with DVdm, Isotope23 clearly exposed himself as being on the same side as DVdm.

The Brigadier then realized that isotope23 was a two faced bastard. This was proved when isotope23 blocked him in an edit conflict with DVdm when DVdm had done an equal amount of reverting, and in which isotope23 then froze the article on DVdm's preferred version.

Originally he had wanted to help you out as you appeared to be fighting a one man crusade. But when he was totally blocked and realized how corrupt it all was, he felt that it was best to advise you to pull out too because he knows that you can't win and that you'll only get permanently frustrated.

With the blundering Hitler called Gyulong tramping in and purging all mention of support for Dingle, I think we have pretty well confirmed that you are not debating on a level playing field.

They may accuse the opposition of sock puppet abuse, but the truth is that what they themselves are doing is alot more corrupt.

My advice to you is to leave it alone because you can't beat it. You will end up reduced like Harald88. You will end up in that pathetic category known as the acceptable face of opposition where they will tolerate your presence and allow you to indulge in window dressing excercises such as putting spaces in between paragraphs. But they will not allow you to insert key sentences that in any way undermine their purpose of underming Dingle.

You really are up against young fanatical mathematicians who have long lost sight of where real physics departs from maths. It's probably the 'Back to the Future' generation who went to college, did phyics and have discovered that the authorities are saying that Einstein is for real.

Their determination to undermine Dingle is not so much to do their bit to ensure that support for Einstein doesn't faulter. It's probably more an attempt to actually convince themselves.

The symmetry of the Lorentz transformations is absurd. The acceleration argument doesn't heal the absurdity, and even if it did, the pendulum on the old grandfather clock will have performed the same number of oscillations for both twins.

Relativity is a joke, but unfortunately it is the established theory.

So my advice is to leave them to it. Let them wallow in their own ignorance. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

DVdm is the Grass
DVdm, I've just noticed that it was you that grassed me up to Gyulong. You went to Gyulong yesterday and said 'Here is another one that escaped the drag net'. You're a wee stasi and Gyulong is a Hitler who doesn't even check his facts. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP server from Virginia censored by Isotope23
DVdm siggested locking the talk pages, but Isotope23 told him that the talk pages should not be locked. However, Isotope23 today deleted comments from an anonymous IP server in Virginia. Here are some of the comments he deleted.


 * Are you kidding?? Is this Nazi Germany?? When a person tries to set the facts straight he is banned by the Wikipedia Nazis. You guys are really way out of line. This explains why Wikipedia is gaining recognition as a factually innacuarate and biased source of information. When do you plan to restore the warning that the factual accuracy of the Dingle article is suspect? Since your factual accuaracy is wrong. You need to reform your policies in order to get your facts straight and get rid of your bias. 72.84.71.227 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 10:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they see it that there is no opposition to the main article because they have blocked all the users that were arguing against it. There was no opposition to Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia in the days of the killing fields either. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)