Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 8

Suggestion for Article Improvement
I would like to change these lines:
 * "...the twin paradox. According to this, a clock that moves relative to another will appear to run more slowly as judged by the stationary clock and inversely. Dingle claimed that Einstein's results were inconsistent with those worked out using a "commonsense" method."

These lines mis-state the Twin Paradox and Dingle's claims. I suggest rewording it thus:


 * "...the twin paradox. According to this, a clock that 'moves' away from another 'stationary' clock and then returns, will show that less time has elapsed. Dingle claimed that Einstein's results were inconsistent with the 'Principle of Relativity'."

Would everyone be OK with this? ---Swanzsteve 03:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it is adequate for my needs. How in Dingle's view did the principle of relativity (PoR) prevent such a thing?  I gather that Dingle felt that the PoR required that all clocks tick at the same rate as viewed by all other clocks, and may have used the need for symmetrical time dilation in relativity as described by Einstein and his supporters as a basis for this claim.  Is this correct?  If so, I would describe that instead of leaving the reader with a very skeletal statement. I also request some citation or citations for this.  (Note that acceptable citations for this article do include Dingle's own published works, whether they would be considered sceintifically reliable or not.) --EMS | Talk 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy with Swanzsteve's suggestions.(217.43.69.32 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC))


 * I will go along with you in that this is a step in the right direction. I just feel that better can be done.  Going from one nebulous statement to another nebulous one is not that much of an improvement IMO, but the suggested wording does focus in on Dingle's case much better.  --EMS | Talk 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it in as a step in the right direction, I think its more accurate than the previous version. I'll find the actual statements in Dingle's book, and post them here for you.

BTW, he didnt think POR said that all clocks should run at the same rate, he thought the POR said that motion was relative.---Swanzsteve 02:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as we seem to be making some progress, someone has popped up, making changes which imply Dingle was senile (63.24.124.143). Does anyone know who this is?---Swanzsteve —The preceding  signed but undated.


 * I can't say, but the allegation that he had retired before starting on his anti-relativity path needed a citation if I was to actively support its retention. Let's just say that on this issue, I will support the consensus opinion, and don't mind your side being part of that consensus.  (BTW - THere is an irony here in that the edit led to more edits and eventually a better paragraph.) --EMS | Talk 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any "charges" being made. I see only the statement of facts that are well documented and incontrovertible. Dingle himself describes how and when he came change his views. You have only the read his book. He was 65 when the process began, and at first he just had some mild qualms, but then over the next few years they deepened into a conviction that special relativity was flat-out inconsistent. I'm not making this up. It's in his book. Are you saying he was lying? I suggest that anyone who has not at least read Dingle's 1922 essay (Relativity for All) and his 1972 book (Science at the Crossroads) should recuse themselves from editing this article. In particular, anyone who don't know that Dingle was past retirement age when he began to question relativity is not qualified to edit this article. 63.24.96.31 04:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And how is his age relevant, to his arguments? This anon has added a reference to an article on the "metaphysics of relativity" first suggested by Tim Shuba. He is also desperate to drag Dingle's name through the mud, now who else was it who wanted to do that? Its slipped my mind for the moment. ---Swanzsteve 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I didnt notice any improvements, before I deleted the anti-Dingle propaganda this person had put in. I'll read it more carefully. ---Swanzsteve 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Williams quote refers explicitly to the Chang paper that is already referenced in the previous sentence, so it can hardly be considered non-relevant. It is simply a summary of Chang's actual position (as expressed in his "Rebellion" paper), which is that Dingle came to accept that he was wrong about special relativity being inconsistent. I wasn't the one who included the reference to Chang, but since it is included, the content should be accurately represented.


 * I don't think it's helpful to characterize all documented facts as "anti-Dingle propaganda", nor to talk about "dragging Dingle's name through the mud". The relevant fact is that for 50 (yes FIFTY) years, he considered himself to be knowledgable about and in agreement with special relativity, and then beginning at age 65 he began to change his mind, and by the time we was 70, he was (there is no other way to say this) totally obsessed with the idea that special relativity was logically inconsistent. All who knew and respected him were deeply grieved by what became of him. (Similar comments apply to Eddington, by the way.) For better or worse, this is the most salient feature of his life. There is no legitimate reason (other than perhaps pity) to whitewash it. 63.24.61.223 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So you know better than someone who has studied a subject for 50 years? I havent noticed you here before answering Dingle's challenge to SR, do you have an answer, or are you content to try to discredit the person rather than the argument. You need to read the archives of this talk page, look at Dingle's arguments and come back with some answers. If you have read his book you can see that his exchanges with McCrea in Nature, were quite coherent, certainly more coherent than McCrea's pitiful response. I cant help thinking, the way you have appeared here out of nowhere that you are one of the pro-relativity dingle-hating fanatics, that regularly contribute here, masquerading under another username/IP. You are wrong about the relevant fact, which is not that he was 65, but that he produced a challenge to SR which has never been answered. You clearly consider yourself to be smarter than the average 65 year old, so lets see if you can answer Dingle's arguments. Oh and by the way, Einstein conceded Dingle's point in 1918, when he said: "There is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity." do you think that maybe Einstein was senile in 1918? ---Swanzsteve 07:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why anyone would think that a book about the metaphysics of relativity is relevant to Herbert Dingle. Take a look at the site of the guy who wrote it, William Lane Craig:- http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/ - how can this guy be classed as a reliable source? ---Swanzsteve 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Williams wasn't being cited for his views here, he was simply cited for a convenient summary of CHANG's views. He is essentially just paraphrasing Chang's defense of Dingle. And it appeared in a reputable academic publication, which doesn't mean it is truthful, but it certainly seems likely that Chang could have taken action against Klewer/Springer for publishing a book that falsely represents his views... if in fact the book is lying. If you think the Williams statement is a lie, i.e., it does not represent Chang's views, then you are welcome to substantiate that with some reputable source. I personally don't know of any reason for Williams to lie about what Chang said. Do you? If you really can't stand the statement that Dingle came to realize he was wrong about SR being inconsistent, then I think you will need to eliminate Chang from the article as well, because he's the one who said it, not Williams. (The irony here is that Williams' view are far closer to yours than are Chang's, but never mind that.) 63.24.101.152 08:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dingle's age has got nothing to do with it. People have tried to have wills overturned on the grounds that the person making the will was too old. The law has consistently made it clear that it recognizes no connection between age and the issue of whether or not a person is compass mentus. People can be compass mentus well into their nineties.


 * Whoever brought up the issue of Dingle being over 65 is clearly making an inuendo, on false grounds, that Dingle may not have been compass mentus. All references to Dingle's age should be deleted from the main article. (217.43.69.32 12:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

William Lane Craig has a WIki page of his own, look at this quote:- "In the philosophy of time, he has vigorously defended the tensed or A-Theory of time and a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of the Theory of Relativity, involving a privileged frame of reference and relations of absolute simultaneity."


 * He doesnt even believe in SR!!!

And you are using quotes from this guy to discredit Herbert Dingle. Excuse me, but WTF is going on here? How come a quote from Einstein was instantly reverted by wwoods, but quotes from this fruitcake are left in. What has happened to changing the draft article, anyway? Why is this anon being allowed to make changes with a strong POV, which are not instantly reverted? ---Swanzsteve 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I found another interesting passage from William Lane Craig's wiki page:- "He is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture which is the hub of the intelligent design movement." Again, why is a quote from this guy left in the article by the powers that be, and a quote from Einstein removed?---Swanzsteve 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The so-called "quote" from Einstein's 1918 article is bogus; there is no such statement in Einstein's paper. I've replaced the bogus quote with an accurate description of the content of that paper.


 * Regarding Williams, you are simply repeating what I said, i.e., he espouses an anti-Einsteinian interpretation, so he can hardly be accused of being a mindless Einstein-worshiping zombie. That's why I said it was ironic that you were working so hard to keep him out of the article, when he is actually closer to your thinking than Chang is. And yet even the anti-Einsteinian Williams conceeds that Dingle was mistaken in his claim that the twin paradox shows a logical inconsistency in special relativity.


 * About the chronology of Dingle's career, I think it is undeniably a significant and relevant fact about his biography that for 50 years he wrote about and (presumably) thought about relativity, and gave explanations of the twin paradox (i.e., why it wasn't really paradoxical), and then, for reasons which are not clear, he turned 180 degrees and became a vociferous and (by all accounts) obsessive anti-relativityist, charging it with the most specious of inconsistencies. One thing that still needs correcting in the article is that it says "he believed in relativity until hearing the twin paradox", but that is very misleading, because he first heard about the twin paradox fifty years earlier. Granted, his 180 degree turn was triggered by thinking about the twin paradox, but not for the first time. The first 1000 times he thought about it, he understood it completely. The 1001st time he thought about it, he concluded it was totally illogical and self-contradictory. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you like from this sequence of events, but no one can reasonably claim that it is unremarkable. 63.24.111.83 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, 63.24.101.152, would you mind signing up for a username, so "Swansee-Steve" can stop projecting what is probably his own modus operandi onto others by accusing you of being someone else? ;-)
 * By the way, I stopped responding to these people since they clearly lack even the slightest, as EMS puts it, context, which I rather uncivily decribed as brain capacity, to understand this, less alone to discuss it. See the way they reacted to A trivial refutation, now archived.
 * On the side, I also removed you last comment - see the edit summary of my undo. Hope you don't mind :-)
 * Cheers, DVdm 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again DVdm, dont you get fed up of being wrong? Does this new Dingle-hater have anything to do with you and your cronies, his views and style are very similar to yours ---Swanzsteve 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

DVdm - you put up your trivial refutation because you were unable to identify the flaw in McCrea's refutation, despite your self-professed 'enormous brain capacity'. Have you managed to spot it yet? - BTW why have you appeared back here again, is it so you can carry on fictitious conversations with yourself? ---Swanzsteve 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind your edit, although for a different reason than what you stated. The explanation given in Einstein's 1918 paper actually IS the current mainstream scientific view. However, since this article is about Dingle rather than the twin paradox, there's no need to belabor the point by bringing in that reference. It's enough to simply say that Dingle's claims were unfounded. People can look up the twins paradox if they want to learn more. (I haven't looked to see if the twin paradox article actually is informative, but in principle that's probably where the Einstein reference should go.) 63.24.115.192 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon 63.24.115.192, perhaps you could indeed re-insert that line, but simply explicitize the fact that "Einstein's 1918 article" is still compatible with the "current mainstream scientific view". OTOH I notice that in the mean while EMS and Tim made some reverts and changes as well, so never mind.
 * Enjoy the Battle of Dingling Forest and mind the two closing lines ;-) Cheers, DVdm 09:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article is going to say that Dingle was wrong, the least it can do is say that Einstein agreed with him. This is exactly where Einsteins quote belongs, it also belongs anywhere where the twin paradox and SR are mentioned. BTW - This is the first time I have seen the accuracy of this quote challenged, you need to provide a reliable source for your assertion that this quote is inaccurate. ---Swanzsteve 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source for knowlegde of what Einstein's 1918 paper said (and did not say) is Einstein's 1918 paper. See Volume 7 of his Collected Papers, published by Princeton University Press for both the original German and for an English translation. In that paper, he explicitly describes the twin paradox, first in the context of special relativity, and then again in the context of general relativity, showing that in both cases no contradiction arises. I actually put this into the article, but someone took it back out. I'm willing to listen if you have a strong argument for putting it back in. Of course, it simply re-emphasizes the incorrectness of Dingle's views, so I'm surprised you favor re-instating it. 63.24.122.53 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Documented Material
I notice the statement that Dingle supported special relativity throughout his career was removed by one editor as "unsourced material". That is incorrect, because the source of that statement is given immediately in the article, namely, Dingle's own published writings, extending from 1922 to at least 1940, with the 4th edition published (under Dingle's approval) as late as 1961 (when Dingle was 71 years old). He wrote "Science At the Crossroads" when he was 82 years old. These are all well documented facts, and they are remarkable facts as well. Someone espouses something for his entire career, publishing and lecturing about it, and then after he retires turns against it with a vociferous fury. This is the most notable thing (alas) about Dingle's life. These facts should not be suppressed. 63.24.127.4 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dingle's first objection to SR was in 1939. Get your facts right. Its obvious your intention is to imply he was past it when he first raised objections to SR. His writing in "Science at the crossroads" is far more coherent than yours, and he was also far more capable of logical argument than you, who I assume are some spotty little teenage student with no academic publications to his name. We have been trying to get some consensus here before making changes to the article, to achieve some kind of NPOV, and stop this article becoming a joke. If you cant do that, go to some twin paradox forum to peddle your drivel ---Swanzsteve 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dingle's own book (Science at the Crossroads) states that he still believed relativity to be "sound" as late as 1961. And of course your "1939" date is inconsistent with the fact that he wrote "The Special Theory of Relativity" in 1940, a book which does not express any of his later objections. So we have his own testimony that he still believed in SR in 1961. Are you saying he was lying? Please acquint yourself with Mr Dingle's book, in which he very clearly described when and how he turned from a supporter to a detractor of relativity. I would be quite happy to base the entire article on nothing but verbatim quotes from his book. Nothing could be more indicative of his mental state. We are, after all, talking about an 82 year old man. It's really a heartbreaking document.63.24.56.179 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you BOTH need to start providing citations to back up your claims and quotes from those citations here on this talk page. I am quite pro-relativity, but see this "after he retired" business and showing an anti-Dingle POV.  So I remind the anon that this is Wikipedia and that this article is expected to be written from a neutral point of view.  Please list the date of Dingle's retirement as part of the overall biography, and let the reader deduce what they will from that.
 * To Swanzsteve - I get the feeling that Dingle's opposition to SR is something that developed over time, and that the initial conflict was over the interpretation of the theory. In other words, both you and the anon may be at least partially right here, and both of you may have good justificaiton for their chosen data of the start of Dingle's opposition.  Once again, good documentation is needed here.  THAT is what is going to help to make this article neutral and to keep it neutral. --EMS | Talk 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the crucial quote from Dingle's own account. Please note that Dingle was 65 years old in 1955.


 * In 1955 I adverted to this problem as a result of reading Sir George Thomson's book, The Foreseeable Future, in which it was stated that, according to the most authoritative view, the former result was correct and the latter therefore incorrect [i.e., the twins would age asymmetrically]. In an article in Nature I claimed that the twins must necessarily age at the same rate because it was an essential requirement of the special theory of relativity, which I then believed to be sound, that no observation was possible that would enable one to ascribe the motion preferentially to either twin. I need not here describe the course of the ensuing discussion, for all that is necessary will be said later. I mention the controversy here because it was the origin of my realisation that the special relativity theory (which, as I have said, at the beginning of that discussion I believed sound) was impossible.


 * Note that he still believes SR to be sound in 1955, and as the story unfolds in his book, he continued to believe this until about 1961 or even later (by which time he was 71 years old). At that time he was finally convinced that he was wrong about what special relativity predicts for the twins. Only at this point did he finally conclude that special relativity was "impossible". But this first gilimmerings of this "conversion" didn't occur until AFTER 1955, by his own account. It was really more like 1967 (when he was 77) that he settled on his position that special relativity was flat-out impossible, leading him to write Science at the Crossroads in 1972 at the age of 82. These are all documented and incontrovertable facts (read his book!). I see no reason to suppress the facts, other than to preserve the illusions of some editors. 63.24.33.63 05:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon 63.24.33.63, of course this is relevant. Just include the quote into the text. Cheers, DVdm 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Dingle's textbook was published in 1940, so would necessarily have been written some time before 1940. The impression I get from what I have read is that, his doubts increased gradually as he found that the questions he raised about SR, were avoided or evaded by the Relativity experts. He was in communication at the time with many of the leading scientists of the day including Einstein. As to his 'retirement', he was elected president of The Royal Astronomical Society in 1951, serving until 1953. He was appointed Professor Emeritus in 1955, and was still active in the University and British Philosophical Society for many years afterwards. But to me this is beside the point, comments about his age are clearly an attempt to discredit him. At the time of the controversies, no mention is made of his age, there are no snide remarks about his mental capacity. It is your personal POV, that his age is the reason he questioned SR, and Wiki is supposed to maintain a NPOV. As I have said before on this talk page, there are no allegations on Einstein's wiki page about him being senile in his later years, as he repeatedly failed to combine Relativity and Quantum Theory, it is simply not appropriate ---Swanzsteve 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're completely mistaken about Einstein. He himself even commented that he was regarded as a senile old fool, who was just trotted out for photographs on special occasions. When Oppenheimer wrote his obituary, he basically came right out and said that Einstein had totally "lost it" by the time he was 40.


 * But this is mostly beside the point. No one has claimed that Dingle was senile. I have described the facts, and YOU concluded that those facts implied he had "lost it". This is not a valid reason to suppress the facts. My own view is not that Dingle "lost it" at 70; I think he never "had it" to begin with. He wrote all that pro-relativity literature just parroting what others (like Whitehead) told him, but he never really understood it. To me, this is what the facts indicate.  You, on the other hand, looked at those same facts and concluded that he must have gone senile. You may be right, but I don't think we are going to settle that here. I say we should just state the facts.130.76.32.23 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read things more carefully, I said it is not appropriate to imply that someone was past it. The 'facts' you refer to are not facts anyway. Your judgement on his abilities is not relevant, although I have to point out he achieved more than you (or I) are ever likely to. Its fairly obvious you want to include these 'facts' in order to imply he was past it when he questioned relativity, you're not fooling anybody. The implication that older scientists have nothing to contribute, is laughable, not to say insulting (and wrong). What's more worrying is why you feel the need to discredit someone who disagrees with your POV. If you feel you have to do that, go to some SR/twin paradox forum and you you can vent your spleen to your hearts content. This is supposed to be an Encyclopaedia. - Swanzsteve 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just found a few relevant dates of Dingle's early questioning of SR, from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
 * 1933 - "...Herbert Dingle, a highly respected astrophysicist, and then-secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society. Dingle's initial foray appeared as a response to Milne's first detailed presentation of kinematic relativity. (Milne 1933)..."
 * 1937 - Nature article titled “Modern Aristotelianism”.
 * 1939 - Dingle continues his argument that relativity is metaphysical and not based on sound principles of experimental method.

---Swanzsteve 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're confusing Dingle's earlier debate with Milne, et al, over the proper practice of the scientific method based on experiment, and over Milne's own peculiar "kinematic relativity". This is not to be confused with special relativity. None of those "relevant dates" are relevant at all. (I note in particular that you resorted to outright disembling for that 1939 date, where you couldn't even find anything to put inside quotation marks, so you just made up something that sounded good. Sheesh...)  Any one of us if free to read the Standford Encyclopedia article on Dingle's 1930's debate, and we can all see that Dingle was not, at that time, objecting to special relativity. Your attempt to explain his 1940 text "The Special Theory of Relativity" by saying that he must have written it earlier is just... well, laughable.  We have Dingle's own specific testimony as to exactly when and how he began to turn against relativity. There's really no point lying to try to obscure the plain facts.130.76.32.23 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but please give a full citation for this article. (Encylcopedia name, publication date, article title, enyclopedia volume & pages for the article, author(s) of the article (if known) and/or editor(s) of the encyclopeda, etc.)  Please keep in mind that verifiable content (which in a context like this some of the editors will choose to verify) is what will rule the day. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon - As to the 1933 and 1937 references - from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: "In an important review of the entire confused situation between kinematic relativity and relativistic cosmology, McVittie confessed that “experimentally it seems hopeless to discriminate between them…at present the choice is almost entirely a matter of personal taste.” (McVittie 1934 p. 29)", - Dingle had similar Philosophical problems with SR and Kinematic Relativity. Try reading the draft article for the 1939 reference.

As to the date of his book, do you think he wrote it AFTER it was published? - clearly an argument for time travel:-)

The simple fact is that Dingle had Philosophical problems with relativity, at least from 1939, arguably from 1933.

EMS - The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is listed in the external links of the article. - Swanzsteve 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Team Editing
Swanzsteve, you were asking why quotes by Einstein that back up Dingle are instantly deleted, and yet quotes by fruitcakes like Craig remain undeleted. The answer is that there is a team of editors making sure that the main article is written in such a way as to caste doubt over Dingle's credibility.

This is of particular interest bearing in mind that relativity is currently in the ascendancy within the scientific establishment. In normal circumstances, scientists supporting an establishment position would not tend to concern themselves too much with dissenting voices. They would be comfortable within their own convictions and the fact that their convictions are those of the mainstream.

The fact that Dingle is so zealously undermined is a clear indicator that he spoke unpalatable truths and that relativists don't feel secure with their purported beliefs.

So don't take it personally. Anybody who has ever taken any interest at all in the Dingle controversy and who cares to look this article up will either already be pro-relativity or else he/she will see right through the anti-Dingle bias. He/she will see that the anti-Dingle editors are protesting too loudly. (217.43.69.32 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

The attitude of the Dingle-haters can clearly seen by the action of Tim Shuba (TFLLS) at 06:52, 26 August 2007, he saw that one of Dingle's titles - Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science - didnt have the name of the Institution attached, so what did he do? he deleted it. Anyone interested in improving the accuracy of the article would have gone off and found within a couple of minutes that he was appointed Professor Emeritus by the University of London, not simply removed it. This clearly shows the motives behind his edits, every little change is designed to discredit Dingle, even to the point of removing legitimately held titles. This attitude is also displayed by DVdm and the new anonymous crony they have roped in, who makes wholesale changes to the article without any discussion, or by putting it on the draft page. Its time the admin took control of these vandals. How do we get them to do something about it? ---Swanzsteve 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Describing them as "Dingle-haters" and "vandals" is a useful first step.
 * Not.
 * —wwoods 05:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe editors whose every action is designed to discredit the subject of the article, and who make wholesale changes without discussion? and, incidentally have drafted in an anonymous crony to help their campaign. If you are involved with the admin of this page, what are you planning to do to stop this page reverting to the shambles of anti-Dingle propaganda that it was a few weeks ago, and is rapidly becoming again. I hope the two lines above are not to be your sole contribution. This article is not supposed to be about the twin paradox or Dingle's alleged senility ---Swanzsteve 06:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I should just like to point out that when you resort to insults then its a sure sign that you have lost the argument. " Am I supposed to be upset? Sorry, that would be silly. If you'd like to request admin involvement, see this page. I hope that helps. Good luck! LYING two-faced little shit Tim Shuba  —The preceding  signed but undated.

Tim, just to remind you that it was you who started throwing insults around. If you do not wish to be insulted dont insult others ---Swanzsteve 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Swanzsteve - Does that matter? IMO, it is everyone's job to maintain civility, even if that just means not adding fuel to any fires. --EMS | Talk 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - it does matter, but I will desist from insulting Tim Shuba in the future. Although, I do think that something should be done to stop his team ruining the article ---Swanzsteve 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing not to fling insults around. I assure you that it puts Tim in a bad position if he is the only one doing so.  As for the issue of "ruining the article":  The Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:V apply to my side as much as they do to yours.  If you properly document everything that you want in the article, it has a much better chance of being kept.  As for the anti-Dingle anon who keeps playing footsie with WP:3RR:  Give it another day or two and there will then be enough of a pattern in place to justify a block on the grounds of disruption and evading the intent of the 3RR policy. --EMS | Talk 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A friendly reminder about the three-revert rule
As the article page has remarkably gone from a lull of 16 full days without an edit to an veritable flurry of edits recently, including many reverts, I'd like to remind all users to be aware of and adhere to WP:3R. Users who have been warned and violate this rule stand a high probability of being temporarily blocked from editing if they are reported, so please consider this carefully if you find yourself hitting the Save Page button repeatedly. Tim Shuba 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is that you are biased and that Wikipedia policy is to support your bias. So that the oficial policy is to have a false article about Herbert Dingle on Wikipedia. So please stop being biased and be fair. Essentially your biased views are destroying the integrity of Wikipedia. so far you have resisted and refused all attempts to formulate a fair and accurate representation of the issues, and your policy now is to enforce false views on the reader.Electrodynamicist 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, its a bit rich you making this friendly threat, since its your team that is responsible for most of the recent edits and reverts. Your team have deleted relevant facts, added false statements, and implied that Dingle was senile before he questioned SR, all without any discussion in the Talk page. This article was stable for a long time, while people discussed how best to improve it. The article is not the place for an in-depth discussion of the twin paradox, there is now a link to the relevant wiki page for anyone interested, which seems like a good idea to me. Snide remarks questioning Dingle's mental capacity are not appropriate either. I think if you restrict yourself to constructive NPOV edits, the flurry of editting activity will end. ---Swanzsteve 14:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Swanzsteve - Kindly don't attach to all of us responsibility for one zealous anti-Dingle anon. I assure you (and also Electrodynamicist) that WP:3RR applies equally to both sides, and is meant to limit an edit war.  The admins will judge things based on Wikipedia policy, and not on who is "right" in a content dispute.   Once again, please don't add fuel to the fire.  Also be advised that like me, Tim's first priority is to right by Wikipedia and not to make this page anti-Dingle.  (However, that is not to say he will support blatanlty pro-Dingle POV edit s either.) --EMS | Talk 22:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I wasnt including you in Tim Shuba's team, you have a constructive attitude to the article. Tim Shuba's team refers to him, DVdm and this new anon(s) (who may or may not be different people), who definitely do not have a constructive attitude. These people previously were responsible for a link which ridiculed Dingle and asserted that he was suffering from dementia. They have been absent for a few weeks and have now returned, and are determined to imply that Dingle was too old to take any notice of. They have made changes without any discussion in the talk page. It would be a welcome change if, as you say, "Tim's first priority is to right by Wikipedia and not to make this page anti-Dingle". = Swanzsteve 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a "team", nor was a making any threat, nor have I attempted to ridicule Dingle. Take your continuing baseless hostility and conspiracy and stick it where the sun don't shine.  Thank you. Tim Shuba 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a pure coincidence that you, DVdm and anon(s) all appeared at the same time, making similar edits? - Swanzsteve 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is completely unrelated to the several hours we spent together beforehand at the pub, drinking and figuring out how to best malign deceased physicists. Seriously man, you need to get a clue.  For me, I had no interest in EMS's lengthy, off-topic, policy-violating debate clinic that raged for weeks on this talk page, and ignored most of that, but I did check to see if the article itself had undergone changes somewhat often.  After seeing that edits had been made, I spent ten minutes improving the pathetically neglected lead and removing unsourced content, follow up by a quick re-removal of the unsourced content five hours later.  That's it for my contributions to the article during the last several weeks.  For this, you went apeshit about one of edits instead of simply providing the missing information.  In your black and white, mad world where everything is divided into pro-Dingle and anti-Dingle, I suppose my removal (twice) of "The mainstream scientific view was and remains that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded" would count as evidence of me being on some other fictional "team".  Tim Shuba 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, do we meet this evening as was planned? Make sure you bring the rest of the team! DVdm 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are we going to meet? Georgetown, Washington should be a mutually convenient location. (217.43.69.32 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm glad that you have all finally admitted it. Don't you feel better now the truth is out in the open?

Tim, you say "I went apeshit.....instead of simply providing the missing information", my point was instead of deleting the offending statement, you should have either marked it as requiring the name of the institution or found the information yourself. Why delete it? Its not an improvement to the article to delete a relevant fact.

Anyway, I hope you all enjoy your drink in Georgetown. - Swanzsteve 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Make sure your team leaves the scene before we arrive, will you? DVdm 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my responsibility to do any particular research, and removing poorly presented information is an improvement to any article, all the more so when the information is also unsourced. While blindly copying something off a biography from the internet may be useful, in this case it explains very little.  The title of Professor Emeritus means different things from different institutions and for different recipients.  More in-depth research would clarify the situation as it specifically related to Dingle, and then an informed determination could be made as to its relevance.  That, by the way, is one of at least four problems with the sentence "Appointed Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science, University of London, in 1955", among them being that grammatically, it isn't one. Now while I could address a large portion of these problems with a simple edit that would take much less time than composing this comment, I am disinclined to do so, as every good-faith effort I've made to improve the article has been met with rampant incivility.  At least in theory, the ultimate purpose of policies such as WP:CIV or WP:3R is to improve the content.  Those who do wish to have the content improved ought to consider the reasoning in such policies, even if there is some disagreement about the details. Tim Shuba 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim Shuba, I'll bet you wouldn't repeat all that face to face with an anti-relativist in a basement bar in Harlem. There are no delete buttons for cowards in face to face situations. (217.43.69.32 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Tim, I can barely believe this statement:
 * "It's not my responsibility to do any particular research, and removing poorly presented information is an improvement to any article, all the more so when the information is also unsourced."

So why do you come to Dingle's page then? Is it just to delete grammatically incorrect facts that you cant be bothered to verify?

I dont really understand the problem you have with the fact being presented that Dingle was 'Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science, at University of London from 1955 on'. It was a title he held, like all the other titles presented before it, in the article. First you deleted it because the name of the University was not included, then you deleted it because, the grammar of the sentence was not up to your standard.

Then you say: "Now while I could address a large portion of these problems with a simple edit that would take much less time than composing this comment, I am disinclined to do so....."

You should speak to EMS because he has assured us "Tim's first priority is to right by Wikipedia and not to make this page anti-Dingle."

I have promised not to insult you anymore, so I will hold my tongue. Please try to make positive contributions to the article, and stop deleting historical facts which are neither pro nor anti Dingle.

- Swanzsteve 02:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Swanzsteve, If Tim Shuba deletes factually correct sentences on the grounds that there is some grammatical or spelling error, when he should more appropriately have corrected the grammar or spelling, that means that he is a man who grabs hold of opportunistic loopholes. That is not an honourable practice. It is a well known dirty cowardly cheap bureaucratic trick.


 * His anti-Dingle motives are totally transparent. (217.43.69.32 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Edits by anon 63.34.* / 130.76.*
Anon -

Although I am pro-relativity myself, I see little value in your edits. Your harping on Dingle having changed his mind after he retired implies that he was "losing it" at the time, and so is POV. Instead a simple statement of when Dingle retired is sufficient. Also your telling people to "see the twin paradox article for the scientific view" is also not needed. Instead, there should be a "See Also" section which lists that other relevant articles.

To top everything else off, you lose the statement that Dingle was "ultimately unsuccessful" in his attempts to convince the scientific community that SR is wrong. For me, that it the one key point that I want the article to make unambiguously. Your text fails to do that!

I kindly ask you to stop trying to impose your opinion and start workng towards consensus. Whether you like it or not Wikipedia is a group endeavor, and in this case the group includes the anti-relativists. Let's just say that it is bad enough having some of them trying to impose a pro-Dingle slant. We don't need you trying to impose an anti-Dingle slant. Wikipedia calls for a neutral point of view, not a scientific one. --EMS | Talk 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * EMS - Well said - Swanzsteve 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wholeheartedly seconded by an obviously dissident member of the Shuba team. DVdm 08:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon - Yoy are doing somehat better with your editing, but you are still insisting on building on your own edits instead of working with what the others (including myself) have done. What is needed now is for someone to merge the better parts of your changes into what the rest of us have done. So I will leave your text alone for now, and see what happens to it. Even so, I do suggest that you try using the talk page more. It isn't easy, but sometimes opposing parties reach some very astute and amazing agreements on what an article should say. --EMS | Talk 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help with constructive editing
As this article is still a stub and we are asked to expand it, please follow the folowing rules strictly:

- If some statement seems to lack sourcing, don't delete it but instead add a FACT tag as explained in Template:Fact.

- If some statement looks erroneous, please don't just delete it but instead improve it, tag it, or move it to the Talk page for discussion. It's even common practice to discuss important changes before making them How_to_edit_a_page - and as long as this artcle is still a stub, most deletions of whole sentences are important.

Thanks in advance!

Harald88 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsourced material can and often should be removed, not tagged. As another editor put it, "In general, I find the  tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes  is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone."  Bottom line is that any unsourced material can be removed at any time for being unsourced, and the way to avoid this is to source information in the first place.  Of course, sourced information can also be removed, but for different reasons, such as to uphold the current consensus that this article should be whitewashed to avoid reference to current mainstream thought about the consistency of special relativity. Tim Shuba 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is this claimed current concensus that this article should be "whitewashed"? The concensus above is certainly not to whitewash; whitewhashing is certainly not compatible with Wikipedia policies! Moreover, this is not about the consistency of special relativity but about Dingle and his debates. Harald88 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mendel Sachs
Only now I noticed the remarkable fact that Mendel Sachs at least partly agreed with Dingle. And I found that Sachs wrote a book not long ago: Relativity in Our Time: From Physics to Human Relations [.

Does anyone have access to a copy of that book? It may be useful to know what Sachs wrote about the clock paradox (chapter 12), some 20 years later (also possibly interesting for the twin paradox article). Harald88 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is Sachs's summary of his position on Dingle and the twin paradox:
 * "I've written a great deal on this since 1971 (an article then in Physics Today, 24, 21). My latest discussion is in my book, Dialogues on Modern Physics (World Scientific, 1998). The essence of what I have been saying is that there is no paradox in the first place if one interprets the time parameter t properly. The faulty interpretation is that t is a physical (dynamical) variable - But this is not so! The parameter t in special relativity theory is a kinematic variable - it is only a 'measure' of duration, to be used in the expression of a law of nature. Dingle agreed with me on this, but he added that he and the physics community took t to be a dynamical (physical) variable, not a kinematic variable. In this case the paradox returns and this interpretation would lead to the falsity of the theory of relativity. But this is a false interpretation of the parameter t. With the correct interpretation, as a frame-dependent measure, there is no logical paradox, and so the theory of relativity is a logically correct theory."


 * Is this what you mean when you say "Mendel Sachs at least partly agreed with Dingle"? Sheesh...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.23 (talk) 17:24, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks but you forgot to give the source! But for the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And no, I quoted Sachs! Thus I agree with your "Sheesh... and I'm a bit skeptical that the above was really what Sachs meant when he wrote that he 'quite agreed' with Dingle on the clock problem. Harald88 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessments of Dingle's Arguments
I think a broader perspective is needed if the article is to include assessments of Dingle's argument. It's not good to just say "Chang said Dingle was misunderstood and Sachs agreed with Dingle's argument". Countless references could be cited, even from people personally sympathetic to Dingle, stating why his first objections were wrong (a fact which Dingle himself acknowledged) when he claimed that special relativity did not predict asymmetric aging, and then reviewing, in sorrow, Dingle's sad descent into outright lunacy, from about 1967, when he began claiming things like "Everyone just failed to notice before that time dilation in special relativity is reciprocal" (!) My point is, any balanced review of published comments on, and assessments of, Dingle, will be overwhelmingly negative... far more so than any of the neo-Dingle's here can imagine. So the question we have to ask is: Do we really want to go down that road? Or should we just omit any assessments of the validity of Dingle's argument, perhaps letting the Twin Paradox do the heavy lifting instead? 130.76.32.167 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure we do and we did: you curiously left out his most general observation (why?!) - which is that Dingle's claims were almost unanoumously rejected (which is not really an assessment of his arguments but the historical outcome of his debates - our task is not to assess his arguments!). In fact, that's generally known among physicists, but in order to be helpful for newcomers we searched and found a reliable source that even states it in a rather balanced, NPOV way. Moreover, this is still a bit a stub, so, nothing against expanding it (but everything against deleting it, see above!) Harald88 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "...sad descent into outright lunacy..." ==> Uh-oh, duck and cover for the neo-Dingle's ;-) DVdm 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed DVdm. Just like Dingle, I also think that relativity is symmetrical. However, unlike 130.76.32.167, I think that the lunatics are those who can't see the symmetry. (81.156.63.242 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC))


 * And what's more 130.76.32.167 try saying that Dingle was a lunatic in Glasgow on a Saturday night and you'll get a smack on the gob. Glasgow is staunchly anti-relativity. (81.156.63.242 20:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

As I said before, my recommendation is to avoid trying to present an assessment of the validity of Dingle's campaign against special relativity during the last 20 years of his life, culminating in his "Science at the Crossroads" written at the age of 82. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that his position changed very substantially during these years, so any assessment would have to address a range of self-contradictory views. It is also made difficult by the fact that, especially during the latter years, the attitudes of other scientists toward Dingle changed, as each of them gradually realized that they were not disagreeing with a colleague, they were coping with a mentally unhinged man. Ironically, much the same happened with his arch nemisis (and fellow quaker) Eddington, who in his later years went off the deep end. I just think wikipedia is not a very good place to try the delicate and complicated task of unravelling this kind of thing. However....

If Harald88 and others insist on including assessments of Dingle's argument, especially making absurd claims such as "there was no clear resolution of the debate", then we have no choice but to give a full airing to the reaction to Dingle's campaign, and the verdict of the scientific community. It is simply not true to claim that there was no resolution. The truth is there was never anything to resolve, other than the confused obsession of a man who was out of his depth even in his prime. 63.24.115.122 07:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) "... avoid trying to present an assessment of the validity of Dingle's campaign against special relativity during the last 20 years of his life" ==> The fact that Dingle changed his mind (or, I'm sorry, what remained of it) during that part of his life, is i.m.o. the very reason why he has any right to appear here. If he had started presenting the results of his confusion at a younger age, he never would have become a physicist in the first place, and he would have remained just as unnotable and annonymous as most of us are.
 * 2) "... any assessment would have to address a range of self-contradictory views" ==> of course, that is what Dingle is all about. The real problem here, is that the neo-Dingle community is suffering from the same confusion and apparently even greater lack of context than Dingle was during his final years, and that is i.m.o. the reason why there will never be a solid consensus over an assessment of his views. So although I fully agree with your second paragraph, I have undone your last revert to EMS's sec version. If you want to re-insert is, please provide some solid references and remove the POVs. Cheers, DVdm 08:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It certaily does belong to this article what kind of issues he had, and that his arguments were generally rejected. The reader should be informed about this (but not citing editor's views!). More details from reliable sources may certainly be added: for example Dingle's expectation that the clocks as described in the clock paradox should indicate the same time was a central issue (also descibed by Chang). Harald88 10:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Harald, agreed. I notice that someone re-inserted the unreferenced and POV-rich piece. I removed it again. You agree? DVdm 11:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

DVdm,If Dingle is dismissed because he was 82 years old, what is your argument against anti-relativists who are 36 years old? (81.156.63.242 11:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

DVdm, I also see that you are casting doubt on Dingle based on the fact that he changed his mind over a period of time. That is a pathetic argument. (81.156.63.242 11:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

DVdm, if Dingle was giving a lecture, you would be the kind of pickett who would try to hold your hands over his mouth for fear of the truth coming out. The relativity myth is obviously of great importance to you. (81.156.63.242 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Controversy

 * "Dingle is best known for his participation in two highly public and polemical disputes. The first took place during the 1930s, ... The second took place in the 1960s, ... The controversy ended without a clear refutation of either side ..."

The summation refers only to the second dispute, or to both collectively? Personally, I think there ought to be some mention of the twin paradox, and that Dingle was wrong about relativity. —wwoods 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but there is this club of Neo-Dinglians who apparently haven't got the first clue about relativity (and by extension about the twin paradox), and who, paradoxically, for some strange reason have become convinced that Dingle was correct about relativity. You see the problem? DVdm 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are being deliberately insulting and provocative to create an argument. It is clear that the anti-Dingle advocates of relativity don't understand what they are talking about. So for you to say that the other side is wrong is just stupid and biased. Special relativity asserts both that symmetrical aging of the twins should occur and that asymetrical aging of the twins should occur. What Dingle asserted was that the first claim was the correct one, despite that fact that it had become erronously accepted that the aysmmetrical aging of the twins was correct. Since special relativity claims two contradictory outcomes are correct, and the Dingle argument is not based on Einstein's mistake in 1905, then it is obvious that Dingle was correct. So there is clearly a problem in interpretating the physics of special relativity and this is the substance of the argument. Claiming that Dingle was wrong doesn't solve the problem because it implies that special relativity is wrong, since Dingle asserted that the symmertical version of relativity was the correct one. Hence claiming that Dingle was wrong is the same as saying special relativity is wrong. Don't you people understand that very basic fact. Apparently it is you who don't understand what you are talking about.72.84.68.116 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like the following painfully demonstrate how futile arguing and having discussions over technical topics with people like this is:
 * "Special relativity asserts both that symmetrical aging of the twins should occur and that asymetrical aging of the twins should occur."
 * "Since special relativity claims two contradictory outcomes are correct ..."
 * "... Einstein's mistake in 1905 ..."
 * "... obvious that Dingle was correct."
 * "Claiming that Dingle was wrong doesn't solve the problem because it implies that special relativity is wrong..."
 * "Hence claiming that Dingle was wrong is the same as saying special relativity is wrong."

Sometimes I think they really can't help it, and sometimes I think they do it on purpose. What drives these people will probably remain a mystery. DVdm 09:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)