Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 9

"Assessments of Dingle's Anti-Relativity Arguments"
This section has been added and removed a couple of times. For those who haven't seen it:
 * As stated in his obituary, "the last twenty years of Dingle's life were dominated by his campaign against the special theory of relativity". This campaign was split into two phases. Initially (1955-1963) Dingle argued that special relativity does not predict asymmetric aging of twins, one of whom completes a round trip at high speed while the other remains at home. During this phase, he still regarded the theory of relativity as "sound", and merely belived that everyone else totally misunderstood it. The second, and more vitriolic phase of his campaign began around 1964, when Dingle finally realized that his understanding of special relativity was completely wrong, and in fact it did predict asymmetric aging for the twins. At this stage, he reverted to a complete rejection of the theory, including the reciprocity of time dilation between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. At this point, scientists who had previously worked patiently to explain relativity to Dingle reacted in different ways. Some, such as Synge, decided that Dingle was simply pulling a gigantic prank, since he was unable to believe that Dingle was serious in his later allegations. Others responded with less equnimity, and, and G Whitrow said, "this treatment hardened Dingle's belief that he was right". Dingle came to believe that the scientific community was behaving dishonestly, and intentionally ignoring him, which prompted him to ever more shrill complaints and letters to editors, demanding that his fellow scientists be held to account for their mendacity. At this point, it because clear to all participants that Dingle was unwell, and the only decent thing to do was to let his tirades pass in silence.


 * On the other hand, an article by Chang (in the philosophy Journal founded by Dingle) about Dingle's "rebellion" argues that his objections were largely philosophical and not well understood. Nevertheless, the consensus in the physics community was and still is that Dingle was wrong.

It seems like a lot of this could be sourced, if desired. —wwoods 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out, in response to this edit comment:
 * Dingle himself repudiated the idea that his objections were "philosophical".
 * that a person can incorrectly assess both the merit and nature of a claim they make. It certainly doesn't mean that we can't address how others (such as Chang) assessed his claims.  --Starwed 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the late 1950s, Dingle decided that his approach to the argument, regarding the correct interpretation of relativity, was inadaquate. He decided upon a different approach. Instead of arguing for a correct interpretation of relativity, he argued that special relativity, as interpreted by his opponents, was false. In doing this he used the false interpretation of his opponents to prove that relativity was flawed. This resulted in a peculiar result. His opponents, in refuting him, actually agreeded with his position that the interpretation of relativity, that was being advanced by Dingle's opponents, was actually false. So in attempting to refute Dingle, his opponents actually showed why his arguments were correct. Hence the claimed refutations of Dingle amounted to nothing, because you can not refute an argument with an agrument that agrees with it. Such was the confusion among physicists, that they actually beleived that these arguments, that agreed with Dingle's position, actually refuted his claims. This is an example of how totally confused were the arguments about relativity. The confusion still exists as evidenced by these arguments in Wikipedia. Physicists continue to beleive that Dingle, who argued that the physical interpretation did not agree with the postulates and the mathematical formalism, was wrong. When what he actually argued for was the correct physical interpretation of relativity. What this shows is how polemical physics had become, such that it was advocating an incorrect interpretation of relativity in apparently refuting Dingle's correct interpretation of relativity.Electrodynamicist 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted an uncorroborated claim that there is concensus about Einstein's 1918 GRT solution - rather the opposite is true, and it's hardly relevant. But as discussed here above, I will now add the much more relevant fact that Dingle made a faulty prediction of the clock problem (again citing the literature instead of WP:OR). Harald88 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Einstein's 1918 paper contains the resolution of the "paradox" for special relativity, which is what's at issue here. There is complete concensus as to the validity of this resolution. For your information, there is also concensus as to the validity of the resolution of the "paradox" in general relativity described in that paper, along with recognition of the open issues alluded to therein, i.e., the origin of inertia, but Dingle was disdainful of any such philosophical scruples about inertia. He insisted that his point was logical inconsistency, which is thoroughly debunked in Einstein's 1918. In fact, one could cite earlier debunkings, including Einstein 1905, Lorentz in 1912, and I think Poincare in 1909. There is absolutely no doubt within the mainstream scientific community that Dingle's claim of logical inconsistency was bogus, and there is also no doubt that Dingle disavowed any philosophical interpretation of his criticism, so the Chang revisionism is irrelevant to this article.63.24.56.150 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Einstein's 1918 paper does not contain the resolution for special relativity: instead it provides Einstein's GRT solution. Moreover, Einstein's claims that those gravitsational fields are real is rarely agreed upon by mainstream science (see for example the web site by Baez), which aligns with Dingle's criticism. Anyway, you are citing yourself when you claim that Dingle's argument against that 1918 paper was debunked by that paper (now here you created a paradox of your own!).
 * However, since Dingle did mention that paper it may be worth bringing up, but it certainly doesn't warrant the unreferenced claim that you made about it and it will certainly lead to a different section since most physicists even don't know that paper. Chang certainly correctly states the common opinion of physicists about Dingle. Also, you should respect that physicists are not in general specialists of philosophy. If you have a reliably sourced reference of another philosopher of science who disagrees with Chang, you are welcome to cite it. Harald88 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know about anybody else, but I think the present state of the article makes it pretty clear about the mainstream view of Dingle's objections to SR. I dont think this article is the right place, for a detailed description of Dingle's arguments and the various refutations either. The details can be found in the references and links sections, if anyone should want to investigate the arguments in greater depth. I think it's time to stop pushing personal POV's within the article itself. - Swanzsteve 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Replies to Harald88's comments.
 * "Einstein's 1918 paper does not contain the resolution for special relativity: instead it provides Einstein's GRT solution."

You’ve obviously never read the paper, or you would know that you’re wrong.


 * "Moreover, Einstein's claims that those gravitsational fields are real is rarely agreed upon by mainstream science (see for example the web site by Baez), which aligns with Dingle's criticism."

As Einstein says in the paper you've never read, the distinction between “real” gravity and “not real” gravity is not very useful, and this is indeed the mainstream scientific view. This does not in any way "align with Dingle's criticism".


 * "Anyway, you are citing yourself when you claim that Dingle's argument against that 1918 paper was debunked by that paper (now here you created a paradox of your own!)."

If you’re seriously claiming that mainstream physicists believe Dingle’s arguments were well founded (i.e., that special relativity is logically inconsistent), then we can certainly assemble one or two… THOUSAND... references giving the current mainstream physics view of special relativity, showing that the Lorentz transformation is not presently believed to be logically self-contradictory. But what on earth would be the point of this?


 * "Chang certainly correctly states the common opinion of physicists about Dingle. Also, you should respect that physicists are not in general specialists of philosophy."

Dingle was an astronomer.


 * "If you have a reliably sourced reference of another philosopher of science who disagrees with Chang, you are welcome to cite it."

Chang’s paper is not about Dingle’s contention in the 60’s and 70’s that special relativity is logically inconsistent. His paper is about the earlier dispute during the late 50’s, in which Dingle claimed (erroneously, as everyone including Dingle eventually agreed) that special relativity does not predict asymmetric aging of the twins. 63.24.106.110 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I participated in translating Einsteins's paper into English, I obviously have read it. Chang describes Dingle's contentions in full. We also welcome citations of other papers about Dingle; but I agree with Swanzsteve that an article about Dingle is not appropriate for a detailed description of Dingle's arguments and the various refutations. Perhaps that topic is sufficiently notable to start an article about it. What do people think? But probably such an article will be a mess, with all kinds of pro- and anti-Dingle editors jumping in to write down their personal thoughts and starting edit wars. Harald88 09:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 63.24...., Please stop your vandalism of cited references. Harald88 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, um... mainstream physicists think special relativity is entirely logically consistent, we just don't believe that an approach relying on gravitation is a necessary or useful way of resolving the Twin "Paradox." Einstein was a tremendously brilliant physicist, but subsequent generations have improved on his work ("shoulders of giants" and all that), and I can't think of any case in which one of his papers would be the best source for explaining any aspect of his theories.  The modern approach to many problems&mdash;including the Twin Paradox&mdash;is clearer and more direct. -- SCZenz 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Harald88, if you have read Einstein's 1918 paper, then why do you assert that it does not present the resolution for special relativity? Have you simply forgotten the paper's contents? Or are you simply making false claims for the fun of it? Or what???  Please explain.


 * SCZenz, the 1918 paper of Einstein first gives the simple resolution of the twins paradox in the context of special relativity (no logical inconsistency). Then the hypothetical critic of relativity (in the dialogue) challenges Einstein to explain it in the broader context of general relativity, i.e., without the special theory's uncritical reliance on the distinguished class of coordinate systems (inertial), so Einstein proceeds to give that explanation, along with acknowledgement of the open issue regarding the origin of inertia even in the general theory. This remains the mainstream view of the twin paradox, in terms of both special and general relativity.63.24.118.57 13:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to the explanations of others below, I repeat (apparently I should have only told you the main point!): Einsteins' 1918 paper does not comment on Dingle's criticism on it - it can thus not be Wikipedia's source on Dingle. And please stop your deletion of essential material from the article. Harald88 08:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can claraify this: Einstein considered the 1918 article to be a "GR solution", but that is based on Einstein's view that accelerated frames of reference fall within the framework of "GR".  A more modern interpretation is that the GR/SR dichitomy involves the use of or absense of spacetime curvature.  In that case, much of what Einstein considered to be "GR" in fact is just how a SR spacetime appears in an accelerated reference frame.   So IMO the 1918 article is a SR solution.  (BTW - Please note that I wrote that this is "a" SR solution and not "the" SR solution.  There are multiple ways of resolving the twin paradox.) --EMS | Talk 14:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * EMS, the 1918 paper of Einstein first gives the simple resolution of the twins paradox in the context of special relativity, explaining why there is no logical inconsistency. Then the hypothetical critic of relativity (in the dialogue) challenges Einstein to explain it in the broader context of general relativity, i.e., without the special theory's uncritical reliance on the distinguished class of coordinate systems (inertial), so Einstein proceeds to explain this, along with acknowledgement of the open issue regarding the origin of inertia even in the general theory. When we say "in the context of general relativity" we mean that flat spacetime is not taken as "given" (as it is in special relativity), but is taken as a particular solution of the field equations of general relativity. So there are two different contexts in which flat spacetime can be discussed. Of course, curved spacetime can only be discussed in the context of the general theory, but nothing prevents us from considering flat spacetime in the context of the general theory. Naturally all results in the latter case are consistent with what we would get working strictly in the special theory, which after all is just a useful limiting special case of the general theory. This remains the mainstream view of the twin paradox, in terms of both special and general relativity.130.76.32.167 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What looks to me like the relevant comment from Einstein's 1918 paper, is this one:
 * "Relativist:
 * Your last assertion is of course indisputable. However, the reason that that line of argument as a whole is untenable is that according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', which is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory."

This doesnt look like a resolution to me, but more like he is saying that because one of the systems experiences acceleration, SR doesnt apply. - Swanzsteve 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken. Acceleration poses no difficulty for the application of special relativity. The quoted statement resolves the "paradox", because the premise of the "paradox" is that the situation of the twins is symmetrical, so there can be no reason to differentiate between them, and assert that one ages more than the other. This "paradox" is shown to be fallacious merely by pointing out that it's premise is wrong, i.e., the twins are not symmetrical. The path of one is inertial, while the path of the other is not. Dingle could never accept this, basically because he labored his entire life under the mistaken belief that special relativity is a relational theory, ala Leibniz, which it is not. Special relativity, no less than Newtonian mechanics, is founded on Galileo's principle of inertia, not on the naive idea of relationism. (The fact that the words "relativity" and "relationism" are similar is just an unfortunate historical accident, and has contributed to much misunderstanding, of which Dingle is a prime example.) This is ironic in so many ways, because many of the crackpot critics of special relativity despise the theory because they think it embodies relationism, when in fact it is nearly the opposite of relationism.63.24.51.79 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon - Please be careful about arguing the twin paradox physics here: Those of us who accept relativity will agree with you, while the anti-relativists will only see so much hand-waving and silly attempts to justify (what they see as) a falascious theory.  The main point (that the situations of the twins are not identical) is the key here, and people will take it or leave it as they please.  Given that, you are encouraged to return to discussing the article and to leave the physics largely aside.  (This is not to say the how Dingle and his opponents viewed the physics cannot be discussed.  Instead the concern is a discussion of the whether the physics of relativity is really true.  That I have engaged in here and achieved nothing through it.)  I also advise against speculating on Dingle's state of mind even in this discussion page.  The fact that his arguments against SR were never accepted by the scientific community is what counts. --EMS | Talk 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can paraphrase Einstein's statement:
 * "...Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems...Therefore...no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory."

This is a pretty clear statement that the circumstances of the clock paradox, place it outside SR.

Dingle asked, what entitled Einstein to deduce asymmetrical ageing from his 1905 theory? - Swanzsteve 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The stated conclusion (that the twin paradox cannot be handled within SR) does not follow from the quoted text.
 * This is becoming a discussion of the physics again instead of the article.


 * Swanzsteve: Under WP:NPOV, this article cannot make any ruling on whether or not Dingle was right.  Instead it only can (but IMO also should) report that the scientific community never accepted Dingles argument.  (BTW - I for one liked your reference to Dingle's "ultimately unsuccessful" quest to overturn SR, and would not mind its return.)


 * Anon - I one again remind you that a neutral point of view is not the same thing as a scientific point of view. "Neutral" not only means that the anti-relativists cannot say here that Dingle was right, but it also means that we cannot outright say that he was wrong. --EMS | Talk 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, although Dingle was in fact wrong. So, under wich circumstances can a fact be not "neutral" here? Simply when a bunch of clueless amateurs with an agenda can't understand that fact. That is why this particular fact has no chance of surviving in a place like this. That is what Wiki-consensus is about, Anon.
 * DVdm 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I'm not suggesting we put anything into the article to suggest Dingle was right, my last post was intended as a reply to the people who think Einstein's 1918 paper contains a SR resolution to the paradox, which it clearly doesnt. As to the "ultimately unsuccessful" statement, everything we put in about Dingle's campaign was unceremoniously deleted by 63.24 or some other anon, feel free to put it back in. For some reason these people seem desperate to put the phrase 'Dingle was wrong' in somewhere.

DVdm, my agenda is straightforward: Dingle should not be insulted or misrepresented. - Swanzsteve 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve: Einstein's 1918 paper contains the resolution of the paradox in the context of special relativity. Once again, the paradox says: The twins can't age differently according to special relativity because their situations are perfectly symmetrical. The resolution is: No they are not symmetrical according to special relativity, because one follows an inertial path and the other does not. Now, you've claimed that "if one twin is accelerating, then special relativity doesn't apply", but that is false. Special relativity applies to accelerating objects just fine. (Look, Newton's laws of motion are only valid with respect to inertial coordinate systems, but it would be insane to say that, therefore, Newton's laws are inapplicable to accelerating objects. The situation is exactly the same in special relativity.) Hence you are mistaken on multiple levels. The bottom line is: Einstein's 1918 paper contains the resolution of the twin paradox for special relativity, and then it goes on to explain the resolution in the larger context of the general theory, and discusses open issues - all of which was beyond Dingle's comprehension.

DVdm: I'm not quite so pessimistic. I have no illusions about "talking cures" for mentally ill people, but I've actually had some success in Wikipedia at getting decent articles on crackpot-intensive topics. It is, however, a long and laborious process. I've found that one of the first steps before any real progress can be made is getting Mr Parallax out of the way.63.24.59.247 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon - I am going to side with Swanzsteve on the mention of Einstein's 1918 article: I find it to be excessive in terms of making the point, and at least technically a citation is needed to back up the assertion that this resolves Dingle's objections.


 * To both the anon and DVdm - The subject here is Herbert Dingle, not the twin paradox and not special relativity itself. Because of that, this article must document Dingle's views of SR and the twin paradox and what became of them.  Please realize that WP:NPOV not only blocks the anti-relativists from outright saying that Dingle was right, but it also blocks us relativists from outright saying that Dingle was wrong.  However, step back and take a look at the situation:  There are plenty of respected resources out there which document the standard scientific view that Dingle was wrong.  So even though we cannot flat out say that Dingle was wrong, we can document that he is generally considered to have been wrong.  That is really all that is needed here, and as long as that status is made clear I for one will be happy with this article. --EMS | Talk 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with EMS | Talk - and his above message is also relevant for Swanzsteve who just now deleted "Dingle's views of SR and the twin paradox and what became of them" as well as a respected resource "which document the standard scientific view that Dingle was wrong". (Thus I reverted). Harald88 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

63.24 - you may be satisfied with Einstein's 1918 'resolution', but Dingle was not. Since the clock paradox originated in SRT1905 (a paper in which no mention is made of acceleration in relation to moving clocks), to say in 1918 that "no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory" because "this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems", i.e. one of the systems experiences accelerations, is a bit rich, to say the least. As I have said before, Dingle asked - what entitled Einstein to deduce asymmetrical ageing from his 1905 theory?


 * Dingle objected to the use of acceleration to 'resolve' the paradox. If Dingle objected to Einstein's 1918 interpretation, you cant say that objection was answered by Einstein's 1918 interpretation. That just doesnt make sense.

I'll look for the quote from Dingle's book and post it here - Swanzsteve 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald - I've lost count of the times I have put in a statement to the effect that the mainstream consensus in the physics community was that Dingle's objections were unfounded. This apparently is not vitriolic enough for the fundamentalist relativists, who want to add critical quotes and POVs produced AFTER his death, when he was not around to answer them, as he surely would have. Einstein's paper cannot be quoted as a refutation of Dingle's views, because he disagreed that asymmetry due to acceleration was an appropriate 'resolution'. This is a HISTORICAL article, we should be talking about the debates during his life, and refutations he received during his life, everything afterwards is out of context. - Swanzsteve 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Swanzsteve, we fully agree on this a^s see that you repeated a few of the comments I made above. Thus, why did you delete a citation of those historical remarks that I and EMS require and that you yourself claim you want to include in this article?!
 * Later this week I'll have another look at the article, and I'll reinsert that info if it's again/still lacking. Harald88 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald - I didnt delete any historical remark, I deleted the bit about Einsteins 1918 paper answering Dingle's objections, and the sneering paragraph from Davies' 1995 book. - Swanzsteve 01:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But Harald88 was the one who asked for the Davies quotation to be included. And it was indeed a historical description of Dingle's story. Then as soon as I inserted it, you removed it. As far as I can tell, your ownly reason for removing this reference to a book published by a well respected physicist (who actually went to school at Imperial College, were Dingle taught) by a very reputable publisher, talking directly about the subject of this Wikipedia article, is that you don't like what he said. I decided to let it pass, because Dingle is such a pathetic and insignificant character there is no need to pile on. But by the same token, we are not going to allow the insertion of any crackpot narrative. It suffices to simply state the plain unadorned fact: The physics community regards Dingle's objections as unfounded. If you'd like, I'll be happy to back this up with quotations, such as the Royal Society saying that Dingle's error was so elementary it wasn't even worth publishing any more rebuttals. And that is the KINDEST remark I can quote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.24.42.218 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's true, then the system account is erroneous (BTW that can happen and I have seen it happen!):
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Dingle&diff=prev&oldid=156468326
 * I will now repair it, if needed. Harald88 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald - that is indeed my edit, but it does not contain an historical remark, that his Chang's POV in 1993, which others have also removed before, because Chang seemed to be letting Dingle of the hook. The other edit I did was remove Davies' anti-Dingle POV in 1995. I have no objections to the statement that "The mainstream physics community regards Dingle's objections as unfounded", and nobody else seems to object to this, since the article has been relatively stable for almost a week. The current article seems to be a reasonable compromise, making the status of Dingle's objections clear, without being unnecessarily insulting. I think we should leave it alone for a while. - Swanzsteve 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Swanzsteve, most of us do find the general opinion of physicists important and we do need a reliable source to state this - I found one in the form of Chang's peer-reviewed overview and we dicided to put that in. You are of course welcome to cite a similar counter opinion if that exists; I'm confident that there is none! The unsourced opinion of editors is irrelevant and is regularly deleted, as it should be. Thus I'll repair the sourcing if I find it absent now. Harald88 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald, I find it very strange that you should give priority to an ill-defined bunch of anonymous mediocrats that Chang claims to exist, over the head of historical masters such as Tesla and Heisenberg.

This issue is about Dingle's opposition to Einstein.

If you want to undermine Dingle's position by stating that he is opposed by mainstream physicists in an era in which anti-Einsteinism is suppressed, then I think that it's more than fair to allow mention of the fact that the above named heavyweights also opposed Einstein.

If you don't recognize that truth, then I can supply Steve Swann with Prof. Richard Waldron. Waldron was a strong supporter of Dingle. He was head of mathematics at the Ulster Polytechnic. (Dr. Seaweed 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Suspect citations
After rephrasing a few new sentences for proper sourcing, I suspect that they are in fact not properly sourced:

"According to Taylor and Wheeler (?), the concensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfounded Davies reviewed Dingle's complaint, and re-iterated Einstein's resolution (of the Twin paradox?) (really?) as the scientifically accepted view. ."

Please provide accurate quotations, as it's uncommon for textbooks to discuss such things; and if the second citation is correct, it should be balanced by the common view that does not promote Einstein's GRT solution. Or - probably better - Davies' view could be inserted in the article on the Twin paradox.

Harald88 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After repairing references, I also found the following incomplete reference:

Whitrow, Obituary of Herbert Dingle, 1978. I'm afraid it's useless as such. What is it? where can it be found? Harald88 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK the last one is now complete, it seems. But I now found one added again, as well as the following two ref. (and I move them here, for the same reason that they probably do NOT discuss Dingle):

H. Reichenbach, "The Philosophy of Space and Time", 1927 Rindler, Essential Relativity, Springer-Verlag, 1969

Harald88 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

 * "The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfounded.[7][8][9][10]."

These multiple references seem like piling on, and I wonder if any of them even mention Dingle, much less bother to refute his arguments. Can't we just say something to the effect that (A) in principle — like any scientific theory — the theory of special relativity may someday be found not to be a good description of reality, but (B) Dingle was simply wrong about SR being self-contradictory? With a link to twin paradox somewhere in the article? —wwoods 06:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus statement, seems to be a reasonable compromise. There have been no edit wars for almost a week. Although I agree that the multiple references are "piling it on", its preferable to the vitriolic anti-Dingle statements that it has replaced, which really have no place in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. I like your comment that Relativity, like any scientific theory, may not be the complete answer, but this article is not about SR or the twins paradox, and there are multiple links and references to books on relativity and there is a link to the wiki page on SR. If we had a vote I would say leave this part of the article as it is, it makes the status of Dingle's objections clear, and is not insulting to him. - -Swanzsteve 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an inherent difficulty with references refuting Dingle and/or Dingle's argument. Any reputable reference that explicitly refers to Herbert Dingle (like the PCW Davies reference I provided) is going to accurately characterize Dingle as a sad example of the kind of mental illness that can happen to an isolated octagenarian, and the neo-Dingles will be unable to tolerate this glimpse of reality, because it is too destructive to their world view. Basically, any accurate description of Dingle is going to be labeled "insulting" by a neo-Dingle, because Dingle was a dimwit to begin with, and he was a total nutcase by the time he was 82 and wrote Science at the Crossroads. Obviously any accurate description of such a person is not going to be flattering.


 * But the only alternative is to leave ad hominum aside and cite references that refute Dingle's ARGUMENT rather than Dingle himself. After all, Dingle's argument is the same argument raised by every junior high school student when they first hear about relativity. Dingle did not invent the twin paradox, nor did he invent the inability to understand the implications of the relativity of simultaneity. The very question that Dingle called THE QUESTION in Science at the Crossroads is both posed and answered in countless text books. So these are prefectly legitimate references for refuting Dingle's ARGUMENT.


 * But then the neo-Dingle's complain that the references don't explicitly mention Dingle! Obviously the only thing that would satisfy the neo-Dingles is a description of Dingle that portrays him as sane, and his ideas as at least marginally defensible. Unfortunately such a portrayal would be false on both counts.


 * By the way, I checked with Chang, and he specifically told me that his paper does NOT defend Dingle's 1960's and 1970's campaign against special relativity. It addresses ONLY the phase of Dingle's arguments while he still believed relativity to be sound, and was trying to understand the origin of inertia... despite the fact that Dingle himself was too stupid to realize that this was at the root of his question, so Dingle actually wrote a paper ridiculing people who ask philosophical questions about the origin of inertia... the guy was just as dumb as a fence post (see any of his writings), even in his sane years, and this fact can't be altered by any modern apologists.


 * All I can say is, if the neo-Dingle's want to insist on referencing refutations and diagnoses not just of Dingle's argument, but of Dingle himself, then I'll be more than happy to oblige... But I warn the neo-Dingle's, they will not like the results.63.24.61.65 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

63.24, if that is indeed your name, you are currently the only raving lunatic on this page. Here is a summary of your last offering:-
 * ......Dingle as a sad example of the kind of mental illness that can happen to an isolated octagenarian ..... Dingle was a dimwit to begin with, and he was a total nutcase by the time he was 82 .... the only thing that would satisfy the neo-Dingles is a description of Dingle that portrays him as sane, and his ideas as at least marginally defensible. Unfortunately such a portrayal would be false on both counts ..... Dingle himself was too stupid to realize that this ..... the guy was just as dumb as a fence post ... But I warn the neo-Dingle's, they will not like the results....

I suggest a course in anger management, considering the object of your hatred has been dead for 30 years. I think you should stop 'contributing' to the article until you are cured, and then sign up and get a user name so we know who you are. There's something slightly sinister about you hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.

If you actually read the article and Dingle's academic achievements, you might realise that he even though he disagreed with your POV, he was far from a dimwit. Such non-NPOV comments from you should disqualify you from editting this article. - Swanzsteve 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that he has managed to create a stable contribution by rigorously documenting that which he wants included and at least marginally working towards consensus. I strongly advise follwing his lead in that regard if you want to "overthrow" him.  There is a lot that can be done with this article in terms of expansion, and it can even include a softenning of the language which points out Dingle's failure to convince the scientific community that views on SR are correct.  Personally, I see no reason why much of the material in the dreaft revision page cannot be documented similarly and then placed into the article itself. --EMS | Talk 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tesla, Einstein, and Dingle
I don't agree with DVdm. It's true that this article is about Dingle. Dingle disgreed with Einstein.

If you are allowed to point out that most scientists disagreed with Dingle's objections to Einstein, then I think it is fair to equally allow a reference to the fact that Tesla was anti-Einstein.

By saying that most scientists disagree with Dingle you are undermining Dingle. By pointing out that a heavyweight like Tesla was anti-Einstein, this has the effect of bolstering Dingle's position.

I think we need to keep the article balanced.

Why is there a team of editors that are so determined to undermine Dingle's message? (61.7.166.223 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC))


 * If Tesla has ever said something about Dingle, it might be worth mentioning here, even though he "was ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist" (see Nikola Tesla). I can imagine that you would bot be prepared to include the following phrase in the article:
 * "... although it should be remembered that the highly respected scientist, but ultimately ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist Nikola Tesla, who never mentioned Dingle, was fiercely opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity until his death in 1943"
 * Reverted again. Mind wp:3rr - DVdm 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It comes across very strongly that you are absolutely determined to undermine the credibility of Dingle. Has it never crossed your mind that Dingle might actually be right? If Tesla was right, then so was Dingle. That is the relevance of Tesla. Tesla is as relevant for Dingle supporters as your group of modern scientists is for Dingle's opponents.

Thanks for the warning about the three revert rule. Presumably it doesn't apply to you. Has truth become a product of who can win on the three revert rule? Jordan Sweet (61.7.166.223 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Alas, "... that Dingle might actually be right" wouldn't matter a bit. The truth is that the consensus was and still is that he was tragically flatout wrong. That consensus is a fact and facts are what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide. I assume I don't have to ask you whether you want a list of eminent scientists who documented that Tesla, whatever he might have invented and whetever he should have been credited for, was barking mad... DVdm 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This Revision Is Just Another Poorly Researched Dingle Bashing Excersise
Once again the editors of Wikipedia have demonstrated why Wikipedia has justly gained the reputation for presenting false and poorly researched information. It is an example of how bias colors the conclusions and the presentation. The article is basically worthless as it is not based on worthwhile scholarship, and is intended to present its subject in a negative manner. It is biased trash. Not worth reading. Useless as informative biography. I cant understand why the editors of this article can not acknowledge that Dingle was a very intelligent and thoughtful scientist. As biography it is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.54.95 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The other contributing pro-Dinglians (sorry, guys) seemed quite happy with the current state of the article. Check the history of article and talk.
 * What I really don't see, is how Tesla could possibly have a place in a biography of Dingle. Besides, if you want truthfully and richly researched information about Tesla, it's not far away. DVdm 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have crap in this article. That is a fact you cant change. You are a biased group of very poor editors. Dont trust Wikipedia is my motto after reading your work.

Oh! By the way. the references you cite as proof of the consensus that Dingle is wrong don't prove out. Please cite the page numbers so that they can be verified. I find no evidence of your claims in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.54.95 (talk)


 * You'll have to talk to the mix of relevant contributors of the article. If I had any final say in this, I would merely have included Dingle's most trivially glaring fumble, in which (at least for everyone who understands pages one and two of special relativity,) he once and for all miserably demonstrated to fail to understand the concepts of proper time and coordinate time, both to be found on those first two pages. Be glad I don't have that final say ;-) - DVdm 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I get it. Your references are BS. Oh course. You don't care if they are incorrect, it is only the image that is important. Your facts are made up, fictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.72.142 (talk)

References to Wikipedia Editors confirming the message of Dingle's Book
To anonymous 61.7.166.191. You can't seriously expect a wikipedia article to contain such a paragraph. Everybody is entitled to edit wikipedia, and so you cannot hold up the actions of a few editors as being representative of wikipedia policy.

Dingle came to prominence because of his battle against suppression. If the same forces that suppressed him continue to suppress his memory then there is a legitimate way for handling it. (Dr. Seaweed 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Dingle was in Line with Tesla and Heisenberg as regards Einstein
I think that the issue of Tesla is highly relevant to this article. This article is all about the fact that Dingle opposed Einstein's theory of relativity and that opposition to Einstein is suppressed.

Since mainstream journals refuse outright to publish material that is critical of Einstein, then it is of no consequence to state that most modern scientists do not agree with Dingle's arguments. We do not know this for sure because if any did support Dingle, they would not be allowed to speak out.

Prof. Richard Waldron, head of mathematics at a UK Polytechnic is an example of a pro-Dingle established scientist who managed to get some articles through the dragnet in the late 1970's. He was probably one of the last.

Tesla and Heisenberg are acknowledged leaders of modern science and their opposition to Einstein was well known. This should not be forgotten by those who are trying to undermine Dingle's credibility by mentioning that some ill-defined group of mediocrats opposed Dingle.

I think that a reference to both Tesla amd Heisenberg should be nade in this article. (124.157.247.112 08:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


 * "This article is all about the fact that Dingle opposed Einstein's theory" ==> This article is a biography of Dingle. If you want an article titled Dingle's opposition to Einstein's theory and the opposition he faced by some ill-defined group of mediocrats, you can click the link and write it. DVdm 09:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are only kidding ourselves if we think that people want to read about Herbert Dingle because he had a wife called Alice or because he was born in Plymouth. The reason why Dingle is famous is because he opposed Einstein's theories of relativity.

Anybody who wants to play this aspect of Dingle's life down must clearly feel threatened by it.

True, this is a biography about Dingle, but the facts that people will be most interested to read will be those concerning his dispute with Einstein's theories. There is no need to open up a special article.(Dr. Seaweed 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


 * "...because he opposed Einstein's theories..." ==> And because he was -so to speak- wiped the floor with by an overwhelming majority of physicists, which is what we call a consensus. DVdm 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you supply me with the names of even two physicists who countered Dingle's arguments? (Dr. Seaweed 16:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

The meaning of a dispute
When a dispute takes place, it automatically means that there were two sides to the dispute. The reference to Dingle's dispute with McCrea in the Nature magazine is supplied. Hence anybody can read about the dispute and the other parties involved. However, if you like, I will add in the fact that it was McCrea that Dingle was arguing with.

The other part is irrelevavnt because it merely confirms the point that Dingle was making in his book. (Dr. Seaweed 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


 * As Chang explained there was a number of issues, it would be misleading to suggest that Dingle just had one dispute about the topic of relativity. I now repair what has gone lost - please expand the article instead of stubbing it, thanks in advance! Harald88 16:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We must have just crossed over each other. I have just added an 's' to objection for that very reason. You are correct. Dingle had more than one objection.

I don't recall that I have been stubbing this article. I added some stuff in recently. (Dr. Seaweed 16:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Sorry it wasn't intended personally to you - more of a general remark.
 * By the way, the best reference for this article for Wikipedia readers who like to get an understanding of the issues Dingle had with the way science was going (apart of Dingle's book of course) is certainly the article by Chang - it's very comprehensive and of high scientific quality. Harald88 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Harald, but Chang cannot claim that mainsteam physicists do not support Dingle. He is totally overlooking the fear that mainstream physicists are subjected to as regards the issue of criticizing Einstein. It's like saying that nobody who lived in a Stalinist dictatorship ever openly voiced any opposition, hence proving that no dissent existed.

Chang is not a big enough name to pitch against the likes of Heisenberg or Tesla who were the heavyweights from the generation before the suppression took root. (Dr. Seaweed 16:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


 * You are unfactual, for he did make that observation in a reviewed paper in a quality journal. And just as much as Dingle's views have its space in this article, also the general reactions of others to his views should be documented, based on quality commentaries. Harald88 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Harald, I'm surprised at you. Chang made that observation in a reviewed paper in a quality journal! Would this have been one of the very journals that would equally refuse to publish anything that supported Dingle?

All mainstream journals refuse to publish anything that would promote Dingle as having been correct. Naturally those same journals will grab anything that undermines Dingle. And you think that this gives Chang's claim some kind of credibility.

This controversy is about the issue of suppression. You cannot apply ordinary rules of logic here. It's like saying that the absence of street demonstrations in 1943 in Berlin against Hitler proved that everybody supported him.

I would have expected better from you Harald.

Chang is a nobody, and from what I can see he has been elevated to the position of a high sage in this article simply because he made a derogatory remark about Dingle. (Dr. Seaweed 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Suppression of an Article about Suppression
DVdm, I can't help noting that you are behaving in exactly the way that Dingle predicted. You are trying to suppress Dingle's claims that anti-Einstein material is suppressed.

Your arguments are totally dishonest because you are pretending that we live in a free world in which all anti-Einstein articles will be fairly reviewed by mainstream scientific journals.

You are behaving like a secret policeman in a dictatorship. You are living out one big lie.

If you really believe in Einstein's theories, then I think you are a fool. But I don't actually believe that you believe in them. I think that you are just that weak kind of character with no moral fibre that licks up to the ruling establishment. (Dr. Seaweed 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Keating Hafele was a fraud
The Keating Hafele experiment was based on false theory and over ambitious approximations. I have read it thoroughly. In actual fact, if it ever took place at all, and if the results are as they reported, then all it did was to disprove Einstein by proving that an absolute refernce frame exists.

The only experimnets that constitute proofs are those that we can repeat ourselves and fully understand the theory behind them (Dr. Seaweed 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Dr. Seaweed
I don't think that the two previous sections deserve a targetted reply, other than that the Wikipeadia is not a soapbox, so you better stop entering unsourced POV remarks and removing documented facts. See section on consensus above. Also see warning on your talk page. DVdm 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And the very same to you DVdm (Dr. Seaweed 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Alice?
It looks as though somebody has been trying to beef this article up with as much trivia as possible in an attempt to dilute the main point of interest. (****) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.22.174 (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Amendment
Quite franky, I think you removed some very interesting material. That's why I've restored it. I hope that it's OK with you all. (Brigadier Armstrong 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)).

The Dispute
Wwoods, I'm not quite sure if you fully comprehend what this is all about. This is an article on Herbert Dingle. The most famous thing about Herbert Dingle is the fact that he opposed Einstein's theories of relativity, and that he wrote a book explaining that any attempts to oppose Einstein will be suppressed.

This has certainly proved to be the case in recent times, as mainstream journals systematically refuse to publish material that is critical of Einstein.

There are however quite a few specilialized journals that keep the debate alive.

The fact that DVdm continually hovers over this page constantly removing key aspects of Dingle's message is merely proof of the message that is contained in Dingle's book. DVdm is one of those very enforcers who will not tolerate anything that might dent the credibility of Einstein's theories.

I have been involved in this Dingle controversey since the early 1970's and I fail to comprehend why so much credibility is given to the opinions of this novice 'Chang' who wasn't even around when the issue was first being debated in our department.

The Dingle dispute and the issues involved are much bigger that some non-entity called 'Chang', and the fact that he stated in the 1990's that there is no longer any interest in the Dingle debate.

You cannot state that as a fact and then quote a paper to prove it, especially as the paper is in the very kind of journal that would suppress pro-Dingle material.

At the very best, the wording should be more along the lines of " According to Mr. Chang, nobody in mainstream science is interested in the Dingle controversy" You cannot say that 'Nobody is interested in the Dingle controversy' and then quote Chang as if he were one of the Gods on High Olympus.

Chang is irrelevant. I want to see the opinions of names like Heisenberg, Laithwaite, Waldron, Tesla etc. quoted.

I think that you were totally out of order to come into this debate without even discussing the matter and simply revert to the version that elevates this mysterious Chang guy to such high proportions.

I'm going to revert back again because I believe that Dingle's book and its message are of much greater importance than Chang's opinion. (Dr. Seaweed 10:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia is not a place to ventilate unsourced POV messages someone believes are important. Reverted to properly sourced fact. Watch the Three-revert rule. DVdm 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know little and care less about Chang, but note that all he's said to have said is that Dingle was "not well understood" — you disagree?
 * I do care about the other part of that revision,
 * "It is believed that the consensus within the mainstream physics community today is that Dingle was wrong. This perceived consensus could of course be explained in part at least by the fact that mainstream scientific journals steadfastly refuse to publish material that is critical of Einstein, exactly as predicted by Dingle's book."
 * , which is seriously misleading and pushing a conspiracy theory.


 * Since Nikola Tesla died in 1943, I doubt he has expressed his opinion of the Dingle controversy in an accessible forum. What did the others have to say on that subject?
 * —wwoods 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just this. DVdm 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tesla died in 1943 and the Dingle controversy took place in the 1960's. That doesn't mean that Tesla doesn't have an important opinion on the matter.

Dingle was criticizing Einstein's special theory of relativity. Dingle's opponents are now arguing that mainstream physicists disagree with Dingle.

We should not however overlook the fact that Tesla was fiercely anti-Einstein and that Tesla was a top class physicist whose name is honored in the units of magnetic flux density. There is a batch of well known top grade pre-second world war physicists that opposed Einstein and I believe that this is totally relevant in an article about Herbert Dingle.

It is cheap and false to argue that because Tesla died more than twenty years before the Dingle controversy that his anti-Einstein views are irrelevant.

Chang may well be right that most mainstream scientists are pro-Einstein nowadays. That would certainly have been my view at Rice University, Houston, Texas. But I do think that this fact needs to be weighed up against the fact that professional physicists know that they will be shunned if they speak out against Einstein.

We need to ask ourselves how much of the support for Einstein amongst the physics establishment derives from expedient indifference.

There is a very interesting case regarding the late Prof. Eric Laithwaite. He was totally opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity. But he was also opposed to the Newtonian treatment of the gyroscope. He spoke out on the matter at a Royal Institution lecture in 1974 and he was totally shunned thereafter.

Alot of these mainstream scientists are merely mediocrats who are towing the party line for the sake of their own careers. We must not lose sight of this fact.

I think that it is correct to say that most mainstream scientists nominally oppose Dingle. But the aticle should be written in a more balanced fashion. (61.7.167.48 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Should Restore the Sep 16 Version
There are some problems with the current version (in my opinion). In no particular order:

(1) The current Oct 2 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 1960 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 it isn't relevant to either his pre-1960 or his post-1960 complaint, and 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 2 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 was still, well, before he went, well... let's just say pre-1960. During that period Dingle still was 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-19060 Dingle.

more later130.76.32.16 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On 1: Sure that point may be extended. Fact is that when people make wrong predictions, this is remembered. If you like one may instead quote Cullwick who is reproduced by Chang:
 * "On one thing Prof. Dingle's critics are all agreed, that he is wrong. They do not all agree, however, on the nature of his error." Of course, that quote refers to the situation in the fifties.
 * We may also add the following quote of Chang: "Dingle's arguments on the twin paradaox did not persuade many physicists". That is of course true, and we can cite his paper on it.
 * On 2: In his 50 pages overview, Chang quotes and discusses Dingle 1972, Dingle 1976, the opinion of Dingle in 1961, and in general on Dingle's vision and view of science (without limiting himself to a particular period). Chang's sympathy or asympathy has little to do with the historical overview; special relativity - as Dingle came to realise - is indeed incompatible with how he thought a relationalist theory should look like.
 * I encourage you to propose addition of more citations from such quality sources. In any case, please abstain from claims that are not properly sourced. Harald88 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What about moving the current line, "An article by Chang about Dingle's "rebellion" argues that his objections were largely philosophical and not well understood.", up to the previous paragraph, about the 1930s dispute? Would that be accurate?
 * —wwoods 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On point 1, Harald88 didn't provide any rebuttal, so the point stands: the statement in the Oct 2 article is factually garbled and inaccurate, and should be removed.


 * On point 2, Harald88 is wrong on several counts. He suggest Chang's sympathy is irrelevant, since the article should just give a historical overview of the facts, and yet the statement he keeps trying to insert is not a historical fact, it is nothing other than a statement of Chang's opinion, i.e., that Dingle's arguments were "misunderstood". But it's even worse, becuase not only is he presenting opinions instead of facts, he is blatently mis-representing those opinions. The arguments that Chang believes were "misunderstood" were the arguments of the PRO-relativity Dingle. To place that statement after declaring Dingle's opposition to relativity is blatently misleading. 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".


 * If Harald88 held to his principles of just recounting the historical facts, there would be no need to refer to Chang at all, because he doesn't give any facts that aren't already available from other (primary) sources. The only way Chang should stay in the article is if we decide to include assessments of Dingle's arguments... but I say again, the result will not be pretty. See the quote from P.C.W. Davies.


 * (3) The Oct 2 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. His objections, as agreed by all rational persons, were unfounded. (It is true that there exist people in the world who believe Dingle was right, just as there are people today who believe they are Napoleon Bonaparte's horse. We don't need to suppress such facts, but neither should they be given more emphasis than they deserve.)


 * (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 this humiliating fact came to light (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 was due 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? Why not let the poor man rest in peace? 63.24.99.8 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Publication of Material that is critical of Einstein's Theories
Wwoods suggests that to claim that mainstream science journals steadfastly refuse to publish anti-Einstein material is pushing a conspiracy theory.

I don't think so. I think that this claim is a plain indisputable fact.

Wwoods obviously has no experience whatsoever in this field. (61.7.167.48 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC))


 * The full contested text very much imples that this refusal is improper and amounts to a suppression of the real consensus of scientific opinion. The truth is that if there was a genuine ongoing debate about the correctness of Einstein's work is the mainstream physics and/or general science communities, the journals would be reporting it.  Otherwise, the journals would be risking losing thier audience as more and more scientists become disencanted by their refusal to properly report on this issue.


 * The truth is that the anti-relativity community has consistently failed to make its case, and that Dingle was the last respected anti-relativity scientists to come along. In such a case, the refusal to report on the work of the anti-relativity community (which is really quite small and limited today) is more than understandable. --EMS | Talk 05:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And if somebody believed that they had a legitimate case against Einstein's theories of relativity, where do you suggest that they should present it? Should they present it to officials in an establishemnet that supports Einstein? Would those officials assess the proposals with a fair and open mind? Would those officials even have the ability to assess the proposals at all?

The likes of yourself can maintain the fiction that Einstein was correct, only so long as the ruling physics party is in power. You can argue till you are blue in the face and the establishment will support you. It doesn't matter what nonsense you actually speak. (124.157.247.86 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Continuing the "Restore Sep 16 Version" Thread
Another blatently false statement in the current (Oct 2) article is where it says "The second dispute in the 1960's was with the astrophysicist William H. McCrea..." This is totally messed up. First, grammatically it reads as if this is the second dispute in the 1960's, but that's easily fixed. The more serious problem is that it says the dispute was with William McCrea. This is wrong. Dingle was opposed by legions of physicists, professors, high school teachers, and even high school students (they had a contest to write the clearest refutation). McCrea happened to be most notable because he was invited to rebut Dingle in the 67 Nature letters, but Dingle's campaign had been raging for over a decade by that time, involving even people like Max Born (to their sorrow).

Look, the Sep 16 version had it right. It was factual, accurate, balanced, not argumentative. I think what it lacked was more detail on Dingle's life and activities OTHER THAN the sad "crash and burn" over special relativity. His astronomical work with spectroscopy was respectable, for example. It's a shame to tarnish a man's entire life just because he went nuts in his old age.63.24.103.16 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gauging consensus in an unlevel playing field
The larger body of academics are either uninterested in the Dingle/Einstein controversy or else they lean towards Einstein simply because that is the position of the ruling party. We don't need the word of Mr. Chang in order for us to make a judgement on this issue.

This fact could be stated in the main article without making it into a divine quote by the much too enobled Mr. Chang.

A more balanced statement would run along the lines of "Herbert Dingle's conversion to the belief that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is flawed brought him into line with former well known contemporaries such as Nikola Tesla and Werner Heisenberg. However it had the effect of marginalizing him from modern mainstream phyiscs which adheres to the Einstein doctrine".

I would say that that would be a fair and truthful comment without having to introduce Mr. Chang's divinely inspired citations.

But It will not be good enough for DVdm or EMS. Why not? Because these two scouts are interested in more than just the truth. These two scouts feel intimidated and threatened by the element of doubt that the Dingle controversy casts upon mainstream orthodoxy. As such, DVdm and EMS want to get in and stamp their anti-Dingle mark all over the article in a desperate attempt to make readers have no confidence in Dingle's opinions.

And why do DVdm and EMS always get their way? Every time the article is frozen, it is frozen in DVdm's favour.

This is because administrators like Wwoods automatically support DVdm and EMS regardless of the content of the dispute. And why is this?

Well DVdm and EMS do alot of work for wikipedia and they have ingratiated themselves to the administrators. This is their pay back.

Why do DVdm and EMS fear so much that readers might actually be converted by Dingle's argument?

It's because they both have their own private original research which hinges on Einsein's theories being correct.

DVdm and EMS don't get their way by rational and truthful argument. They get their way by using and abusing the wikipedia rules and regulations. Rather than present a valid argument, they will accuse an opponent of being POV or of using personal insults and they will leave sneaky little messages in their opponents tray reminding him of the three revert rule which they themselves seem to be able to breach with impunity.

The administrators turn a blind eye to the rule breaking by EMS and DVdm because they are loyal hard working wikipedians.

The conclusion is that wikipedia may be handy for brief trivial facts but it is totally unreliable as regards controversial topics because every controversial topic under the Sun will have its equivalents of EMS and DVdm jealously hovering over their pet articles day and night. (Herbert Dingle 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Electrodynamicist (who I assume that you are a sockpuppet for) - You are correct in your conclusion, although I see you as the cause to the trouble for this article and not myself! Your proposed edit once again is implying that there is something improper in the existing support of relativity theory is the scientific community.  OTOH, the statement that Dingle became marginalized because of his opposition to relativity theory is quite on-the-mark and may be a useful basis for some compromise/consensus wording.


 * As for your allegation that I support special relativity becuase my own research assumes that it is correct: That is quite true, but I hope that I am as able to keep that bias from improperly affecting this article (but note the use of the word "improperly":  I certainly do intend to represent the anti-Dingle veiwpoint here and see nothing improper about that).


 * Finally do be aware that disruption by sockpuppetry is can result in the permanent blocking of your original aaccount and all of your aliases. So I strongly advise quiting this campaign, apologizing, and returning here under your original account. --EMS | Talk 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Still More Reasons to Restore the September 16 Version
Another point: The current (Oct 2) 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.130.76.32.144 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one agree that this article needs more biogrphical info and would benefit from it. It would be nice to have Dingle's anti-relativity campaign be seen as one aspect of the man's life (albeit a highly important one) instead of its being that which totally defines man.  OTOH, "Science at the Crossroads" is a defining publication for Dingle whose presense here is generally supported by both sides.  (The pro-Dingle people see is as being a correct description of the situation, while others like me are happy to let Dingle hang himself with it.) --EMS | Talk 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When we read an article about adolf Hitler, is it because we are interested in his role in the second world war, or is it because we want to know more about what kind of trousers he wore?


 * What would you think of an encyclopaedia article about Hitler that didn't mention his role in world war two? Or perhaps maybe mentioned it in passing that he happened to be the Fuhrer of Germany during world war two but that this bore no relevance on his favorite breakfast.


 * Likewise with Herbert Dingle. Who are these people that keep thinking that we should be concentrating on Dingle's family life. What is driving them? Do they fear that references to the very thing that made Dingle famous will assist to some minor degree in making the pendulum swing back again? (Nurse Hilditch 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC))