| Revision as of 14:04, 29 October 2007 editIsotope23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,870 edits →Problem With Latest Swanzsteve Revert: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:31, 10 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,043,964 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:pink; border:1px solid #5A8261; font-size:82.5%;margin-bottom:10px;width:80%;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;"> | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Dingle, Herbert|blp=no|1= | |||
| {| style="padding:0 0 0 0; background:transparent;text-align:center;" | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}} | |||
| |{{#if:{{{notready|}}}|<span style="color:lightred;">|}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Physics|importance=low|bio=yes}} | |||
| <big>A revision of this article is being worked on and considered at ]. This revision is being discussed at ].</big> | |||
| {{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=Low}} | |||
| |}</div> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{archives}} | |||
| {{WPBiography|living=no|class=Stub|priority=|s&a-work-group=yes|nested=yes}} | |||
| {{Physics|class=Stub|importance=|nested=yes}} | |||
| }}{{archives}} | |||
| ==Reasons for Disagreeing with GregVolk's Dec24 Edits== | |||
| In GregVolk's edits two well-documented facts are suppressed. First, that Dingle initially claimed relativity didn't predict unequal aging for round-trip twins and then acknowledged he had been wrong about that (and had been wrong for 40 years) and then switched to claiming that relativity was logically inconsistent. Dingle himself says admits this in his writing. This is not a contraversial point. There is no reason to suppress this important fact. Second, the fact that abundant experimental evidence supports the predictions of special relativity. Honestly, if it isn't even permissible in a Misplaced Pages article to state that special relativity has been experimentally verified, then we might as well just pack it in. I do, however, I agree with GregVolk that the summary of Dingle's work in the beginning of the article should mention Crossroads, so I may put that edit back in. I think it was previously assumed that this book was adequately covered under "Controveries".] (]) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gamma or Beta? == | |||
| I neglected to address one other part of GregVolk's edits that I don't agree with. GV wants the article to just say that someone (Whitrow) argued that the manifest reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation is not logically inconsistent. The article was written the way it is just because Whitrow was a convenient person to attribute that to, and some editors insisted on having a source that specifically refers to Dingle (rather than to the technical point at issue, for which there are literally thousands of solid references). There is no dispute about the fallacy of Dingle's claim. Even anti-relativists know that he was trivially wrong about that. In fact, the current article is written as charitably as can be, even at the expense of accuracy, because the reader isn't given any sense of just HOW absurdly wrong Dingle was. If some editors insist, we can pile up references, showing the near universal agreement on this point, but it sure seems like wasted effort because we all know the ultimate outcome.] (]) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I originally prepared the footnote equations using the greek gamma for the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), since that is the most common convention. However, two things caused me to change it to beta, which has historically been the second most common symbol used for that factor. First, I noticed that the lower-case gamma symbol doesn't render very well in HTML. At least on my browser, the lower part gets truncated, so it's unrecognizable, looking more like a V. Second, I noticed that Whitrow actually used beta, so it is actually more consistent with the reference to use beta. (Also, note that Einsein's 1905 paper used beta.) Dingle in 1967 used 1/a, so that doesn't agree with either convention. So, on balance, it seemed (and seems) to me that beta is the better choice. ] 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I note that you reverted the editors stylistic changes as well as those which changed the tone of certain sections. I fail to see how the two are connected? If you feel that such stylistic changes were detrimental, please state why. | |||
| :In any case, the only part of the edit I feel strongly about is the use of "relatvists argue" and simliar phrases. --] (]) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't know what "stylistic changes" you are referring to. I explained my reasons (above) for objecting to each of GV's proposed changes. If there are more specific change(s) that I failed to address, I'd be happy to do so if you can point them out.] (]) 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unsourced Statements Appearing In this Article== | |||
| : Yes, the little gamma looks like a capital V now. As long as the math is inline and in the notes section, keeping the notation more or less intact is good. However, if the math is to be ''unburried'' (which I think should be done, since it is central) to the main article, I think it's better to use current notation (with gamma). The gamma we have now really looks... ''ugly'' :-) - ] 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The following statement apears as a conclusive statement although it is unsourced. Please supply a source or remove it. "However, most modern cosmologists subsequently accepted the validity of the hypothetico-deductive method of Milne." I doubt this is correct. In fact it is not clear what it means. | |||
| : Huh, hadn't heard that before. I'm used to seeing β for ''v''/''c''. However, as long as it's defined right there, I guess it'll be okay. | |||
| :] 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Two reputable reference sources have now been added to the article, demonstrating the verifiability of that statement.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Denveron, in the process of changing the gammas to betas, you reverted all the other formatting changes I made, including fixing the spelling of "alledged". Did you mean to do that? | |||
| ::] 07:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The following statement does not appear in the cited paper and misrepresents what is said in that paper. I think what when you attribute a conclusion to a source you should accurately report what has been said in that source. This is not exactly what appears there and it misinterprets what is said in the source. | |||
| :::Sorry, I missed that you corrected "alleged". I have fixed that now. The rest of the formatting was intentional, only becase the was I formatted it looks more readable on my screen. Italisizing variables in expressions like t'/t makes them almosr unreadable in my browser, and the same for the squared symbols. ] 05:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β, t'=(t−vx/c2)β, and its algebraic inverse is x=(x'+vt')β, t=(t'+vx'/c2)β, where β=1/√(1−v2/c2). These equations imply t'=βt at x=0, and t=βt' at x'=0. Dingle alleged that these two facts are mutually contradictory, because the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β. However, these ratios apply to two different conditions, namely, x=0 and x'=0 respectively. Hence, contrary to Dingle's assertion, there is no contradiction, nor are these relations merely "appearances". They are the actual ratios of the inertial time coordinates along two different directions in space-time." | |||
| : This footnote is a summary of the fallacy of Dingle's argument, as is explained numerous sources, including (but not limited to) Whitrow's obituary and many of the replies to Dingle in various publications, including (but not limited to) McRae's. There is no misrepresentation. The explanation summarized in this footnote is described in all these sources, and is perfectly accurate and representative of those sources.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Housecleaning == | |||
| Reference 13 is used improperly as it refers to a different dispute than the one it is supposed to refer to. The editors apparently don't understand anything about the controversies they are reporting on and mix them up in the references. This is so they can provide a lot of sources that seem to support their position. The following statement refers to the twins paradox dispute and not to the time dilation dispute. | |||
| ::For example, Dingle wrote in a Letter to Nature in 1957 "Dr. Frank S. Crawford's further communication is welcome as the first attempt to answer my arguments. Hitherto they have been ignored, and independent reasons, which I reject, have been adduced for the opposite conclusion." Sixteen years later he wrote wearily, "It would be profitless to deal separately with the latest "answers" to my question; their diversity tells its own tale, and the writers may see their misjudgments corrected in my book" | |||
| : Two general "controversies" are summarized in the article, the first on the methodology of cosmology, and the second on the twins paradox and time dilation. The issue of the twins paradox is nothing other than the issue of time dilation. None of the reputable references splits up Dingle's complaints aginst the twins paradox from his complaints about time dilation. Dingle's failure to understand time dilation was the reason he failed to understand the twins paradox. These do not constitute two disputes, but only one. | |||
| This seems like an appropriate time to straighten things out. I have a few suggestions. Please add your own, implement them, disagree with them, et cetera. | |||
| *Delete these subpages (MfD or whatever) | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| *Remove the top banner from this talk page about the draft version | |||
| *Pull some version of the 'Chang' reference into the main article | |||
| *Remove the disputed tag (can be re-added with reason, of course) | |||
| *Archive the entire talk page | |||
| ] 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| At the end of the article there appears a conclusion that is given the appearance that it is drawn from sources. The conclusion tries to state Dingle is wrong. One of the sources cited is reference 17 and it states the following: | |||
| ::See also the earlier literature on the twin paradox, for example, Lorentz, H. A. , The Theory of Electrons 1909, and the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did, and gives the resolution. "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein... The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially, give rise to a remarkable paradox which on closer examination, however, vanishes." Miller, A.I., Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Springer, 1998. | |||
| An examination of the cited Lorentz book did not verify the purported statement made by Lorentz and reported by Miller. One wonders where Miller got it, or if it was misreported by a[REDACTED] editor. In any event, this misrepresents the position of Lorentz who is merely commenting on Einstein's theory. Reference 17 should be deleted. | |||
| :Tim, the talk page still being disrupted, I think perhaps it's a bit too soon? - ] 10:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No, you mis-read the reference. It refers both to Lorentz's book, where of course he describes the reciprocity of Einstein's interpretation, but also to "the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes" the reciprocity and from which the quoted words were taken. This is plainly stated in the words that you quoted, so there's no reason for you to wonder "where Miller got it". This is a perfectly legitimate and highly reputable and relevant source, which does indeed make it quite clear that Dingle's ideas were wrong, and moreover that they were known to be wrong decades before Dingle voiced them.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you sure? Funny, it looks rather clean to me. Could be a browser problem on my end. ] 11:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All in all, I was able to find a number of pretty big mistakes in this article and I cant help but think that they were due to poor work on the part of[REDACTED] editors. I don't reccomend using any information from this article as accurate.] (]) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, we waited, didn't we? - ] 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Each of the things that you thought were "pretty big mistakes" are entirely correct and fully supported by an abundance of reputable sources.] (]) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Huh, Tim, you didn't archive the talk page - you just erased it. I have copied the content of the to a ]. - ] 12:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A Misunderstood Rebellion == | |||
| If you biased editors would write a fair article you wouldnt have this problem.] 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An excellent secondary source on the second controversy: | |||
| == Semiprotection == | |||
| {{cite journal|doi=10.1016/0039-3681(93)90063-P|title=A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science|year=1993|last1=Chang|first1=H|journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A|volume=24|pages=741|issue=5|issn=0039-3681}} | |||
| We gain nothing for this page to be unprotected due to Dr. Seaweed's nonsense postings (as well as new behavioral information). As such, I've semiprotected this talk page.—] (]) 21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I will |
I will provide a copy on request. Regards, ] (]) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == |
== This article is full of lies == | ||
| The following fragments are '''wrong'''. Please remove them: | |||
| A recent edit has removed the phrase "after his retirement" from the preamble to the discussion of Dingle's campaign against special relativity, which Dingle himself tells us (in Crossroads) was sparked in 1955 and continued until his death in 1978. Sincle Dingle retired in 1955, there doesn't seems to be any dispute over the accuracy and verifiability of the statement that this dispute took place "after his retirement". The phrase has been removed with the justification that it is "unnecessary", because the dates of both his retirement and the beginning of the dispute are given (in separate places) in the article, and hence the reader can deduce the phrase for himself, so it doesn't need to be stated. This is certainly true, although it treads a fine line, because when writing to convey to the reader an accurate sense of the chronology of events, it is customary and useful to intersperse notes of comparative and related events. This helps to orient the reader and place the events in the correct chronological context without requiring the reader to check back to previously stated dates and reconstruct the sequence of events. | |||
| 1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct. | |||
| The usual rules of Misplaced Pages editing are someone ambiguous on this point. The basic criteria is verifiability from reliable sources, but no one disputes that this is a verifiably accurate statement, and also that it is relevant and notable. The question is whether it is appropriate or "necessary" to include that (verifiably accurate) phrase at this point in the article. This is where the POV of individual editors may play a role, but the article ends up reflecting one POV or the other, regardless of whether the verifiably accurate phrase is retained or suppressed. If it is retained, some can argue that it calls undue attention to the fact that the dispute occurred after Dingle's retirement, but if it is suppressed some can argue that we are suppressing verifiable facts expressly to avoid calling these facts to the reader's attention, and the only reason to avoid the facts is because they tend to undermine a particular POV. Of course, the counter-argument is that if a POV tends to be undermined by calling verifiable facts to people's attention, then perhaps that POV has an inherent weakness, and in any case, POVs are not supposed to be reflected in the article. | |||
| I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"! | |||
| Hmmm... a real puzzle. I suppose one way of resolving such issues in Misplaced Pages is to simply acknowledge when there are multiple POVs, and make note of them. For example, following the sentence in question, we could add a parenthetical statement such as: | |||
| So please remove that statement because it is wrong. | |||
| 2.) The formulae at link ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β...") are given '''without''' citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda here. Please don't say that everybody agrees with those contradictions (that "the first implies '''t'/t =β''' and the second implies '''t/t'=β''' "), while that has been the subject of '''controversy''' for over a century. | |||
| ::("This dispute took place following Dingle's retirement, a fact which may or may not be worth noting at this point. Some sources emphasize Dingle's advanced age and isolation during this dispute, whereas other sources regard these factors as irrelevant to the dispute.") | |||
| And also as you don't provide a citation, '''don't''' ask me for citation when I am removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle! | |||
| How about that? Would this make everyone happy? I think this would be most in accord with the established Misplaced Pages policies for handling and resolving situations in which either mentioning or not mentioning a verifiable fact can be construed as POV. If this isn't acceptable, can anyone suggest any alternative? ] 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is a matter of logic and science: if the two systems are '''equivalent''', then their conditions are '''the same'''. | |||
| Denveron - this is quite amusing since you reverted mention of Dingle's title of 'Professor Emeritus' your justification was that it had been previously stated that he retired in 1955 and was therefore superfluous. Now you want to add a second reference to his retirement, but now its justified, since it might help the poor dim-witted reader. LOL, You are so transparent - ] 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that "''these ratios apply to two different conditions''" fails. | |||
| So there *is* a contradiction. | |||
| Just to be clear, I should have added that I personally think the right solution is to simply state the fact, as in the previous version of the article. Adding a special note to comment on the different points of view has the effect of calling even more attention to the issue. Editors should bear in mind that both Davies and Whitrow, when describing this episode, made special note of the chronology (saying "in his later years", and "The last 20 years of his life"), so it seems to me the status quo ante was quite representative of how the subject is covered in verifiable reputable sources. I think the latest edit is an attempt to impose the POV of an editor by suppressing and modifying how the episode is described in reputable sources. And, again, the phrase is question is agreed by everyone to be a verifiable fact, so it's just a question of whether mentioning this fact explicitly (instead of making the reader infer it from separate dates) is appropriate. The reputable sources all judge that it is appropriate, so I think that should be the default position. ] 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| And '''it cannot be solved''' by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "''Einstein's General Theory of Relativity''" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book. | |||
| : ''"... the phrase has been removed with the justification that it is "unnecessary"..."'' ==> I have put the phrase back with the justification that the removal of the fact was unnecessary. Academics have much more time to shape and hone their publications after their retirement, so I think this is a significant fact. Perhaps the objection from the contributor who removed the fact was inspired by the (sorry, i.m.o. somewhat paranoic) suspection that someone would like to hint at dementia? In that case, ''quite on the contrary'', I'd say. - ] 09:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 3.) The link which claims that Lorentz "describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did". | |||
| ::You are correct. It is important to notice that after his retirement Dingle had more time to persue the relativity question without embarassment to his academic affiliations.] 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''That is a blatant lie'''. What Lorentz treated there was the invariance of the Maxwell's equations, between '''ether''' and respectively a moving system S. | |||
| == Dingle Never Lost His Respect for Einstein's Genius? == | |||
| Here is a quote from Lorentz' document ("The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat"), page 223, paragraph 189., just before the claimed quote by this article "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity" which appears in Lorentz' document on page 226 paragraph 192., '''continuing with the same settings''' mentioned at paragraph 189.(settings about the ether S<sub>0</sub> and moving system S - which means NOT the two equivalent systems used by Dingle!): | |||
| A recent edit added the statement, referenced to the Whitrow obituary, that Dingle never lost his respect for Einstein's genius. If that statement is going to be retained, it should be placed in the correct context. All the other verifiable facts in the article can be found in multiple sources, and we've just selected one or two for convenience, but the statement that Dingle never lost respect for Einstein's genius appears only in the obituary, accompanying a similar make-nice statement about Eddington (who was savaged and ridiculed by Dingle in "The Sources of Eddington's Philosophy). Mature readers understand that this is an example of the protocol for writing obituaries, in which everything is "made nice" even after describing (as gently as possible) disputes with other individuals. This is why, if this Wiki article was being written by mature people, we would simply omit that statement, recogniziing it for the obituary-speak that it is. However, to accomodate people who don't understand subtlties like this, we may be forced to leave the quote in the article. In that case, we ought to accompany it with some other quotes to give a fuller picture. I suggest something like the following as my second choice for how to edit the article. (My first choice would be to simply omit the silly statement altogether.) | |||
| "''Let us imagine an observer, whom we shall call A<sub>0</sub> and to whom we shall assign a fixed position in the ether, to be engaged in the study of the phenomena going on in the stationary system S<sub>0</sub>''" "''Let A be a second observer, whose task it is to examine the phenomena in the system S, and who himself also moves through the ether with the velocity w''" | |||
| :Whitrow in his obituary of Dingle, after describing Dingle's campaign against Einstein's theory, made the conciliatory statement that Dingle never lost his respect for Einstein's geniusWhitrow obit. However, this assertion does not appear elsewhere in the literature, and Dingle's own book "Science at the Crossroads" contains numerous statements such as ''"Would that the revelation would come to that theory appears to them to be nonsense because it is nonsense and not because they are too stupid to understand it!"'' and ''"It appears astonishing that Einstein could have overlooked so simple a fact..."''.Dingle, Science at the Crossroads So, whether or not Dingle ever lost his respect for Einstein's genius is perhaps an open question. | |||
| 4.) '''Another lie''' is the quote about "The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially..." | |||
| I don't know... it seems rather obtuse to include such verbiage in the article, simply to accommodate the insistence of one or two editors who insist on include Whitrow's "make-nice" statement. So, I much prefer my first choice (return the article to the way it was), but failing that, I think we must go to a second choice like the words above.] 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That is '''not''' from Lorentz' document. | |||
| The statement that Dingle savaged and ridiculed Eddington is not justified. I have read this book and this statement is a false distortion. Please retract it and apologise to the readers of this page. As usual your facts are false.] 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''So please delete all those fake references!''' <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : In the make-nice statement toward Eddington in Whitrow's obituary referenced above he characterizes "The Sources of Eddington's Philosophy" by saying that Dingle subjected Eddington's philosophy of science to "devastating criticism", and one of Dingle's later reviews of an Eddington book was greeted with the charge that "the old instinctive antagonism emerges", and Dingle and Eddington exchanged very abrasive letters to the editor over a casual remark of Eddington's to which Dingle took offense, and so on. The antagonism between the two men was very public and quite vitrolic at times. It is true that Dingle also sometimes defended some of Eddington's ideas, or at least stated that other people's criticisms of Eddington were based on misunderstandings of Eddington's positions (unlike Dingle's, of course), and some of this is reflected in "The Sources of Eddington's Philosophy", but the fact remains that Dingle consistently lambasted Eddington and his followers as "modern Aristotlians", and compared them with the scholastic theologians who refused to look through Galileo's telescope for fear of having their pure ideas corrupted by facts. So, I stand uncorrected. Somehow I suspect that if I hadn't provided quotes showing how Dingle savaged and ridiculed Einstein in Science at the Crossroads, you would be claiming that he did no such thing. Speaking of people who refuse to look at the facts for fear of corrupting their pre-conceived notions... ] 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Thanks.</small> | |||
| ::Your attempt to avoid the fact that your statement above is false by citing additional facts does not remove the fact that your first statement was false. ] 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* Re 1: See second halve of page 336 of Whitrow's cited | |||
| :* Re 2: You are talking about the ], which describes a non-symmetric situation, whereas the note (see Whitrow) is about a symmetric situation: from the point of view of A some set of events is used to calculate a clock rate, but from the point of view of B ''another'' set of events is used. So they tak about ''different'' things. It is neatly explained in, for example, and, as it happens, on my user page ]. There you can see that in equations (3) and (4), Dingle twice used the term "Rate of A" for two entirely different things. Likewise for the term "Rate of B". You can see where the simple mistake occurs. Check the colors. An analogy: when they look at each other through a gap between their fingers, A says that B is much smaller than A, and B says that A is much smaller than B. They say the same thing about different objects. That does not mean that the laws of perspective are contradictory. | |||
| :: Remarks about the twin paradox not being able to be solved by special relativity are not relevant here. Anyway, you can read in article ] that it can perfectly be solved bij SR. Grøn and Hervik seem to express a somewhat old fashioned and not generally accepted view here. But as I said, that is off topic here. | |||
| :* Re 3: You probably mean ref . Looks properly sourced. Perhaps the one who has put this here can comment. - ] (]) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : See also the talk page archives and the section a bit higher here. All this was extensively discussed before and it looks there was a ] that there are no lies here. - ] (]) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: IP user, please be ]. Accusing fellow editors of spreading lies is not. If there are disagreements, we can talk about them. It would be nice if you could dial down the emphases, too. In general, those who talk here are carefully reading what others write. Also, we generally use ''italics'' for emphasis on talk pages, rather than '''bolding'''. | |||
| :::Electrodinges, if you can you prove ''"the fact that"'' the ''"statement above is false"'' by citing additional facts, then please do so. - ] 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 1) Corrected the text so it correctly describes the cited source, I think that was the issue here. | |||
| ::: 2) Removed the ]d footnote, added description of Whitrow's reasoning. | |||
| ::: 3) Removed the contested footnote without prejudice. The claim in the article is already well supported by the other citations attached to it, and we're interested in the state of the scientific consensus anyway, not the particular arguments used to support that consensus. I call ] on this. | |||
| ::: 4) Not from the Lorentz document, that is correct. Nor has that been claimed. Please read the footnote again. ] (]) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Probably a good call, this, specially in the long run. Thanks. - ] (]) 11:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Denveron, since (alas) I have no access to the full text of "The Sources of Eddington's Philosophy", can you cite a few lines where Dingle labels, like you say, ''"Eddington and his followers as "modern Aristotlians", and compared them with the scholastic theologians who refused to look through Galileo's telescope for fear of having their pure ideas corrupted by facts"''? TIA, ] 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] It's a pseudoscientific religious system, unfortunately. ] (]) 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::: While waiting for me to get access to my copy of "Sources", here are George Gale's comments on how much respect Dingle expressed toward Eddington's genius in 1937: | |||
| :::Dingle, his stew having finally boiled over, wrote privately to the editor of Nature, first castigating the rampant cosmological ‘mysticism’ passing itself off for science, and then offering to produce an article taking the sword to the mystics themselves. His offer was immediately accepted. The result was Dingle's notorious “Modern Aristotelianism”, a <b>polemical diatribe</b> chiefly against Milne, but aimed as well at Eddington and Dirac on account of their <b>“betrayal”</b> of the scientific method of Newton and his fellow members of the Royal Society. The article is remarkable both for its style and for its content. Dingle's style in the article is <b>vituperative</b>. Thus, emotionally-loaded terms such as <b>“paralysis of reason,” “intoxication of the fancy,” “‘Universe’ mania”,</b> and the like frequently appear, these to be topped only by references to <b>“delusions,” “traitors,”</b> and, of course, <b>“treachery,”</b> each associated with one or more of the guilty parties. | |||
| :::Along with Milne, Dingle indicts Eddington, and, by implication, Dirac, all three of whom, Dingle believes, are guilty of inventing scientific hypotheses by free mental imaginings rather than by strict immersion in observations and observational data...This is what really sticks in Dingle's craw. In turn, Eddington, Milne and Dirac are chastised, each for something slightly different, but at bottom the same, namely, they one and all <b>“appear as a victim of the great ‘Universe’ mania.”</b> In the end, Dingle believes, the danger of this new ‘methodology’ is real, and serious. As he notes in conclusion: | |||
| ::::''"Nor are we dealing with a mere skin disease which time itself will heal. Such ailments are familiar enough; <b>every age has its delusions and every cause its traitors</b>. But the danger here is radical. Our leaders themselves are bemused, so that <b>treachery</b> can pass unnoticed and even think itself fidelity. It is the noblest <b>minds that are o'erthrown</b>... the very council of the elect can violate its charter and think it is doing science service."'' | |||
| :::Obviously Dingle is simply wrong; it never occurred to his opponents that hypotheses would not be followed immediately by attempts at deductive prediction of observational consequences. But it was enough, in Dingle's mind, that they didn't use induction, for them to come under blame. | |||
| :::Then we have Whitrow in Dingle's obituary saying Dingle subjects Eddington's philosophy to "devastating criticism", and Martin Johnson's review of "Sources" in which he says "The old instinctive antagonism is there", indicating that he sensed a continuation of the "Modern Aristotelian" attitude from 1937, and Dingle replied that, contrary to Johnson's impression, he actually had a "fundamental sympathy" for Eddington's position, which is what enabled him to see so clearly (and presumably, Dingle being Dingle, to express so vividly) what had "perverted" it. | |||
| :::And all of this over an off-hand comment that really has nothing to do with the article, prompted by Rickert's preposterous claim that I should be chastized for having the temerity to suggest that Dingle was ever anything other than respectful of Eddington's genius. Sheesh.] 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Denveron - I would be grateful if you stopped deleting quotes from articles printed in highly respected journals, just because they dont agree with your POV - ] 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The Problem with the Recent Spate of Swanzsteve Edits == | |||
| The recent Swanzsteve edits are all pure crackpot POV, because he is presenting only half-quotes, omitting in each case the crucial phrase or sentence that conveys that actual content of Dingle's statements. If each read each quote in the original, you will find that Swanzsteve has culled just the words that would give a false impression, and eliminated the words that falsify his crackpot POV. In each case, Dingle says essentially this: Einstein was a genius for dreaming up what seemed to him and some others to be a plausible solution but it turned out that Einstein's proposed solution was non-sensical. Dingle talks about the "gold and the clay" of Einstein's thought processes. He says Einstein could see there was something wrong, but didn't have the mentality to find a logically possible solution. | |||
| As far as Swanzsteve's other edit, the comment from DVdm does not qualify as a verifiable reputable source, so it does not belong in the article. | |||
| To all other editors here, this is where the heavy lifting begins, and we start the long ugly process of simply removing all the spurious crackpot POV nonsense that Swanzsteve can generate. It won't be over quickly, it may takes months or even years. Just have patience.] 04:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Denveron - DVdm's comment is the ONLY thing that justifies a second reference to Dingle's retirement. If you remove one you must remove the other. | |||
| You can quibble but you cannot deny the glowing Dingle quotes of Einstein's genius. | |||
| The Louis Essen quotes put the spurious claim of experimental evidence in context, i.e. there is none. | |||
| Its interesting that you call quotes from published books and reputable peer-reviewed journals "crackpot POV" - as I said some time ago you are now the only crackpot on this page. | |||
| And once again, stop deleting sourced quotes from reputable journals or you will be reported for vandalism. - ] 04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The quote has to go. The problem isn't sourcing, it's relevance. A quote by fringe theorist A questioning accepted scientific theory X has no place in an article about fringe theorist B opposing theory X. No context is given that Essen's opposition to special relativity had anything to do with Dingle. The sentence also sticks out as disjoint and out of place there. It simply looks like piling on criticism against special relativity. Avoiding crackpot science is one of the canonical reasons to delete sourced content here on Misplaced Pages. I'm going to remove it and any other fringe science I see here, other than sourced discussion of Dingle's own fringe ideas, as long as nobody threatens to block me.] 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Nature does not publish crackpot science - see below - ] 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fully support removal of Essen quote for the reasons given. Get rid of it. ] 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Except all the reasons given above are completely bogus - ] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another ] seems to have had a at Wikidemo's proposal to remove the Essen ref on the noticeboard. Due to the semiprotection of this talk page, if this user was created today, we'll see him appear here in a few days. ] 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Not need to worry, if he is not anti-Dingle, he will probably be banned within a few more days - ] 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The Essen quote is not a criticism of SR, it is questioning the validity of the experimental evidence, which is something "proper" scientists are supposed to do. As far as relevance is concerned, the sentence immediately preceding it, says that Dingle was proved wrong by the evidence - how could this quote be any more relevant? Nature might be interested to hear that they publish "crackpot science", their reviewers clearly thought it was a valid comment. As such, its removal is against Wiki policies, by all means remove the factually inaccurate statement that precedes it, then it will have no relevance and should be removed. If Essens quote alone is removed I will lodge a complaint for edit warring. - ] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Status == | |||
| Okay. This is ridiculous. | |||
| I have blocked both Swanzsteve and Denveron for one day, each. Both seem like single-purpose accounts, as neither has edited anything that does not pertain to Mr Dingle; however, I will be generous, and presume that at least one of the two individuals genuinely has the project's best interests at heart. | |||
| I am going to read through this '''''mess''''' of an article history, and TRY to figure out what this very acrimonious dispute is actually ''about''. | |||
| I would appreciate it if neither of the two individuals in question edits the article again until such time as we have figured out how to represent the facts in question. | |||
| Since there is apparently a conflict of viewpoints, I suggest that both Steve and Ron try to see how the other person wants the article to look, and why. What is the best way to accommodate that viewpoint without compromising the facts? ] 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to me that quite a bit of the dispute centers on exactly how to ''characterize'' and interpret the core facts of Dingle's rejection of special relativity coupled with a failure to ] by multiple parties.--] <sup>'']''</sup> 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would suggest having a look at the ] page as an example of the balanced manner in which a scientist who has had a disagreement with the establishment on some issue, should be reported. I don't see any overt references claiming that Laithwaite was wrong. I simply read that his views were not accepted by other scientists. Here is a quote from wikipedia, | |||
| ''The scientific establishment, in the form of the Royal Institution, rejected his theory and his lecture was not published by the RI. His feelings on this can be seen in one of the 1974-1975 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures which he presented. In an apparent defence of his position he quoted Freeman Dyson: "Most of the crackpot papers that are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is possible. Those that are impossible to understand are usually published." (Freeman Dyson, Innovations in Physics, Scientific American, September 1958) | |||
| Despite the lack of interest from other scientists, Laithwaite continued to explore gyroscopic behaviour.'' ] 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Arthur Spool has been banned as another sockpuppet of Dr Seaweed, how do they work these things out? he doesnt sound like any of the others. As far as I can see, all he has done is complain about the anti-Dingle POV of the article. Is everyone who is not anti-Dingle to be banned? ---] 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem With Current Article, Re Dingle's Respect for Einstein's Genius == | |||
| {{RFCbio | section=Problem With Current Article, Re Dingle's Respect for Einstein's Genius !! reason=Disputed phrase: "Dingle never lost his respect for Einstein's genius" !! time=05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| The article currently includes a paraphrase of Whitrow obit saying in a conciliatory way that Dingle never lost his respect for Einstein's genius, but the quote that is given to support this statement seems to clearly imply just the opposite, since he says "Einstein's failure to see that it could not be actual when it needed such slight additional thought to make that unmistakably evident, reveals all too clearly the limitations of that genius." And in the same book (as noted earlier) Dingle says that Einstein's theory is "nonsense". Many other quotes can be cited to show the same fact. For example, in his book "Science at the Crossroads" Dingle says "Would that the revelation would come to that theory appears to them to be nonsense <b>because it is nonsense</b> and not because they are too stupid to understand it!" and "It appears astonishing that Einstein could have overlooked so simple a fact...". It's clear that Dingle's "respect for Einstein's genius" was of a very unique and limited variety. (I hope no one ever "respects my genius" that much. What would he have said about someone who's genius he DIDN'T respect?) Furthermore, this article is not about Einstein, nor is it about Herbert Dingle's personal opinion of Albert Einstein's genius. It is about Herbert Dingle and his scientific views. Let's be honest, the only reason this silly self-contradictory passage about Dingle's personal feelings toward Albert Einstein is in the article is because of the POV of one particular editor. I vote that it be removed. ] 04:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Denveron, as far as I'm concerned it can be removed. I merely by another contributor and added the phrase "on the other hand", to provide some balance. | |||
| :I also played with the idea of inserting the following quote-completing-sentence by Dingle: | |||
| :: ''"The genius of Einstein is shown most clearly in his perception of an omission from Newton's system of kinematics that had not previously been noticed and that might, as he saw, provide an opening for a reform that would reconcile the two conflicting branches of physics. In such insight he was pre-eminent in his generation: his weakness, as we shall see, lay in his relative '''inability to follow up the implications of his insight''' and in a '''too great readiness to accept a promising starting-point as an achieved goal'''. He was rather like one of a body of men '''imprisoned in a dungeon''', who alone perceives an opening offering a means of escape, but '''omits to verify that it does not lead merely to another part of the dungeon'''. However, it is Einstein's achievement, '''not his psychology, that is our concern''', and what he perceived was that no one had thought of the necessity of providing some means of determining the time (instant) at which a distant event occurred.''" (emphasis mine). | |||
| : but I decided not to include it, in order not to ''overprovide'' the balance. ] 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem With Latest Swanzsteve Revert == | |||
| I believe a consensus was reached, that the Essen anti-relativity quote was not appropriate for this article and should be deleted, so I removed it, noting the consensus that had been reached. (See the above comments on this point.) Now I see that, without comment or additional discussion, Swanzsteve has re-reverted it. What can be done about this? Perhaps the passage could be put up for wider comment. ] 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just commented on DragonflySixtyseven's talk page. I suggest people hang tight until we can get some admins' involvement. One way or ], I think we can address the situation and allow consensus editing to prevail. ] 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tim is correct; take it slow and make absolutely certain you have a strong consensus behind whichever version is going to exist here. I don't even necessarily think you need an admin; file an ], establish a strong consensus (i.e. more than the usual contributors and one or two outside editors), and edit from there.--] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:31, 10 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Herbert Dingle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 Archives | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Reasons for Disagreeing with GregVolk's Dec24 Edits
In GregVolk's edits two well-documented facts are suppressed. First, that Dingle initially claimed relativity didn't predict unequal aging for round-trip twins and then acknowledged he had been wrong about that (and had been wrong for 40 years) and then switched to claiming that relativity was logically inconsistent. Dingle himself says admits this in his writing. This is not a contraversial point. There is no reason to suppress this important fact. Second, the fact that abundant experimental evidence supports the predictions of special relativity. Honestly, if it isn't even permissible in a Misplaced Pages article to state that special relativity has been experimentally verified, then we might as well just pack it in. I do, however, I agree with GregVolk that the summary of Dingle's work in the beginning of the article should mention Crossroads, so I may put that edit back in. I think it was previously assumed that this book was adequately covered under "Controveries".Denveron (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I neglected to address one other part of GregVolk's edits that I don't agree with. GV wants the article to just say that someone (Whitrow) argued that the manifest reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation is not logically inconsistent. The article was written the way it is just because Whitrow was a convenient person to attribute that to, and some editors insisted on having a source that specifically refers to Dingle (rather than to the technical point at issue, for which there are literally thousands of solid references). There is no dispute about the fallacy of Dingle's claim. Even anti-relativists know that he was trivially wrong about that. In fact, the current article is written as charitably as can be, even at the expense of accuracy, because the reader isn't given any sense of just HOW absurdly wrong Dingle was. If some editors insist, we can pile up references, showing the near universal agreement on this point, but it sure seems like wasted effort because we all know the ultimate outcome.Denveron (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I note that you reverted the editors stylistic changes as well as those which changed the tone of certain sections. I fail to see how the two are connected? If you feel that such stylistic changes were detrimental, please state why.
- In any case, the only part of the edit I feel strongly about is the use of "relatvists argue" and simliar phrases. --Starwed (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what "stylistic changes" you are referring to. I explained my reasons (above) for objecting to each of GV's proposed changes. If there are more specific change(s) that I failed to address, I'd be happy to do so if you can point them out.Denveron (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced Statements Appearing In this Article
The following statement apears as a conclusive statement although it is unsourced. Please supply a source or remove it. "However, most modern cosmologists subsequently accepted the validity of the hypothetico-deductive method of Milne." I doubt this is correct. In fact it is not clear what it means.
- Two reputable reference sources have now been added to the article, demonstrating the verifiability of that statement.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The following statement does not appear in the cited paper and misrepresents what is said in that paper. I think what when you attribute a conclusion to a source you should accurately report what has been said in that source. This is not exactly what appears there and it misinterprets what is said in the source.
- "The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β, t'=(t−vx/c2)β, and its algebraic inverse is x=(x'+vt')β, t=(t'+vx'/c2)β, where β=1/√(1−v2/c2). These equations imply t'=βt at x=0, and t=βt' at x'=0. Dingle alleged that these two facts are mutually contradictory, because the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β. However, these ratios apply to two different conditions, namely, x=0 and x'=0 respectively. Hence, contrary to Dingle's assertion, there is no contradiction, nor are these relations merely "appearances". They are the actual ratios of the inertial time coordinates along two different directions in space-time."
- This footnote is a summary of the fallacy of Dingle's argument, as is explained numerous sources, including (but not limited to) Whitrow's obituary and many of the replies to Dingle in various publications, including (but not limited to) McRae's. There is no misrepresentation. The explanation summarized in this footnote is described in all these sources, and is perfectly accurate and representative of those sources.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Reference 13 is used improperly as it refers to a different dispute than the one it is supposed to refer to. The editors apparently don't understand anything about the controversies they are reporting on and mix them up in the references. This is so they can provide a lot of sources that seem to support their position. The following statement refers to the twins paradox dispute and not to the time dilation dispute.
- For example, Dingle wrote in a Letter to Nature in 1957 "Dr. Frank S. Crawford's further communication is welcome as the first attempt to answer my arguments. Hitherto they have been ignored, and independent reasons, which I reject, have been adduced for the opposite conclusion." Sixteen years later he wrote wearily, "It would be profitless to deal separately with the latest "answers" to my question; their diversity tells its own tale, and the writers may see their misjudgments corrected in my book"
- Two general "controversies" are summarized in the article, the first on the methodology of cosmology, and the second on the twins paradox and time dilation. The issue of the twins paradox is nothing other than the issue of time dilation. None of the reputable references splits up Dingle's complaints aginst the twins paradox from his complaints about time dilation. Dingle's failure to understand time dilation was the reason he failed to understand the twins paradox. These do not constitute two disputes, but only one.
At the end of the article there appears a conclusion that is given the appearance that it is drawn from sources. The conclusion tries to state Dingle is wrong. One of the sources cited is reference 17 and it states the following:
- See also the earlier literature on the twin paradox, for example, Lorentz, H. A. , The Theory of Electrons 1909, and the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did, and gives the resolution. "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein... The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially, give rise to a remarkable paradox which on closer examination, however, vanishes." Miller, A.I., Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Springer, 1998.
An examination of the cited Lorentz book did not verify the purported statement made by Lorentz and reported by Miller. One wonders where Miller got it, or if it was misreported by a[REDACTED] editor. In any event, this misrepresents the position of Lorentz who is merely commenting on Einstein's theory. Reference 17 should be deleted.
- No, you mis-read the reference. It refers both to Lorentz's book, where of course he describes the reciprocity of Einstein's interpretation, but also to "the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes" the reciprocity and from which the quoted words were taken. This is plainly stated in the words that you quoted, so there's no reason for you to wonder "where Miller got it". This is a perfectly legitimate and highly reputable and relevant source, which does indeed make it quite clear that Dingle's ideas were wrong, and moreover that they were known to be wrong decades before Dingle voiced them.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
All in all, I was able to find a number of pretty big mistakes in this article and I cant help but think that they were due to poor work on the part of[REDACTED] editors. I don't reccomend using any information from this article as accurate.72.84.64.254 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Each of the things that you thought were "pretty big mistakes" are entirely correct and fully supported by an abundance of reputable sources.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
A Misunderstood Rebellion
An excellent secondary source on the second controversy:
Chang, H (1993). "A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 24 (5): 741. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(93)90063-P. ISSN 0039-3681.
I will provide a copy on request. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of lies
The following fragments are wrong. Please remove them:
1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.
I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"! So please remove that statement because it is wrong.
2.) The formulae at link ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β...") are given without citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda here. Please don't say that everybody agrees with those contradictions (that "the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β "), while that has been the subject of controversy for over a century.
And also as you don't provide a citation, don't ask me for citation when I am removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!
This is a matter of logic and science: if the two systems are equivalent, then their conditions are the same. There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that "these ratios apply to two different conditions" fails.
So there *is* a contradiction.
And it cannot be solved by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.
3.) The link which claims that Lorentz "describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did".
That is a blatant lie. What Lorentz treated there was the invariance of the Maxwell's equations, between ether and respectively a moving system S.
Here is a quote from Lorentz' document ("The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat"), page 223, paragraph 189., just before the claimed quote by this article "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity" which appears in Lorentz' document on page 226 paragraph 192., continuing with the same settings mentioned at paragraph 189.(settings about the ether S0 and moving system S - which means NOT the two equivalent systems used by Dingle!):
"Let us imagine an observer, whom we shall call A0 and to whom we shall assign a fixed position in the ether, to be engaged in the study of the phenomena going on in the stationary system S0" "Let A be a second observer, whose task it is to examine the phenomena in the system S, and who himself also moves through the ether with the velocity w"
4.) Another lie is the quote about "The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially..."
That is not from Lorentz' document.
So please delete all those fake references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.238.66 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Re 1: See second halve of page 336 of Whitrow's cited Dingle obituary.
- Re 2: You are talking about the twin paradox, which describes a non-symmetric situation, whereas the note (see Whitrow) is about a symmetric situation: from the point of view of A some set of events is used to calculate a clock rate, but from the point of view of B another set of events is used. So they tak about different things. It is neatly explained in, for example, and, as it happens, on my user page User:DVdm. There you can see that in equations (3) and (4), Dingle twice used the term "Rate of A" for two entirely different things. Likewise for the term "Rate of B". You can see where the simple mistake occurs. Check the colors. An analogy: when they look at each other through a gap between their fingers, A says that B is much smaller than A, and B says that A is much smaller than B. They say the same thing about different objects. That does not mean that the laws of perspective are contradictory.
- Remarks about the twin paradox not being able to be solved by special relativity are not relevant here. Anyway, you can read in article Twin paradox that it can perfectly be solved bij SR. Grøn and Hervik seem to express a somewhat old fashioned and not generally accepted view here. But as I said, that is off topic here.
- Re 3: You probably mean ref . Looks properly sourced. Perhaps the one who has put this here can comment. - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- See also the talk page archives and the section a bit higher here. All this was extensively discussed before and it looks there was a wp:CONSENSUS that there are no lies here. - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- IP user, please be WP:CIVIL. Accusing fellow editors of spreading lies is not. If there are disagreements, we can talk about them. It would be nice if you could dial down the emphases, too. In general, those who talk here are carefully reading what others write. Also, we generally use italics for emphasis on talk pages, rather than bolding.
- 1) Corrected the text so it correctly describes the cited source, I think that was the issue here.
- 2) Removed the WP:CHALLENGEd footnote, added description of Whitrow's reasoning.
- 3) Removed the contested footnote without prejudice. The claim in the article is already well supported by the other citations attached to it, and we're interested in the state of the scientific consensus anyway, not the particular arguments used to support that consensus. I call KISS on this.
- 4) Not from the Lorentz document, that is correct. Nor has that been claimed. Please read the footnote again. Paradoctor (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Probably a good call, this, specially in the long run. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- @174.113.238.66 It's a pseudoscientific religious system, unfortunately. 2A02:A420:4A:6083:2:2:79F6:ACE8 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles
- Start-Class Astronomy articles
- Low-importance Astronomy articles
- Start-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance