Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Dingle's Syllogism

There seems to be some dispute here as to what Herbert Dingle's dispute was about. Someone, called EMS, has said that the disagreement was not about symmetry. For those who dont have access to the book (now out of print, I believe) here is an extract from "Science at the Crossroads"

>>

My argument was very simple. I later put it into the form of a syllogism, to reduce the task of refuting it to the limit of simplicity: I have repeated this syllogism more times and in more places than I can now recall, without eliciting more than one answer (if it can be called such), which came from Professor McCrea. Here is the syllogism:

1. According to the postulate of relativity, if two bodies (for example, two identical clocks) separate and re-unite, there is no observable phenomenon that will show in an absolute sense that one rather than the other has moved.

2. If on re-union one clock were retarded by a quantity depending on their relative motion, and the other not, that phenomenon would show that the first had moved and not the second.

3. Hence, if the postulate of relativity is true, the clocks must be retarded equally or not at all: in either case, their readings will agree on re-union if they agreed at separation.

McCrea's comment was: 'In Professor Dingle's letter, his statement (1) is demonstrably false ... Of course, it is not necessary to say that 'one rather than the other has moved'. The reader must make what he can of this. Bondi's argument depended on the fact that the mathematics of the theory (the Lorentz transformation), which required the clocks to work at different rates, necessarily compelled a difference of reading on re-union.

>>

McCrea seems to disagree with the first postulate of relativity, whilst Bondi argued that the clocks would ACTUALLY run at different rates (Swanzsteve 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Neat! Let's see: Part 1 I agree with. Part 2 I disagree with strongly: The time dilation symmetry is broken once an observer accelerates! In relativity, inertial paths maximize the proper time between events. Accelerations will diminish the proper time between events. So what in an SR universe is being shown in the situation of part 2 is that one observer accelerated while the other did not. Given that, part 3 is no longer valid.

I hope that his helps to clear up the confusion caused by Dingle's exercise. OTOH, even though this is invalid IMO, it is material that belongs in an expanded article! I just hope that we can do better than the McCrea quote you chose for a refutation. (My text here is invalid for inclusion in the article as it is an unpublished personal opinion and therefore subject to WP:NOR.) --EMS | Talk 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

EMS, your asertion that accelerations will diminish the proper time between events sounds like an 'add on' extra to the special theory of relativity. It is certainly not catered for in the STR time dilation equation.

Can you please fully justify this assertion. My guess is that you don't understand it at all but are merely parroting a well known get out clause which doesn't exist on closer examination. (217.44.98.235 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

EMS - I am glad to see that you think McCrea was wrong when he disagreed with the first point. However, you disagree with the second point, neither McCrea, nor Bondi disagreed with the second point. If you look at Einsteins 1905 paper, he calculates the slowing down of the 'moving' clock purely using his equation for inertial motion, there is no mention of acceleration. Dingles syllogism is derived from the 1905 paper. If Einstein himself didnt see fit to mention acceleration why should you? So, now can you refute this syllogism without mentioning acceleration please?(Swanzsteve 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

There is never a case where two objects separate and re-unite without at least one of them undergoing some sort of acceleration. --Starwed 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but Einstein didnt think it made any difference in 1905 (Swanzsteve 03:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

To 217.44...: The twin paradox provides ample evidence for this assertion, but time dilation describes its foundations much better.

To Swanzsteve: You are correct that time dilation is only a matter on uniform motion. However, acceleration modifies ones view of the spacetime, and breaks the symmetry that exists between two intertially moving observers. You cannot understand the fallacy in Dingle's argument without invoking acclerations. You may as well ask me to start my car without the key and without openning the hood. --EMS | Talk 15:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Starwed, who needs them to re-unite? The problem exists just by considering two objects in relative motion. If you want to cloud the issue by bringing acceleration into it, then the acceleration can be symmetric too. If you want to insist that only acceleration that is not associated with free fall under gravity is to be considered, then that can also be made symmetric. (217.44.98.235 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

again to EMS - Einstein, McCrea nor anybody else at the time, felt the need to invoke accelerations. They knew, unlike you, that SRT 1905 makes no mention of acceleration, in relation to moving clocks. How come you keep telling everyone to read a good introductory book on SRT, when you dont understand it yourself? There is one sentence in your reply, however, which is a gem:

"You cannot understand the fallacy in Dingle's argument without invoking acclerations." - since accelerations of clocks is not mentioned in SRT 1905, you are, unwittingly, conceding that there is actually no fallacy in Dingle's argument - QED

Since you now seem to agree with Dingle, can you please stop arguing against him?

(Swanzsteve 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

I am glad that Mr EMS has finally made it clear that he disagrees with number 2 and that we now can investigate the solution to the problem of whether or not this postulate by Dingle is or is not consistent with the first postulate. Mr EMS has complicated the problem by putting acceleration into it when it was not there according to Dingle. Dingle's gives examples where there is separation without acceleration. They assume an exchange of signals as objects pass each other. I think we should address only the cases without acceleration and see where that goes as a first step. Now the question is: Is postulate 2 true or false according to the special theory of relativity? Since Mr EMS asserts that it is not, then he has the burden of proof to show us why his claim is true without using acceleration. We await your proof Mr EMS. Electrodynamicist 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Electrodynamicist wrote:

Mr EMS has complicated the problem by putting acceleration into it when it was not there according to Dingle.

Yet part 1 of the syllogism reads in part:

two bodies (for example, two identical clocks) separate and re-unite.

There is no way in special relativity for two bodies to separate and re-unite without there being an inteveing acceleration. Like it or not, that is implied in this exercise. In general relativity, it is possible for intertially moving objects to separate and reunite, but then you are dealing with a much more complicated spacetime structure. My advice is to stick to the basics here, and that means SR itself. --EMS | Talk 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We ARE sticking to SR itself (1905 version). It is obvious that there IS acceleration in this example, but Einstein does not mention it, or include it in his calculations - please proceed with your proof. (Swanzsteve 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I dont know about everyone else, but I would like the editors, whoever they are, to respond to Dingle's Syllogism. (Swanzsteve 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

You really do not understand SR. You need to start with the Lorentz transformations and work from there. Instead, you are starting with time dilation itself as if that was a fundation principle of SR. First of all, inertial time dilation is entirely a function of velocity (or rather speed) with respect to an observer. As shown by the illustration above, that exists without contradiction in SR, so both clocks can consider the other "slow", and that is also a physical effect for both clocks. If they never reunite, there is no issue. In Dingle's syllogism, they must. Acceleration moves an observer into another frame of reference, and that changes how far away and how far back in time the other (inertially moving) clock is determined to be. (Note that this change of distance and time is called for the by Lorentz transformations. The event being viewed has not changed, but instead the coordinates that the accelerating observer assigns to that event changes due to the acceleration. Look at it this way: An acceleration towards an objects makes the light rays coming from the object more convergent. That reduces the object's parallax and so makes it be further away in the new frame of reference.) In the process, the accelerated observer get to see that inertially moving clock pass though so much of the accelerated observer's time that the inertially moving observer exeriencing more proper time than the accelerated observer did perfectly appropriate even though the inertial observer's clock was time dilated for the accelerated observer the whole time.

This is the best I can do here, and I will stop trying to teach you SR after this. It really is a very non-intuitive theory. --EMS | Talk 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned acceleration 8 times, Einstein doesn't mention it once. (Swanzsteve 08:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

This section pertains to Dingle's syllogism. Dingle's syllogism involves the acceleration of objects. Therefore, this section pertains to the acceleration of objects. --Starwed 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Starwed, I would be more than happy to agree with you that time dilation is caused by acceleration, however no textbook says this and Einstein did not say this in his 1905 paper, or any others. So the conclusion must be that acceleration is not the claimed cause of time dilation in the special theory of relativity. It is up to those who assert otherwise to prove that it is.Electrodynamicist 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FFS, read what others write! Acceleration is what breaks the symmetry, not what causes the time dilation. --Starwed 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no response to the requested proof. 72.64.51.94 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to request proofs; it doesn't matter what we're personally convinced of, only what can be backed up with sources. --Starwed 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean you cant back up your convictions with sources (I should add, reliable and relevant sources) (Swanzsteve 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

There have already been sources provided that indicate that Dingle was incorrect. --Starwed 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein didnt say in 1905 that acceleration 'broke the symmetry', what others have written since doesnt matter (Swanzsteve 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

What a bizarre statement; could you elaborate? --Starwed 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it you dont understand? - Dingle's question relates to Einstein's 1905 paper, have you read it? (Swanzsteve 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I was operating under the impression that the summary provided at the opening of this section was accurate. :) And if Einstein did not, in one paper, address every last consequence of SR, that does not make that foundation incorrect. --Starwed 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

MR Starwed, I am perfectly happy to agree with your statement as long as you admit that this implies an absolute rest frame as the reason.72.64.51.94 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep on waiting, then.  :) --Starwed 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's now settled that acceleration has nothing to do with it, and the three postulates are correct. We can now proceed to the next step. Electrodynamicist 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1. What is "it"? Time dilation (in which case I agree) or the resolution to Dingle's syllogism (in which case I do not)?
2. What are you calling "postulates"? SR only has two. Dingles syllogism has two postulates and a conclusion. in neither case is there a third postulate. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice how he neatly sidesteps the real question, and throws in this diversion, pointing out an inconsequential slip. Thus he can avoid the next step. This tactic is common. Not bad EMS, but bad luck we noticed (Swanzsteve 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm a bit curious, though, since acceleration is the key, why do you think Einstein didnt mention it? (in 1905, that is)(Swanzsteve 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

---

This is disgusting! Above Electrodynamicist wrote:

I would be more than happy to agree with you that time dilation is caused by acceleration, ...

in response to Stawed writing that

Dingle's syllogism involves the acceleration of objects. Therefore, this section pertains to the acceleration of objects.

In no way, shape, or form is Starwed saying that acceleration is the cause of time dilation! Instead what is being said is that acceleration is the factor that determines which clock (if either) experiences less proper time after being separated and before being reunited. That follows staight out of SR even as presented in the 1905 article: Within a given inertial frame of reference, all moving clocks run at a rate of $d\tau /dt={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}$. In addition for a clock to return to a previous spatial position (in a given inertial frame of reference) after having moved away from it, it must move back towards it. There is time dilation going both ways! That is why a clock which stays in the same place in a given inertial frame of reference experiences more proper time than one that moved away from that position and then returned to the starting position. Acceleration comes into play because there is no way in SR for an object to go from moving away from a position to moving back towards it without accelerating. Even though it is acceleration that is they key to resolving Dingles syllogism, that does not mean that acceleration is the cause of time dilation. (BTW - The same relative amount of total proper time passage will exist for a given example of this situation no matter which inertial frame of reference is being used. They key really is purely inertial motion vs. a path (or world line) that involves an acceleration.)

IMO, this persistence in arguing the physics (and making falacious argment in the process) is evidence of trolling. I call on the anti-relativists here to start stop arguing the physics and start suggesting changes to the article. Otherwise I will conclude that they are not sincere about wanting the article improved. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, an anti-relativist (yuck, what a word, sounds like a creationist) wanting relativity articles improved, isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

Anyway, as you can see on the time dilation talk page it is clear that we are dealing with a troll (and probably more than one) here, so perhaps it's time to stop feeding them?

Cheers, DVdm 19:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For an article about an anti-relativist, the anti-relativists can help to improve it. They are going to be more aware of Dingle and life and his writings than those of us for whom Dingle is an apostate of relativity. Thay also can counter that knee-jerk reaction of most scientists to treat Dingle as obviously being mistaken. (Remember WP:NPOV.) The trouble is that they are arguing the physics at this time instead of how to present Dingle's work in a more-or-less unbiased manner.

I certainly bring up trolling since I agree with you about not feeding trolls. At the least, each side needs to acknowledge that it is not going to convert the other, nor does it need to. Instead the goal should be to find areas of agreement under the policies of Wikipedia, which don't care whether Dingle was correct or not. --EMS | Talk 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - this a very positive comment, I'm not sure what a troll is, but thats beside the point. How about setting up a new section here for positive suggestions, which, I would suggest, should exclude any questionable links. I need to say again, that to point out the merits of Dingle's arguments, and to object to a biassed article about him, is not the same as being ant-relativity (Swanzsteve 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

There is no indication that Electrodynamicist, Swanzsteve, or the myriad of disruptive IPs have any intention of positively contributing. None of them has any substantial edits in mainspace, and many of them seem focused on including the ideas and papers of a wacko relativity basher named H.H. Ricker III. Finding reliable biographical information about Dingle is not terribly difficult, even using web-only research, though writing a good synthesis rather than a dry recitation of facts does take some skill. This can be done by anyone who desires. DVdm is quite correct; the time for appeasement has passed. I tried to assume some good faith with Swanzsteve on his talk page, and was ultimately met with insults and a hilarious claim of victory in his self-defined argument. By all means, have a good laugh at this kind of silliness, but try to keep it out of article talk space. Tim Shuba 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As for Tim Shuba, the two-faced little s**t, I will reply to this when I have more time. (Swanzsteve 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

On reflection, I believe it was inappropriate for me to have called you a "two-faced little s**t, I should have said "LYING two-faced little s**t". I'm disappointed to see you come to this page and accuse me of insulting you, on my talk page. I have looked through our exchanges and have found no insults, unless you consider it a personal insult if someone disagress with you. I consider your comments here to be bad faith, and indeed personally insulting. Our exchanges are there for all to see. It now becomes clear why you support the insulting mathpages article about Dingle (did you actually write it yourself?). You keep attributing Dingle's arguments to me - for the umpteenth time, the arguments I put to you were Dingles own arguments. You were unable to answer HIS arguments. Then you have the nerve to come to this page and insult me. If you are part of the editting team for this page then you should be removed ASAP. You have nothing to contribute, you admit you have never read his book, you admit you have no idea how the mathpages article fits in with his work, because you never looked at his algebra. These are pretty serious admissions. You have never even contributed to the discussions on Dingle's Syllogism.

I should just like to point out that when you resort to insults then its a sure sign that you have lost the argument.

Anyway thats enough time wasted on you.

(Swanzsteve 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

You're definitely not being civil towards Tim Shuba. Please don't resort to insults and other incivility in the course of a debate. --Starwed 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you have this the wrong way round. You should have you sent this to your buddy two-faced tim. He insulted me and I merely insulted him back - seems reasonable to me. (Swanzsteve 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swanzsteve"

The concept of not feeding the anti-relativity trolls seems to be another way in which those that have been duped by relativity console themselves.

Relativity is just a pose for pseudo-intellects.

Anyway, getting back to the main issue, it shouldn't be too difficult to write an article on Herbert Dingle without voicing any opinion. Tesla was fiercely anti-relativity. This fact is mentioned in most articles about him, but nobody seems to feel the need to butt in and declare that 'we all know that Tesla was wrong'.

Just adopt the same attitude for Dingle. Describe him factually as a relativity lecturer who eventually turned against relativity. Let the readers read his books and make up their own minds whether or not he was justified in his stance.

We don't need somebody standing blocking the menu in the restaurant window and telling people that there is a better restaurant down the road.

Actually, as it stands now, the article is not too bad. But I can still detect a tendency to emphasize the fact that Dingle had his critics.

I'd like to see more mention about Einstein's critics in the Einstein article.(217.43.69.32 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

First of all to Tim Shuba - A positive contribution is already being made in the Talk:Herbert Dingle/Draft revision page. These people can contribute positively, if they care to and if we let them. We should keep a close eye on them, but given a common understanding of what WP:NPOV calls for here a good article should be obtainiable.

To Swanzsteve - A troll essentially lies in wait (usually under a bridge) and their goal is to trip people up. Your efforts to change people's minds on relativity essentially use a related tactic, and so the effect is similar to having someone around whose only goal is to argue (which is what internet trolls really are). I have given you my side and you have give me yours. Wikipedia is not USENET. It is past time to move on.

To the anon: The Albert Einstein article will not get more coverage ofthe critics, as their impact pales against his. For Dingle, the opposite is true, but in an expanded article on Dingle the coverage of the critics will becomes a much smaller part of the whole, creating a more balanced treatment.

FInally to all - Strong emotions are not going to prodice anything here but a lot of unproductive argument. Let's focus on creating a good article. --EMS | Talk 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - wouldn't that definition also make you a troll? I have said several times before, that this page should be about Dingle, not a relativity/anti-relativity rant. Before it was locked, its main purpose seemed to be criticise Dingle, which is not appropriate. It would be nice to see some progress here, a good start would be to get rid of the biassed, unreferenced mathpages article. (swanzsteve)

EMS, I was just about to edit the article on Albert Einstein. I was going to write in it that Einstein's theories were fiercely opposed by Nicolae Tesla. I've just discovered that the article is locked. The fact that such an article should be locked is a sign that a considerable amount of dissent must exist against Einstein and that it this dissent is being suppressed. (217.43.69.32 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

There is a considerable amount of anti-Einstein feeling around, and it often gets expressed in the form on inappropriate edits the Albert Einstein article. Do remember that Wikpedia is something the anyone can edit (in principle), and that people with strong opinions will often seek to have their views trumpeted here. Your intended edit is just one example of that, and I can assure you that if you had made it, it would have been quickly reverted as a violation of WP:UNDUE. Like it or not, the persistent failure of anti-relativists like yourself to have an effect on the scientific community renders your views irrelevant to that article. The opposition to relativity is better presented in history of special relativity, as the early oposition to relativity was substantial, and Dingle's renunciation of relativity was a notable event in its history.

The bottom line is that your views are being suppressed, and with good reason: Wikipedia is not a presenter of truth, but instead of knowledge. Whether you care to admit it or not, the opposition to relativity is very isolated and out of the scientific mainstream. I for one will happily support you on any point that you can document in accord with WP:V or WP:ATT, but I don't see you having even tried to do that. --EMS | Talk 01:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the point should be made that Dingle was not alone in his criticism of SR. (Swanzsteve 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

True, but be careful about that. Most anti-relativists are not notable. Dingle is notable because of the serious 180 he did on the topic after writing a respected textbook onthe topic, something that no other prominent supporter of relativity had done before or has done since. Nikolai Tesla gains notability due to his overall contributions to science. Tom Van Flandern seens to rate by being a very visible and contemporary pain-in-the-rear who regularly gains notice for advocating theories generally considered to be pseudoscience.

Once again, see WP:UNDUE: Please name one or more living prominent physicists who oppose relativity. Failing that, name any prominent scientists who oppose relativity or even and prominent people at all who are outspoken in their opposition to relativity. As best I can tell, Dingle has been dead for nearly 30 years, and noone has taken his place as a prominent physicist opposing relativity. --EMS | Talk 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After the treatment Dingle received, its little wonder that no-one else put their head above the parapet. It may be more worthwhile to find out if there were any others around, in his time, or before. (Swanzsteve 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Dingle utterly failed to convince fellow scientists that he was right. OTOH, within a decade of its introduction, the scientific consensus had altered to support relativity, although it remained highly controversial for another 20-30 years. A paradigm shift like that just does not occur without good an compelling reason, and once done will not be undone without equally good and compelling reason. Arguments that have been seen before and which are easily refuted cannot and will not undo the realtivity "revolution". If there really was a previosuly unnoticed incosistency of the kind that Dingle cited present in relativity theory, his work would have brought relativity theory down. This is not a matter of Dingle being put down, since Einstein got the same treatment at first. Instead it is just plain a matter of the vast majority of physicists looking that arguments for and against Dingle's position and conclusing that Dingle was not right. --EMS | Talk 04:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If what you claim were the truth, then we would not be discussing the issue here. But we are discussing it, and that obviously shows that you are wrong. There is no agreement that Dingle was wrong. Furthermore there is no proof of it, never was any proof of it, and it is unlikely that it could ever be proven.71.251.178.189 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - you say: "Arguments that have been seen before and which are easily refuted", I would have to disagree with this, I have yet to see a refutation. Saying that "acceleration" causes the asymmetry, merely sidesteps the argument. Dingle points this out himself, saying that acceleration takes it outside the scope of SR. McCrea in Nature doesnt refute Dingles argument, he sidesteps it by misinterpreting something in Dingles argument, and focussing on that - have a look at McCrea's "refutation" in Nature. Incidentally, McCrea never mentioned the supposedly crucial effect of acceleration. Remember, Einstein's 1905 paper does not mention the effect of acceleration in relation to moving clocks.

That said, we are supposed to be moving on here, and improving this article. Previously, the article didnt merely point out that scientific consensus was against Dingle, it painted him as a lone crackpot, and said Dingle's errors are well understood, which they are not, and that he had dementia. I dont think this page should be a debate about SR, or a tirade against Dingle. Swanzsteve 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft revision subpage

I moved the draft revision to Herbert Dingle/Draft revision. At Wikipedia we don't normally put two copies of an article on the same page; the subpage system is more typical. -- SCZenz 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have furhter moved the draft to Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Draft_revision. This is because having draft articles in the article space is forwned upon. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a peer reviewed paper: A Misunderstod Rebellion, Studies In history and Philosophy of Science 24(1993) pp 741-790. That could have been used as a reference for your Dingle article. Why not?

Sounds possibly useful. Is it on the web somewhere? I can't find the website for the journal. — SCZenz 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have that paper by Hasok Chang; I think it's certainly useful for Wikipedia as it's not written from a single POV, contrary to the one cited below.

I can send it (PDF) to those who are willing to cite parts of it - just send me an email. Harald88 14:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't locate it online, but while searching I did find another modern reference regarding Dingle's conceptual error. The citation for the paragraph below is: Craig, William Lane (2001). Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity. Klewer Academic. p. 49. ISBN 0792366689.

The fallacy of Dingle's objection underscores once more the novelty and subtlety of Einstein's metaphysical world view. The simple word "when" in the clauses, "When each clock has traveled 100 light years..." or even "When B reads 1:00 and then 2:00..." betrays that the inquirer is implicitly assuming an absolute or preferred reference frame relative to which those questions can be asked. To ask, "When each clock has traveled 100 light years, what do their faces read?" assumes a third reference frame in which A and B can be compared and relative to which the question can be answered. It assumes a sort of "God's eye point of view" of the two mutually receding clocks until they reach a separation of 200 light years. But given the problem conditions, no such point of view exists, according to the Special Theory. We could imagine a sort of third reference frame containing the two moving clocks and ask what readings the clocks show when, relative to that frame, they are 200 light years apart. The answer would be that relative to this third frame the two clocks read the same and that both of them are running slow relative to an imaginary clock at rest in the third frame. But this third frame enjoys no priviledged status and is purely imaginary in any case.

Tim Shuba 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you are desperate to drag Herbert Dingle's name through the mud, but now you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel:

Metaphysics - quotes from WIki

'Metaphysics has been attacked, at different times in history, as being futile and overly vague. David Hume went so far as to write: "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."'

"A more nuanced view is that metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather that they are generally not fallible, testable or provable statements (see Karl Popper). That is to say, there is no valid set of empirical observations nor a valid set of logical arguments, which could definitively prove metaphysical statements to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable. That idea could be changed in a non-arbitrary way, based on experience or argument, yet there exists no evidence or argument so compelling that it could rationally force a change in that idea, in the sense of definitely proving it false."

You can buy Doctorates in Metaphysics all over the internet, they're practically giving them away with cornflakes.

I thought we were supposed to be making positive suggestions for improving this article, without trashing Dingle. There are plenty of positive suggestions throughout this talk page.

For a start take out the appalling mathpages link, which has no references, and no way of checking its veracity. Most of it is just a rant against Dingle

(Swanzsteve 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Willaim Lane Craig criticism is discussed in the following link:A Metaphysical Philosopher attacks Dingle It contains nothing new. It merely repeats what was said elsewhere. So there is nothing new in it. He uncritcally accepts without investigating what others have said about Dingle. Electrodynamicist 12:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a line in the introduction: "He is most famous for his assertion that the special theory of relativity contains a mathematical inconsistency", as far as I am aware he never disputed the mathematics, but claimed a logical inconsistency Swanzsteve 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Locked Articles surrounding this Controversy

EMS seems to think that relativity is fully vindicated on the grounds that opposition to it is opposed by the ruling physics establishment.

Relativity says that two clocks moving apart will both go slower than each other.

EMS admits that Einstein has got many opponents and that as such the article on Einstein needs to be locked.

And yet we are all being told that relativity is perfectly correct and that nobody in an established scientific position today opposes or even debates the theory.

The locked articles surrounding this controversy are a clear sign that an impalatable truth is being suppressed.

Not one of the wikipedia editors has explained how two clocks could possibly be going slower than each other. There were attempts to cloud the issue by introducing acceleration. When more details were requested, the subject was quickly changed.

The impalatable truth that is being suppressed is the fact that Einstein's special theory of relativity is a total nonsense that appeals only to posers who pretend that they fully understand it, and who pretend not to see any contradictions inherent in it.(217.43.69.32 10:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

"Relativity says that two clocks moving apart will both go slower than each other". ==> When we look at each other between a gap between our fingers, we both say that the other one has a smaller opening angle. Sloppy language - apparently not really suited and tuned for laymen like yourself. Perhaps you should get another hobby?

Cheers, DVdm 10:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessarily insulting, I know Tim Shuba has started throwing insults around, but it is not necessary. The Anti-Dingle crowd dont help their arguments this way. Swanzsteve 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that Mr. Starwed has argued that this is the case and symmetry breaking occurs as a result of acceleration to cause the difference in time dilation. So maybe you should be a little less judgemental.71.251.178.189 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

DVdm, I realize now that I have been so stupid all along. I will go and get another hobby. I don't have the brains to be able to comprehend the concept of two clocks both going slower than each other, and obviously neither did Herbert Dingle.

I wish I was as intelligent as you DVdm. I really wish I could understand these kinds of things. (217.43.69.32 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

I wish that you could understand how relativity deals with this issue too.

I also wish that you could understand Wikipedia. Above you wrote:

The locked articles surrounding this controversy are a clear sign that an impalatable truth is being suppressed.

Once again, see WP:UNDUE, which says in part that

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Yours is such a minority. I don't care whether this is due to "suppression" or not. To be quite blunt about it, I have put relativity through its mathematical paces and it has passed every test that I have given it. Your opinion is not unknown, but it is not respected today in the least. The history of opposition to relativity has been that of a group that has gotten smaller and smaller and more and more isolated over time. That should tell you something. --EMS | Talk 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I dont think anyone has ever disagreed with the mathematics of relativity, Dingle never did. Swanzsteve 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that to be an interesting statement, as he spent the later part of his carrer arguing that the results of that math are not viable. --EMS | Talk 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(just putting my comment back) The results of the maths produce a logical inconsistency, that is not saying there is anything wrong with the maths. It is a question of how you apply the maths. He argued that the same maths could be applied to both clocks in a state of inertial motion and produce the contradictory result, that they were both running slower than the other one. It was a question of how the maths is applied to the physical situation. Swanzsteve 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herbert_Dingle"

BTW - I have run across people who disagree with relativity at the postulate level. For those people disagreement with the math is automatic. --EMS | Talk 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Swansteve, just like you (and your alter-egos), in this regard Dingle obviously also failed to realize that physics is much more than just an exercise in algebra. This is exactly where failing to understand the physical meanings of the variables can lead someone, even at the end of an impressive career. DVdm 15:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

to DVdM - you say: "Dingle obviously also failed to realize that physics is much more than just an exercise in algebra." - Dingle makes this exact point, in his book, many times. You agree with Dingle without realising it. Swanzsteve 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you obviously disagree with Dingle without realising it.

Bad luck. DVdm 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, can you just read the relevant parts of his book please, and stop mis-characterising him as a simple-minded buffoon. Swanzsteve

No reason to call me "dear". But seriously, I'm not mis-characterising Dingle. I'm characterising his state of mind at the end of (and after) his career. It is not uncommon for people to entirely slip off the road at a certain age. Not even for academics with a brilliant career. DVdm 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How are you qualified to comment on his state of mind? Its beside the point anyway, deal with his arguments, stop trying to discredit him. Swanzsteve 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How about if we concentrate on documenting Dingle's arguments, and also (breifly) the major refuations of them? This talk page is not the place to refute his arguments to begin with.

IMO, I have provided more than enough evidence that Dingle was wrong in this talk page. As usual, people like yourself find ways to step around it, mostly by tossing out parts of the proof as "irrelevant" even though they are a valid part of relativity theory. So you can set up and knock down your time-dilation straw-man all that you want. I no longer care to fight you over it.

Since your hero is Dingle, I feel that you all can contribute here and help to place a much better article here. Please do so and stop trying to "convert" us to your side (and yes I do think that we should also stop trying to convert you). That is not a proper use of these talk pages. --EMS | Talk 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a gross misrepresentation of the discussions on this page, you (and others) have been unable to refute Dingle's Syllogism. You sidestep the issue by throwing in "acceleration", which is not a part of SR, and which Einstein didnt mention, and McCrea didnt mention. You also misrepressent Dingle's arguments as mine, and accuse me of setting up a straw-man. You accuse me of trying to convert you, I am merely putting forward Dingle's arguments which refute yours. Dingle considered that introducing acceleration, took the problem outside the scope of SR. The major refutation of Dingle's argument was McCrea's, you must be able to see that what McCrea did was to sidestep the question.

Debates over Dingle's POV are interesting and relevant on this talk page, as long as everyone maintains their cool. You think acceleration is the key, others think its a cop-out, as Dingle did.

I agree that its time to put Dingle's page right. I dont think it should be cluttered up with "major refutations". Maybe not even with his own arguments. Personally, I like the tone of the current draft page, which gives his life history and mentions his stance on SR, and the fact that it was an unconventional view. If anyone is interested enough to look at the details of his argument and refutations, they can find them elsewhere. I would vote for putting the draft article in place of the current Wiki page, locking it, and letting everyone give their opinion on it.Swanzsteve 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have refuted the syllogism, albeit in my own way. Your refusal to accept that refutation only means that your have refused to accept it. As I wrote above, your tactic is to remove anything that gives relativity self-consistency as irrelevant. You hold up the 1905 article, and yet when I bring in the relativity of simultaneity (something that is an integral part of that article), you also toss it out as not being the topic under discussion.

The issue is not whether time dilation is self-consistent, but instead whether relativity is self-consistent. In a Newtonian framework, time dilation cannot exist, but it is not a Newtonian effect to begin with.

EMS - its time stop going round in circles, we should agree to differ Swanzsteve 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As for promoting the draft revision, I oppose that. The notes and citations from the current article need to be ported over, and the new material needs citations if it to hold up. There also are a series of POV issues, mostly in the persistent claims that Dingle's views are "suppressed". That revision is definitely a step in the right direaction, but IMO it is very much incomplete and in need of some polishing. --EMS | Talk 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add: Suppose that I can prove to your satisfaction that Dingle was wrong. How does that change who Dingle was, what his arguments where, what the counter-arguments were (and are), and the effect that Dingle had on the sceintific community and the public at large? Those are the topics at hand IMO. Whether Dingle was really right or wrong is almost irrlevant to subject at hand. --EMS | Talk 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have another USENET posting that may help. On looking at it again, it needs some work. The silliest thing is that I talk about observer B synchronizing clocks and "setting them in motion" when they need to have been put in motion towards the observer A before the synchronization was done to get the described result. However, the main points remain valid. So here is my 2002 USENET posting on "Which clock is slower?" --EMS | Talk 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were going to stop preaching:-) Swanzsteve 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt resist looking at this example. Let me just ask you something, if I may:- the B clocks appear synchronised within the 'moving' B frame, but appear unsynchronised from the 'stationary' A frame, if I understand it correctly. What happens if the B frame stops, so that there is no relative motion between A and B - Do the clocks now appear synchronised when observed from the A frame, or are they still unsynchronised? Swanzsteve 06:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose even more. See my comment above, in the discussion to improve this article as well as on the parallel discussion page: I strongly suggest not to remove the -rather good- existing stub, but to expand on it. Of course, this can be done by gradually adding to it pieces of the draft version - there is nothing against the use of a sandbox. But each significant addition or change of this article should be discussed on this talk page instead of kooked and discussed elsewhere. Harald88 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The draft article, as it stands at the moment, is infinitely superior to the current stub. It contains much more info about Dingle's life Swanzsteve 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a review of dingles 1940 book: The Special Theory of Relativity by Herbert Dingle G. J. Whitrow Philosophy, Vol. 17, No. 66. (Apr., 1942), pp. 181-183. you can access it on jstor and other things probably. A lot of the content on the new page seems to be pulled straight from: Obituary: Herbert Dingle G. J. Whitrow The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Sep., 1981), pp. 327-328. I've been following this discussion and think the revamped draft page is definitely the way forward, this topic seems to be quite sensitive with two directly opposing camps not backing down. Hope the references help 213.107.15.23 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to back down, but we do need to back off from each other. Neither side will concede to the other. Instead some framework for mutual respect and respect for Wikipedia is needed. --EMS | Talk 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some respect for Herbert Dingle would be appropriate also. So I hope you wont be including the mathpages article, it is unnecessarily insulting. Since we now have a reference for most of the draft page article, why not move that across? As for views on the correctness of SR, just put a link to the Wiki page on SR? Anyone interested enough in SR can get more detailed information there Swanzsteve 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I have no admiration for Dingle, and watch this page mostly to tear out POV changes made by editors like yourself. OTOH, I am willing to have respect for the topic and to work as best I can with you to create a good article.

On the issue of promoting the draft revision: Once again, there are no citations in that article as-is. Where did you get the info on Dingle's life from? What are the hournal references for the exchanges of letter that you document in the controversies section? What is the publication information on Dingle's books and where can reviews of them be found? Another issue is your taking content straight from an obtuary which may still be under copyright protection. See WP:COPY. This can be dealt with easily enough be rewriting the draft revision somewhat and finding more sources for the content. Finally, this is a whitewash of the fact that Dingle's anti-relativity work has never been accepted in the overall scientific community. So a legavy section is needed. As for the mathpages article: Something of that ilk is needed to back up statements of Dingle's lack of acceptance. --EMS | Talk 05:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there!!! I have had nothing to do with the draft version, I saw it for the first time today. I wish I could say I had written it. I was impressed with it, It is a far more appropriate article than previous versions have been. It gives a neutral POV, and doesnt denigrate him. The obituary is referenced (see above - The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science) reproducing extracts shouldnt infringe copyright as long as they are referenced properly. Extracts from books are allowed for educational purposes (last time I looked, I think it was a maximum of 5% of the book - dont quote me on this) I think Wiki could be classed as educational. I think its clear from the draft article that Dingle's views were not generally accepted. The mathpages article, however, is a disgraceful slur on the man - the refutations given, the allegations made about elementary errors and dementia, are all unreferenced. The article is merely the opinions of some unknown writer, he doesnt even put his name on it anywhere. Swanzsteve 06:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The draft version seems to have been written by SCZenz Swanzsteve 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - you say:- "Finally, this is a whitewash of the fact that Dingle's anti-relativity work has never been accepted in the overall scientific community" - you already changed one of the last lines to: "long and futile campaign to establish his refutation of relativity" - its pretty obvious that his anti-relativity work has never been accepted in the overall scientific community. You dont need to overdo it. Swanzsteve 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, you have openly admitted your anti-Dingle bias. You should now get off the page. There is something very unhealthy about hovering over an article 24 hours a day to run the man down. You are like a tout hanging around outside a restaurant window telling people not to go into that restaurant but to go to your own restaurant down the road.

You obviously feel uncomfortable about Dingle. That is a sign that there are impalatable truths that need to be covered up. Is Dingle a thorn in the neck for your own private theories about flat back general relativity? (217.43.69.32 11:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

LOL! For my own theorizing, the "thorn in the neck" is the same scientific establishment that you all are fighting and with which I am aligned here. I know that it does not seem that way, but as I on the "outside" with my own ideas I see where you all are coming from and have even experienced your frustration. What I don't do is let it blind me to my own deficiencies or let it keep me from digesting what others are trying to tell me. I really have benefited from the criticisms that I have been given, and so has my theory.

Then again, I am not like you in that I don't trying to show my theory down everyone's throat here. Even though I disagree with it somewhat, when I write about GR I am writing about Einstien's ideas and not mine since that it the current state of human knowledge is that Einstein was correct whereas I remain the only supporter of my ideas at this time. IMO, mine is an example that you all would do well to follow. --EMS | Talk 17:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at this part of the Wiki page on Einstein:-

>>Unified field theory

Einstein's research after general relativity consisted primarily of a long series of attempts to generalize his theory of gravitation in order to unify and simplify the fundamental laws of physics, particularly gravitation and electromagnetism. In 1950, he described this "Unified Field Theory" in a Scientific American article entitled "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation" (Einstein 1950).

Although he continued to be lauded for his work in theoretical physics, Einstein became increasingly isolated in his research, and his attempts were ultimately unsuccessful. In his pursuit of a unification of the fundamental forces, he ignored mainstream developments in physics (and vice versa), most notably the strong and weak nuclear forces, which were not well understood until many years after Einstein's death. Einstein's goal of unifying the laws of physics under a single model survives in the current drive for the grand unification theory. <<

This is purely a statement of the facts. There are no links to pages trying to prove that Einstein was wrong about his UFT. No quotes from people saying Einstein's error is well known and then linking this to pages accusing him of suffering from dementia.

In fact, this is a good example of a NPOV.

I think this is what we should be aiming for here.

Swanzsteve 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point, but do note that this text is not at all complimentary of Einstein and makes it clear that his efforts to create a unified field theory "were ultimately unsuccessful". Similarly it must be made clear that Dingle's efforts to turn physics away from relativity theory were also unsuccessful. That fact does not need to be shoved down people's thoats, but it must be present and obvious none-the-less. --EMS | Talk 17:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The text is not complimentary about Einstein, but neither is it derogatory. I think the phrase - his attempts to convince the scientific community "were ultimately unsuccessful" is a very good choice of words. This seems to be purely a statement of fact. The only real problem I have with the current page is the links to people stating he was wrong (particlarly the mathpages) these draw a conclusion. Swanzsteve 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to use that phrase. Also, if the mathpages article is not to be used, you need to find other anti-Dingle material to reference, but much of what I would consider to be appropriate replacements are already alluded to in that draft. You need to collect and edit in the references, and it would be nice to provide some external links assuming that there are any sites out there that we can both agree upon as being useful. --EMS | Talk 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree that we need to find "anti-Dingle material to reference", as I pointed out, there are no anti-Einstein references in his Wiki section on UFT, they just point out that his efforts to create a unified field theory "were ultimately unsuccessful". Isnt that enough? I dont think an anti-dingle stance is appropriate in a biographical article. Swanzsteve 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Swanzsteve 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"No anti-Einstein references in his Wiki section" and "unified field theory ultimately unsuccessful" ==> Of course, but his relativity theory is ultimately extremely sucessful and is de-facto entirely anti-Dingle material all by itself, together with that vast body of other material out there. If there was any non-trivially debunkable anti-Einstein material (like for instance Dingle's work), it should and would be listed on the Einstein article. DVdm 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at Einstein's page again under:- "Bohr versus Einstein" Einstein's arguments here have, to the satisfaction of most of the scientific community, been disproved by experiments. Yet there are no links to pages which insult him, or accuse him of having dementia. Merely a statement that experiment has confirmed Quantum Theory's predictionsSwanzsteve 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you perceive certain facts as insults or accusations show that you are a fan of Dingle's. I don't think that a fan is the best person to write a factual encyclopedic article about his subject. DVdm 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think many people would disagree that the mathpages article is insulting. I dont think a Dingle-Hater should be involved in writing this article. You clearly despise Dingle, for some reason, best known to yourself. A "factual encyclopedic article" is all that most people are asking for. Swanzsteve 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

DVdm - I think that we are reacting with equal unbrage to the assertions of these anti-relativists that Einstein essentially made a "freshman mistake". None-the-less, I also renew my call to Swanzsteve to porvide replacement references. IMO, that should not be too hard since he mentions the refutations that Dingle got to his cvarious campaigns. My suspiscion is that they make the same points in a respected scientific journals and most likely are politer.

Swanzsteve - You still need to add references to that draft! You are not even citing the obitutuary that apparently was the source of much of that material. That article will have to defend itself once it is promoted. Otherwise as it becomes a battleground for both our sides, the temptation will be to degrade is back to its current state. With references, such degradation becomes much barder to justify. Look at it this way: You have work to do if the draft is going to become the actual article. You are already part way there, but it is far from finished. --EMS | Talk 02:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein's 1905 paper [SRT1905], is quite a strange paper. Its pretty ambiguous in what it says about clocks, and contains no references to other peoples work, not even to Lorentz. I cant imagine that paper being accepted anywhere today. In fact, I think its the only paper I have ever seen without any references. As far as references for the draft page are concerned, It would make it easier all round if the person who wrote it, could say where they got it from. They clearly have the references themselves. As for the reference for a major refutation, the best one would be McCrea's refutation, its the only one I know of from that era:

"Why The Special Theory of Relativity is Correct", W.H.McCrea, Nature, October 14, 1967, p.122.

Which was his reply to Dingle's article:

"The Case against Special Relativity", H.Dingle, Nature, October 14, 1967, p.119.

Its a pity that the debate between the two didnt continue a bit longer, because Dingle was not happy with McCrea's response, since it didnt really get to the heart of Dingle's example. Unfortunately these two articles in Nature are all there is, as far as I know (from reading Dingle's book). Would everyone be happy to put in McCrea' refutation. Incidentally, I wouldnt be happy to see this included with a line like "Dingle's error is well understood", it was this sort of remark that caused all the fuss before.

Finally, can I repeat that I am not anti-relativity, there is a lot of evidence in favour of most of relativity theory, I have a problem with SRT1905, and the hand-waving explanations of the clock paradox. I'm not convinced that the experiments carried out so far confirm SRT. They may confirm GRT, but that doesnt make SRT OK. I also think Dingle got a raw deal. Swanzsteve 09:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve, I clearly don't "despise Dingle". The man died three decades ago. At the end of his career, he just sadly made a trivial mistake, which strangely happened to get picked up by some laypeople, and perhaps by a marginal handful of "academics", mostly engineers, clearly lacking a proper education in that part of physics, and usually at or beyond the end of their careers. DVdm 09:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

DVdm - the tone of your posts about Dingle so far have come across as quite aggressive, to me at least. Perhaps that wasnt your intention. As far as Dingle's "trivial mistake" is concerned, we have already been through all that, on these pages, no-one has been able to explain his "trivial mistake" to anyone elses satisfaction. Have a look at his case in the Nature article, and see if you can find his mistake - McCrea's response is unconvincing. I would prefer not to go over old ground, both sides find it extremely frustrating trying to convince the other side, and we have all got nowhere. As for your remarks about "engineers, clearly lacking a proper education in that part of physics, and usually at or beyond the end of their careers" etc., this sneering tone doesnt help. I know of many young Physics graduates, who are dissatisfied with the explanations of the clock paradox, so its not restricted to people suffering from dementia. Undergraduates, will cheerfully produce the required answers, to questions they dont understand, in order to get their degrees, I know this from my own experience. So the fact that they dont protest, doesnt mean a lot. I'm glad to hear you dont despise Dingle, so dont despise the people who think he had a raw deal, and should get a decent WIki page. He did after all achieve a lot more than most in his life, and have the guts to stand up for his beliefs (right or wrong) against fierce opposition. Swanzsteve 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There has still never been a satisfactory answer to Dingle's question 'how can two clocks both be going slower than each other?'.

Let's imagine a man firing a starting pistol. Two other men on bicycles both ride off in opposite directions with cuckoo clocks strapped to their backs. When the cuckoo clock on the back of rider A crows twelve, which cuckoo clock does the man with the starting pistol hear? (217.43.69.32 12:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Careful there, you're beginning to sound like that other retired "electronic engineer" on Usenet, calling itself Androcles. DVdm 14:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume then that you can't answer the question. (217.43.69.32 19:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

I dont think the "Cuckoo Clock Paradox" has ever been satisfactorily refuted:-) Swanzsteve 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Shuba has vandalised the article already pushing his POV, with a new link on SR, into which he has sneaked a long quote from the reference. Is the references section the appropriate place for a quote? Is this the appropriate page for SR links, shouldn't this quote be put on the Wiki SR page. I thought we were going to stick to a page about Dingle, not have free-for-all about SR. I have already put a reference to McCrea's refutation of Dingle's argument, isnt that enough? I wont remove his new reference myself, he will just put it back. Can any of the relativity crowd, persuade him to stop wrecking the page. Swanzsteve 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that citation supports is that "Dingle's claim is no longer an active area of debate within the mainstream physics community." I don't really care whether the reference includes the quote, but certainly a ref like that is needed, since the McCrea refutation occurred when the claim was debated. --Starwed 21:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, that reference is stronger without the quote, and I call on all the others who support relativity to remember the WP:NPOV applies to us also. Shoving it down people's thoats that Dingle was wrong is not needed, but there should be no doubt that his claims were never accepted. (There is no wording to that effect in the article at present, but I am about to remedy that.) --EMS | Talk 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think that none of Dingle's claims were accepted by any outstanding physicist or even the physics community. This should become clearer when the article is expanded to include Dingle's main objection (that SRT is not fully relativistic in the relationalist sense) and how much Einstein's "GRT solution" is accepted nowadays (Dingle rejected it and many physicists after him also rejected it or at least downplayed it). Harald88 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)