Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Conference Proceedings

EMS said that conference proceedings are acceptable citation sources. Here is a web link for a recent conference in Russia in which there were discussions about whether or not Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is correct,

http://www.shaping.ru/congress/2000en.asp

Discussions on this controversy are still very much alive.(217.43.69.32 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

This is just more dishonesty. I said that proceeding published by a publisher of other reliable sources could also be assumed to be reliable. Kindly show me that these proceedings come from a publisher of reliable sources.

I can't deny that the debate is ongoing, and will for a long as people misunderstand relativity. That does not make the debate ongoing in the mainstream physics community. Instead it is occurs off on the fringes. --EMS | Talk 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And for as long as people misunderstand the simple fact that one year is an absolute measure based on the complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (217.43.69.32 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Is the Controversy Largely Forgotten?

The last sentence in the main article says that the Dingle controversy is largely forgotten.

Do we just leave that statement in the article even though it is clearly not true? The controversy is in fact a very active and growing area of debate. Just do a google search on 'Einstein was wrong' and you will see.

That end statement in the main article has been inserted as an opinion by people who are anti-Dingle and whose own private research hinges on the special theory of relativity.

So why is it still in the article following this lengthy discussion?

Is it because if anybody tries to remove it, reinforcements of prejudiced editors will drafted in to restore it again?

If relativity was safely and comfortably an undisputed fact amongst mainstream physicists, supporters of relativity wouldn't feel the need to fanatically try to block out Dingle's message. They could all go home and relax in the knowledge that relativity is an undisputed fact.

But it clearly is a heavily disputed topic and hence they have to try and pretend that it is not disputed at all.

The moral of the story is that where wikipedia may be good for ascertaining basic facts such as dates and places of birth etc., it is most certainly not to be depended upon for information on any controversial topic whatsoever. A controversial topic will always have a band of fanatics who sit guarding their pet article day and night.

Ordinary people won't want to bother playing that game. Slowly and surely it will come to be realized that wikipedia is not to be heeded for opinions on controversial topics.

And argument will ensue in a pub and somebody will sarcastically say 'Did you read that in wikipedia?'

Wikipedia will become synonomous with unreliability.(217.43.69.32 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

The anon wrote:

If relativity was safely and comfortably an undisputed fact amongst mainstream physicists, supporters of relativity wouldn't feel the need to fanatically try to block out Dingle's message. They could all go home and relax in the knowledge that relativity is an undisputed fact.

Let's see. Relativity being undisputed means that people like me should step aside and let people like you put whatever you want into Wikipedia. The anon furthermore as part of his/her argument worries that

Wikipedia will become synonomous with unreliability.

That of couse is what will happen in we let poeple like this anon have their way. Therefore those of us who support relativity are obligated to make sure that the true status of Dingle's arguments is reflected here. --EMS | Talk 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - you should remember that it was the pro-relativity, anti-Dingle crowd who were using this page to push their POV and to criticise and insult Dingle. Since the insulting comments and links have been removed, there has been no vandalism of this page. Swanzsteve 15:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

???. I'm not quote sure where that came from. I do agree that blatant criticism of Dingle in this article violates WP:NPOV. However, discussion of the existing criticism does not violate that policy. More relevant is that the removal of the last paragraph (which is what this anon wants) would be POV as a pro-Dingle edit, as it would be removing all mention of the lack of respect the Dingle has amongst theoretical physicists today. That fact and its POV obviously should not be plastered all over the article, but neither should its existance be ignored or blatantly suppressed. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I see you and the other pro-Dingle people as playing a valuable role by helping to achieve balance and (hopefully in the longer term) a longer and must better article along the lines of the draft revision one. However, your view becoming dominant in the article is just as useful and POV as when us relativists held fast to our view and kept it dominant. Note that if I should have to rule between pro-Dingle and anti-Dingle that I will be solidly anti-Dingle, but when the issue is POV vs. NPOV that I am happy to support NPOV even when doing so acts against the pro-Dingle agenda. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, what you have just said above translates as 'I am anti-Dingle and I will ensure that an anti-Dingle POV is maintained on the main article, and I will delete pro-Dingle edits on the grounds that they are POV.'

Your denial of opposition to relativity is similar to claiming that there is no opposition to the governemnt within the government.

The ruling physicists of the day systematically censor any attempts to publish anti-relativity articles. Try sending an anti-relativity article to the likes of Nature and it will be rejected within hours without even being reviewed.

You interpret this censorship as meaning that there is no opposition.

If relativity is formally exposed, then your own private theories on flat back relativity will tumble. That is why you are so keen to maintain the myth. (217.43.69.32 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

I am only the one at the vangard here, and probably much more willing to engage you than the others because I have one foot in your world. Be advised that this article is being watched by many other people who are ready and willing to revert you as needed. (BTW - When you have an account, a tools called the watchlist becomes available to you such that you will be alerted of any change to a Wikipedia page that you are interested in.)

I understand that you are hurt and resentful, but once again Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Furhtermore, under WP:NPOV the price that you pay for being able to keep this article from being pre-relativity/anti-Dingle is being unable to make it anti-relativity/pro-Dingle either. Oddly, you have been saying some things that are reasonable recently in spite of your angst. You are right that I cannot "censor" you here simply because I do not like Dingle, but I can and will keep you from outright declaring relativity to be wrong in the article.

BTW - I have found that while sloppy original research does get bounced very quickly, a well crafted article that comes at a problem from a novel viewpoint easily gets sent out for review. OTOH, getting something novel past a reviewer is a real challenge! Even so, getting an anti-relativity article published in Nature is not totally impossible, but your arguments have been seen and refuted (to the satifaction of the mainstream physics community) many, many times before and so will not even be sent out for review. --EMS | Talk 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Suggestion for the Last Sentence

The last sentence as it currently stands hinges on the opinions of one man 'Mr. Chang'. It is clearly an anti-Dingle point of view.

A much more correct and honest sentence would read,

"Professor Dingle's argument with Prof. McCrea has never been resolved. But despite having generated widespread interest throughout the scientific world, Prof. Dingle's argument has never been officially accepted within the mainstream physics community"

That sentence reflects the truth. If anybody objects to that sentence, then they are in denial of the ongoing interest in this argument which exists in the wider scientific community beyond the immediate governing bodies. (217.43.69.32 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

I have to say, I think the last line as it stands is pretty factual and neutral. I'm more concerned about the line which talks about his 'commonsense' method, which is factually incorrect, but I'm not sure how to re-word it. Swanzsteve 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct wording would be 'Dingle claimed that since it is impossible to have two clocks both running slower than each other, it therefore follows that Einstein's special theory of relativity must be fatally flawed.'

On your other point, the present wording of the last sentence is unsatisfactory because it implies that everybody has forgotten about the Dingle debate. That is not the case. Many people are still discussing it, but the discussions are barred from the kind of journals that would be required for wikipedia citations.

Hence wikipedia will claim that there is no evidence of suppression because the sources that are acceptable under their rules and which are the very sources responsible for the suppression, have not stated that this suppression exists. It's like claiming that it would only accept allegations of corruption against the government if they are published by an official government source. Or like saying 'We will only believe that Mr. X has committed a felony if he admits it himself'.(217.43.69.32 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

As I mentioned on the draft revision talk page, Dingle's own writings can be used to document his claims including his allegations of suppression. For a blatant claim that "relativity is wrong", you are stuck with the need to use a reliable scientific source, which of course will support no such thing. However, when we are documenting Dingle and his legacy, then a lot of flexibity exists, and sources like "Science at the Crossroads" and even Anperion can be acceptable. Note that neither can speak to what the mainstream scientific opinion is, but when the issue is Dingle and there being some continuing interesting in him and his works outside of the scientific mainstream then they do become acceptable.

Just to emphasize: Be very careful about what you are claiming. If you are claiming an ongoing scientific debate, then you need reliable scientific sources. If you are claimsing simply that supporters of Dingle and his work still exists without claiming that they are part of the scientific mainstream then you only need journalistic reliability (in that these sources can be expected to reliably reporesent what you say the represent) instead of full-fledged scientific reliability. --EMS | Talk 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS these statements of yours have previously been shown to be erronous, so please stop making them. You are merely being inflamatory. Regarding the concluding sentence, the writer failed to include the following statement by Chang that:"Dingle's question remains unanswered to this day." I think this needs to be included . The sentence that states Dingle used a commonsense method should be deleted as it is false and misleading and provides no useful information to the reader.Electrodynamicist 13:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The validity of SR is not being debated within the mainstream scientific community, and I am not going to tolerate any pretense otherwise. However, once you move beyond that issue (which we sould not be debating here anyway), areas of agreement do start appearing.

On the issue of the "sentence that states Dingle used a commonsense method", please feel free to be more specific and to cite the sources for your statement. I think that you can edit the article now, but if not then please propose a specific replacement here, and I will seriously consider putting it into the article for you. (As long as it is a factual description of Dingle's argument, the anti-relativity content will not be an issue for me.)

On the issue of the last sentense, I could accept wording like

"Professor Dingle's argument with Prof. McCrea was not resolved at the time. However, despite having generated widespread interest at the time, Prof. Dingle's argument has never been accepted within the mainstream physics community. <Change ref here> Since then the controversy has largely been forgotten, but Dingle's arguments are used by people who oppose special relativity to this day. < cite Amperion here? >"

However, this is an attempt at a compromise, and I want to see the opinions of the other anti-Dingle people (espectially Harald88) before it is placed into the article. However, if all sides will keep a cool head I beleive that consensus wording can be achieved. --EMS | Talk 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, Relativity is being debated widely. Mainstream phyics supports relativity so it is totally ridiculous of you to expect anybody to present citations on anti-relativity from mainstream sources.

On matters of dissent, one can only supply dissenting sources. There are plenty of dissenting sources which show that the whole relativity debate is very much alive. (217.43.69.32 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Once again, there is nothing wrong with what you are saying. Once again, this is an article where non-mainstream sources can be treated as reliable in certain contexts. I would not accept Dingle's later works as reliable sources on special relativity, but they most certainly are reliable sources about what Dingle wrote and what he thought. I cannot let you edit this article totally as you see fit, but that does not mean that you cannot have an impact. Create your draft and make your case. I am willing to support you when you are right under the rules of Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually EMS is just being inflamatory and arguing about semantics. He should be ignored. If we are to be consistent we should use Chang as the source and his conclusion is not what EMS wants to be included in the conclusion. I suggest a careful reading of Chang as a first next step.Electrodynamicist 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein Quote

I have seen this quote by Einstein on a few websites:-

"There is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity." (Einstein 1918)

Does anyone know if it is genuine, and where it comes from? Swanzsteve 06:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk gives that quote and cites a source, but I couldn't find the original. Anyway, what does this have to do with Herbert Dingle? -- SCZenz 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle was trying to show that there is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity. Swanzsteve 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Einstein's opinion on the question as of 1918 carries much weight on that issue, certainly less than all the modern textbooks one could cite that state the opposite, so the quote seems a bit tangential. -- SCZenz 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was trying to deal with how the "traveling" twin (who is accelerated at turn-around) sees the "stay-at-home" twin age more than himself. The use of the gravitational time dilation effect of GR (which is this case causes the rate of the other clock to increase) provides a most interesting way of achieveing this effect. (Actually I consider this to be an SR solution which uses acceleration effects, but that is a more modern understanding of this exercise). Kindly note that the "true" SR solution of the twin paradox (which invokes the relativity of simultaneity for the view of the traveling twin at turnaround) was not discovered until around 1950. --EMS | Talk 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz, I wouldn't expect you to attach weight to any citation at all no matter when it was written, where it was written, or by whom it was written, if it were criticizing relativity. You have your own opinion that relativity is correct and as such you will twist wikipedia's rules to always make sure that anti-relativity citations are deemed inadmissable. (217.43.69.32 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

SCZenz - I'm a bit surprised by your response. The man who created the clock paradox in 1905, thinks about it for 13 years, then gives his opinion, and you say it doesn't carry much weight??? You prefer to listen to his disciples' 'modern' textbooks. Does Einstein's opinion in 1905 'carry much weight'? - swanzsteve 213.107.15.23 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - Correct me if I'm wrong but, you seem to be saying that you (and 'modern' relativists) understand SR better than the man "voted the greatest physicist of all time by over 100 of the world's leading scientists." Swanzsteve 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you all dismiss out-of-hand anyone who questions SR and the clock paradox, but I wasn't expecting you to give Einstein himself the same treatment. This should give you all some pause for thought - arent you showing your arrogance here? You are dismissing the opinion of "the greatest physicist of all time" and the creator of SR - WOW!!! Swanzsteve 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! - Swanzsteve, you must be a lawyer in real life: You search around for those little bits and pieces that support your case, and then you use them for all that they are worth. Einstein said a number of different things about the twin paradox on different occasions. Harald88 is the one who can document that best, but I saw at one point over at talk:twin paradox a link to a long article on the issue of Einstein's view of the paradox, and it did change over time. Einstein may well be the greatest physicist of all time, but he was far from perfect. His opposition to quantum mechanics is legendary, with Einstein rejecting in spite of its successes and even his own help in starting it. The early history of general relativity is a series of blunders leading finally to a successful theory. His statement that the twin paradox cannot be solved within SR alone certainly is mistaken, but that mistake pales against the successes of SR, GR, Brownian motion as evidence favoring the atomic theory of matter, Planck's constant and light quanta as the explanation of the photoelectric effect, DeBroglie waves, etc. --EMS | Talk 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a serious difficulty for the claimed solution of the paradox. Einstein saw that the solution could not be found within special relativity. Then along comes McCrea and claims that he has exactly the solution that Einstein didn't think was possible. Then Dingle said that McCrea's solution was not consistent with the underlying principles of special relativity. McCrea said Dingle was wrong about this because his math was correct and Dingle was wrong. But if Dingle is saying what Einstein recognised in the above quotation, is it correct to conclud that Dingle was wrong in the debate with McCrea? This is why Chang says the dispute was never actually resolved and Dingle was not proved to be wrong.Electrodynamicist 19:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice if Dingle had said "Oops. I'm wrong. Sorry about that." Sometimes an anti-relativist does "see the light", but that is rare and obviously did not happen in Dingle's case. I can't say that it is reasonable to expect that from you, Swanzsteve, or the anons either. BTW - It is important to note that in invoking a Einstein's statement that "the twin paradox cannot be solved in the context of SR alone", Einstein was making a case for considering acceleration and acceleration effects as part of the issue rather than that he had been wrong about relativity to begin with. You all are reminded that us pro-relativists were critcised above for insisting on bringing acceleration in the mix when the word did not appear in the 1905 article. Now here we are with the 1918 explanation and acceleration is what it is all about.

I don't see that we can achieve much by debating more issues like these. The topic here is Dingle, and we should get back to figuring out how to create the best article possible on him. --EMS | Talk 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - Once again, don't mistake my belief that Dingle was badly treated (and still is badly treated), with an anti-relativity stance. Don't think I'm criticising Einstein either, he was a true scientist, in that he constantly questioned everything, even his own theories. I'm trying to sow some seeds of doubt in your minds, I thought this quote from Einstein himself, might do that. Dingle's challenge was to explain the clock paradox from within the 1905 Theory of Special Relativity, which did not mention acceleration or gravitation, or anything apart from relative motion. This has never been done, least of all by the pitiful deception perpetrated by McCrea. The point, for me of discussing things like this is to remove the strong Dingle-hating tone of the earlier version of the page, and to ensure that it doesnt return. Swanzsteve - 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Einstein did mention acceleration, but it was couched in terms of moving in a "uniform arc". The actual quote is:

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be ${\frac {1}{2}}tv^{2}/c^{2}$ second slow.

Moving in a uniform arc is circular motion, which requires an acceleration to do. (It is considered implicit in this statement that one clock is in an inertial frame of reference and that the other clock is moving with respect to the first clock. Hence the "moving" clock is in this case in an accelerated frame of reference, and its viewpoint will not be considered until 1907.)

Beyond that, I know that you are trying to create doubts, but those of us who have been on USENET and other open venues have seen this type of logic many, many times before. --EMS | Talk 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I didnt mean doubts about SR, I meant you should have some doubts about everything. Swanzsteve 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - "Actually Einstein did mention acceleration" - like I said,he doesnt mention acceleration in relation to moving clocks and rods - he says things like "imparting velocity" to a rod etc. Any sort of motion at some time in the past has involved acceleration, its a bit of a stretch, to say this is Einstein mentioning acceleration:-) Swanzsteve 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - a little afterthought, is it the t,v or c that stands for acceleration in ${\frac {1}{2}}tv^{2}/c^{2}$  ? - Swanzsteve 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first thingthat I need to do here is to correct this translation of Einstein's 1905 article. The relevant sentense above should read "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant speed until it returns to A ...". Do note the change from "velocity" to "speed": A constant velocity cannot be achieved along a closed curved because a constant velocity means that your direction is not being changed. However, a constant speed maintains the magnitude of the movement but permits its direction to change. As acceleration is a vector quantitiy (being dv/dt), any change of direction means an acceleration. However, since the speed is constant so id the time dilation effect within the chosed inertial frame of reference. So t is the time of travel, v is the speed, and c is the speed to light. Also note the this is an approximation of the magnitude of the slowdown, good for cases where v << c. As the magnitude of the effect is constant (due to the constant speed), no acceleration term is needed. However, we are once again back to the twin paradox here. Which clock went faster, and therefore experienced the greater proper time? The answer is the one that stayed in a state of inertial motion. Furthermore for all observers (and therefore in the rest frame of reference for each observer) which clock went faster and (as a percentage) by how much will be agreed upon. --EMS | Talk 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In 1908, Hermann Minkowski showed that the spacetime of SR could be described using a metric where an invariant distance s (which corresponds to proper time) could be devised where $ds^{2}=dt^{2}-dx^{2}-dy^{2}-dz^{2}$ for any inertial observer. This metric structure makes it obvious that a particle which accelerates in moving from one event to the next will experience less proper time than one that move ineritally between the events. This is because the coordinate time (t) traveled is always the same in going between the same two events but the x, y, and z distances must be increased. That in a nutshell is why acceleration matters in relativity.

BTW - It would be good for you to doubt your own ideas also. My experience in doing original research is that the naysayers often assist you by uncovering your worst mistakes, and the sooner that you understand their message and deal with the problem the better. I won't say that they are always right, and in fact I came to treat my own objections to Einstein's GR as being philosophical in manner similar to Dingle's own objections. Then again, I have little respect for Dingle because I have bent and event gone back to Square One in the face of observational evidence that contrdicted my own ideas. As best I can tell the experimental evidence for relativity being correct never influenced Dingle. --EMS | Talk 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I'm not sure why you have written all this, perhaps you didnt realise I was joking when I asked you, which of t,v, and r stood for acceleration:-)

Again you misrepresent Dingle: "As best I can tell the experimental evidence for relativity being correct never influenced Dingle", Dingle made the point that the experimental evidence, equally supported Lorentz's Theory, and also produced no clock paradox in Lorentz's Theory - he didnt ignore the evidence. If this was the reason you disrespected him, then you should now have renewed respect for him.

There is a bit of theory, you could help me with if you wouldnt mind: If two clocks with two observers, in relative inertial motion, pass each other, and at this event, both write down the time displayed by both clocks. Later when they have reversed and re-unite, do they both agree on the times they have written down for each clock? It seems pretty obvious but I cant confirm it anywhere. - Swanzsteve 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By the time he was done refining LET, Lorentz found that his theory had become identical to special relativity, and the only difference was the existance of an undetectable aether frame. This of course brings us back to "square one" and the issue of which clock is slower. For clocks that separate and reunite, the twin paradox is resolved via acceleration with respect to an inertial frame of reference just the same as it is for SR under LET.

As for your theoretical question: Time dilation does not cause ink to decay. Each observer will agree on the settings for both clocks at a the event of their passing each other later on. (They may disagree on how long it has been since that event, but that is a different issue.) --EMS | Talk 03:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dingle didnt seem to think SR and LET were identical in 1970-odd. The 'clock paradox' is no paradox because only one clock is moving relative to the ether. My question was not about ink but about the observed time, but thanks for answering anyway.

You keep pushing the acceleration thing. In his 1905 paper, within the space of a few lines, Einstein goes straight from clocks in inertial motion to a clock being accelerated towards another clock, moving in a polygonal line, a clock moving in a closed curve, and in a circle. At no time does he mention acceleration having any effect whatsoever, its pretty obvious he doesnt think acceleration makes any difference. Of course once people started pointing out the obvious contradiction in the 1905 paper, the acceleration crock was wheeled out. This doesnt change Dingle's challenge which was to justify asymmetric ageing, from the 1905 Theory. Swanzsteve 03:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put relativity through its paces, and am satisfied that acceleration is the answer.

Item: Under LET, let clock A start out in the aether frame while clock B is moving wrt the aether frame and passes clock A at some time. Then after some additional time, have clock A accelerate so that it is going in the same direction as clock B wrt the aether frame but faster than clock B. If you do the calculations, you will find that when the clocks pass again that clock B will record more elapsed proper time than clock A. This is the same result as in special relativity, which you are claiming makes that theory self-contradictory. Think about it. --EMS | Talk 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If all speeds and time dilation calculations are relative to a preferred reference frame (the ether), there can be no contradictions. Swanzsteve 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In SR, all inertial reference frames can act as the "preferred reference frame".

More importantly, I gather that you are saying that Dingle was an LET supporter. How do you justify that? How do you want the article to reflect that? --EMS | Talk 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understood that in SR, there was no preferred reference frame, all inertial frames are equal, whats your point? I didnt get the impression from his book that he was an LET supporter, he just seemed to be pointing out that the experimental evidence supported both theories equally. And that the two theories were fundamentally different, in that, in LET, all the effects of motion are calculated relative to the ether.

BTW - Is there any experimental evidence for symmetric ageing or symmetric length contraction, as opposed to asymmetric effects?

Swanzsteve 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz, You deleted my edit which claimed that mutual acceleration is also symmetrical. What are you so worried about? With your recent dismissal of Einstein's own views on relativity, you are becoming a right little Hitler. You're getting a little bit carried away with yourself. It appears that you don't have any counter arguments and so you have resorted to the cheap tactic of simply deleting what doesn't please you. This is actually totally contrary to wikipedia's rules and regulations and constitutes vandalism. If you delete somebody else's edits in the discussion pages you need to have bona fide grounds upon which to do so. If you do this again I will request to have you blocked.(217.43.69.32 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

The following peer reviewed journal article by a relativity expert refutes EMS claims that acceleration is the answer to the twin paradox:Accelerated TwinsElectrodynamicist 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice. An article that I cannot access, and from a philosophical society (instead of a scientific one) to boot. It may be relevant to this article, as it is from an established group looking at the issue, but I cannot judge it based on the title alone. --EMS | Talk 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My, how predictable you are. When you are Proved wrong, you attack the validity of the source.Electrodynamicist 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you got any good quotes from the article? Swanzsteve 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Sample Page from the article. Basically it discusses the situation where both twins experience identical accelerations, but at different times. So the only difference between them is the length of time spent in inertial motion, i.e. one goes on a short round trip, the other goes on a long round trip. I'd be interested to hear what the supporters of the acceleration 'solution' think of this. Swanzsteve 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking the physics, not the article. See my new Tein paradox Yahoo!geoup for my reply. I am done with talking pure physics here. --EMS | Talk 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

thread for the Yahoo!group removed for a second time --EMS | Talk 02:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - dont remove my posts again or I will remove yours - Swanzsteve 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You DO NOT have my permission to place my response from the Yahoo!group here. If you or anyone else wants to talk the physics then you must now do it there. --EMS | Talk 02:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - what are you afraid of? cant you answer the question? Let me put it here again:

Dingle's challenge was to explain asymmetrical ageing from Einstein's 1905 paper, the paper where he first proposed it. This paper takes no account of acceleration. Therefore you (and everyone else) have failed Dingle's challenge. We no longer need to discuss "the physics", if indeed, hand-waving so-called 'explanations' involving the unspecified effect of acceleration, can be classed as physics. Swanzsteve 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One other point, you say: "the asymmetry between them comes from one traveler having at some event accelerated with respect to the other one!" - if ANY two clocks are EVER in inertial motion at different speeds, then at some time in the past, they have experienced differential acceleration. Your task then is to explain how SYMMETRICAL time dilation can EVER occur. Swanzsteve 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly straightforward question to me, whats the problem? Swanzsteve 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not USENET. I should not have responded to you here as much as I have done. The issue here should not be the physics, but rather Dingle and what to write about him. So IMO, my task here and now is to either terminate this discussion or move it off-line. If you don't want to continue the physics discussion off-line, then it ends here. Then again, given that you are arguing this business like a lawyer instead of working with the math like a physicist, that may be just as well.

You may declare victory if you like, but all that you have done is to shut me up. It won't stop em from reverting overly pro-Dingle edits (as you have not convinced me of anything), but I also promise that it won'r stop me from reverting overly anti-Dingle edits either. --EMS | Talk 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - It's a bit difficult to discuss the maths in relation to acceleration, since acceleration does not enter into the maths in any way. I still think that since you have stated on this page several times that the resolution of the clock paradox lies with acceleration, you should reply to the above question: "How is symmetric time dilation ever possible?", so that everyone can see your reply. Swanzsteve 13:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's harder to discuss here that you think: We aren't supposed to be discussing the physics here, but instead the article. Express your concern that the turn-around acceleration does not enter the math in USENET and place a link to that posting on my talk page, and I will answer you there. IMO, that should deal with the concern of your wanting a public reponse. In the meantime, I will be deleting that abortive Yahoo!group. --EMS | Talk 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - clearly the question: "How is symmetric time dilation ever possible?", is not so straightforward, or maybe you cant find a textbook to quote from. Needless to say, I will not be pursuing you for an answer all over the internet, the question is here, answer it here. As for discussing physics, we are discussing Dingle's views and counter-arguments, with a view to improving the article, and removing anti-Dingle propaganda. This seems to be the appropriate place to do that. Swanzsteve 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that your goal is to somehow prove that relativity is wrong and that all statements in support of it therefore need to go. The trouble is that under the rules of Wikipedia, even if relativity was proven worng by you, the fact that the scientific community would not endorse that finding (or at least would not do so immediatly) is what would guide the insertion of what you call "anti-Dingle propaganda". The goal here cannot be to convert one side or the other, but instead to exchange viewpoints and find where possible consensus wording for the article.

The debate of the physics here is potentially endless. Relativity operates from a very non-intuitive framework, and if you can't or won't use it then that is the source of the impass IMHO. In the end, what matters here are not the details of the physics but rather how the physics was viewed by Dingle and how Dingle's views were dealt with in turn. I can respond to your concern about acceleration not being present in the math (or rather the change-fo-velocity which is the first integral of the acceleration), but I don't for a second believe that it will lead to anything other than another question about the physics.

My question now is this: Exacly which lines do you consider to be "anti-Dingle propaganda" and why? Maybe we will only cover old ground in dealing with it, but at least that is a discussion of the article. --EMS | Talk 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - The present article is thankfully free of anti-Dingle propaganda, I'm trying to ensure that it doesnt return. As for the physics, an answer to the question: "How is symmetric time dilation ever possible?", will suffice. The acceleration crock seems to be a double-edged sword:-)

BTW - I wouldnt mention it, but since you keep telling everyone they should take an introductory course in physics, I'll point out this error of yours: "or rather the change-fo-velocity which is the first integral of the acceleration" - of course, 'velocity' is the first integral of the acceleration, not change-of-velocity. ---Swanzsteve 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming an initial velocity (before the acceleration) of zero in making that last statement. --EMS | Talk 15:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case your previous statement is doubly wrong ---Swanzsteve 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call relativity a house of cards, but it is a theory whereby if you refuse to accept one part of its conceptual framework the rest of it will fail. If you refuse to consider the change of the coordinate settings for events that occurs under a change of velocity in relativity as "real", and demand the same settings immediately after the acceleration/change-of-velocity as before, then you do have a self-contradiction in the twin paradox exercise. I would pin the responsibility for that on you instead of on Einstein, but the net result is still that you see that something is wrong.

IMO, we are just plain at a philosophical impasse, and I see no need to continue into it. What matters to me is maintaining the NPOV of this article, even if that means assisting you in tearing out overly pro-relativity statements. --EMS | Talk 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - are you referring to the "Twin Paradox without Accelerations" article? Do you believe that example is equivalent to the standard Twin Paradox, with a kind of virtual acceleration in the middle when the clock reading is passed from Stella to Alf? How about the fact that Alf doesnt actually stop at Earth, but goes sailing past? How does that affect things? Are you aware of any publiactions which analyse that example in greater detail? Einstein didnt ever explan the Twin Paradox in this way AFAIK. ---Swanzsteve 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

---

In his 1905 paper Einstein supposed there was a series of clocks at rest in a stationary frame. He supposed that a clock that was synchronized at a point A was moved to a point B and then compared to the rest clock at B. This clock that was moved was then said to read behind the time of the B clock. This is explained by the modern interpretation as saying that the clock which moved had to be accelerated and that accounts for the time difference when it is again brought to rest and compared to the Bclock. But suppose we dont move the clock but move the frame of clocks so that now clocks A and B accelerate relative to the clock and are then brought to rest. Now the clock reads fast because the B clock ran slow. So Dingle's question arises, how according to the theory can you say that the clock that seemed to be moved is actually fast or slow relative to the clock B? Since there was no aswer that could be given the theory must be false. No answer has ever been given so relativity is disproved. That is Dingle's argument.Electrodynamicist 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this post. It states Dingle's argument very succicntly. "Moved" in this case comes down to "which clock was accelerated?" IMO, but that is as much of an answer as I can give you here. (I'm done with detailed discussions of the physics here. That is why I started the Yahoo!group.) Do you want to put this into the draft article? I would insist on a brief description of McCrea's reply that you can tell which clock was "moved" being included (as he is saying that the "traveling" twin can be identified), but would be careful to call it a response and not a refutation. --EMS | Talk 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dingle didn't really state the problem in this way, Einstein did, and that is why it is used here. Apparently Einstein and Sommerfeld realised that it was wrong in the 1905 paper. So Sommerfeld modified by it by introducing acceleration. Sommerfeld wrote: "On this [a time integral and inequality] depends the retardation of the moving clock compared with the clock at rest. The assertion is based, as Einstein has pointed out, on the unprovable assumption that the clock in motion actually indicates its own proper time; i.e. that it always gives the time corresponding to the state of velocity, regarded as constant, at any instant. The moving clock must naturally have been moved with acceleration (with changes of speed or direction) in order to be compared with the stationary clock at world-point P. The retardation of the moving clock does not therefore actually indicate 'motion,' but 'accelerated motion.' Hence this does not contradict the principle of relativity." [Notes appended to Space and Time, a 1908 address by Herman Minkowski, Dover 1952, Note 4.]Electrodynamicist 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the issue is how did Dingle state it and how is that documented? I am not going to worry about the Sommerfeld quote as the theory of relativity issue of the twin paradox solution has been subject to quite an amount of interpretation and reinterpretation over the years. Besides, that does not relate to the article. --EMS | Talk 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is from Lee Smolin:"For Newton the answer is simple: acceleration is defined with respect to absolute space and time. Unfortunately, it seems that Leibniz never addressed this point. This was a crucial failure. Because one can feel the effects of acceleration in one's stomach. Newton could counter Leibniz's arguments by saying simply: absolute space and time exist - here is their effects on the world. It was certainly Leibniz's failure on this point that led to the relational view of space and time being reduced to a philosophical curiosity for more than two centuries afterwards."Electrodynamicist 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Max Born Einstein's Theory Of Relativity p. 255: "An ideal clock has always one and the same rate of beating in the system of reference in which it is at rest." This agrees with what Dingle says and so it proves that Dingle was, as always, correct in his arguments. So the article is wrong if it implies Dingle was wrong.Electrodynamicist 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Discussion on the Article

I think that before we continue this discussion on how to improve the article, we need to establish some ground rules. At the moment, SCZenz seems to feel that it is his job to delete any arguments that he can't think of a satisfactory response to.

The central feature of Herbert Dingle is the fact that he has opposed the scientific establishment. The argument at the moment is about whether or not pro-establishment scientists have got the right to stamp 'Dingle was wrong' over the article on the very grounds that Dingle was critizing the establishment.

But before we can continue with the debate, we need to establish whether or not pro-Dingle scientists are even allowed to enter the discussion at all without having their edits instantly deleted by SCZenz using such spurious grounds as 'Opinion'. SCZenz must surely know that everybody who enters this debate is doing so in order to put forward their own opinion, and so if SCZenz was being fair, he would delete this entire debate altogether.

SCZenz seems to have a particular fear of two facts becoming exposed. These two facts are,

(1) The symmetry of mutual acceleration (2) The absolute nature of one year as measured by the Earth orbiting the Sun.

These two facts which both back up Herbert Dingle's stance appear to be inadmissable as far as SCZenz is concerned, and need to be instantly deleted from sight.

SCZenz, please feel free to enter the discussion. We all want to hear your own point of view. But if you are going to delete people's comments on the grounds of those comments being opinions, then let's see you doing so fairly across the board. (217.43.69.32 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

In general, talk page posts should be left alone unless they're blatantly inappropriate. However, they should also discuss the article, not the article's subject. It doesn't matter a bit what the novel conclusions or personal viewpoint of any editor on this page is, only what reliable sources have to say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem on this page seems to be that any source which questions SR is deemed to be unreliable. Swanzsteve 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Two responses:

1. The issue here is Dingle, not relativity.
2. Relativity has been so highly successful that it only is questioned in unreliable sources, but some of those sources may be relevant to this article anyway.

Once again, the discussion should be about Dingle, his arguments, and what has become of those arguments. You may see Dingle as a great hero but I see him as being mistaken and discredited. Most importantly is that in the context of Wikipedia neither view is NPOV, although statements that he is considered as being one or the other (or both) and by whom are permissible. --EMS | Talk 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I feel I should remind you again of what Dingle challenged people to answer, which was: justify asymmetrical ageing from Einsteins 1905 paper, which took no account of acceleration, or anything other than inertial motion. You, nor anyone else has been able to do this. You may see him as mistaken and discredited, but you have no right to say this until you can provide a reliably sourced answer to his challenge. I dont think it is appropriate in this article, to include statements to the effect that he was mistaken or discredited, since they all seem to be from people who have no idea what he was actually saying. ---Swanzsteve 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Any such challenges belong on USENET, not here. IMO, I have already answered your challenge here more than adequately above including a demonstration that you claim that Einstein considered "only inertial motion" in the 1905 article to be false. In hindsight, all that I have done by doing so is to add to the disruption that this line of questioning represents, and for that I apologize to all here.

The issue here is Dingle, not relativity per se. The issue is HIS argument, not yours. The issue is how Dingle was refuted, not how I would do so. So, are you interesting working on this article or not? --EMS | Talk 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the issue of how Dingle refuted the people that claimed to have refuted him? Are Dingle's refuters officially deemed to be sages that never say anything wrong? (217.43.69.32 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Does it matter? The article will not claim that Dingle was wrong, but that the mainstream physics community believed he was wrong. That Dingle was never swayed from his arguments should be mentioned in the article, but the exact nature of his counter-refutations are pretty much irrelevant for this particular article. --Starwed 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon - The fact that myself or McCrea cannot convince someone like you that relativity is correct is as meaningful here as the fact that yourself or Dingle cannot convince someone like me that it is wrong. I agree with Starwed that the fact that Dingle never was convinced that his anti-relativity arguments are wrong is very relevant to the article, and should at least be mentioned. As for refutations and counter-refutations: Let's see who wants what in the draft article and how it ends up looking. IMO, the last word can be that the mainstream physics community has never accepted Dingle's arguments. (or many in can be the penultimate word with Dingle's refusing to accept relativity again being the final word.) --EMS | Talk 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS - I cannot agree that Dingle's challenge belongs on USENET and not here. I also disagree that you have answered Dingle's challenge adequately or shown that Einstein considered the effect of acceleration in SRT 1905. McCrea's refutation is a joke as you have already acknowledged. This is beside the point, if the words of Einstein himself, cannot convince you to question your belief in the total correctness of SRT 1905, what chance does anyone else have?h

You worded the statement in such a way this I felt the challenge was aimed at me personally. So the statement of what Dingle's challenge is is certainly appreciated, but should be carefully declared to be just that and nothing more. As for your statement that:

I also disagree that you have answered Dingle's challenge adequately or shown that Einstein considered the effect of acceleration in SRT 1905.

All that I can say is that I feel that I have done so, and that it is time to move on, as you are doing with the new thread below (and thank you for that). IMO, it is now for others to judge our cases as they see fit. I know that I cannot convince you. --EMS | Talk 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not believe it, but if I see a valid argument I will accept it. McCrea's response to Dingle was merely an avoidance of Dingle's example, which makes me suspicious from the start. Other arguments which resort to the unspecified effect of acceleration, also seem to be avoiding the issue. The twin paradox without acceleration example, is more interesting, at least it doesnt avoid the issue, and doesnt resort to acceleration (although you say the clock time reversal of direction can be viewed as acceleration). The range of so-called SR solutions to the twin paradox, is evidence enough that no-one has yet come up with a satisfactory solution. Even the great Richard Feynman, who happily admitted that "no-one understands Quantum Theory", couldnt bring himself to say the same thing about the twin paradox, but went down the hand-waving "its the acceleration that causes the asymmetry" route. This would be OK if someone could explain in great detail, exactly HOW it causes the asymmetry and thus the time difference, but they cant, because it doesnt enter the maths at any point. You cant just reach outside of the theory and pick on something that receives not a mention in SRT1905, and says thats the cause. Its like coming to the end of a Whodunnit, and finding that the murderer is someone who has never appeared before in the story. Its not even as if the twin paradox is a complicated example of SR, especially for somebody whose career, is in working with relativity, and yet we see all these great men of Physics, variously avoiding and evading the issue, for all they are worth. Dingle never received a satisfactory explanation, and wouldnt let it drop.

Anyhow, as you say, its all beside the point.---Swanzsteve 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof That Herbert Dingle Was Correct

Dingle asserted that the two twins would have the same age at the the reunion of the twins. Here is the proof. The conclusion of twin paradox is false. According to time dilation of special relativity, the time interval between ticks of a clock (seconds) is dilated by the factor beta. The twin paradox claims the number of ticks recorded by the travelling clock is reduced by the factor 1/beta times the time recorded by the earth clock T. Hence we have that the true elapsed time for the astronaut twin is the time on the earth clock T times the dilation factor of the second, the interval between ticks, times the reduction in the number of ticks or seconds on the astronaut clock. Therefore the elapsed time for the astronaut twin is: beta times 1/beta times T or just simply T. Therefore T=T and the two times are equal. Hence there is no difference in age of the twins when the astronaut returns from his space journey. QED Electrodynamicist 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It amuses me that you argue so strenuously against something which has not only been mathematically proven to follow from the theory, but which has also been experimentally verified. But anyway: this is clearly OR, and this talk page is not the place to discuss pet theories or create original proofs. If you don't provide a source showing where the above proof has been published or accepted, I'm nuking this section. --Starwed 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Starwed - I think you are overstating the case, as far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) but the time dilation experiments do not distinguish between SR and LET. Symmetric time dilation has not been experimentally confirmed. We do not know for example if an observer travelling with the muons would see our clocks running slow. ---Swanzsteve 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Swanzsteve - The issue here is WP:NOR not whether relativity is correct or not. If this is a new proof by Electrodynamicist, then its presense is just as appropriate as my presenting my "flat backtgrond general relativity" theory here. However, I am willing to let Electrodynamicist blow off his steam, but do advise that he put this on USENET and see what happens to it. I also advice that Electrodynamicist remove this thread should he become convinced that it is in error. --EMS | Talk 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just responding to the point about the experimental verification. The various SR 'thought experiments' involving two clocks in various states of motion cannot be tested, at the present time. It is difficult to see how they could be, since they would require the absence of a gravitational field. ---Swanzsteve 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

*Shrug*. I could rebut you, but this is all irrelevant to the issue that the initial statement is inadmissible in Wikipedia without being supported by a citation from a reliable source. --EMS | Talk 03:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)