Talk:Herbert Dingle/Draft revision talk

Citations and some NPOV needed

This revision needs citations for its statements. Also, I at least find the lead to be POV in that it alleges suppression by the scientific community instead of refering at Dingle's allegation of suppression. --EMS | Talk 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMS, you are in denial that suppression of anti-relativity ideas exists. Suppression of such ideas exists for sure. Don't expect any citations from the very sources that would suppress such citations and which are the only sources that you would recognize.

You are playing out one big lie if you try to suggest that we need to prove that suppression of anti-relativity ideas exists.

Don't use the suppression of anti-relativity articles as evidence that suppression doesn't exist. You will have to learn that evidence extends beyond your own definition of acceptable sources. (217.43.69.32 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see your confusion. First of all, I am calling for a change of wording to attach any allegations of suppression to Dingle himself. As for citations, if we are saying that "Dingle claimed that his ideas are being suppressed" then Dingle's own words make an excellent source. I must admit that "Science at the Crossroads" is useless as a source for the special relativity article, but here it is an essential reference and can be used as such.

Let me put it to you this way: There is a lot of fleixibility in determining what acts as a reliable source for a biographical article. If we are to mention that there is some ongoing interest in Dingle, then sources like Aperion become relevant and can act as a reliable source. However, that does not give those sources reliability in articles about the science of special relativity itself. --EMS | Talk 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why a revision?

I think the current article is not so bad, it's only too much of a stub. Thus, why not continue with the standard Wiki method of gradual refinements and additional information? Harald88 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its better than it was, but insulting links such as mathpages should be removed ASAP Swanzsteve 00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical inconsistency? References!

Some time ago I read Dingle's works as well as discussions and comentaries, but I don't recall his claim of a "mathematical inconsistency". Please provide a reference!

Note also that I have a copy of one good reference that was recently mentioned:

Hasok Chang, "A misunderstood rebellion. The Twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science".

The author discusses the issue from the different POV's and manages to show a reasonable understanding of what Dingle was talking about. Thus it's perhaps even the best source for the section about Dingle's dissatisfaction with SRT.

Harald88 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle claimed a logical inconsistency in the theory, not mathematical:- "I have enough mathematical insight to see that it is a waste of time to look for mathematical flaws in the theory", H.Dingle in Nature, October 14, 1968, p.19. Swanzsteve 00:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]