Talk:Herbert Dingle

Reasons for Disagreeing with GregVolk's Dec24 Edits

In GregVolk's edits two well-documented facts are suppressed. First, that Dingle initially claimed relativity didn't predict unequal aging for round-trip twins and then acknowledged he had been wrong about that (and had been wrong for 40 years) and then switched to claiming that relativity was logically inconsistent. Dingle himself says admits this in his writing. This is not a contraversial point. There is no reason to suppress this important fact. Second, the fact that abundant experimental evidence supports the predictions of special relativity. Honestly, if it isn't even permissible in a Wikipedia article to state that special relativity has been experimentally verified, then we might as well just pack it in. I do, however, I agree with GregVolk that the summary of Dingle's work in the beginning of the article should mention Crossroads, so I may put that edit back in. I think it was previously assumed that this book was adequately covered under "Controveries".Denveron (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to address one other part of GregVolk's edits that I don't agree with. GV wants the article to just say that someone (Whitrow) argued that the manifest reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation is not logically inconsistent. The article was written the way it is just because Whitrow was a convenient person to attribute that to, and some editors insisted on having a source that specifically refers to Dingle (rather than to the technical point at issue, for which there are literally thousands of solid references). There is no dispute about the fallacy of Dingle's claim. Even anti-relativists know that he was trivially wrong about that. In fact, the current article is written as charitably as can be, even at the expense of accuracy, because the reader isn't given any sense of just HOW absurdly wrong Dingle was. If some editors insist, we can pile up references, showing the near universal agreement on this point, but it sure seems like wasted effort because we all know the ultimate outcome.Denveron (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that you reverted the editors stylistic changes as well as those which changed the tone of certain sections. I fail to see how the two are connected? If you feel that such stylistic changes were detrimental, please state why.

In any case, the only part of the edit I feel strongly about is the use of "relatvists argue" and simliar phrases. --Starwed (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "stylistic changes" you are referring to. I explained my reasons (above) for objecting to each of GV's proposed changes. If there are more specific change(s) that I failed to address, I'd be happy to do so if you can point them out.Denveron (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements Appearing In this Article

The following statement apears as a conclusive statement although it is unsourced. Please supply a source or remove it. "However, most modern cosmologists subsequently accepted the validity of the hypothetico-deductive method of Milne." I doubt this is correct. In fact it is not clear what it means.

Two reputable reference sources have now been added to the article, demonstrating the verifiability of that statement.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The following statement does not appear in the cited paper and misrepresents what is said in that paper. I think what when you attribute a conclusion to a source you should accurately report what has been said in that source. This is not exactly what appears there and it misinterprets what is said in the source.

"The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β, t'=(t−vx/c2)β, and its algebraic inverse is x=(x'+vt')β, t=(t'+vx'/c2)β, where β=1/√(1−v2/c2). These equations imply t'=βt at x=0, and t=βt' at x'=0. Dingle alleged that these two facts are mutually contradictory, because the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β. However, these ratios apply to two different conditions, namely, x=0 and x'=0 respectively. Hence, contrary to Dingle's assertion, there is no contradiction, nor are these relations merely "appearances". They are the actual ratios of the inertial time coordinates along two different directions in space-time."

This footnote is a summary of the fallacy of Dingle's argument, as is explained numerous sources, including (but not limited to) Whitrow's obituary and many of the replies to Dingle in various publications, including (but not limited to) McRae's. There is no misrepresentation. The explanation summarized in this footnote is described in all these sources, and is perfectly accurate and representative of those sources.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 13 is used improperly as it refers to a different dispute than the one it is supposed to refer to. The editors apparently don't understand anything about the controversies they are reporting on and mix them up in the references. This is so they can provide a lot of sources that seem to support their position. The following statement refers to the twins paradox dispute and not to the time dilation dispute.

For example, Dingle wrote in a Letter to Nature in 1957 "Dr. Frank S. Crawford's further communication is welcome as the first attempt to answer my arguments. Hitherto they have been ignored, and independent reasons, which I reject, have been adduced for the opposite conclusion." Sixteen years later he wrote wearily, "It would be profitless to deal separately with the latest "answers" to my question; their diversity tells its own tale, and the writers may see their misjudgments corrected in my book"

Two general "controversies" are summarized in the article, the first on the methodology of cosmology, and the second on the twins paradox and time dilation. The issue of the twins paradox is nothing other than the issue of time dilation. None of the reputable references splits up Dingle's complaints aginst the twins paradox from his complaints about time dilation. Dingle's failure to understand time dilation was the reason he failed to understand the twins paradox. These do not constitute two disputes, but only one.

At the end of the article there appears a conclusion that is given the appearance that it is drawn from sources. The conclusion tries to state Dingle is wrong. One of the sources cited is reference 17 and it states the following:

See also the earlier literature on the twin paradox, for example, Lorentz, H. A. , The Theory of Electrons 1909, and the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did, and gives the resolution. "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein... The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially, give rise to a remarkable paradox which on closer examination, however, vanishes." Miller, A.I., Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Springer, 1998.

An examination of the cited Lorentz book did not verify the purported statement made by Lorentz and reported by Miller. One wonders where Miller got it, or if it was misreported by a wikipedia editor. In any event, this misrepresents the position of Lorentz who is merely commenting on Einstein's theory. Reference 17 should be deleted.

No, you mis-read the reference. It refers both to Lorentz's book, where of course he describes the reciprocity of Einstein's interpretation, but also to "the associated lecture notes of 1910, in which he describes" the reciprocity and from which the quoted words were taken. This is plainly stated in the words that you quoted, so there's no reason for you to wonder "where Miller got it". This is a perfectly legitimate and highly reputable and relevant source, which does indeed make it quite clear that Dingle's ideas were wrong, and moreover that they were known to be wrong decades before Dingle voiced them.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

All in all, I was able to find a number of pretty big mistakes in this article and I cant help but think that they were due to poor work on the part of wikipedia editors. I don't reccomend using any information from this article as accurate.72.84.64.254 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Each of the things that you thought were "pretty big mistakes" are entirely correct and fully supported by an abundance of reputable sources.63.24.97.207 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A Misunderstood Rebellion

An excellent secondary source on the second controversy:

Chang, H (1993). "A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24 (5): 741. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(93)90063-P. ISSN 0039-3681. 

I will provide a copy on request. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)