This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Herbert Dingle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)
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)
The following fragments are wrong. Please remove them:
1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.
I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"! So please remove that statement because it is wrong.
2.) The formulae at link [13] ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β...") are given without citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda here. Please don't say that everybody agrees with those contradictions (that "the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β "), while that has been the subject of controversy for over a century.
And also as you don't provide a citation, don't ask me for citation when I am removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!
This is a matter of logic and science: if the two systems are equivalent, then their conditions are the same. There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that "these ratios apply to two different conditions" fails.
So there *is* a contradiction.
And it cannot be solved by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.
3.) The link [19] which claims that Lorentz "describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did".
That is a blatant lie. What Lorentz treated there was the invariance of the Maxwell's equations, between ether and respectively a moving system S.
Here is a quote from Lorentz' document ("The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat"), page 223, paragraph 189., just before the claimed quote by this article "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity" which appears in Lorentz' document on page 226 paragraph 192., continuing with the same settings mentioned at paragraph 189.(settings about the ether S0 and moving system S - which means NOT the two equivalent systems used by Dingle!):
"Let us imagine an observer, whom we shall call A0 and to whom we shall assign a fixed position in the ether, to be engaged in the study of the phenomena going on in the stationary system S0"[...] "Let A be a second observer, whose task it is to examine the phenomena in the system S, and who himself also moves through the ether with the velocity w"
4.) Another lie is the quote about "The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially..."
That is not from Lorentz' document.
So please delete all those fake references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.238.66 ( talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Herbert Dingle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)
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)
The following fragments are wrong. Please remove them:
1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.
I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"! So please remove that statement because it is wrong.
2.) The formulae at link [13] ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β...") are given without citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda here. Please don't say that everybody agrees with those contradictions (that "the first implies t'/t =β and the second implies t/t'=β "), while that has been the subject of controversy for over a century.
And also as you don't provide a citation, don't ask me for citation when I am removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!
This is a matter of logic and science: if the two systems are equivalent, then their conditions are the same. There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that "these ratios apply to two different conditions" fails.
So there *is* a contradiction.
And it cannot be solved by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.
3.) The link [19] which claims that Lorentz "describes Dingle's reciprocity paradox involving the Lorentz transformation half a century before Dingle did".
That is a blatant lie. What Lorentz treated there was the invariance of the Maxwell's equations, between ether and respectively a moving system S.
Here is a quote from Lorentz' document ("The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat"), page 223, paragraph 189., just before the claimed quote by this article "Attention must be drawn now to a remarkable reciprocity" which appears in Lorentz' document on page 226 paragraph 192., continuing with the same settings mentioned at paragraph 189.(settings about the ether S0 and moving system S - which means NOT the two equivalent systems used by Dingle!):
"Let us imagine an observer, whom we shall call A0 and to whom we shall assign a fixed position in the ether, to be engaged in the study of the phenomena going on in the stationary system S0"[...] "Let A be a second observer, whose task it is to examine the phenomena in the system S, and who himself also moves through the ether with the velocity w"
4.) Another lie is the quote about "The behavior of measuring rods and clocks in translational motion, when viewed superficially..."
That is not from Lorentz' document.
So please delete all those fake references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.238.66 ( talk) 09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)