Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 2

message: Look at the Wikipedia entry on Time Dilation, specifically the paragraph headed: "Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers".
:This was exactly the point that Herbert Dingle was trying to make, and exactly what McCrea, amongst many others, refused to acknowledge. 
:Einstein's SRT paper of 1905 asserts that time dilation is ASYMMETRIC between two inertial observers.
:If we can use Wikipedia as a reliable reference source:-) then Herbert Dingle was right all along.
:It would be nice to see this added to his Wiki page. Let's see how long it takes.
:BTW: I think HD himself might have enjoyed this inconsistency in Wikipedia:-) 
:(swanzsteve 213.107.15.23 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP PRESS - Herbert Dingle Vindicated by Wikipedia!!! 

message: Hello.  I'm a graduate student in physics, and I couldn't help noticing this page, or the people trying to claim that Herbert Dingle had a point when he most definitely did not.  I thought it was especially atrocious to include a specific reference to a perceived problem in general relativity at the end of the article.  While it is true that this specific issue Dingle brought up is not addressed in the paper at the end of the article, the article makes it flagrantly clear that he did not understand Special Relativity in any depth.  General relativity is a tricky subject.  It is self-consistent and consistent with experiments we have performed to test it (and it performs better than other proposed theories), but explaining the subtle ins and outs in a complex case like a clock on the surface of the Earth (the Earth is rotating, and has a gravitational field) is well beyond any reasonable scope for this particular article.  This is why I reverted the edits that included this sizable chunk of material.  Dingle's misconceptions in this area should have no precendence over his other misconceptions at much more fundamental levels.
Incidentally, I know for a fact that the issues with clocks on the surface of the Earth have been resolved (against Dingle), but I don't know references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.106.74 (talk • contribs) 13:29, February 22, 2007
: See Hafele-Keating experiment and Pound-Rebka experiment. --EMS | Talk 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that the theoretical "contradictions" he claimed are actually well-understood and not contradictions at all.  The experimental data is all in favor of General Relativity, of course. If it wasn't, we would have moved on to something else by now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.106.74 (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Why has this article been locked? Is it because the editors think that false information is better than objectivity and truth? Wikipedia has a widespread reputation for false information, is this how it is to be maintined that way? The article should have been left alone when it had no bias and did not present false views.
:Here are my suggestions, anonymous:
::(1) Sign up for an account so I don't have to call you anonymous
::(2) Be bold, and make the corrective edits you believe are necessary - make sure to include authoritative references, please!
::(3) Important:  Make sure to read and absorb the following warning which is printed below the edit box:
:::If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
::(4) Also Important:  Make sure to read and absorb this:  Wikipedia is not a soapbox
:Regards, Alfred Centauri 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ingorance Now Cast In Concrete

message: :Late in life — and posthumously on the Internet — Dingle was vilified and misrepresented by his opponents, often trivially e.g. the claim that he suffered from dementia.
This is kind of weasel-wordy.  Who made what claims, and how are they false?  All these things need sources.  There should also be a source as to why the mistaken claim of death is "more important."  And that whole second part of the paragraph is horribly written, and needs to be cleaned up.--Starwed 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please learn the difference between a scholarly article and a press release before attempting to edit any more scientific pages.  --Starwed 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the paragraph I refer to above; a section about how he is viewed by various groups might be worthwhile, but the current state of it was just a mess.  While I was at it, I removed an irrelevant portion about how SR was conclusively proved; unless Dingle responded to that specifically, it doesn't really have anything to do with him. --Starwed 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vilification 

message: Alfred Centauri, What kind of references are you looking for to show that stating that McCrea was right is an opinion? Wikipedia is a total farce. (217.44.98.235 11:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References