Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 11

message: There are some problems with the current version (in my opinion). I pointed these problems out previously, but it seems to have been forgotten, so here they are again (in no particular order):
(1) The current Oct 15 version says "Dingle claimed Einstein's prediction about a moving clock was in error and experiments showed Einstein right". That's completely garbled. In the late 1950's Dingle argued that special relativity does not predict different lapses of proper time for the twins after they re-unite, but by 1959 he realized that he was wrong about this, and that in fact special relativity DOES predict different lapses of proper time for the twins. He THEN changed his argument, and began to claim that special relativity is logically inconsistent. As to whether or not asymmetric aging actually occurs, he suspected that it didn't (and of course he was wrong about that), but this isn't relevant to either his pre-1960 or his post-1960 complaint. Experimental findings had no bearing on Dingle's views, one way or the other, certainly not up to the point of writing Science at the Crossroads in 1971. 
   
(2) The Oct 15 version says "An article by Chang about Dingle's "rebellion" argues that his objections were largely philosophical and not well understood." This is bogus, because it is placed at the wrong point. I have specifically asked Chang about this, and he assured me that he did not (and does not) support the post-1960 Dingle position. His paper refers only to the late 1950's period, when Dingle still considered himself to be a proponent of special relativity (although he admitted later that he totally misunderstood it), and was advocating a relational theory of motion. It's totally misleading to put this statement in the article as if Chang is sympathetic to the post-1960 Dingle.  Chang does NOT think (and his paper does not say) that Dingle was misunderstood when Dingle said special relativity is logically inconsistent, nor does Chang think that this is a philosophical point. And Dingle himself certainly denied that his charge of logical inconsistency was "philosophical".  I think the Chang cite should stay in the article only if (a) It is presented accurately as referring to Dingle’s pro-relativity phase, and (b) it is balanced with the more widespread view in the scientific community. See for example the quote from P.C.W. Davies. 
  
(3) The Oct 15 article says Dingle objected to Einstein's 1918 explanation, but this is redundant. Dingle (post 1960) objected to the relativistic explanation of the twins, and EVERY presentation of it, all of which make the same points. It's misleading to suggest that there was something special about Einstein's 1918 paper in this regard. Dingle equally objected to the explanation of time dilation in Einstein's 1905 paper.
 
(4) If the article is really going to include an assessment of (and opinions on) Dingle's ideas, then his ideas (and how they changed over time) must be presented accurately. He didn't just promote a single coherent set of ideas. He believed (erroneously but understandably) one set of ideas for 40 years, and then when his misunderstandings came to light (in the late 1950’s, after his retirement), he switched to belief in a completely loony set of ideas. It is these latter ideas that the neo-Dingles espouse, but they try to claim for these ideas some of the respect that accorded to Dingle's sane ideas, before he went off the deep end. One must distinguish clearly between the two phases of Dingle's thinking. The boundary between them was roughly his 70th birthday. But do we really WANT to get into this?
(5) I disagree with the removal of the date of the death of Dingle’s wife. This is a biography of the man. It's perfectly appropriate to state when his wife died. Whoever deleted that fact gave their reason as follows: "It is trying to dilute the main point of the article". I think that is an invalid reason. The article's "point" is to present a biography of Herbert Dingle. This article is not about "Herbert Dingle's Campaign Against Special Relativity During His Retirement Years". It should cover his whole life, and all his activities.
(6) The current (Oct 15) version includes a kooky statement about "ruthless suppression". Can anyone read that with a straight face? We should get rid of that kind of kooky talk (in my opinion). However, I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning Dingle's eventual paranoia, but I doubt that any accurate words would be acceptable to the neo-Dingles, and I don't think it's necessary. The article present has links to the most damning possible document for Dingle's reputation (namely, Science at the Crossroads). No sane person who actually reads that book can be left with any doubt as to the man's mental state.
(7) The current (Oct 15) version says Dingle regarded Milne’s philosophy as pernicious, which it true, but the Oct 10 version was better, because it explained why Dingle thought this, i.e., overly speculative and not based on empirical facts.
So, for the reasons noted above, I still think the October 10 17:35 version is the better baseline from which to build. For future improvements, I’d suggest a few more words on Dingle’s work in spectroscopy, and we should also mention his scathing appraisal of his fellow Quaker Eddington’s philosophy of science.Denveron 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. DVdm 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia, factual inaccuracies are indeed OK as long as there are enough sufficiently reliable references to justify the "mistakes". Read the remark from the founder of Wikipedia above. You don't have to repeat your response - it is still there. If indeed you think that "Wikipedia is just junk, as it appears to be", and if you "certaintly would not reccomend using it to anybody", then perhaps it is not a good idea to continue contributing to it? DVdm 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I (Still) Think the October 10 [17:35] Version Should Be Restored 

message: I suppose it might be better to move the sentence containing the Lorentz transformation down to a footnote, so that it wouldn't disrupt the flow of the article for readers with an aversion to 4th grade algebra (which is probably 99% of the readers). The only reason I'm reluctant to move it down is that it's really the only way of conveying briefly both Dingle's argument and it's invalidity. But I suppose most people who read the article don't really want to understand for themselves, they just want to find out if Dingle is considered (by the scientific community) to have been right or not. The few readers who really want to understand it themselves can check the footnote... as well as a link to the twin paradox article. Denveron 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denveron, it's not your business to impose your own opinion that Dingle's argument is invalid. Besides, everybody knows that Einstein's theories are the ruling theories of the day, so I don't know why you are so fanatical about making sure that everybody is made aware of this fact. (Dr. Seaweed 09:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lorentz Transformation - Placement? 

message: Edit #1
The first inappropriate edit was the removal of the explanation of Dingle's error, which was sourced to the Whitrow obituary of Dingle. The explanation in the article is an accurate paraphrase of Whitrow's explanation - as well as the explanation given to Dingle by dozens of others, as well as being incredibly obvious to anyone who understands special relativity. To prove that the paraphrase conveys the same explanation as Whitrow gives, here is the verbatim quote from Whitrow. It is expressed in unnecessarily convoluted terms, so I don't think it's an ideal verbiage for the article, but if people insist I wouldn't mind substituting this. It would make the article less intelligible, but if the crackpot contingent here insists on it, I suppose we could work these words into the article:
: The essential point at issue was the way in which Dingle used the particular concept that he called 'rate of clock'. He exemplified this by taking A and B to be together at epoch zero according to each and introducing two other clocks H and N at rest relative to A and B, respectively, but not spatially coincident with them. He compared the times t1, t1' assigned to the epoch of B's momentary coincidence with H by the observers using the clocks A, B respectively, and the corresponding times t2, t2' assigned by them to the epoch of A's momentary coincidence with N. He argued that, since special relativity led to the formulae t1 = B t1', t2' = B t2 where B is the reciprocal of sqrt(1 — v^2/c^2), a contradiction results. This is because in the former case the ratio of the 'rates' of clocks A and B is given by t1/t1' and in the latter case by t2/t2', and hence this ratio has two incompatible values.
: The difficulty can be resolved by rejecting Dingle's assumption that ratios such as t1/t1' determine invariant relative 'rates' of clocks A and B. His implicit requirement that the epochs assigned to any event by A and B, respectively, should always be in the same ratio would imply that by a new choice of time unit for one of these clocks it could be arranged that the times assigned to any given event by A and B would be the same. Dingle's requirement is therefore equivalent to adopting the Newtonian concept of universal time, and this is incompatible with special relativity.
There is an exact correspondence between what Whitrow says and what is presently in the article, the only difference being that the article is both more brief and more complete. For example, Whitrow just says "special relativity led to the formula..." whereas the current article shows exactly how the formula result from the Lorentz transformation. But precisely the same formula result (with more economical nomenclature), and the invalidity of Dingle's "proof of contradiction" in special relativity is exactly the same, i.e., Dingle's assumption that the ratios of the times refer to fixed quantities is "incompatible with special relativity". In short, I stand by the current paraphrase in the article, and suggest that the neo-Dingle who removed it on the pretext that it was improperly sourced to Whitrow reconsider his opinion.
Edit #2
Stating that someone is elected Professor Emeritus is idiotic. Emeritus simply means "retired". We've been over this before. There is no distinction whatsoever in a retired professor having the title "emeritus". I ask the neo-Dingle to re-consider his insistence on including this ridiculous statement. (And by the way, I'm restraining myself from accusing you of "agism" by trying to insinuate that Dingle was retired. Sheesh... you guys are something else. First you try to delete the statement that Dingle was retired, and then you try to insert the statement that he was Professor Emeritus.  At fancy restaurants, do you order the soup du jour of the day?)
Edit #3
The quote about Dingle's concern for the safety of the world having something to do with nuclear power plants is not illuminating, and it misrepresents what Dingle himself actual reports in Crossroads. There are at least five quotes in Crossroads where he alludes to unspecified danger to the world, due to "experiments" of some kind, and one of his correspondents asked him what danger he was talking about:
:"I do not find in your letter any clear statement of the nature of the dangers which you imagine might follow the use of the special theory of relativity. You say the possibility of danger is vividly real to you and yet I cannot find in your letter, or in anything you have written, a clear statement of the nature of the danger you anticipate..."
Dingle answered
: "On the matter of specifying the danger involved, I can only say that if this could be foreseen, steps could be taken to prevent it, but since we know only of what character this might be, it seems wiser to start at the shadow than passively to await the arrival of the substance casting it."
So, once again, the article is perfectly accurate in stating, based on Dingle's own account, as well as a review of his correspondence and letters to editors, that he repeatedly warned of dangers to the safety of the whole world, but never could articulate what precise danger we are in from special relativity, and even explicitly stated that he could not forsee the danger. Again, all this is sourced from Dingle's own account, and he certainly never explained how the theory of special relativity could cause an accident at an atomic energy establishment. (I do, however, like the irony in how anti-relativity people usually argue that special relativity has absolutely nothing to do with atomic energy, but then they claim that somehow special relativity could cause an accident at a nuclear power plant.)
In summary, none of the three edits made by Swanzsteve is appropriate, so I removed them. I ask that they not be re-instated without addressing the reasons I've given. Denveron 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And no doubt Denveron, your requests will be granted with sick heads like Tim Shuba and Wwoods as your loyal allies in the administrator classes. (58.8.189.135 08:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why The Swan Edits are Inappropriate 

message: I'm going to again remind all parties not to edit war.  I will up the protection on this article to sysop only if this continues.--Isotope23 talk 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: As an outsider on this issue it is clear that there are lots of people who are passionate about this issue but do not agree. The article should therefore accommodate these sourced views. People should refrain from suppressing information on the debate that they do not agree with and allow all side to be aired. Chendy 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chendy. Quite right, although I don't think that "it is clear that there are lots of people passionate...". There are indeed lots of usernames and ip-addresses passionate about this. See here and here. Cheers, DVdm 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's certainly reasonable advice to grow up. But exactly what information are you claiming is being suppressed? Please be specific. I gave a reference by Clifford Will which was removed by someone who thinks that a clear, modern position about the consistency of special relativity doesn't belong here. I found it very unfortunate that no one raised a peep about its removal, but I wouldn't necessarily call it suppression. Part of the problem is when people claim the debate is about a logical contradiction in special relativity, then when they cannot back up their claim with sources they end up getting frustrated and do things like calling another person a two-faced little shit. It certainly best to attempt to rise above such incivility and not respond in kind. It's easy to find dozens of reliable sources about the consistency of relativity. Dingle knew his position was way outside the mainstream and had very little support, and therefore wrote his "crossroads" book not for others in the field, but for outsiders. Today, Dingle's position is even worse, as advances in the teaching of group theory and linear algebra have given thousands of students the ability to understand why relativity is consistent. If you or anyone finds a modern, reliable source claiming that special relativity is inconsistent for the reasons Dingle gave, please provide it, and perhaps it should be included as an extreme minority position. Tim Shuba 14:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grow up everybody

message: The verifiability of a couple of the sentences in the article has been questioned, specifically the summary of Dingle's objection, saying that Dingle asserted that that reciprocity of the Lorentz transformation was logically inconsistent. I referenced Whitrow's obituary of Dingle for a brief overview, but we can also add the summary provided by "Nature" (surely a reputable source) in presenting the 1967 letters from Dingle and McCrea. The Nature commentary is reproduced in Dingle's book "Science at the Crossroads".  Here is the relevant passage from Nature, which agrees perfectly with the current article:
: "It is therefore important to be clear about the nature of Dingle's protest. He says, quite accurately, that Einstein's postulates in special relativity lead directly to the familiar Lorentz transformation for the co-ordinates of space and time and, in particular, to the notion that the time recorded by moving systems - clocks, for example - appears to be dilated when matched against a stationary system for recording time... But time dilation works in both directions... All this is entirely consistent with ... Einstein's special theory... Dingle claims to show that this reciprocity of time dilation implies a contradiction."
Hopefully will lay to rest the claims that the summary of Dingle's position in the article is just my unsupported opinion. Dingle himself never denied that this was an entirely accurate summary of his claim.Denveron 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Source for the Current Article 

message: I'm thinking the article might be less dis-jointed if the Selected Publications section was consolidated up into the Biography section. It was moved to the end when the article had no sections, to make it all one piece, but since the overall article is now split by headers, I think it would make sense to move the publications to the end of the bio. We could also add some more of his publications, especially mentioning "The Sources of Eddington's Philosophy". If we really wanted to be ambitious, we could add another Controversy... the one with Epstein over whether Dingle's 1940 monograph on special relativity was valid. On the other hand, it might be a bit much...  Denveron 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate "Biography" and "Selected Publications"? 

message: I've noticed that the exceedingly verifiable summary of Dingle's error has been deleted again from the article. I've gone to a lot of trouble to cite very reputable sources, including the journal Nature, all of whom agree that Dingle's error was exactly as explained in the article (in the now deleted text and footnote). Why should this well documented fact being suppressed? I think it should be restored to the article. I haven't yet seen any valid justification for removing it.Denveron 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Does the Well Sourced Explanation Keep Getting Deleted? 

message: (1) Swanzsteve accused me of inserting the phrase “Dingle’s dementia” into the article. I replied that I didn’t believe I had done so, and asked if he could direct me to the edit where I did so. Instead of apologizing for the false claim, after being caught in this lie, he has responded by pointing to an edit that nowhere includes the words “Dingle’s dementia”. Here is the passage that for some reason enrages Swanzsteve:
“Dingle himself had written about the reciprocity of relativistic effects decades earlier, but when he was reminded of it during his retirement years, he suddenly found himself unable to understand his own earlier explanations.”
These words are a straightforward expression of well-documented facts. Compare them with Dingle’s own account of his epiphany in 1955, when he “adverted” to the old and well-known problem called the twins paradox, and he “awoke from his dogmatic slumber”. And compare with Whitrow’s account, in which he points out that Dingle had written on the subject decades earlier, but in 1957 (sic) “it suddenly occurred to him” that it didn’t make sense, and so “the last 20 years of his life were dominated by his campaign against the special theory of relativity”. Some people may wish to express it in different words than I suggested, but it’s quite clear that my proposed words were solidly based on documented facts. And this was in stark contrast to the novel narrative that I replaced, which implied that Dingle had never heard of the twin paradox before, and that when he did hear of it, he immediately rejected special relativity. That was a blatently false representation, and it totally suppressed the most salient feature of Dingle’s story, which is that he “had written about the reciprocity of relativistic effects decades earlier, but when he was reminded of it [adverted to it?] during his retirement years, he suddenly found himself unable to understand [accept?] his own earlier explanations.”
It was Swantzsteve, not I, who interpreted these documented facts as indicating that Dingle was suffering from “dementia”. I conceeded (in the Discussion page) that Swanzsteve might be right about that, but I did not (and do not) consider it proper to include such an assertion in the article. However, I object just as strongly to allowing crackpot mythology and “novel narratives” into the article.
(2) Swantzsteve had repeated again his claim that the references supporting the concluding statement in the article (“The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded.") are inappropriate. He says they do not actually address Dingle’s objections. He is mistaken, as has been explained at length previously. Each of those references specifically explains the fallacy of one or more of the misconceptions discussed by Dingle. Many more can be added, but unfortunately some other neo-Dingles have objected to having any references at all. They say everyone agrees with the statement, so there is no need for references. So do we need more references, or fewer, or none at all? And do we need references that specifically mention Dingle (like the Davies book “About Time”, and the Prohokivik book “The Logic of Special Relativity”)? My opinion is that we should cite whatever references would be helpful to give readers a full understanding of Dingle’s claims and how the scientific community has refuted them.
At this point I should add that a previous fairly stable version of this article simply said Dingle claimed special relativity was logically inconsistent and the consensus of the scientific community is that his claim was unfounded. It was a short but acceptable account of Dingle’s retirement phase, and most of the article was devoted to genuine biography of the man and his working career. It was the neo-Dingles who complained that the only reason anyone wants to read about Dingle is to find out about his campaign against special relativity, so they said the article should focus much more attention on special relativity and Dingle’s claims. Of course, the “attention” the neo-Dingles wanted was of the favorable variety. I pointed out at the time that they would not like the results if they insisted on shining the spotlight on Dingle’s anti-relativity crusade, but they went ahead anyway. And now they don’t like the results, so Swanzsteve now argues that the article is devoting too much space to discussing special relativity or Dingle’s erroneous claims during his retirement years.
I think the cat is now out of the bag, and people have put in too much effort preparing a well-documented account of the emeritus professor Dingle’s battle with special relativity. I don’t think it should be suppressed now, just because the documented facts are not to Swanzsteve’s liking.
(3) Swanzsteve says “let me clarify then: "sourced fact" is a fact which has been sourced, "factual inaccuracy" would be something presented as a fact which is, in fact, not a fact, i.e. inaccurate, does that help?”  No, that does not help at all. As explained previously, detailed reasons for opposing your edits had already been given in the Discussion page, explaining why what you call a “factual inaccuracy” is not actually a factual inaccuracy, and so on. Hence, for you to make the edits again and simply re-state “factual inaccuracy” is not constructive editing. Does this help you understand?
(4) Swanzsteve wrote: “Denveron - you did a complete page revert TWICE while I was in the process of editting. You have indeed answered some points here, but after the fact. Clearly when you reverted you had not read them all.” Again, you are mistaken. You performed a series of at least FIVE separate edits (whether as an intentional gaming of the 3rr strategy I wouldn’t want to speculate). I read each edit, and when I found that I disagreed with an edit, I changed it, and presented full explanations of my changes in the Discussion page.Denveron 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replies to Editor Swanzsteve 

message: Due to the same behavioral evidence that I linked all of the other accounts with, I have determined that Swanzsteve is the individual behind the Dr. Seaweed et. al accounts, and he is hereby banned from the site, as a topic ban from editting about Herbert Dingle will be the same thing.  Should he return under any name, contact me on my talk page, and I will seek a solution to the issues surrounding this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this one comes a bit as a surprise. Sigh. - DVdm 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ... surprize, but it does explain a lot. DVdm 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Are you insinuating I should have looked at the format of the signature in the comment just above this section? How dare you! (Tim Shuba 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch ;-) (DVdm 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swanzsteve banned 

message: This seems like an appropriate time to straighten things out. I have a few suggestions. Please add your own, implement them, disagree with them, et cetera.
*Delete these subpages (MfD or whatever)
**Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Draft_revision
**Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Draft_revision_talk
**Talk:Herbert_Dingle/Comments
*Remove the top banner from this talk page about the draft version
*Pull some version of the 'Chang' reference into the main article
*Remove the disputed tag (can be re-added with reason, of course)
*Archive the entire talk page
Tim Shuba 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Tim, nothing to beat a good bit of censorship. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 06:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Tim, the talk page still being disrupted, I think perhaps it's a bit too soon? - DVdm 10:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housecleaning 

message: Sockpuppetry is perfectly legitimate under the rules of wikipedia. It is sockpuppetry abuse that is illegal. As such I am unapologetic about the fact that I am a sock puppet for Hamset Jeejeeboy and I have no choice but to take this course of action because I was blocked for no reason whatsoever.
Ryulong has got it all wrong. I know exactly who the sockpuppets were. The Marmosets were Dr. Seaweed. They keep a team of these South American animals on their river raft. But the Brigadier was not a sockpuppet. He is married to Brenda Seaweed. I suspect that Sawdust and Hilditch were also sockpuppets for Brenda Seaweed, but I'm not so sure about Herbert Dingle.
Brigadier Armstrong telephoned me when he was blocked and told me to advise Swanzsteve to get out of it all as it is a den of nutters.
Neither of us know who Swanzsteve is and so Gyulong has got it badly wrong. We were on Swanzsteve's side and wanted to help him initially. 
Yesterday I genuinely attempted to end the edit war by advising Swansteve to pull out. I could see that they were building up to blocking him. I knew he would either be blocked or reduced as was the case with Harald88.
I hope he doesn't enter this hall of madness again because nobody would want to wake up every morning having to read through the kind of dribble that Denveron has just addressed to him. And it truly is total dribble.
But Swanzsteve should have the right to decide for himself. He has been banned on a totally wrong assumption on the part of Gyulong.
I also note that Isotope23 banned a Virginia IP server who I know nothing about. Isotope23 was of course the adminstrator who told the Brigadier that he couldn't get involved in all this but then went on to ban him for reverting reversions of his edits by DVdm. Isotope23 has proved beyong any doubt that he is the classic two faced bureacrat.
By all means keep your blocks on Seaweed, and the Brigadier because they have learned all they need to know about wikipedia. And you can bann me if you like because I've also learned all that I need to know.
But just don't get too trigger happy on anonymous IP servers. You're not as good at guessing as you think you are. I haven't got a clue who Swanzsteve is but I know for sure he was not involved in Dr. Seaweed's edits.
And if you block people merely on the basis that they are arguing the same point, then what is stopping you from blocking Denveron for echoing the same views as EMS and DVdm? Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Purge 

message: When Gyulong does his user check on you, he is going to be exposed as a total ass hole. Gyulong incidentally deleted a reply which I sent to you yesterday using my now blocked username, but you can still read it by clicking on one of the Hamset Jeejeeboy messages in the history section.
Isotope23 told the Brigadier that he can't intervene in these matters and that he (the Brigadier) should discuss his differences with DVdm on the talk pages. Meanwhile in separate discussions with DVdm, Isotope23 clearly exposed himself as being on the same side as DVdm.
The Brigadier then realized that isotope23 was a two faced bastard. This was proved when isotope23 blocked him in an edit conflict with DVdm when DVdm had done an equal amount of reverting, and in which isotope23 then froze the article on DVdm's preferred version.
Originally he had wanted to help you out as you appeared to be fighting a one man crusade. But when he was totally blocked and realized how corrupt it all was, he felt that it was best to advise you to pull out too because he knows that you can't win and that you'll only get permanently frustrated.
With the blundering Hitler called Gyulong tramping in and purging all mention of support for Dingle, I think we have pretty well confirmed that you are not debating on a level playing field.
They may accuse the opposition of sock puppet abuse, but the truth is that what they themselves are doing is alot more corrupt.
My advice to you is to leave it alone because you can't beat it. You will end up reduced like Harald88. You will end up in that pathetic category known as the acceptable face of opposition where they will tolerate your presence and allow you to indulge in window dressing excercises such as putting spaces in between paragraphs. But they will not allow you to insert key sentences that in any way undermine their purpose of underming Dingle.
You really are up against young fanatical mathematicians who have long lost sight of where real physics departs from maths. It's probably the 'Back to the Future' generation who went to college, did phyics and have discovered that the authorities are saying that Einstein is for real.
Their determination to undermine Dingle is not so much to do their bit to ensure that support for Einstein doesn't faulter. It's probably more an attempt to actually convince themselves.
The symmetry of the Lorentz transformations is absurd. The acceleration argument doesn't heal the absurdity, and even if it did, the pendulum on the old grandfather clock will have performed the same number of oscillations for both twins.
Relativity is a joke, but unfortunately it is the established theory.
So my advice is to leave them to it. Let them wallow in their own ignorance. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Swanzsteve 

message: DVdm, I've just noticed that it was you that grassed me up to Gyulong. You went to Gyulong yesterday and said 'Here is another one that escaped the drag net'. You're a wee stasi and Gyulong is a Hitler who doesn't even check his facts. Sir Jamset G Jeejeeboy 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVdm is the Grass 

message: DVdm siggested locking the talk pages, but Isotope23 told him that the talk pages should not be locked. However, Isotope23 today deleted comments from an anonymous IP server in Virginia. Here are some of the comments he deleted.
::Are you kidding?? Is this Nazi Germany?? When a person tries to set the facts straight he is banned by the Wikipedia Nazis. You guys are really way out of line. This explains why Wikipedia is gaining recognition as a factually innacuarate and biased source of information. When do you plan to restore the warning that the factual accuracy of the Dingle article is suspect? Since your factual accuaracy is wrong. You need to reform your policies in order to get your facts straight and get rid of your bias. 72.84.71.227 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous IP server from Virginia censored by Isotope23