Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 9

message: After rephrasing a few new sentences for proper sourcing, I suspect that they are in fact not properly sourced:
"According to Taylor and Wheeler (?), the concensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to special relativity were unfoundedTaylor and Wheeler, "Spacetime Physics", W.H. Freeman & Co, 1966.
Davies reviewed Dingle's complaint, and re-iterated Einstein's resolution (of the Twin paradox?) (really?) as the scientifically accepted view. Paul Davies, "About Time", Simon & Schuister, 1995.."
Please provide accurate quotations, as it's uncommon for textbooks to discuss such things; and if the second citation is correct, it should be balanced by the common view that does not promote Einstein's GRT solution. Or - probably better - Davies' view could be inserted in the article on the Twin paradox.
Harald88 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After repairing references, I also found the following incomplete reference:
Whitrow, Obituary of Herbert Dingle, 1978 . I'm afraid it's useless as such. What is it? where can it be found? Harald88 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspect citations 

message: To anonymous 61.7.166.191. You can't seriously expect a wikipedia article to contain such a paragraph. Everybody is entitled to edit wikipedia, and so you cannot hold up the actions of a few editors as being representative of wikipedia policy.
Dingle came to prominence because of his battle against suppression. If the same forces that suppressed him continue to suppress his memory then there is a legitimate way for handling it. (Dr. Seaweed 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Wikipedia Editors confirming the message of Dingle's Book 

message: I think that the issue of Tesla is highly relevant to this article. This article is all about the fact that Dingle opposed Einstein's theory of relativity and that opposition to Einstein is suppressed.
Since mainstream journals refuse outright to publish material that is critical of Einstein, then it is of no consequence to state that most modern scientists do not agree with Dingle's arguments. We do not know this for sure because if any did support Dingle, they would not be allowed to speak out.
Prof. Richard Waldron, head of mathematics at a UK Polytechnic is an example of a pro-Dingle established scientist who managed to get some articles through the dragnet in the late 1970's. He was probably one of the last.
Tesla and Heisenberg are acknowledged leaders of modern science and their opposition to Einstein was well known. This should not be forgotten by those who are trying to undermine Dingle's credibility by mentioning that some ill-defined group of mediocrats opposed Dingle.
I think that a reference to both Tesla amd Heisenberg should be nade in this article. (124.157.247.112 08:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article is all about the fact that Dingle opposed Einstein's theory" ==> This article is a biography of Dingle. If you want an article titled Dingle's opposition to Einstein's theory and the opposition he faced by some ill-defined group of mediocrats, you can click the link and write it. DVdm 09:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "...because he opposed Einstein's theories..." ==> And because he was -so to speak- wiped the floor with by an overwhelming majority of physicists, which is what we call a consensus. DVdm 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dingle was in Line with Tesla and Heisenberg as regards Einstein 

message: DVdm, I can't help noting that you are behaving in exactly the way that Dingle predicted. You are trying to suppress Dingle's claims that anti-Einstein material is suppressed.
Your arguments are totally dishonest because you are pretending that we live in a free world in which all anti-Einstein articles will be fairly reviewed by mainstream scientific journals.
You are behaving like a secret policeman in a dictatorship. You are living out one big lie.
If you really believe in Einstein's theories, then I think you are a fool. But I don't actually believe that you believe in them. I think that you are just that weak kind of character with no moral fibre that licks up to the ruling establishment. (Dr. Seaweed 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of an Article about Suppression 

message: The Keating Hafele experiment was based on false theory and over ambitious approximations. I have read it thoroughly. In actual fact, if it ever took place at all, and if the results are as they reported, then all it did was to disprove Einstein by proving that an absolute refernce frame exists.
The only experimnets that constitute proofs are those that we can repeat ourselves and fully understand the theory behind them (Dr. Seaweed 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keating Hafele was a fraud 

message: I don't think that the two previous sections deserve a targetted reply, other than that the Wikipeadia is not a soapbox, so you better stop entering unsourced POV remarks and removing documented facts. See section on consensus above. Also see warning on your talk page. DVdm 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the very same to you DVdm (Dr. Seaweed 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Seaweed 

message: It looks as though somebody has been trying to beef this article up with as much trivia as possible in an attempt to dilute the main point of interest. (****)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.22.174 (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice? 

message: Quite franky, I think you removed some very interesting material. That's why I've restored it. I hope that it's OK with you all. (Brigadier Armstrong 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Amendment 

message: Another blatently false statement in the current (Oct 2) article is where it says "The second dispute in the 1960's was with the astrophysicist William H. McCrea..."  This is totally messed up. First, grammatically it reads as if this is the second dispute in the 1960's, but that's easily fixed. The more serious problem is that it says the dispute was with William McCrea. This is wrong. Dingle was opposed by legions of physicists, professors, high school teachers, and even high school students (they had a contest to write the clearest refutation). McCrea happened to be most notable because he was invited to rebut Dingle in the 67 Nature letters, but Dingle's campaign had been raging for over a decade by that time, involving even people like Max Born (to their sorrow).
Look, the Sep 16 version had it right. It was factual, accurate, balanced, not argumentative. I think what it lacked was more detail on Dingle's life and activities OTHER THAN the sad "crash and burn" over special relativity. His astronomical work with spectroscopy was respectable, for example. It's a shame to tarnish a man's entire life just because he went nuts in his old age.63.24.103.16 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing the "Restore Sep 16 Version" Thread