Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Herbert Dingle.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,320

    Herbert Dingle.

    Reading a biography of Fred Hoyle I came across a quote; "What Hoyle fails to recognise is that there were astronomers in existance before he came along." Well anybody who has such a neat put down cannot be a complete nutter so I got out my copy of Science at the Crossroads where Dingle complains that Relativity is a fraud. What seems clear is that he knows a lot about the subject. And his complaint that two moving observers each seeing the others clock running slow is easily countered by asking where a third observer with a super telescope shoud be placed to see this contradiction. The point is an intelligence such as we understand the term can only be at one point in space. So I wonder if his book was a provocation to try and inspire a better explanation of relalativity. And has this been said before?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,355
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    What seems clear is that he knows a lot about the subject. And his complaint that two moving observers each seeing the others clock running slow is easily countered by asking where a third observer with a super telescope shoud be placed to see this contradiction.
    I can't see how that question is consistent with someone knowing "a lot" (or even anything) about the subject. Unless it was immediately followed by an explanation why the question is meaningless?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,671
    Dingle actually completely misunderstood relativity, and just kept repeating the same misunderstandings (like the one you quote) over and over again. The problem was in Dingle's head, not with the explanation of relativity.

    There's a fine book entitled Time And The Space Traveller, by L. Marder, which is not only a great introduction to Special Relativity, but which also explains Dingle's misunderstandings.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,106
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    Reading a biography of Fred Hoyle I came across a quote; "What Hoyle fails to recognise is that there were astronomers in existance before he came along." Well anybody who has such a neat put down cannot be a complete nutter so I got out my copy of Science at the Crossroads where Dingle complains that Relativity is a fraud. What seems clear is that he knows a lot about the subject. And his complaint that two moving observers each seeing the others clock running slow is easily countered by asking where a third observer with a super telescope shoud be placed to see this contradiction. The point is an intelligence such as we understand the term can only be at one point in space. So I wonder if his book was a provocation to try and inspire a better explanation of relalativity. And has this been said before?
    Does this blog have an accurate transcription of Dingle's preface?
    http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/...s_special.html

    If so, Dingle was very wrong.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,355
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Does this blog have an accurate transcription of Dingle's preface?
    http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/...s_special.html

    If so, Dingle was very wrong.
    He links to an article claiming that GPS data disproves relativity. The argument presented there is so head-bangingly stupid that I can't believe someone would make it or that anyone else would endorse it. Unbelievable. (But it was published in The Journal of Infinite Energy, so what can you expect.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,320
    The blog looks accurate. My copy is an ex library I found some 25 years ago. Used to be in the Camberley Surrey one. Funny as I knew someone from there who told me he could not wait to get the Nature mag at the end of the 1950s to follow the letters between Dingle and McCrey on relativity. This was how the affair attracted attention back then. So this copy must have been booked out by him sometime. Dingle published a small volume on the subject in the 1920s. How can you do that anb then have doubts? This is why I have suspitions he was kidding.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,355
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    Dingle published a small volume on the subject in the 1920s. How can you do that anb then have doubts? This is why I have suspitions he was kidding.
    Lots of people with doubts about relativity (in other words, who don't understand it) have written books (or, nowadays, published websites or posted on forums) their "proof" that it is wrong. They seem sincere if deluded.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,671
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    The blog looks accurate. My copy is an ex library I found some 25 years ago. Used to be in the Camberley Surrey one. Funny as I knew someone from there who told me he could not wait to get the Nature mag at the end of the 1950s to follow the letters between Dingle and McCrey on relativity. This was how the affair attracted attention back then. So this copy must have been booked out by him sometime. Dingle published a small volume on the subject in the 1920s. How can you do that anb then have doubts?
    Dingle never understood relativity. It's a long, long time since I've read Relativity for All (which I presume is the "small volume" to which you refer). In that he writes approvingly of relativity, but it was clear even then that he didn't understand the Relativity of Simultaneity. That misunderstanding was the seed from which all his later increasingly deranged behaviour grew.
    His claims about scientists working on relativity make it clear he sincerely believed the theory was logically inconsistent:
    ... the great majority of physical scientists, including practically all those who conduct experiments in physics and are best known to the world as leaders in science, when pressed to answer allegedly fatal criticism of the theory, confess either that they regard the theory as nonsensical but accept it because the few mathematical specialists in the subject say they should do so, or that they do not pretend to understand the subject at all, but, again, accept the theory as fully established by others and therefore a safe basis for their experiments.

    Science at the Crossroads
    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-Sep-19 at 11:45 AM. Reason: typo
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Lots of people with doubts about relativity (in other words, who don't understand it) have written books (or, nowadays, published websites or posted on forums) their "proof" that it is wrong. They seem sincere if deluded.
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Dingle actually completely misunderstood relativity, and just kept repeating the same misunderstandings (like the one you quote) over and over again. The problem was in Dingle's head, not with the explanation of relativity.



    With hindsight, how does Dingle's qualifications, knowledge and claims rate in the history books compared in scientific quality to the other critics, misunderstanders and non-understanders of Relativity of his era, such as Weyland, Bragg, Cullwic, Appell, Denisov, Aspden, Michelson, Assis, Beckmann, Miller, Bergson, Bouasse, Brillouin, Montague, Callahan, Magie, Cauchy, Champeney, Lenard, Darboux, Denisov, Dingler, Kantor, Duport, Mackaye, Essen, Galeczki, Gehrcke, Weinmann, Graneau, Planck, Guillaume, Moon, Gut, Hatch, Heaviside, Henderson, Sagnac, Barter, Ives, Turner, Kanarev, Kastler, Kraus, Larmour, LeCornu, LeRoux, Levi-Civita, Brown, Lodge, Lovejoy, Lynch, Mach, MacMillan, Lorentz, McCausland, Mohorovičić, More, Moulton, Nordenson, O’Rahilly, Painlevé, Phipps, Picard, Poincaré, Dudley, Poor, Radakov, Ricci, Rutherford, Lallemand, Seeliger, Selleri, Soddy, Stark, Theimer, van der Waals, etc
    Last edited by wd40; 2018-Sep-19 at 06:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,743
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    With hindsight, how does Dingle's qualifications, knowledge and claims rate in the history books compared in scientific quality to the other critics, misunderstanders and non-understanders of Relativity of his era, such as Weyland, Bragg, Cullwic, Appell, Denisov, Aspden, Michelson, Assis, Beckmann, Miller, Bergson, Bouasse, Brillouin, Montague, Callahan, Magie, Cauchy, Champeney, Lenard, Darboux, Denisov, Dingler, Kantor, Duport, Mackaye, Essen, Galeczki, Gehrcke, Weinmann, Graneau, Planck, Guillaume, Moon, Gut, Hatch, Heaviside, Henderson, Sagnac, Barter, Ives, Turner, Kanarev, Kastler, Kraus, Larmour, LeCornu, LeRoux, Levi-Civita, Brown, Lodge, Lovejoy, Lynch, Mach, MacMillan, Lorentz, McCausland, Mohorovičić, More, Moulton, Nordenson, O’Rahilly, Painlevé, Phipps, Picard, Poincaré, Dudley, Poor, Radakov, Ricci, Rutherford, Lallemand, Seeliger, Selleri, Soddy, Stark, Theimer, van der Waals, etc
    I don't know, but I counted 77 names after "such as" before you got around to putting an etc.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I don't know, but I counted 77 names after "such as" before you got around to putting an etc.
    Difficult to know where to start, isn't it? On so many levels.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,272
    Folks, let's not go too far afield with post #9. It is currently the subject of moderator discussion. Thanks for your patience.

    Edit to add:

    wd40 has been suspended for continuing his long history of posting off-topic and often ATM remarks in other members' threads as if to pursue some agenda.

    wd40,

    It appears that you do not read any/many of the infraction PMs sent to you. This makes your 38th infraction and you need to read it. Please check your inbox.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2018-Sep-20 at 04:48 PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,106
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    With hindsight, how does Dingle's qualifications, knowledge and claims rate in the history books compared in scientific quality to the other critics, misunderstanders and non-understanders of Relativity of his era, such as Weyland, Bragg, Cullwic, Appell, Denisov, Aspden, Michelson, Assis, Beckmann, Miller, Bergson, Bouasse, Brillouin, Montague, Callahan, Magie, Cauchy, Champeney, Lenard, Darboux, Denisov, Dingler, Kantor, Duport, Mackaye, Essen, Galeczki, Gehrcke, Weinmann, Graneau, Planck, Guillaume, Moon, Gut, Hatch, Heaviside, Henderson, Sagnac, Barter, Ives, Turner, Kanarev, Kastler, Kraus, Larmour, LeCornu, LeRoux, Levi-Civita, Brown, Lodge, Lovejoy, Lynch, Mach, MacMillan, Lorentz, McCausland, Mohorovičić, More, Moulton, Nordenson, O’Rahilly, Painlevé, Phipps, Picard, Poincaré, Dudley, Poor, Radakov, Ricci, Rutherford, Lallemand, Seeliger, Selleri, Soddy, Stark, Theimer, van der Waals, etc
    Is that Cauchy the Antonin-Louis Cauchy who died in 1857?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,320
    Without treading on the moderators toes I have to say I find wd40s list quite useful. Progress is through the efforts of these people in illuminating the subject in whatever bias they have. Each one has said something useful I believe. Let us say it is not relativity that is a puzzel but space itself.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,671
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    Without treading on the moderators toes I have to say I find wd40s list quite useful. Progress is through the efforts of these people in illuminating the subject in whatever bias they have. Each one has said something useful I believe. Let us say it is not relativity that is a puzzel but space itself.
    I think it's an utterly useless list, frankly. It has been lifted, uncredited, from the writings of a geocentrist named Robert Sungenis, author of a book entitled Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right.
    What was Mohorovičić's contribution to Special Relativity, exactly? He was a seismologist. Repeat 77 times (et cetera).

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    Without treading on the moderators toes I have to say I find wd40s list quite useful.
    Could you be more specific please?

    Useful, how? To what end?

    Progress is through the efforts of these people in illuminating the subject in whatever bias they have.
    That may be so. However, I find it utterly useless; it's such a banal, vastly too general statement to have any useful meaning.

    As evidenced by:
    Each one has said something useful I believe.
    QED.
    Let us say it is not relativity that is a puzzel but space itself.
    To me, this seems like a glaring non sequitur.

    Oh, and what grant hutchison said. Times 77.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,848
    As apparently PetersCreek's hint was not clear enough, here it is more explicit: STOP discussing WD40's off-topic post. You should know better than fall for that creationist tactic of spamming so much nonsense that the actual topic snows under. Dingle only, please.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,320
    Many names are respectable in the history of the science of space. I liked the reminder of them. Sagnacs thoughts lead to lazer gyros. Aspden tries new experiments. Essen picked up Dingles torch Before Dingle Sir James Jean wrote The Mysterious Universe. He accepted relativity but did not like it one little bit. He explains about radiation from the Sun to Earth looking different to moving observers. I am sure reading the opinions of these people helps understanding in the end. My understanding is the realisation of the doppler shift of light being the same for each observer. So have physics teachers anywhere tried a demonstration of how this does not work for sound? A revolving arm with a speaker and microphone. The frequency varies up and down. But less for a stationary speaker heard through the mike. Would be instructive!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,081
    Quote Originally Posted by peteshimmon View Post
    Many names are respectable in the history of the science of space. I liked the reminder of them. Sagnacs thoughts lead to lazer gyros. Aspden tries new experiments. Essen picked up Dingles torch Before Dingle Sir James Jean wrote The Mysterious Universe. He accepted relativity but did not like it one little bit. He explains about radiation from the Sun to Earth looking different to moving observers. I am sure reading the opinions of these people helps understanding in the end. My understanding is the realisation of the doppler shift of light being the same for each observer. So have physics teachers anywhere tried a demonstration of how this does not work for sound? A revolving arm with a speaker and microphone. The frequency varies up and down. But less for a stationary speaker heard through the mike. Would be instructive!

    TWO moderators said not to go there anymore
    infraction
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,671
    So, Dingle. His Relativity for All is available on-line at the invaluable archive.org.
    What we can see there is the seed of all his future difficulties. He characterizes the Relativity of Simultaneity as being "metaphysical", rather than the basis of all the coordinate effects he describes. He thinks that events are either "really" simultaneous or not simultaneous, according to some privileged reference frame he equates with the ether. And his description of spacetime "events" is both madly elaborate and entirely beside the point.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,320
    Well it is an honourable thing to make a quick buck from the latest science in the news I suppose I said that space is the puzzle. Lets state the various things. It has a property that can be measured called Permittivity. Radio engineers talk about radiation resistance. It seems there are an almost infinite number of inertial frames for every lump of matter wherever it is and how much accelleration it has undergone. And Quantum mechanics suggests the vacuum has enormous energy. It would be interesting if some property can be measured to six or seven decimal places consistantly to see if any variation happens each year. Is anyone trying I wonder.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •