Abstract
Two years ago I pointed out1 what appears to be an inconsistency in the kinematical part of Einstein's special theory of relativity. I repeated this in a slightly different form in a volume published in December last2. No comment has been made on the former publication, either spontaneously or in response to individual requests, and in none of the many reviews of the latter has even an oblique attention to the criticism appeared. In view of its profound and far-reaching consequences if it is valid there can be no justification for leaving a twice-published criticism without a published refutation if it is not.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Philosophy of Science, 27, 233 (1960).
Samuel, Viscount, and Dingle, H., A Threefold Cord, 270 (Allen and Unwin, 1961).
Ann. Phys., 17, 891 (1905): the translation given here is taken from The Principle of Relativity, by A. Einstein et al., 49 (Methuen, 1923).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DINGLE, H. Special Theory of Relativity. Nature 195, 985–986 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1038/195985a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/195985a0
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
On the perception and measurement of the accelerated observer of the clock problem
Pramana (1977)
-
Invariant simultaneity
Czechoslovak Journal of Physics (1972)
-
Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct
Nature (1967)
-
The Case Against Special Relativity
Nature (1967)
-
Special Theory of Relativity
Nature (1963)