### Herbert Dingle Was Correct!

**Herbert Dingle Was Correct!
Harry H. Ricker III
**

*In*

*The General Science Journal*, Jun. 2006

**1.0 Introduction**** **

Herbert Dingle is well known for his claims of inconsistency in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. One of the most interesting of Dingle’s arguments appeared in the September 8, 1962 issue of Nature under the title “Special Theory of Relativity”^{1}. This

short note by Herbert Dingle points out “what appears to be an inconsistency in thekinematical part of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.” Here the thesis is presented that Dingle’s modest claim is based upon a mathematically correct derivation of the transformation of time from a moving frame into a rest frame following Einstein’s methods. It is concluded that Dingle’s assertion of an inconsistency in Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity is correct. Furthermore, in addition to the inconsistency, there are errors in Einstein’s 1905 proof that he attempted to rectify in his 1907 and 1910 papers on relativity.

This claim may seem outrageously absurd to a physics community which is convinced of the absolute correctness of Einstein’s special theory. The purpose here is to take up Dingle’s challenge, and to examine with mathematical rigor the mathematical derivations which lead to the famous conclusion in the special theory that “moving clocks run slow”. In taking up Dingle’s challenge, the focus will be on Einstein’s three fundamental papers which establish the theory^{2,3,4}. An examination of the proofs of time dilation which appear in these papers indicates that three different methods are presented. Einstein presented a different proof in every one of the three papers. The final method of proof given in 1910 is completely different from the proof of 1905. The reason for these different proofs is interpreted here as an attempt to correct deficiencies in the 1905 paper in light of Stark’s discovery of spectral line shifts of canal rays. The 1907 method was further revised in 1910 which is taken as Einstein’s final version of the proof. The argument will be advanced that mistakes and inconsistencies in the 1905 paper contributed to the inconsistency arguments and confusion which has accompanied this subject for nearly 100 years.

In the final analysis, it is determined that Dingle’s argument fails to prove that moving clocks run fast. Instead, his proof correctly demonstrates that clocks at rest in the moving frame run slow compared to clocks at rest in the rest frame. But, Dingle’s assertion that moving clocks run fast according to Einstein’s proofs is correct. Because of mathematical errors, Einstein incorrectly derives the transformation equations from a moving frame into a rest frame. He misinterprets them as indicating that moving clocks run slow, instead of the correct result, which is that they run fast. The correct conclusion which is given here is that moving clocks run slow, however, proofs based upon Einstein’s 1905 method are incorrect because the equations used actually indicate that moving clocks run fast.

——————————————————–

Siehe auch vom Autor in diesem Blog:

Empirical Verification of Time Dilation in Special Relativity

Comments Regarding How GPS Provides Empirical Evidence Against Special Relativity

.

- 26. November 2012
- Artikel

17. Dezember 2013 um 20:55

If you, Mr. Einstein are stating something about time which is to be understood by human brains, please take care of your very own brain:

If you say „during the time dt the time dT happened to exist“ then dt is equal to dT. This is a physical identity.

If you are able to conclude (from this identity)

that t is less than T

then, please, try to read and to understand the words above again.

(referring to video relativeSpeed.avi)