Why Astrophysicist Herbert Dingle Rejected Relativity
Keywords:
educational inclusion, premature baby, child development, learning difficulty, justice., Fairness, Common Good, Critiques, Justification, special relativity, Reality., twin paradox, Perception, naive realismAbstract
Referring to the example of the famous twin paradox, astrophysicist Herbert Dingle argued that Special Relativity is false : two clocks, he said, cannot run slow relatively to each other. His argument implied that the two clocks and their readings were real, in accordance with naive realism. It will be shown that they are not real but part of the observers’ subjective perception of reality – in which case, nothing prevents them from being different. Thus, it is naive realism which is wrong, not Relativity.
References
Henri Bergson (1968) Durée et simultanéité.
Michael Liston, Alexander Miller Scientific Realism and Antirealism. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/realism/
Paul Langevin (1923) La physique depuis vingt ans.
Kathleen Akins (1996) Perception.
D. Heyer (2002) Perception and the Physical World - Psychological and Philosophical Issues in Perception.
V. Bruce, P. Green (1985) Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology.
William Turner (2007) Zeno of Elea: where Space, Time, Physics and Philosophy converge. An Everyman's Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy.
Herbert Dingle (1972) Science at the Crossroads.
Taha Sochi (2016) Special Relativity: Science or Philosophical Theory?.
Peter Hayes Popper's response to Dingle on Special Relativity and the Problem of the Observer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2010.09.002
George Berkeley (1713) Three dialogues between Philas and Philonous.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Authors and Global Journals Private Limited
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
