Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Introduction
- 1 Review of Moritz Schlick's General Theory of Knowledge
- 2 Einstein's Theory of Space
- 3 Reply to H. Dingler's Critique of the Theory of Relativity
- 4 A Report on an Axiomatization of Einstein's Theory of Space-Time
- 5 Reply to Th. Wulf's Objections to the General Theory of Relativity
- 6 Einstein's Theory of Motion
- 7 The Theory of Relativity and Absolute Transport Time
- 8 Reply to Anderson's Objections to the General Theory of Relativity
- 9 Review of Aloys Müller's The Philosophical Problems with Einstein's Theory of Relativity
- 10 The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity
- 11 Planet Clocks and Einsteinian Simultaneity
- 12 On the Physical Consequences of the Axiomatization of Relativity
- 13 Has the Theory of Relativity Been Refuted?
- 14 Response to a Publication of Mr. Hj. Mellin
- Index
3 - Reply to H. Dingler's Critique of the Theory of Relativity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Introduction
- 1 Review of Moritz Schlick's General Theory of Knowledge
- 2 Einstein's Theory of Space
- 3 Reply to H. Dingler's Critique of the Theory of Relativity
- 4 A Report on an Axiomatization of Einstein's Theory of Space-Time
- 5 Reply to Th. Wulf's Objections to the General Theory of Relativity
- 6 Einstein's Theory of Motion
- 7 The Theory of Relativity and Absolute Transport Time
- 8 Reply to Anderson's Objections to the General Theory of Relativity
- 9 Review of Aloys Müller's The Philosophical Problems with Einstein's Theory of Relativity
- 10 The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity
- 11 Planet Clocks and Einsteinian Simultaneity
- 12 On the Physical Consequences of the Axiomatization of Relativity
- 13 Has the Theory of Relativity Been Refuted?
- 14 Response to a Publication of Mr. Hj. Mellin
- Index
Summary
Hugo Dingler recently made the claim that the conceptual foundation of the theory of relativity is false. It will be shown that Dingler's argument contains serious flaws and is thereby untenable.
Dingler refers to the well-known example of the accelerating railway car. Although by now this example has become rather trivial as a result of its frequent discussion and was completely clarified by relativity theorists, particularly in connection with Lenard's repeatedly proposed misunderstanding, we will consider it again here for the sake of completeness. Dingler explains that the braking railway car would not be comparable to one in uniform motion because in the first case the (negative) acceleration does not directly act on the objects in the car, but rather will be first transferred to them by elastic forces. Only in a “real” gravitational field, e.g., one that is parallel to the rails and brought about by a single large mass, can we have complete equivalence; but here again there is no perceptible difference between uniform and accelerated motion if we discount frictional forces. The latter is true, but the standpoint of Newtonian theory does not provide an adequate explanation of it because the accelerated train in this example represents a system (in free fall), for which the Newtonian laws apply, although it itself experiences an acceleration relative to the collection of uniformly moving inertial systems of the cosmos.
[…]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Defending EinsteinHans Reichenbach's Writings on Space, Time and Motion, pp. 31 - 44Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006