🚀 go-pugleaf

John Kennaugh <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
  gd1O9$CbxC3KFwuV@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> 
>> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
>> Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
>> p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by
>> Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks,
>> A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different
>> rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The
>> supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to
>> work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not
>> only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would
>> then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of
>> which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often
>> claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz.
>> 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no
>> account of possible effects of accleration, gravitation, or any
>> difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform
>> motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
>> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
>> situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
>> Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to
>> conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock
>> worked more slowly?"
> 
> Although Dingle was attacked on all fronts in a shameless way it was
> clear that at that time there was no clear consensus. 

That's right. There was no clear consensus among imbeciles.
There will never be a clear consensus among imbeciles.

Dirk Vdm