🚀 go-pugleaf

The fact that the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in
relativity theory make it more obstreperous rather than more
vulnerable suggests that science has been replaced by something else:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
Author: Peter Hayes
"Once relativity theory is viewed as an ideology, aspects of the
theory that are scientifically problematic can be redefined as
ideologically advantageous."

In other words, Einsteiniana badly needs contradictions and
inconsistencies for the same reason for which Big Brother badly needs
2+2=5:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
"Herbert Dingle (2 August 1890 - 4 September 1978), an English
physicist and natural philosopher, who served as president of the
Royal Astronomical Society from 1951 to 1953 (...) He was one of the
founders of the British Society for the History of Science, and served
as President from 1955 to 1957. He founded what later became the
British Society for the Philosophy of Science as well as its journal,
the British Journal for The Philosophy of Science."

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?"

Another version of the same question:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955). Relativity: The Special and General
Theory. 1920.
XXIII. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring Rods on a Rotating Body of
Reference

What entitled Einstein to conclude FROM LORENTZ TRANSFORMS ALONE
("Section XII") that the clock at the centre of the disc runs faster
than the clock at the edge of the disc? How can Lorentz transforms
predict both reciprocal and non-reciprocal time dilation?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com