🚀 go-pugleaf

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message 
news:487864d2$1_4@news.bluewin.ch...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1ae928c7-e961-4427-9317-988648899adb@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| > 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?"
|
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
|
| Par. 1
| "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which [in first approximation] 
the
| equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good."
|
| Par.4:
| "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the 
points
| A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary
| system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity 
v
| along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer
| synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which 
has
| remained at B by (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being 
the
| time occupied in the journey from A to B.
| It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock 
moves
| from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
| coincide.
| If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for 
a
| continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
| synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
| until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
| which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
| second slow. Thence 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."
|
| Harald

Which doesn't work, since it is a simple matter to place an atomic clock
( not just an old wind-up bedside alarm clock) at the Polar Halley Research
Station
  http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//living_and_working/research_stations/halley/
and compare it with the GPS or any other near equatorial location.
So much for your whining "inertial".
Test of SR: failed.

You get an F, fuckhead.