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?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

From Dingle: .........the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

cinci: THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE POLE.

Dingle: " .........the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly"?




Cincirob: "THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE POLE".




AAF: AND THE CLOCK AT THE POLE HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR!

You forgot your caps on. Turn them off and stop shouting.
Either way, what the text meant is that from the PoV of a common reference frame centered in the Earth center, the pole has zero velocity while any point on the Equator has a non-zero velocity. (Incidentally, this frame of reference is commonly used in the calculations for GPS).
So, a clock placed at the Equator will fall behind a clock placed at the pole as judged from the common frame placed in the center of the Earth.

This SR prediction is confirmed by the GPS. On a daily basis.

Dingle: " .........the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly"?




Cincirob: "THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE POLE".




AAF: AND THE CLOCK AT THE POLE HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR!




Anonymous: "You forgot your caps on. Turn them off and stop shouting. Either way, what the text meant is that from the PoV of a common reference frame centered in the Earth center, the pole has zero velocity while any point on the Equator has a non-zero velocity. (Incidentally, this frame of reference is commonly used in the calculations for GPS). So, a clock placed at the Equator will fall behind a clock placed at the pole as judged from the common frame placed in the center of the Earth. This SR prediction is confirmed by the GPS. On a daily basis".



AAF: I didn't forget to turn the CAPS off; I just copied all of them, except (AND), from Cincirob's! Anyway, the clock at the pole is equivalent to the clock at the center. That is because all clocks placed along the axis of rotation have zero velocity with respect to each other. It follows, therefore, that your answer to Dingle's question is mathematically equivalent to and de facto the same as the answer given above by Cincirob; right?

Re: Anonymous Herbert Dingle asks Einsteinians July 14 2008, 7:55 PM

This SR prediction is confirmed by the GPS. On a daily basis.

Do some research Anonymous, if GPS used Einsteinian time the GPS system would not work. Go to, (among other places) http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp and check it out. SR breaks down in multi body systems because it has no MASTER clock!

bob s

I looked at your other posts, you are a sort of idiot.

Re: Herbert Dingle asks Einsteinians July 15 2008, 1:53 AM

Dingle: " .........the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly"?

Cincirob: "THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE POLE".

AAF: AND THE CLOCK AT THE POLE HAS A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR!

cinci: What is your point?
******************************

Anonymous: "You forgot your caps on. Turn them off and stop shouting. Either way, what the text meant is that from the PoV of a common reference frame centered in the Earth center, the pole has zero velocity while any point on the Equator has a non-zero velocity. (Incidentally, this frame of reference is commonly used in the calculations for GPS). So, a clock placed at the Equator will fall behind a clock placed at the pole as judged from the common frame placed in the center of the Earth. This SR prediction is confirmed by the GPS. On a daily basis".

AAF: I didn't forget to turn the CAPS off; I just copied all of them, except (AND), from Cincirob's! Anyway, the clock at the pole is equivalent to the clock at the center. That is because all clocks placed along the axis of rotation have zero velocity with respect to each other. It follows, therefore, that your answer to Dingle's question is mathematically equivalent to and de facto the same as the answer given above by Cincirob; right?

cinci: I put my answer in caps because I thought maybe Pentcho was hard-of-seeing. After all, it was obvious.

And the fact that the clock on the pole has a velocity relative to the clock on the equator doesn't change the fact that the clock on the equator has a velocity relative to the clock on the pole. And no, it is not the same question, it's completely different. As you have pointed out, one gets different answers for the two questions. If they were the same question one should get the same answer.

Re: Anonymous, Herbert Dingle asks Einsteinians July 15 2008, 10:47 AM

I looked at your other posts, you are a sort of idiot.

Smart people sometimes say stupid things and stupid people sometimes say smart things. Being only “a sort of” idiot gives me the distinct advantage. Check!

bob s