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

Pancho,

try to answer your question by considering from which frame you are observing the clocks. When you are in the moving frame your clocks and all the processes slow down, so you are not noticing any change since you have no comparison within the frame. The same happens if you are in the other frame. You think that your clocks run as before evethough they slowed down. The meaningful relative time comparison can be made only from a third frame. When you do that, then there is no paradox or problem. The SRT is a correct theory, GRT is the one that is wrong.

Grav.

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

Graviton: "Try to answer your question by considering from which frame you are observing the clocks.

Anonymous: Graviton, try to understand that in Relativity, there is no such thing as "stationary," as in "not moving." Either frame can be considered "stationary." Do your calculations while imagining one of your frames "stationary."
Now, do the calculations while imagining the other frame is "stationary."

Add a third frame, moving at yet a different velocity, and redo all the calculations for all the permutations; considering each frame to be "stationary," in its turn. Now explain to us which clocks are "running faster" and which clocks are "running slower."

The answer that the stationary clocks run faster than the moving clocks is only a matter of opinion, not a determinable fact. If the entire Universe is moving at close to the speed of light, in relation to some observer, the Universe's "clocks would all be close to "stopped." The "observer" better have really good telescopic vision, because the Universe would soon shrink to a pinpoint as it went out of sight. Actually it would be "red-shifted" out of sight, anyway.