Professor Herbert D i n g l e s p r o b l e mw i t h P r o f e s s o r A l b e r t E i n s t e i n s s p e c i a l ( r e s t r i c t e d ) relativity and the site http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.

htm

Nigel Cook *** T h e n c e [ i . e . , f r o mt h e S Rt h e o r y w h i c h t a k e s n o a c c o u n t o f a c c e l e r a t i o n s o r g r a v i t a t i o n ] w e 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 c o n d i t i o n s . [ T h i s i s b e e n q u i e t l y a c c e p t e d a s a f a l s e p r e d i c t i o n o f s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y , s e e http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/pdf/vol58no9p12_13.pdf for example. It is not so w i d e l y k n o w n , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s d i s c r e d i t s E i n s t e i n s d e r i v a t i o n o f s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y r e s u l t s . ] Albert Einstein, Ann. d. Phys., vol. 17 (1905), p. 891. A p p l i e d t o t h i s e x a m p l e , t h e q u e s t i o n i s : w h a t e n t i t l e d E i n s t e i n t o c o n c l u d e from his theory t h a t t h e e q u a t o r i a l , a n d n o t t h e p o l a r , c l o c k w o r k e d m o r e s l o w l y ? Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, Martin Brian & O K e e f e , L o n d o n , 1 9 7 2 , c 2 . *** Introduction Walter Babin has added links from the General Science Journal to Professor D i n g l e s b o o k s about special (restricted) relativity. Dingle states his question in the Introduction to his 1972 book Science at the Crossroads (Martin Brian & O K e e f e , L o n d o n ) c o n c e r n i n g s p e c i a l (restricted) relativity: y o u h a v e t w o e x a c t l y s i m i l a r c l o c k s o n e i s m o v i n g t h e y m u s t w o r k a t d i f f e r e n t r a t e s B u t t h e [ S R ] t h e o r y a l s o r e q u i r e s t h a t y o u c a n n o t d i s t i n g u i s h w h i c h c l o c k m o v e s . T h e question therefore a r i s e s w h i c h c l o c k w o r k s t h e m o r e s l o w l y ? My 37-word extracted quotation is a complete and accurate summary of D i n g l e s a r g u m e n t . Admittedly, I have had to remove irrelevant clutter in six places from this quotation to make it concise. For contrast, the internet site http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm claims: I n a n u t s h e l l , Dingle considers two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' with a relative velocity of v, and then considers the partial derivative of t' with respect to t at constant x, and the partial derivative of t with respect to t' at constant x . He notes that these partials are equal, and declares this to be logically inconsistent for any v other than 0. Needless to say, D i n g l e s r e a s o n i n g i s i n c o r r e c t , b e c a u s e p a r t i a l d e r i v a t i v e s c a n n o t b e a l g e b r a i c a l l y i n v e r t e d . The failure of the mathematical response The failure in http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm is obvious: it ignores D i n g l e s q u e s t i o n , and makes up a lot of time-wasting irrelevant drivel instead, then attacks its own drivel as if it is attacking D i n g l e s q u e s t i o n . I n c h a p t e r 1 o f h i s b o o k , Dingle

explains the failure of the mathematicians in 1972, and it is precisely the same failure we see today: S u p p o s e w e h a v e a c u b i c a l v e s s e l w h o s e v o l u m e i s 8 c u b i c f e e t , a n d w e w i s h t o f i n d t h e length of one of its edges ... We let x be the required length, and all we have to do is solve the 1/2 equation x3 = 8. But this equation has three solutions, viz 2, [(-3)1/2 1 ] , [ ( 3 ) ]+1, all having the same mathematical validity. But we know that the only one of these solutions that can possibly correspond to the reading of a measuring rod is 2 . . . So given a question, all the crackpot needs to do is to translate the question into meaningless maths, point out that it is then all nonsense, and then point out that the translation is gibberish, while trying (badly) to place the blame on the clear original statement. Historical background of Dingle and Einstein Professor Herbert Dingle was pro-special (restricted) relativity until he was attacked by Einstein in print. This occurred in the book of essays (in tribute of Einstein) edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist, published in 1949. D i n g l e s e s s a y i n t h a t b o o k i s e s s a y n u m b e r 2 0 , p a g e s 5 2 5 5 5 4 , S c i e n t i f i c a n d P h i l o s o p h i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e S p e c i a l T h e o r y o f R e l a t i v i t y . E i n s t e i n d i d n t l i k e D i n g l e s e s s a y a n d r i d i c u l e d i t i n a n o t e p u b l i s h e d i n t h e b o o k w i t h t h e essay. When Einstein died in 1955, Dingle was chosen by the BBC to give the polite eulogy on Einstein. When the Einstein hype spiralled out of control, Dingle read in Sir George Thomson's book, The Foreseeable Future, that some issues with twins paradox (which twin is in motion, and so which one gets time-dilation?) were unresolved, and he then started to attack the special (restricted) relativity theory as over-hyped. D i n g l e i s n o t a t t a c k i n g E i n s t e i n , i n d e e d h e c i t e s E i n s t e i n s o w n p a p e r r e s o l v i n g t h e t w i n s p a r a d o x i n Naturwissenschaften, v o l . 6 ( 1 9 1 8 ) , p 6 9 7 . E i n s t e i n s r e s o l u t i o n t o t h e twins p a r a d o x i s t o r e p l a c e s p e c i a l ( r e s t r i c t e d ) r e l a t i v i t y b y g e n e r a l r e l a t i v i t y , w h i c h b e c a u s e t h e u n i v e r s e h a s g r a v i t a t i o n a l f i e l d s i s a n a b s o l u t e m o t i o n t h e o r y : B u t . . . t h e g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f r e l a t i v i t y c a n n o t r e t a i n t h i s [ S R ] l a w . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , w e a r r i v e d at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the c o o r d i n a t e s w h e n a g r a v i t a t i o n a l f i e l d i s p r e s e n t . A l b e r t E i n s t e i n , Relativity, The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111. . . . t h e [ S R ] p r i n c i p l e m u s t b e m o d i f i e d , s i n c e w e e a s i l y r e c o g n i s e t h a t t h e p a t h o f a r a y o f l i g h t m u s t i n g e n e r a l b e c u r v i l i n e a r . . . A l b e r t E i n s t e i n , The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114. T h e s p e c i a l t h e o r y o f r e l a t i v i t y d o e s n o t e x t e n d t o n o n u n i f o r mm o t i o n The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. A l o n g t h i s r o a d w e a r r i v e a t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p o s t u l a t e o f r e l a t i v i t y The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). A l b e r t E i n s t e i n , T h e F o u n d a t i o n o f t h e G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f R e l a t i v i t y , Annalen der Physik, v49, 1 9 1 6 ( i t a l i c s a r e E i n s t e i n s o w n ) . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f r e l a t i v i t y s p a c e w i t h o u t e t h e r [ a l t e r n a t i v e l y k n o w n a s : spacetime fabric, gravitational field, s p a c e t i m e c o n t i n u u m ] i s u n t h i n k a b l e . A l b e r t E i n s t e i n , Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23. The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether

[alternatively known as: spacetime fabric, gravitational field, spacetime continuum], because t h e e f f e c t l o o k e d f o r t h e d e l a y o f o n e o f t h e l i g h t w a v e s i s e x a c t l y c o m p e n s a t e d b y a n automatic contraction [due to motion through the aether or gravity-causing gauge boson radiation field, rather like pressure induces stresses due to the forward motion of a ship in the sea causing a small contraction of the ship in the direction of the motion] of the matter f o r m i n g t h e a p p a r a t u s . T h e g r e a t stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute s p a c e i s t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d e t e c t i o n o f a b s o l u t e r o t a t i o n . P r o f e s s o r A . S . Eddington (who c o n f i r m e d E i n s t e i n s g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f r e l a t i v i t y i n 1 9 1 9 ) , Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152. U 2 o b s e r v a t i o n s h a v e r e v e a l e d a n i s o t r o p y i n t h e 3 Kb l a c k b o d y radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 k m s . R . A . Mu l l e r , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , T h e c o s m i c b a c k g r o u n d r a d i a t i o n a n d t h e new a e t h e r d r i f t , Scientific American, vol. 238, May 1978, p. 64-74. Hence the Lorentzian metric of special relativity which made absolute motion invisible in 1905 needs replacement by general relativity in which the metric is a result of the dynamics of the theory, not L o r e n t z i a n b y p r e j u d i c e . T h i s i s t h e n e wi d e a o f b a c k g r o u n d i n d e p e n d e n c e t h a t r e p l a c e s b l i n d f a i t h i n t h e Lorentzian metric of special relativity. The indoctrinated students In chapter 1 of D i n g l e s Science at the Crossroads, Dingle quotes Sir Henry Dale, a President of the Royal Society, on the lack of religious groupthink in science: science, we should insist, better than any other discipline, can hold up to its students and followers an ideal of patient devotion to the search for objective truth, with vision unclouded by personal or political motive, not tolerating any lapse from precision or neglect of any a n o m a l y , f e a r i n g o n l y p r e j u d i c e a n d p r e c o n c e p t i o n , a c c e p t i n g n a t u r e s a n s w e r s h u m b l y a n d with courage, and giving them to the world with an unflinching fidelity. The world cannot a f f o r d t o l o s e s u c h a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e m o r a l f r a m e w o r k o f i t s c i v i l i s a t i o n . ( H. H. Dale, An Autumn Gleaning (Pergamon Press, 1954, p. 81). Dingle then explains that in his 1931 book, Science and Human Experience (Williams & Norgate, 1931, p. 44), he showed how there was a corruption of this s i n c e N e w t o n s d a y : I w i l l g i v e t h r e e q u o t a t i o n s f r o mr e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c i e n t i s t s , c o v e r i n g t h e p e r i o d f r o mN e w t o n to the present time and separated by roughly equal intervals. T h e f i r s t i s f r o mN e w t o n h i m s e l f ( 1 6 8 7 ) : I f r a m e n o h y p o t h e s e s . F o r w h a t e v e r i s n o t deduc'd from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in e x p e r i m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y . T h e s e c o n d i s f r o mLaplace, r e f e r r i n g t o h i s f a m o u s n e b u l a r h y p o t h e s i s ( 1 7 9 6 ) : I w i l l suggest an hypothesis which appears to me to result with a great degree of probability, from the preceding phenomena, which, however, I present with that diffidence, which ought always t o a t t a c h t o w h a t e v e r i s n o t t h e r e s u l t o f o b s e r v a t i o n a n d c o m p u t a t i o n .

 T h e t h i r d i s f r o mE d d i n g t o n ( 1 9 2 6 ) : C a r e i s t a k e n t o p r o v i d e m a c r o s c o p i c e q u a t i o n s f o r t h e h u m a n s c a l e o f a p p r e c i a t i o n o f p h e n o m e n a a s w e l l a s m i c r o s c o p i c e q u a t i o n s f o r t h e microbe. But there is a difference in the attitude of the physicist towards these results; for him t h e m a c r o s c o p i c e q u a t i o n s t h e l a r g e s c a l e r e s u l t s a r e j u s t u s e f u l t o o l s f o r s c i e n t i f i c a n d practical progress; the microscopic view contains the real truth as to what is actually o c c u r r i n g . T h e c o u r s e o f d e v e l o p m e n t i s f r o ma c a t e g o r i c a l r e j e c t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s o f a n y k i n d w h a t e v e r , t h r o u g h a d i f f i d e n t p r e s e n t a t i o n o f o n e w h i c h r e s u l t s w i t h a g r e a t d e g r e e o f p r o b a b i l i t y f r o mp h e n o m e n a , t o t h e c o n f i d e n t a s s e r t i o n t h a t a h y p o t h e s i s c o n t a i n s r e a l t r u t h a n d p h e n o m e n a a r e j u s t u s e f u l t o o l s . T h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s p r o c e s s i s the most vital question, both for the philosophy of Science and for the application of scientific i d e a s t o o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s o f t h o u g h t , a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . In chapter 2 of D i n g l e s Science at the Crossroads, h e w r i t e s : t h e r e a d i n e s s t o r e s p o n d t o my criticism decreases steadily with increasing distinction of those who read it. The leaders of the subject reply, if at all, only when pressed, and as briefly as possible. Those of intermediate status cite experiments of greater or less irrelevance or present calculations of greater or less complication and with no relevance at all. Students and young PhDs are v o c i f e r o u s . A f t e r y o u r a r g u m e n t i n Nature w i t h P r o f e s s o r Ma x B o r n , w r o t e t h e f o r m e r editor of Nature t o m e i n 1 9 6 3 , I h a d a l a r g e n u m b e r o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d q u i t e a n u m b e r of individual unannounced visitors at Nature office. As you implied in your letter, they each one felt that he could prove you were wrong in your view and each one got about it in a d i f f e r e n t w a y a l l t h e p e o p l e w h o s u b m i t t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o r w i s h e d t o d i s c u s s t h i s problem with me, could scarcely be considered first class men of science as compared to Max B o r n . Professor Abraham Pais and Professor Max Born According to Professor Abraham P a i s b i o g r a p h y o f E i n s t e i n , Subtle is the Lord Oxford University Press, 1982), he (Pais, then at the Institute of Advanced Study with Einstein) gave Einstein a copy of P o i n c a r e s 1 9 0 4 p a p e r o n s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y s h o r t l y b e f o r e h e d i e d . E i n s t e i n was surprised enough, writes Pais, that he entrusted Professor Max Born to write an acknowledgement of P o i n c a r e s w o r k o n s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y p r i o r t o E i n s t e i n s i n v o l v e m e n t i n 1905. Pais writes that Born, despite having authored a major textbook on special relativity, did not understand the differences between P o i n c a r e s a n d E i n s t e i n s t h e o r y , a n d i n s t e a d thought Poincare had come up with the same thing as Einstein, but earlier. Pais makes it clear that Poincare used 3 postulates in his 1904 paper and Einstein used only 2 in his 1905 paper. However, P o i n c a r e s p a p e r w a s m u c h l o n g e r a n d d e a l t w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i n more detail, and it was only much later (after Poincare had died in 1912) that Einstein wrote: T h e s p e c i a l t h e o r y o f r e l a t i v i t y d o e s n o t e x t e n d t o n o n u n i f o r mm o t i o n The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. A l o n g t h i s r o a d w e a r r i v e a t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p o s t u l a t e o f r e l a t i v i t y The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). A l b e r t E i n s t e i n , T h e F o u n d a t i o n o f t h e G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f R e l a t i v i t y , Annalen der Physik, v49, 1 9 1 6 ( i t a l i c s a r e E i n s t e i n s o w n ) . The dispute between Born and Dingle occurred in Nature on 30 March 1963. Dingle sent Born a reprint of a letter of his published on page 985 of the 8 September 1962 issue of Nature where he (Dingle) q u o t e d E i n s t e i n s s t a t e m e n t t h a t a m o v i n g c l o c k r u n s m o r e s l o w l y t h a n a s t a t i o n a r y c l o c k , s o t h a t ( a c c o r d i n g t o E i n s t e i n ) e a c h r u n s m o r e s l o w l y t h a n t h e o t h e r , a n d t h e n a s k e d h o wy o u u s e t h e t h e o r y t o d e c i d e w h i c h i s t h e m o v i n g c l o c k a n d w h i c h i s t h e

 s t a t i o n a r y c l o c k . D i n g l e w r o t e o n t h e r e p r i n t s e n t t o B o r n : With kindest regards. Test case f o r t h e i n t e g r i t y o f s c i e n t i s t s . B o r n s r e s p o n s e , p u b l i s h e d i n Nature on 30 March 1963 ignored D i n g l e s a r g u m e n t , c l a i m e d t h a t D i n g l e s o b j e c t i o n s a r e j u s t a m a t t e r o f s u p e r f i c i a l f o r m u l a t i o n a n d c o n f u s i o n , i n v e n t e d other irrelevant questions and wrote about those instead. Dingle pointed out in a letter of response to Born which Nature published under B o r n s l e t t e r . I n t h e b o o k , Dingle writes: I n e e d n o t r e c o r d m y r e p l y , w h i c h c a n b e s e e n i n Nature immediately under B o r n s letter, because I think it is obvious at once that it is no answer to a criticism to say that the critic s h o u l d h a v e a s k e d q u e s t i o n s w h i c h h e d i d n o t a s k , a n d c h a r g e h i mw i t h s u p e r f i c i a l f o r m u l a t i o n b e c a u s e o f h i s o m i s s i o n . T h e q u e s t i o n w h i c h B o r n c a l l s m y m i s t a k e i s n o t m i n e Dingle sent Born an offprint of his reply, but Born went into an angry rage, writing to Dingle: I a mc o m p l e t e l y f e d u p w i t h t h e m a t t e r , I d o n t k n o ww h a t y o u h a v e a n s w e r e d t o m y n o t e . As I think my argument irrefutable, I am convinced that you have made again some e l e m e n t a r y m i s t a k e I a ms o r r y t h a t I h a v e t o s a y s u c h w o r d s t o a m a n s o k i n d a n d f r i e n d l y as you are. But as I am over 80, the time left to me is too short to waste it on such futile d i s c u s s i o n s . Dingle writes in his book: O n r e f l e c t i o n s e v e r a l y e a r s l a t e r o n t h e c o u r s e w h i c h t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y h a s t a k e n , I r e a l i s e t h a t , in my ignorance in the earlier stages of the degree to which conviction of the final truth of s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y h a d d i s p l a c e d , i n t h e m i n d s o f p h y s i c i s t s , t h e o p e n n e s s i n d i c a t e d i n D a l e s description of Science, I took the less effective of two possible courses. I c o u l d h a v e p u t m y c r i t i c i s mo f t h e t h e o r y i n t h e f o r mo f a s t a t e m e n t a n d i n v i t e d c r i t i c s t o find a flaw in it; or I could have pointed out that the theory left open a question and asked for an answer to that question. Put more specifically, I could have pointed out that the theory c o n t a i n e d a c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h a t i t r e q u i r e d e a c h o f t w o c l o c k s t o w o r k f a s t e r t h a n t h e o t h e r or asked the question: how does one tell from the theory w h i c h c l o c k w o r k s t h e f a s t e r ? [Emphasis added.] Dingle i n e r r o r t o o k t h e f i r s t c o u r s e , w h i c h : o p e n e d a w a y f o r a l l s o r t s o f s p u r i o u s f a u l t s t o b e f o u n d i n m y s t a t e m e n t P r o f e s s o r McCrea smothers the simple passage given in my article, to which I asked for exclusive attention to be given, by entirely superfluous comments including a space-time diagram, to dispose of a consideration that had not been raised except by himself. A s s o o n a s I t o o k t h e o t h e r c o u r s e , h o w e v e r ( t h e a s k i n g o f a q u e s t i o n ) , t h e e f f e c t w a s c o m p l e t e l y o p p o s i t e ; i n s t e a d o f b r i n g i n g o n m y s e l f a f l o o d o f d i s c o r d a n t r e f u t a t i o n s I w a s m e t b y c o m p l e t e s i l e n c e . T h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d b y a r e p l y f r o mP r o f e s s o r Bondi (a wellknown mathematical authority on r e l a t i v i t y ) w h o s i m p l y w r o t e : I t i s k i n d o f y o u t o i n v i t e me to participate through adding a reply, but I do not feel able to accept your offer. In my v i e wo f m y p u b l i s h e d w o r k ( p a r t i c u l a r l y R e l a t i v i t y a n d C o m m o n S e n s e , a l s o A s s u m p t i o n a n d My t h ) a m p l y r e f u t e s y o u r v i e w s . I do not think I can usefully add to what I said there; I a mo n l y s o r r y t h a t y o u d o n o t f i n d i t c o n v i n c i n g . Comments in the preface of D i n g l e s Science at the Crossroads Dingle writes in the April 1972 preface to his book:

 the traditional proud claim of Science that it acknowledges the absolute authority of experience (i.e., observation and experiment) and reason over all theories, hypotheses, prejudices, expectations or probabilities, however apparently firmly established, can no longer be upheld. T h e d e v o t i o n t o t r u t h a t a l l c o s t s h a s g r a d u a l l y g i v e n p l a c e l a r g e l y u n c o n s c i o u s l y , I b e l i e v e , b u t s t i l l u n d e n i a b l y t o t h e b l i n d p u r s u i t o f t h e s u p e r f i c i a l l y plausible; the direction towards the most seductive, in which advance has been easiest, has been taken without regard to preservation of contact with the base, which is the truth of e x p e r i e n c e a n d r e a s o n ; t h e v e r d i c t o f t h o s e a u t h o r i t i e s f a l l s o n d e a f e a r s m a t h e m a t i c s h a s b e e n t r a n s f o r m e d f r o mt h e s e r v a n t o f e x p e r i e n c e i n t o i t s m a s t e r I t i s i r o n i c a l t h a t , i n t h e v e r y f i e l d i n w h i c h S c i e n c e h a s c l a i m e d s u p e r i o r i t y t o T h e o l o g y , f o r e x a m p l e i n t h e a b a n d o n i n g o f d o g m a a n d t h e g r a n t i n g o f a b s o l u t e f r e e d o mt o c r i t i c i s m t h e p o s i t i o n s a r e now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special r e l a t i v i t y Professor Paul Davies very indirectly and obscurely (accidentally?) defends Einstein's 1 9 2 0 e t h e r a n dr e l a t i v i t y l e c t u r e In 1995, physicist Professor Paul Davies - who won the Templeton Prize for religion (I think it was $1,000,000), wrote on pp. 54-57 of his book About Time: Wh e n e v e r I r e a d d i s s e n t i n g v i e w s o f t i m e , I c a n n o t h e l p t h i n k i n g o f H e r b e r t Dingle... who wrote ... Relativity for All, published in 1922. He became Professor ... at University College London... In his later years, D i n g l e b e g a n s e r i o u s l y t o d o u b t E i n s t e i n s c o n c e p t . . . Dingle ... w r o t e p a p e r s f o r j o u r n a l s p o i n t i n g o u t E i n s t e i n s e r r o r s a n d h a d t h e mr e j e c t e d . . . I n O c t o b e r 1971, J.C. Hafele [used atomic clocks to defend Einstein] ... You can't get much closer to D i n g l e ' s e v e r y d a y l a n g u a g e t h a n t h a t . Now, let's check the reference to J.C. Hafele. J. C. Hafele is against crackpot science: Hafele writes in Science vol. 177 (1972) pp 166-8 t h a t h e u s e s G. Builder (1958) f o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e a t o m i c c l o c k s . G. Builder (1958) i s a n a r t i c l e c a l l e d E t h e r a n d R e l a t i v i t y i n t h e Australian Journal of Physics, v11 (1958), p279, which states: . . . w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e r e t a r d a t i o n o f c l o c k s . . . d o e s i n d e e d c o m p e l u s t o r e c o g n i s e the causal significance of absolute v e l o c i t i e s . So Davies has unwittingly supported Dingle by citing the experiments of Hafele which c o n f i r mB u i l d e r s r e j e c t i o n o f r e l a t i v e v e l o c i t i e s i n f a v o u r o f t h e c a u s a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f absolute velocities. E i n s t e i n h i m s e l f s l i p p e d u p i n o n e p a p e r w h e n h e w r o t e t h a t a c l o c k a t t h e e a r t h s e q u a t o r , b e c a u s e o f t h e e a r t h s s p i n , r u n s m o r e s l o w l y t h a n o n e a t t h e p o l e . O n e a r g u m e n t , s e e http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/pdf/vol58no9p12_13.pdf, is that the reason why s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y f a i l s i s t h a t g r a v i t a t i o n a l b l u e s h i f t g i v e n b y g e n e r a l r e l a t i v i t y c a n c e l s o u t t h e t i m e d i l a t i o n : T h e g r a v i t a t i o n a l blueshift of a clock on the equator precisely cancels the t i m e d i l a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t s m o t i o n . It is true that general relativity is involved here, see the proof below of the general relativity gravity effect from the L o r e n t z t r a n s f o r m a t i o n u s i n g E i n s t e i n s e q u i v a l e n c e p r i n c i p l e . T h e problem is that there are absolute velocities, and special relativity by itself gives the wrong answers! You need general relativity, which introduces absolute motion, because it deals with acceleration like rotation, and observers can detect rotation as a net force, if in a sealed box that is rotating. It is not subject to the principle of relativity, which does not apply to accelerations.

 E i n s t e i n s i m p l y p o s t u l a t e s w h a t w e h a v e d e d u c e d I h a v e n o t a v a i l e d m y s e l f o f h i s s u b s t i t u t i o n s , o n l y b e c a u s e t h e f o r m u l a e a r e r a t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d a n d l o o k s o m e w h a t a r t i f i c i a l . Hendrik A. Lorentz (discoverer of time-dilation in 1893, and re-discoverer of George F i t z G e r a l d s 1889 formula for contraction in the direction of motion due to aether). Professor Lee S mo l i n s c o mme n t a b o u t s p e c i a l ( r e s t r i c t e d ) r e l a t i v i t y t h e o l o g y Professor Smolin has written an essay published at http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm c a l l e d E i n s t e i n s L e g a c y Wh e r e a r e t h e E i n s t e i n i a n s ? w h e r e h e c o m m e n t s : S p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y w a s t h e r e s u l t o f 1 0 y e a r s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l s t r u g g l e , y e t E i n s t e i n h a d convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He rejected his theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about. For another 10 years, as the world of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely p a t h a w a y f r o mi t .