Einstein informs the gullible world that the inertial clock at the center of the rotating disk runs faster than the non-inertial clock on the edge of the disk, and that this is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation:

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his
intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one
of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating
Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII,
it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K." http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

Einstein refers to Section XII

https://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the center of the rotating disk should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock on the edge of the disk. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz
transformation which predicts SYMMETRIC time dilation for two inertial clocks: either clock runs slower than the other by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), as judged from the other clock's system.

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-07f2713fe6c432d9b59ff68c0caf0c51-lq

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "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 tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and
higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

This is Einstein's first blatant lie. No such "peculiar consequence" follows from his 1905 postulates (the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light). Valid deduction from the postulates would have produced the
following idiotic per se but correctly deduced "peculiar consequence":

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, as judged from the stationary system, and the clock which has remained at B lags behind the other moved from A to B,
as judged from the moving system.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Einstein informs the gullible world that the speed of light is constant, c, because, if it is variable, w=c-v, then "this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity":

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the
railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we
can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative
to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the
principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light
beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other
- in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

Believing that w=c-v "comes into conflict with the principle of relativity" is equivalent to believing that 2+2=5:

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 https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)