"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Yes, Einstein's special relativity is the root of all the evil, not just in theoretical physics, but in all human rational activity. But how could a single false axiom, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, become such a threat to human rationality? The introduction of the false axiom was Einstein's original sin (he knew that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved Newton's variable speed of light in 1887), but there was a second, logical sin in 1905 that confused and eventually paralyzed critics.

Einstein's 1905 postulates entailed SYMMETRIC time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. The concept was sterile in terms of predictions. It says how the two observers see things, but it says nothing about the objective behavior of the two clocks. If Einstein had obeyed logic and deduced symmetric time dilation in his 1905 paper, special relativity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.

ASYMMETRIC time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast - is an obvious non sequitur (doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates) but Einstein "derived" it in 1905 because it produced a quantitative (and breathtaking) prediction:

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/

Symmetric time dilation (the valid deduction from the postulates) doesn't, but asymmetric time dilation (the non sequitur) does imply time travel into the future - the miracle (idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Einstein's 1905 second, logical sin is brilliantly discussed in this paper (written by a lecturer in politics https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/about/s.../peterhayes/):

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Clock_Paradox

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev