Why Einsteinians Don't Teach Symmetrical Time Dilation

In 1905 a honest Einstein would have deduced SYMMETRICAL time dilation from the postulates:

The moving clock is SLOWER, as judged from the stationary system, and the stationary clock is SLOWER, as judged from the moving system.

Sounds more than absurd - the readings of the two clocks are incommensurable so the conclusion is not even wrong. The reason is that one of the premises - Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate - is false. Yet that would have been the VALID deduction - the not-even-wrongness VALIDLY followed from the postulates.

Einstein was pathologically dishonest and deduced, invalidly, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation from the postulates:

The moving clock is SLOW, the stationary one is FAST.

This sounds much better than the symmetrical time dilation - the conclusion may be true or false but there is no not-even-wrongness. And the implications were breathtaking - the slowness of the moving clock meant that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years were passing for the stationary system:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
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")."

The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic magic was born. The gullible world immediately fell in love with the idiocy:

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

http://negrjp.fotoblog.uol.com.br/im...0819051851.jpg

Pentcho Valev