Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel

Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-...l-through-time
"This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

"Time slows down for you" is a lie. Einstein's special relativity predicts just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP for you if you are set into motion. You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate of the clock of the stationary observer (who is not set into motion). The comparison will show that the latter clock is slow and your clock is FAST.

Einstein's special relativity does predict that your clock slows down but the slowing is not "for you", that is, not for the moving observer. Only the stationary observer sees your clock slowing down; you, the moving observer, see your clock SPEEDING UP.

Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), time travel into the future is impossible - the moving clock does not OBJECTIVELY slow down.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails symmetrical time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published - symmetrical time dilation is not even wrong. Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - in his 1905 article the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, fast (this means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 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."

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although there was indeed a contradiction in his special relativity, his general relativity had the solution to it:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

The fraud is obvious - if general relativity gives the solution (the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast), how did Einstein find it in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked this question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...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 acceleration, 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?"

Pentcho Valev

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..."

Two lies in John Gribbin's second sentence but let us take "the speed of light is the same for all such observers" as a premise, no matter whether it is true or false. So we obtain the argument:

If the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow.

Is the argument valid? It isn't of course. The valid argument is:

If the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system, and stationary clocks run slow, as judged from the moving system.

Clearly no clock will ever "lag behind" any other (no twin will remain younger than his brother) unless we all live in Einstein schizophrenic world where "enough strangeness" solves all our problems:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

That is, all along, the traveling twin observes himself aging faster than his stationary brother, but, as the traveling twin turns around for a very brief period, "enough strangeness occurs" and his distant stationary brother suddenly gets very old and dies. And, although the turnaround is crucial, it can be ignored in the calculations. This is Einstein schizophrenic world isn't it?

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/86...uletableau.jpg

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians take Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate as true and deduce that moving clocks tick slower than stationary ones. Actually no such conclusion can be made, no matter whether the postulate is true or false - the deduction is invalid. What the postulate (combined with the principle of relativity) VALIDLY entails is that moving clocks tick both slower (in one scenario) and faster (in another scenario) than stationary ones - an absurd conclusion showing that the postulate is false and that Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2..._rectangle.png

Scenario 1: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY.

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single MOVING ant is travelling along the polygonal line, and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Scenario 2: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line.

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the clock of a single STATIONARY ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency and should be immediately discarded:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev