Why Einsteinians Don't Teach Symmetrical Time Dilation

SYMMETRICAL time dilation is a validly deducible consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates:

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox
"What happens is that the twin on Earth, viewing himself as stationary and his brother as moving at high speed, sees his brother experiencing time dilation and thus ageing more slowly. At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself."

The second statement, that the traveling twin sees himself aging FASTER, which implies that moving clocks run FASTER (as judged from the moving system), is obviously fatal for Einstein's relativity. So Einsteinians fiercely ignore SYMMETRICAL time dilation and teach ASYMMETRICAL time dilation, despite the fact that the latter is not a consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates. Asymmetrical time dilation says that the traveling twin ages SLOWER, moving clocks run SLOWER, and that's it:

http://www.jimal-khalili.com/blogs/
Jim Al-Khalili: "And, the faster you move and the longer you move at that speed, the slower your clock ticks, including your own internal biological clock, and so the slower you age - by tiny, tiny fractions of a second of course."

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."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly"

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..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmnLmwBmfE
Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

Pentcho Valev

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