Is Lee Smolin the Only Doublethinker in Einstein's Schizophrenic World?

Lee Smolin rejects Einstein's relative time, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

https://www.buffalolib.org/vufind/Re...885811/Reviews
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Lee Smolin worships Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its consequences:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013...7/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them":

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4...22552b04_z.jpg

Pentcho Valev

Silly doublethinkers accept both thesis and antithesis but, unlike John Norton, cannot teach them simultaneously. Here is an example:

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."

Einstein's relativity predicts the opposite - the (validly deducible) conclusion from Einstein's 1905 postulates is that time SPEEDS UP for the moving observer. As this observer checks stationary clocks against his own (moving) clocks, he finds that the stationary clocks are slow and his own (moving) clocks are FAST:

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..."

So special relativity predicts that time SPEEDS UP for the moving observer but Neil deGrasse Tyson teaches that time SLOWS DOWN for the moving observer. The brainwashed world is hopelessly confused: SPEEDING UP is false (moving clocks and stationary clocks tick at the same rate) but at least it validly follows from the postulates. Brainwashing becomes much more efficient if the validly deducible falsehood, SPEEDING UP, is replaced with its alternative, SLOWING DOWN, which is non sequitur.

Does Neil deGrasse Tyson believe in both falsehoods, SPEEDING UP and SLOWING DOWN? Yes. He knows what relativity really predicts but accepts the alternative as well. Similarly, Bingo the Clowno knows his real name but he also believes that his name is Bingo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo the Clowno

In other words, Neil deGrasse Tyson is both a brainwasher and a victim of brainwashing. Here is a clear example of the conversion of rational people into thoughtless Bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev

Steve Giddings rejects spacetime but greatly admires the ripples in spacetime faked by LIGO conspirators:

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2016/016562...ein-revolution
"In celebration of Einstein's birthday, physicists reflect on the German-born scientist's work and its impact on the field and on everyday life. "We have good reason to believe general relativity is not a complete theory and, in particular, that it's going to break down in the context of describing black holes," said UCSB physics professor Steve Giddings. "That's very much an important problem in physics today. "The direct observation of gravitational waves from colliding black holes really constrains the possible departures from general relativity that we know are there and limits where modifications can be made," he continued. "But the discovery is still spectacular and its announcement was one of those moments in science that you live for."

Steve Giddings and his brothers Einsteinians:

http://render.fineartamerica.com/ima...david-mack.jpg

Pentcho Valev