Einstein's Idiocies: Time Travel into the Future

Wikipedia: "The theory of relativity states that the speed of light is invariant for all observers in any frame of reference; that is, it is always the same. Time dilation is a direct consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. Time dilation may be regarded in a limited sense as "time travel into the future": a person may use time dilation so that a small amount of proper time passes for them, while a large amount of proper time passes elsewhere. This can be achieved by traveling at relativistic speeds or through the effects of gravity. For two identical clocks moving relative to each other without accelerating, each clock measures the other to be ticking slower. This is possible due to the relativity of simultaneity. However, the symmetry is broken if one clock accelerates, allowing for less proper time to pass for one clock than the other. The twin paradox demonstrates this, where one twin stays on Earth while the other travels into space at relativistic speeds, turns around (which involves acceleration), and returns to Earth. In this manner, the traveling twin has aged less than the twin who stayed on Earth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

No more clever Einsteinians in Einstein's schizophrenic world - a century of natural selection (survival of the fittest) has exterminated them. The Wikipedia text is written by a retard. "Time travel into the future" is introduced as a special relativity's conclusion, then this is denied and "time travel into the future" is reintroduced as a general relativity's conclusion (turning-around acceleration is crucial). But where does the idiocy come from?

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. This conclusion is not even wrong - the readings of the two clocks are incommensurable. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published. Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly, ASYMMETRICAL time dilation - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS 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."

Asymmetrical time dilation is false and does not follow from Einstein's postulates (symmetrical time dilation does), but, on the other hand, it does not involve incommensurability and for that reason sounds much more plausible than symmetrical time dilation. And its invaluable advantage (for the Einsteinian ideology) comes from the "travel into the future" it implies - in 1905 dull and apparently futureless 19th century physics became a fairy tale that went beyond any imagination. There was no need for organized brainwashing - the gullible world automatically got brainwashed from the very beginning.

In 1918 Einstein informed the brainwashed world that his special relativity was unable to resolve the clock paradox but his general relativity did have the solution. As the traveling clock turns around, a homogeneous (!?!) gravitational field appears for a short while, and as a result the distant stationary clock becomes much faster than the traveling clock:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous 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. The HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field was an idiocy, and if general, not special, relativity had been able to explain why the stationary clock was fast, how did Einstein know that in 1905? Herbert Dingle was desperately asking essentially the same question in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world had already been irreversibly 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