EINSTEIN'S 1905 INVALID ARGUMENT

http://www.yaabot.com/12541/the-rele...al-relativity/
"2015 marks 100 years since The General Theory of Relativity was dropped onto the world by Albert Einstein. (...) Essentially, the major implications of the theory of Relativity we (...) The only constant in the universe is the speed of light. The more you accelerate to this cosmic speed limit, the slower time will pass for you. This allows for 'trips' to the future by simply doing a roundtrip to your location at a high enough speed."

"The more you accelerate to this cosmic speed limit, the slower time will pass for you" is not a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (that is, even if the postulate were true, the conclusion is still false). The valid conclusion is:

The faster you move, the FASTER time will pass for you, as you compare your clocks with those of a stationary observer.

Here is the original non sequitur (invalid argument):

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."

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, 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?"

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from an inertial system, the other inertial system's clocks run more slowly, or, what is the same, the system's own clocks run faster than the other inertial system's clocks. In Einstein's scenario, for an observer in the moving clock's system, his own clock runs faster than the stationary clock at B; for a stationary observer at B, his own clock runs faster than the moving clock.

Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "time travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, time travel into the future is possible.

Since then, Einsteiniana's hypnotists have been relentlessly brainwashing the gullible world and destroying human rationality:

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMiUq7W_xI
Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

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")."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo
"In this video lecture, Neil deGrasse Tyson, America's most noted astrophysicist, describes the Twins Paradox, a hypothetical scenario in which high-speed travel slows down the aging of one twin, while the other twin ages at a normal rate."

http://www.davidreneke.com/time-trav...rof-brian-cox/
"Time Travel Is Possible Says Prof Brian Cox (...) Traveling into the past is impossible. Possibly. The idea of mono-directional time travel is a slap in the face for most science fiction storylines, but fortunately for Marty McFly there's no risk of accidentally sleeping with his mother from 1955 in this scenario. However, zooming around on hovering skateboards in the future is totally plausible. (...) "Can you build a time machine?" said Cox. "The answer is yes." Assuming we could build a spaceship that will accelerate an astronaut close to the speed of light, only for them to return a few hours later (in the astronaut's time frame), through a quirk of relativity it's possible that thousands of years would have passed on Earth. Therefore, the superfast spaceship will have become a time machine! Want to go further into the future? No problem! Fly the spaceship even faster."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=32191481
"ABC News spoke to author, astrophysicist, cosmologist and basically one of the smartest men on the planet, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson... (...) ABC: Is time travel possible? Dr. 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."

Referring to the gullible world, Einstein once said: "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":

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."

Pentcho Valev