Asymmetrical Time Dilation in Einstein's 1905 Paper

[Pentcho Valev]

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."

It follows from the postulates of special relativity that an observer in the moving clock's system would all along observe the stationary clock at B running SLOWER than the moving clock (initially at A). Accordingly, on the arrival of the moving clock at B, this observer would see the stationary clock at B showing LESS time elapsed than the moving clock.

The conclusion Einstein draws implies the opposite: on the arrival of the moving clock at B, the observer in the moving clock's system would see the stationary clock at B showing MORE time elapsed than the moving clock.

Clearly Einstein's conclusion ("the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other") does not validly follow from the postulates of special relativity. In 1905 Einstein replaced the valid argument (having as a conclusion symmetrical time dilation) with non sequitur whose conclusion, asymmetrical time dilation, implied time travel into the future (science died and magic was born):

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")."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The relative time fabricated by Einstein in 1905 is so idiotic that even Einsteinians are trying to get rid of it:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/16/carlo-rovelli-interview-quantum-gravity-physics-science-is-where-revolutions-happen
"Carlo Rovelli is professor of physics at Aix-Marseille University. He is a pioneer in research into quantum gravity which seeks to integrate Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, specifically by removing the idea of time."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-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 [Lee] Smolin."

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..."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. [...] The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Brian Greene brainwashes students:

http://www.caller.com/story/news/education/2016/10/18/brian-greene-teaches-audience-time-travel/92299148/
"Brian Greene taught an auditorium full of university and high school students how time travel is possible. "At least in principal," Greene said of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. "Using (Einstein's) observation about how time behaves for a clock that's moving, if you think it through logically, there is a blueprint for how you go to the future." Greene, a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University, hypothetically synchronized his watch with attendees of a student forum preceding an evening lecture at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi as part of the Distinguished Speakers Series. Greene then headed off into space, near the speed of light. Greene explained that when traveling near the speed of light, his watch will slow and the audience's will continue its usual pace."

Special relativity does not predict that Greene's watch will slow. It predicts that, as judged by Greene himself, his watch will SPEED UP:

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..."

Pentcho Valev