[David Cooper]

This means that SR has been tested and found to fail to match up to reality because it claims there is no difference between frames which misrepresent reality and frames which don't.

Do you write Donald Trump's speeches? "According to Special Relativity, all lies are equivalent to the truth", eh? Genius.

You're on the Donald Trump side here - he wants to have his cake and eat it, telling different people different things and making out that they're all true, and your lot do the same with frames of reference. Different frames are incompatible with each other, making contradictory assertions about reality. You want all of those claims to be true, but they cannot be.

[David Cooper]

You have had this explained to you dozens of times now, and yet you refuse to take it on board.

Look in the mirror.

I test things to see if or where they break, and when they break I reject them. You don't - you cling to broken ideas where you're too emotionally attached to them to let go. I've shown you where SR breaks and you've had ample opportunity to show where my proof breaks down, but you've failed to do that because it is not possible to do so. You've failed, but you're stubbornly determined that you must be right because you have authority on your side, just as religious people do, and for you, that overrides mathematics.

And the rotating frame is absolute motion, since all parts are moving at different speeds and there can be no reciprocal frame. You don't recognize proof when you see it!

You're still playing games of avoidance, and it's avoidance of the key facts. You are selectively rejecting some parts of mathematics in order to pretend that a stuffed donkey is a living racehorse. You, and everyone like you in physics, are bringing science into disrepute by playing fast and loose with the rules.

Does the red light move faster than >c relative to some of the material of the ring that it's passing through as measured in all frames of reference? The answer's yes, but you refuse to admit it because you know that this is the point where you lose and you think you can hide the loss by not answering.

Your assessment of my abilities makes me wonder if I can still make toast in the morning.

Religious people can make good toast. It's their ability to reason that is in question.

[Bored chemist]

I can't help thinking that, if SR had failed, I'd have heard about it on the national news, rather than some web page here.

Would anyone like to explain how it's plausible that SR has been refuted, but nobody bothered to mention it?

[David Cooper]

I can't help thinking that, if SR had failed, I'd have heard about it on the national news, rather than some web page here.

Would anyone like to explain how it's plausible that SR has been refuted, but nobody bothered to mention it?

You have a strange view of journalism. Have you never seen a news report on any issue where you have a lot of knowledge and been horrified at how a reporter mangles the story and gets half the details wrong? That is the norm in the news business. On this specific issue, none of them have any understanding of relativity beyond recognising a picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue at the photographer.

Theories should be judged directly through reasoning and mathematics, and so should proofs. What we have though is an establishment bent on defending an irrational theory while suppressing a rational one which is backed by all the same experiments, and these defenders of the faith are determined not to allow anything to be referred up to the point where the media would get excited about a major change to the required religious dogma. That's why this is such a great experiment, watching to see how people who imagine themselves to be scientific of mind reduce themselves to the level of worshippers who kiss the feet of dead saints rather than allowing reason to correct errors in their model of reality. Science is supposed to be self correcting, but it's failing miserably in this case because it has put the authority of a priesthood before mathematics, and it is now actively spitting on maths by trying to ridicule its application here. It is clear to anyone impartial who reads this that you have no respect for the measurements of experiments and the truths which they reveal because none of you are capable of acknowledging that the red light passes through some of the material of the ring at a speed >c relative to it even though that reality is staring you in the face. How did you get yourselves into such a sorry state that you can't accept such a simple truth? It's exactly like the clergy looking through a telescope at the moons of Jupiter and refusing to see them.

[Bored chemist]

I forget the detail, but the story is told  of a bunch of Nazi "scientists" - all professors and doctors and such, seeking to discredit Einstein's work.
His response was that, if his theory had been wrong then a single student's word would have been sufficient to prove it.

I'm well aware of the inability of journalists to grasp science- even the ones labelled as "science correspondents" .

But, one way or another I'd still expect to hear either a story that said
"Einstein wrong" or
"mad fool claims that Einstein is wrong".

They say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I wonder how they sleep with that hungry tiger in their room.

Sometimes, absence of evidence is rather strong evidence of absence.
Thus far I have seen no evidence of a refutation.

[David Cooper]

I forget the detail, but the story is told  of a bunch of Nazi "scientists" - all professors and doctors and such, seeking to discredit Einstein's work.
His response was that, if his theory had been wrong then a single student's word would have been sufficient to prove it.

He underestimated his own ability to be elevated to the status of sainthood. He also believed that science is self-correcting, not realising how powerful the clergy can be when it stands in the way of doing science properly.

But, one way or another I'd still expect to hear either a story that said
"Einstein wrong" or
"mad fool claims that Einstein is wrong".

The latter wouldn't be a story as it happens seven times a week. What prevents the former is in large part the proliferation of the mad fools who claim Einstein's wrong on the basis that they disagree with the results of experiments, usually because of some imagined failing of an early version of an experiment where later versions have verified it and improved its accuracy by many magnitudes. There is a wall of nutters which drowns out the voices of anyone serious. Then there's a wall of enforcers of the authority who see it as their job to prevent any challenge to their holy cow from being put to the bishops and popes - nothing gets referred on up, so even if the people right at the top are genuinely open to the mechanism of science's self correction, they simply never see the argument.

Thus far I have seen no evidence of a refutation.

All you're being asked to do is answer simple questions, such as whether the red light passes through some of the material of the ring at speeds >c relative to it, but you simply ignore questions which you don't like and assert that there's no evidence of there. If you were honest with yourself, you would be able to provide the answer yes (which is correct) or no (which is wrong), but you inwardly know that the answer is yes and that you don't want it to be so, which is why you hide from it and play games instead. By running away from it, you have all proved that you know damn well I'm right.

If I was wrong, there are a dozen people here who would be jumping in with great glee to show why the correct answer to that question is no, but they aren't going to do that because they know they can't overturn the reality that the correct answer is yes.