[dressed.scientist (OP)]

There are several experiments that refute special relativity and replace it by a more logical absolute theory, that would involve an absolute reference frame. Here are the experiments:

(1) The Sagnac Effect shows us that moving towards light does create an effect that light has traveled faster than c. And moving away from the light beam means that light will come slower than c. This shows that some so called "relativistic effects" aren't real, but caused by our inability to measure reality, since we're mostly using light to measure light.

----- The Hafele-Keating experiment actually refuted relativity. It's the experiment where you put two synchronized clocks on the airplanes and send them around the world in the opposite directions. It can also be done with one clock having two trips (that's how it was done originally), but let's assume this time there were 2 synchronized clocks. When the atomic clocks come back to the home base, what should we expect?

According to the theory of relativity, where only the relative speed matters, both clocks should show exactly the same time dilation. Because the clocks moved at the same speed relative to the reference point on the planet surface. But if relativity is wrong and there actually exists a preferred reference frame, then the airplane moving westwards should have a longer delay than the one moving eastwards. So, what the experiment showed? That relative speed is irrelevant. The clock going westwards had a higher time dilation. Totally consistent with its higher absolute speed, regardless of its relative speed.

(2) GPS is often said to confirm relativity. But actually, it refutes it. What GPS shows is that we have to compensate clocks for the ABSOLUTE rotational speed. Nothing else. There are no additional "relativistic" compensations. In fact, we can use GPS to measure how fast the objects move on the surface. If we had to take into account the relativistic effects, that would be impossible, since to make the calculations we should know the object's speed beforehand. But since the relative speed is irrelevant to time dilation, we can use GPS to calculate both the position and speed of objects on the surface (or in the air).

(3) Photons always travel at the same speed in vacuum. Whether you launch them from a rocket or a planet, in any arbitrary direction, they always travel at the same speed. This means that all the photons anywhere in the universe use the same reference frame. That is our preferred reference frame. It's probably the fabric of space.

(4) Muon particles survival. There are some who claim that survival of the muons passing through Earth's atmosphere supports the theory of relativity. That's not true. Relativity means that muons would surivive if they were stationary and the Earth was moving at 0.99c towards them. But did anyone ever made such an experiment? Nope. We only have one sided experiment where the muons travel at 0.99c. So by using the Ockham's Razor and choosing the simpler explanation, the muon experiment only shows that objects moving very fast relative to the fabric of space have their clocks going slower. It has nothing to do with their relative speed to Earth or the Moon. It has something to do with their absolute speed in space.

[Bored chemist]

There are several experiments that refute special relativity

https://xkcd.com/285/

[jeffreyH]

You cannot have an absolute reference frame. So your speculations whither on the vine. If you are so keen to decry special relativity then go away and study it. People who have no knowledge of a subject are quick to criticise it. Once you actually put in some time to study special relativity you will see where your arguments go wrong.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

Did you say: "You cannot have an absolute reference frame"??
Really? We can't? It's impossible? Wow!
That sounds very dogmatic. Almost religious. You must have made all the possible experiments in the universe and now know everything, right?

Except you can't even explain how Hafele-Keating experiment failed with relative speeds, but worked fine with absolute speeds. Because rotational speed by its nature is absolute. Axis of rotation gives you the absolute reference frame, unless you imagine that entire universe is rotating in the opposite direction. Which can easily be refuted by taking another gyro with the opposite rotation, in which case the universe can't rotate in two opposite directions at the same time. Which confirms that rotational motion is absolute. And in those conditions, we've confirmed that cutting the fabric of space, and not the relative speed, is what causes time dilation and other speed-related effects.

BTW, can you explain how can light move relative to the SAME reference frame anywhere in the universe? Do you, in your infinite wisdom, have an explanation for that?

[Bored chemist]

That sounds very dogmatic. Almost religious.

There are several experiments that refute special relativity

That looks very dogmatic, almost religious.

You still haven't cited evidence.

Strictly speaking, it's true- but trivially so. Special relativity doesn't apply to accelerating  experiments or ones in a gravitational field. That's what General relativity is for.
I presume you meant general relativity, because , otherwise, the thread's just silly.

[Janus]

----- The Hafele-Keating experiment actually refuted relativity. It's the experiment where you put two synchronized clocks on the airplanes and send them around the world in the opposite directions. It can also be done with one clock having two trips (that's how it was done originally), but let's assume this time there were 2 synchronized clocks. When the atomic clocks come back to the home base, what should we expect?

According to the theory of relativity, where only the relative speed matters, both clocks should show exactly the same time dilation. Because the clocks moved at the same speed relative to the reference point on the planet surface.

This would be only true if the reference point was in an inertial frame.   The dependence on relative speed alone only holds if you are making your observation from an inertial frame.  SR makes different claims as to what should be measured from non-inertial frames.  The Planes and the surface clock in this experiment were in three different  non-inertial frames, Thus you need to use the SR predictions for those conditions. 

But if relativity is wrong and there actually exists a preferred reference frame, then the airplane moving westwards should have a longer delay than the one moving eastwards. So, what the experiment showed? That relative speed is irrelevant. The clock going westwards had a higher time dilation. Totally consistent with its higher absolute speed, regardless of its relative speed.

Relativity, applied correctly, does predict the results measured by in the experiment. You are making a straw-man argument by not accounting for how Relativity deals with non-inertial frames.  In addition, the predictions matched numerically and not just in some vague manner.   To claim that the results were due to some absolute speeds, you would have to supply the frame of absolute rest against which these speeds are measured. (keeping in mind that the Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the galaxy,etc.), and then actually show the math that predicts the numerical results of the experiment.  Just saying that one clock would run slower than another isn't enough, you have to produce the numbers.   

(2) GPS is often said to confirm relativity. But actually, it refutes it. What GPS shows is that we have to compensate clocks for the ABSOLUTE rotational speed. Nothing else. There are no additional "relativistic" compensations. In fact, we can use GPS to measure how fast the objects move on the surface. If we had to take into account the relativistic effects, that would be impossible, since to make the calculations we should know the object's speed beforehand. But since the relative speed is irrelevant to time dilation, we can use GPS to calculate both the position and speed of objects on the surface (or in the air).

The accuracy of GPS argues against your absolute speed hypothesis.  GPS satellites are in orbit circling the Earth. But the Earth also orbits the Sun, and the Sun orbits the Galaxy.   You would have to take all of these various velocities into account if working from an absolute speed position.   Thus while a GPS satellite has a fixed speed relative to the center of the Earth, it would not have one relative to the Sun as its Earth's orbital speed would be added or subtracted from the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun, or depending on its orbit, the orbital speed of the Sun around the galaxy. 
The point is that the GPS satelllite's "absolute" speed would be constantly changing over the course of an orbit, as would its time dilation.   We see now such variation.

(3) Photons always travel at the same speed in vacuum. Whether you launch them from a rocket or a planet, in any arbitrary direction, they always travel at the same speed. This means that all the photons anywhere in the universe use the same reference frame. That is our preferred reference frame. It's probably the fabric of space.

Photons all travel at 299792458 m/s in a vacuum relative to any inertial reference frame as measured from that reference frame.    So if I am in an inertial reference frame and you are in an inertial frame traveling at 299,000,000 m/s relative to me, as measured by either of us, then:
 I will measure a photon as moving at 299,792,458 m/s relative to myself and moving at 792,458 m/s with respect to you.
You will measure that same photon as moving at 299,792,458 m/s relative to yourself and moving at 792,458 m/s with respect to me. 
This is hardly conducive to  Photons being the basis for an absolute reference frame. If we try to assign the frame of "absolute rest" as being the one at which light travels at  299,792,458 m/s with respect to, then each of us will claim that our inertial frame is the rest frame and the other frame in motion with respect to it.  You can't very well have an "absolute" rest frame that no one can agree upon.

(4) Muon particles survival. There are some who claim that survival of the muons passing through Earth's atmosphere supports the theory of relativity. That's not true. Relativity means that muons would surivive if they were stationary and the Earth was moving at 0.99c towards them. But did anyone ever made such an experiment? Nope. We only have one sided experiment where the muons travel at 0.99c. So by using the Ockham's Razor and choosing the simpler explanation, the muon experiment only shows that objects moving very fast relative to the fabric of space have their clocks going slower. It has nothing to do with their relative speed to Earth or the Moon. It has something to do with their absolute speed in space.

except that it is not the simplest explanation in that such observations have to be considered in conjunction with all other observations.    While we can't accelerate the Earth by a significant fraction of c,  we can accelerate particles up to nearly c with particle accelerators.  And, as I pointed out above,  If you assume an absolute frame of rest, then the Earth, due to its orbital motion, has to varying its speed relative to this frame ( unless you want to claim a heliocentric universe).
Since this varying velocity would be added to the lab frame of the accelerator, it would also effect the final absolute speed of the particles.   In effect, it would mean that the behavior of accelerators around the world would vary depending on their respective orientation, the time of day or year, etc.   We see no such variations.

[Janus]

That sounds very dogmatic. Almost religious.

There are several experiments that refute special relativity

That looks very dogmatic, almost religious.

You still haven't cited evidence.

Strictly speaking, it's true- but trivially so. Special relativity doesn't apply to accelerating  experiments or ones in a gravitational field. That's what General relativity is for.

SR can deal with acceleration (though not gravity), you just have to know what you are doing.  The easiest way to deal with acceleration in SR is to simply work everything out from an inertial frame.  It is more difficult to work it out from within the accelerating frame, as you can't just use the Lorentz transformations alone like you can from an inertial frame.
And except as an exercise to show that the end results of an experiment would be the same if viewed from the accelerating frame as if viewed from the inertial frame, it usually isn't worth the effort. 

[jeffreyH]

@dressed.scientist Take note of what others have said. I have been down the road of the photon as the source of an absolute frame. I always have to satisfy myself about such concepts. I don't just take other people's word for it. It can't work to think in these terms. I have been around that loop. It seems to be an attractive proposition at first glance. When you pursue it you then understand just why it falls down. By all means pursue that road but don't just end up deceiving yourself

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

@dressed.scientist Take note of what others have said. I have been down the road of the photon as the source of an absolute frame. I always have to satisfy myself about such concepts. I don't just take other people's word for it. It can't work to think in these terms. I have been around that loop. It seems to be an attractive proposition at first glance. When you pursue it you then understand just why it falls down. By all means pursue that road but don't just end up deceiving yourself

Well, if you have a precise article showing that photons aren't moving relative to a single absolute frame, I'd like to read it. Or an experiment that shows that muons moving towards Earth equals Earth moving towards muons. Because from the explanations I've read so far about relativity, when the top relativists don't know the answer, they end up doing mumbo-jumbo that doesn't explain anything. Like octopuses they just throw some ink into the water and escape.

There was a time I thought "oh, that's just too complicated, so it must be true". But eventually after studying the articles it turned out those constructs just don't hold water.

For example, Einstein suggested that if you put one clock at the North pole, and another on equator, they will have different time dilation and eventually show different time. Which I believe is correct. But nobody did that experiment. Because relativists very soon figured out it would refute relativity. You see..... those two clocks have no relative speed. Their distance is always the same. Their relative speed is zero. And yet, their passage of time is different. Showing that relative speed is irrelevant and only absolute speed of cutting the fabric of space matters. Clock on the equator travels faster, cuts more space, and hence it would go slower (after compensating for the gravitational effect).

There's tons and tons of stuff that refutes relativity. The only wrong thing in the theory of relativity is - relativity.

[chiralSPO]

@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!

[Colin2B]

@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!

@dressed.scientist - the comment from @chiralSPO is very important because it highlights a misunderstanding you have of relativity. Einstien never said there is no absolute frame, just that you can’t detect it. Light cannot be used as an absolute frame because it cannot be used to calculate your speed relative to anything else.
As @jeffreyH said, you need to understand relativity before you can criticise it properly and unfortunately - as shown by @Janus - your understanding is poor. I suspect you are just repeating things you have read on other sites rather than understanding what you are actually saying. In order to show you really understand you need to show you can discuss the points made by @Janus

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!

Around 390 km/s, thanks for asking.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!

@dressed.scientist - the comment from @chiralSPO is very important because it highlights a misunderstanding you have of relativity. Einstien never said there is no absolute frame, just that you can’t detect it. Light cannot be used as an absolute frame because it cannot be used to calculate your speed relative to anything else.
As @jeffreyH said, you need to understand relativity before you can criticise it properly and unfortunately - as shown by @Janus - your understanding is poor. I suspect you are just repeating things you have read on other sites rather than understanding what you are actually saying. In order to show you really understand you need to show you can discuss the points made by @Janus

Nope, Einstein was convinced that there's no absolute frame. He was also convinced that nothing can go faster than light. And he died believing in that. He invented fantasy concepts like wormholes and hidden local variables in order to explain quantum entanglement without violating the speed of light.

John Steward Bell has refuted Einstein and proven that neither local variables nor wormholes are explaining quantum entanglement and that particles must somehow communicate faster than light in order for q.e. to work. This was an amazing discovery, but because it crashed all the Einstein's beliefs, even today John Bell is basically unknown, while failed Einstein's concepts like wormholes are still advertised as if they were true.

Experiments have proven that something can be faster than light and influence events outside of the event horizon, even though the influence is randomized and cannot be used for sensible communication. But it's still communication, albeit random, because it affects the outcome of another process outside of the event horizon.

But there's still strong propaganda that is making Einstein an artificial deity. And this makes me very angry. The false concept of relativity is stalling the advance of science. We should be focusing our money on detecting the underlying fabric of space, which is the absolute reference frame. We can call it "fabric of space" or a specific "quantum field" or whatever, but it's obvious that it exits. And if we find a way to detect it, that will be a huge breakthrough in physics.

But as long as physicists are discouraged from research because "Einstein said everything is relative and Einstein is God" and money for such research is blocked, we won't find it. Relativists are deliberately stalling the science to protect their god. Why don't they just erect the Church of Einstein, go pray there every day, and leave the rest of the science alone. Science needs research not dogmas.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

Special relativity doesn't apply to accelerating  experiments or ones in a gravitational field. That's what General relativity is for.

As Janus already said, you can compensate for gravity and acceleration and still use SR for the velocity-based time-dilation. Which is exactly what they do for GPS and everything else. But with a twist. They omit "relativity" from SR. They use just the absolute rotational speed. And rotational speed is absolute, think about it and you'll see why. So... GPS refutes relativity.

In the Hafele-Keating experiment they also compensated for gravity and curvature, but it didn't help. The numbers were still off. "Einstein's Special Relativity" didn't work until they moved the observer from the military base on the surface, to the axis in center of the Earth. Then it worked. Because they eliminated relativity. From the center of the Earth the airplanes were moving at different absolute speeds (but not relative to the military base). Proving that absolute speed matters, not relative.

[Bored chemist]

@dressed.scientist Please, tell us your own velocity with respect to this absolute frame!

Around 390 km/s, thanks for asking.

OK, so I could drill a hole through the Earth from where you are to where they did the  Michelson Morley experiment and stretch a piece of string through it. I could tie one end to their observatory, and the other end to your chair.
And I could measure that string.
Its length doesn't change, so you are stationary WRT the MM experiment.
So, the MM experiment must also have been travelling at 390 Km/sec (or thereabouts) WRT this fixed reference field.

So how come the fringes didn't move?

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

So, the MM experiment must also have been travelling at 390 Km/sec (or thereabouts) WRT this fixed reference field.
So how come the fringes didn't move?

Sure, our entire planet is moving at 390 km/sec.
But any experiment where you measure two-way speed of light cannot be used as a reference.
The speed of light must be measured only one-way and using much better equipment than they used 100 years ago.

[Bored chemist]

using much better equipment than they used 100 years ago.

Why?
If we were doing 400 km/s their equipment would have spotted it.
However, subsequent refinements of the experiment have ruled out movement through the reference frame at any speed faster than about 1 part in 10^17 of the speed of light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments

[Kryptid]

Around 390 km/s, thanks for asking.

How did you arrive at this number?

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

using much better equipment than they used 100 years ago.

Why?
If we were doing 400 km/s their equipment would have spotted it.
However, subsequent refinements of the experiment have ruled out movement through the reference frame at any speed faster than about 1 part in 10^17 of the speed of light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments [nofollow]

But we ARE moving at around 400 km/s relative to the CMB rest frame. Our planet, along with our solar system, along with our galaxy, along with our galaxy cluster. We're traveling through space at high speed. Maybe it doesn't sound fast compared to light, but it's a decent speed.

We didn't measure it because we're measuring the two-way speed of light. We need to compare two one-way speeds of light.

[dressed.scientist (OP)]

How did you arrive at this number?

How did I get to that number? It's our speed in the universe relative to the CMB rest frame. Which means it's our speed relative to photons. And photons know what absolute speed in vacuum is. Just for the sake of correctness, it's around 368 km/sec. That's our absolute speed in space.