Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

the only thing you are really trashing is your own credibility on this site.

In this paper we show how GPS system demonstrates that the explanation of the Sagnac effect given by the commonly accepted version of Special Theory of Relativity is not correct and the use of an alternative formulation based on Inertial Transformations must be used. This implies the adoption of a new synchronization procedure, the renunciation of the relativity of simultaneity and a novel meaning of physical time.

There are substantially three type of relativistic effects to be considered in GPS systems: a) the effect of source velocity (motion of the GPS satellites in their orbits) and gravitational potential upon satellite and receiver clocks; 3) the effect due to the receiver motion upon the signal reception time (Sagnac effect). The first two effects can be explained within the Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR)...But the Sagnac effect has been proved to be in conflict with the STR. It has been shown that, in order to correctly explain this effect introducing the necessary correction to GPS, the postulate of isotropy of light velocity with respect the observer in every inertial frame must be abandoned and with it the assumption of absolute synchronization.

The interpretation of Sagnac effect is one of the most important facts in physics because of its deep consequences on its foundations ....So far all the attempts to explain the origin of this effect in the context of commonly accepted formulation of Theory of Relativity has failed for many reasons....The solution to this dilemma, as we’ll see, can be obtained only by adopting a radically different point of view namely the reformulation of STR without using the postulate of isotropy of light velocity and assuming the existence of a preferred inertial frame in which absolute simultaneity holds.

In 1980 the CCDS (Comité Consultatif pour la Définition de la Seconde) has stated the rules, internationally accepted, to perform clocks synchronization between different Earth locations. There are two options: the first one is to initially adjust time when the clocks are at the same point and then transport one clock very slowly to the destination point; the second option is to use an electromagnetic signal to be transmitted between the two clock locations...the codified procedure prescribes, as above discussed, the application of three correction factors:...The third correction, usually and incorrectly ascribed to earth rotation, cannot be derived, as discussed above, within the commonly accepted framework of Theory of Relativity and represent the consequence of Sagnac effect that, as we’ll see, can be correctly interpreted through the IT, as the anisotropy of light velocity in the rotating Earth frame.

Contrex said: Layman does not have any credibility on this site.

Toward a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories: experimental evidence for absolute simultaneity

Journal ofPhysics:ConferenceSeries 442 (2013) 012035

From the abstract: Our observations directly contradict the no-aether Einstein's interpretation of special relativity together with the Minkowski's model of spacetime. However they are consistent with the aether-related Lorentz-Poincare's interpretation that allows absolute simultaneity. We thus strongly challenge the fundamental status of Lorentz invariance and hence break the basic argument against de Broglie-Bohm realistic quantum theory. We argue that both de Broglie-Bohm and Lorentz-Poincare theories are capable of providing a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories

From the paper:

The interpretation of the special relativity is not “a matter of taste” but leads to significant physical consequences....Einstein’s relativity is experimentally-distinguishable from the Lorentz-Poincare’s relativity... We have thus got two quantum theories, standard QM and the pilot-wave theory, and both are equally successful in prediction of experimental observations...

However, their principle difference is that the former rests on mysticism and indeterminism while the latter rests on realism and determinism which is the basis of all current physical theories. As a result, the former encounters serious conceptual problems and can hardly be unified with relativity theory. Conversely, the latter naturally avoids conceptual problems and can easily be unified with relativity or, more precisely, with the Lorentz-Poincare’s version of this theory. In this situation, the choice in favour of one of these theories seems self-evident though it clearly will take some courage to overcome the existing prejudices about quantum theory.

I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare´ thought that there was an aether—a preferred frame of reference—but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether....[This] pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare´, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory.

Franco Selleri (Bologna, Italy, October 9, 1936 - November, 20, 2013) was an Italian theoretical physicist and professor at the Università degli Studi di Bari "Aldo Moro". He was a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Fondation Louis de Broglie, and served on the Board of Directors of the Italian Physical Society. He had numerous visiting professorships and fellowships, including CERN, Saclay, University of Nebraska, Cornell University, and Dubna. He was well known for his analysis of the foundations of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. During his scientific career, he published more than 200 papers in particle physics, quantum theory, relativity and history and philosophy of physics. He was the author of numerous books and editor of numerous conference proceedings on topics relating to the foundations of physics. He wrote "Weak Relativity: The Physics of Space and Time Without Paradoxes," published in 2009.

Eight Proofs of Absolute Simultaneity by Franco Selleri (2010)

The conviction that relativistic simultaneity has a conventional nature is shared by many authors, but it will be shown that simultaneity exists in the physical reality and therefore cannot be conventional....Several phenomena, in particular those taking place in accelerating frames (Sagnac effect, and all that), converge in a strong indication of e 1 = 0. This implies absolute simultaneity and a new type of space and time transformations, which we call “inertial”. We give eight proofs of absolute simultaneity, deduced from essentially independent normally accepted premises....

In the previous sections we saw that several paradoxes of relativity melt away rather easily if one adopts an optimistic philosophy about the possibility to understand nature correctly. Furthermore, this "optimistic" philosophy is not anymore a free choice, but should have become an open scientific possibility as a consequence of the independent proofs of absolute simultaneity.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is an organization that advocates the position that some ideas thought well-settled in contemporary science (particularly physics and cosmology) are fundamentally flawed. At its peak, the NPA had hundreds of members who worked to discredit such ideas as general and special relativity, quantum theory, the Big Bang, and plate tectonics. However, as a result of internal dissension and fragmentation, it is now a much smaller organization.
NPA was founded in 1994 by John E. Chappell Jr., a historian and anti-relativity activist. Since the beginning of 2014, the organization has been engaged in a dispute with former members who left the group due to disagreements over the NPA's direction, database of articles, and finances. This group that left has re-banded as the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, seen below. Both sides have posted their versions of the nature and details of the dispute on competing websites. According to Chappell faction, prior to the departure of most members due to the dispute, the NPA counted 850 people as members,132 of whom paid dues.However, the current NPA accuses this group of having listed people as "members" against their will, and has vowed to discontinue this practice.
NPA hosted a database, now hosted on the web site World Science Database, see below. NPA also holds yearly conferences with published proceedings, which provide a forum for those seeking wider distribution and acceptance for ideas excluded from mainstream scientific conferences.
Journalist Margaret Wertheim, herself an NPA member and friend and associate of one of its founding members (Jim Carter, inventor of the fringe theory of circlons), speculated in a 2012 essay that much of the interest in this area is a response to the heavy mathematical content and abstract ideas underlying conventional scientific theories, which, she says, makes them inaccessible to the general public. She compares NPA with the revolt of Martin Luther against the Catholic church. However, journalist John Horgan, a friend of Wertheim's, reported that "When [Wertheim] attended an NPA meeting... it reminded her of an experiment in which three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were introduced to each other... Each concluded that the others were crazy. Watching presenters at the NPA meeting, Wertheim comments, was like 'watching thirty Jesus Christs.'”

I'll be glad to pay when you provide your indisputable evidence. Simply claiming you won still isn't going to work.

With respect to your last reference published on the NPA website

Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality....

In Bell’s recapitulation of the argument, for EPR this “showed that [Bohr, Heisenberg, and Jordan] had been hasty in dismissing the reality of the microscopic world....the usual quantum formalism cannot be the whole story.”...

According to Bell, we must therefore accept the real existence of faster-than-light causation and hence an apparent conflict with the requirements of special relativity: “For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory….”

..Nothing will change Einstein's impact on physics..

Most of us are not interested in dissent about SR.

Every day, more and more physicists, like John Stuart Bell, 30 years ago,...

The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!
However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

George Fitzgerald Smoot III (born February 20, 1945) is an American astrophysicist, cosmologist, Nobel laureate, and one of two contestants to win the US$1 million prize on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer with John C. Mather...According to the Nobel Prize committee, "the COBE project can also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a precision science." Currently Smoot is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and since 2010, a professor of physics at the Paris Diderot University, France. In 2003, he was awarded the Einstein Medal and the Oersted Medal in 2009.

We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe. This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple.

If the railway company wants to move a 500 ton train to Chicago from (say) New York, they can do the math and see how much energy they need to use to do this, but if they need to keep the train still and move the world around so that Chicago comes to the train, and New York recedes into the distance, surely, the world being so big and heavy, they'd need a much more powerful locomotive, and the ticket would have to be much more expensive.

This does not contradict SR in any way. It's importantvto try and understand what you post before posting it.

the principle of GALILEAN relativity