The following is from the first page of Einstein's 1905 SR paper: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest...." Einstein was wrong, even re the _mechanical_ case, for the following two very simple, physical reasons:  Absolute velocity changes cannot occur unless absolute velocities exist.  Absolute velocity comparisons cannot be made unless absolute velocities exist. Re : Since an observer in a closed lab frame can easily detect any change in his velocity without reference to any other frame, this proves that such a change is not relative, so we can call it an absolute change, given that "absolute" means "not relative"; however, in order for something to be capable of changing, it must first exist, so the detected absolute velocity change proves the existence of that which changed, i.e., an absolute velocity. Re : Two types of absolute velocity comparisons are possible, viz., (a) a direct comparison showing absolutely equal velocities, and (b) a direct comparison which shows absolutely unequal velocities. Note that (a) occurs whenever any two objects remain side-by- side forever without ever separating, and (b) occurs during the opposite case. As we just said, in both cases, it is proved that either the given objects' velocities are absolutely equal or that they are absolutely unequal. And the existence of such absolute velocity comparisons necessitates the existence of those things which are thereby being compared, i.e., absolute velocities. It is clear that either  or  "shoots down" Einstein's two claims that "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."  and  make it clear that there is much more to motion than Einstein's merely relative motion.  and  tell us that there is a sort of motion that is definitely not merely relative.  and  tell us that there is a motion that we can call absolute.  and  tell us that there is a unique frame, namely, the one whose absolute velocity is zero. But which frame is this; i.e., how can we experimentally detect or identify this special frame? Nothing could be simpler; it is the frame that is created every time a light ray is emitted from any source. This is due to the following two simple facts: Light's propagational speed through space is unaffected by the motion of its source, and [ii] light's propagational speed through space does not change. For example, even though a light source may be moving at near light speed (in direct comparison with a light ray, and not merely wrt the Earth, etc.), the point in space at which the ight begins its journey is at absolute rest, and the light propagates from this point at a fixed speed of c. To what use could we put a steady-known-speed phenomenon which starts at a point that is firmly fixed in space? Well, if we could correctly measure the passing speed of this phenomenon, then we could calculate our own absolute speed. (This would be our speed in relation to light's speed through space). But how can we correctly measure light's passing speed? This can be done _only_ via absolutely (or truly) synchronous clocks, but, so far, no one has shown the physics community how to obtain such clocks. However, there is hope because just as he failed to prove his above claims, Einstein failed to prove that truly synchronous clocks cannot exist. He also failed to prove that his own clocks are correctly related; however, it is easy to prove that they are _not_. (For ex., here is one such proof: Even the relativist knows that events are observer-independent, but Einstein's clocks in various frames will find different occurrence times and different time spans for the same two events; since it is not the events times which vary, it must be Einstein's clocks, so they are incorrectly related.) SR is irrelevant; all that matters is that we find some way of producing truly synchronous clocks. Given such clocks, we can easily have Newton's universal absolute time by simply correctly measuring the speed of any passing light ray, and then using the result to calculate our own speed through space, after which we can correct for the intrinsic slowing of our clocks and the intrinsic contractions of our rulers. Here is my 'parting shot' at the Physics Forum 'controllers': It is clear that my above expands one's understanding of special relativity, so it is clear that it belongs in the "Special and General Relativity" forum, but I am certain that no one has the courage to let it stay there for more than a nanosecond, even with slowed time!