Einstein's relative time (jumps in the future, differently aging twins, etc.) was his second idiocy. The original one was this:
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
The idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is obviously nonsense. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:
Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.
Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula
(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)
Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
All important Einsteinians, even the two Brians (Cox and Greene), have stopped singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". Some (e.g. John Baez, Max Tegmark, Jim Al-Khalili, John Norton) have left the sinking ship and are now experts in different fields. The rest will follow them soon, but it's too late - theoretical physics is stone dead. Even Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one:
"Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk
Peter Woit: "Physics is in a very weird state indeed now that physicists have adopted untestable metaphysical speculation as their program, with philosophers the ones trying to engage in more normal scientific practice." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9349
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Frank Close: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views." http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil." http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html