OK, I take the bait: No, science has not lost its error correcting mechanism, it is fully in place. Do you have any idea how many times in the past century or so Einstein has been "proven wrong"? And how many of the people making those claims stated things like "Physical science is going to die."  and "scientists  ignored truth in science"?  Scientists most of the time have other things on their mind than pointing out the errors of the crackpots in the world, or engaging in a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden. In 1931 already a book appeared called "A Hundred Authors Against Einstein" (Einstein's response: "if I were wrong, one author would have been enough").

Here are two questions for you and all people proposing new theories. The first is: what experimental result  does your new and improved version of the truth show to be wrong?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity gives a nice list. Don't forget that these test provide a lot of experimental evidence for the correctness of SR. If your theory cannot explain these experimental results just as well, or better (with more accuracy) than the current theory there is no reason to consider it.

The second question is: what experiment should be  (or has already been) performed which shows your theory correct and SR wrong? In other words: what experiment do you suggest to perform to show that you are correct and Einstein is wrong?

Finally, here is a quote from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity lemma: "The theory of relativity is considered to be self-consistent, is consistent with many experimental results, and serves as the basis of many successful theories like quantum electrodynamics. [Emphasis mine] Therefore, fundamental criticism  [....]  has not been taken seriously by the scientific community, and due to the lack of quality of many critical publications (found in the process of peer review) they were rarely accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals. Just as in the 1920s, most critical works are published in small publications houses, alternative journals (like "Apeiron" or "Galilean Electrodynamics"), or private websites.".  Physics Essays is not a journal (and rightly so) that my university library has available. I  would add Physics Essays (which is not even peer reviewed) to that list of alternative journals.

Dear Gert Van der zwan

I'm not without evidence say that Einstein was wrong, and I was on the logic of the Confirm that Einstein was wrong.

A theory that can't be self consistent, said to be confirmed by experiments, Don't you think these experiments and explanations are suspicious? Scientific research depends on the content of the paper, not on the magazine.

I hope you can point out whether there is a mistake in my paper.

Thank you for your comments.

Of course scientific research does not depend on the "magazine". But you were complaining about scientists who do not read your work and keep believing Einstein is correct. There are very few scientists willing to pay for and read  Physics Essays papers. PE claim a citation score of 0.245 which means that only one in four papers is cited at all, and if you check a few of those, you'll see that those are mainly self-citations.  Crackpots rarely cite other crackpots, even if they make similar claims.  I am pretty sure that was not your magazine of choice either. If your work is really that important, submit it to Phys. Rev. Lett. or a journal of similar quality. Maybe you did, and it was rejected (chances are that it did not even make it to the reviewing stage, which will lead you to state that there is a conspiracy of scientists wanting  keeping relativity safe). Of course in that case you did not  agree with the errors that were pointed out to you. Maybe even the so-called review of Physics Essays  pointed out the errors of your ways, but since they allow you to go your own way anyway, you did not care and that did not matter to you either. Or they just took your $123/page charge and gave you hope that you'd become famous. Now a year has gone by and nothing happened, so you try it this way.

The abstract alone shows a complete lack of logic and consistency:

1. You claim a new correction method to Galilei transformation.

2. This method is incompatible with the Lorentz transformation.

3. Therefore Lorentz transformations are inconsistent.

4. Therefore Newton's classical theory is correct.

Check in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies which logical errors you commit here.

So  no,  I am not going to pay for and read your paper, and point out the errors. The fact that tons of experiments show that Newton is not correct, and that for instance GPS would not even work if not corrected for special (and general) relativity effect does not bother you at all? 

Dear Gert Van der zwan

      Check in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies which logical errors you commit here.__Did not see my paper,

These were logical fallacies in just the abstract, which I did read.