What would be the consequences of time not being "relative" So far nobody proved Einstein wrong about Theory of relativity and time
but I'm curious:
What would be the consequences or problems if someone would prove him  wrong when it comes to relativity of time?
What if time is linear/constant?
EDIT:
It might be a dumb question (forgive me if its so) but could something else be relative (other then  time)?
 A: We've already observed time dilation, so we know time isn't linear/constant. See the Experimental confirmation section of the Wikipedia page on time dilation.
A: could something else be relative (other then time)?
The speed of light is relative. In 1905 it was easy for Einstein to assume that  the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source - the assumption was false but sounded plausible since it was a tenet of the universally accepted ether theory. However this assumption, combined with the principle of relativity, produced an obvious falsehood - that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer as well - and Einstein had to disfigure space and time in order to camouflage the falsehood:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm 
 John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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."
