There are actually convincing experiments on the relativity of simultaneity (most of them are variations of the Michelson-Morley experiment) but your last paragraph is why physics won't be able to end this debate. The physics view of time, even if mainstream and standard ones, either takes those things for granted (we can experience the real world independent of our perception of it) or can corroborate them at best (the relation between velocity and experience of time for which there is evidence but again - empirical).
Ok, I've done some more reading on the topic and I think I got a better grip of the whole deal with theories and how they relate to special relativity. Basically, the point of it is that time isn't a linear, absolute deal but merely a dimension of spacetime which can be warped if given the sufficent speed of an object. While the terms around the refference frames and the exact nature of the differences as well as paradoxes which occur (none of which have a determined verified explanation) are still confusing to me, I find them irrelevant to the basic nature of this discussion.
Granted that time is dependant on one's velocity, all we get from the special relativity usurptions of time is changing the length of an interval between two events in effect to us. (Either slowing it down, thus aging less, or fast forwarding it, thus aging more). We can never really go beyond the two events nor change their order therefore the events will necessarily happen regardless of which refference frame we're in.
For example, a ball pops into existence in what was previously empty space. Regardless of which frame we're in, we'd only be able to go faster or slower through the interval of the event (going from nothing to creation of the ball), but never change the fact that ball has popped into existence at a certain moment. We could only delay or speed-up the interval in which the ball pops into existence.
As far as I understood it, this is all the special relativity has to do with the topic at hand and none of this is decisive in the A-B dilemma. I say this because the major point of disagreement between the two camps (so to call them) is the reality of past, present and future and temporal becoming. Now, if I got the above mentioned stuff right, regardless of how fast or slow you move through the interval before the existence of a ball, you will undeniably arrive to the moment of the ball popping into existence, therefore temporal becoming would still apply, even if to you the ball started existing sooner or later than it did to an observer from a difference refference frame.
Now, the B-theory (if I understood it correctly) is stating that temporal becoming isn't real because the ball would always exist at any given moment in a certain refference frame (for example, even if it doesn't yet exist in the refference frame of one observer, it exists in that of another, therefore the ball already exists), but I find this false! The reason for that is the fact that in order for this to be true we'd have to do more than just delay the ball's existence for a fixed amount of time, we'd actually have to infinitelly postpone it!
The reason why I believe this is because no matter how much we delay or speed-up our reality of the interval up to the ball's creation, there will undeniably be a moment (in all frames of refference) when the ball hasn't yet popped into existence! The reason for that is the fact that in special relativity we can only move at speeds up to c, which would in turn give us always only a fixed interval for manipulation. The highest calculated speed would only make the interval difference around a few years (it could a million years but it's all the same) which would still not change the fact that a ball would not exist at a certain moment outside of that reach!
Therefore, there will always be past events that are outside of our reach of manipulation which means that some events of past no longer exist in any refference frame therefore rendering the notion that all past events exist constantly false!
In turn, the A-theory states that temporal becoming is real and that past and future are not as real as present, which I believe the above example demonstrates. While I believe for this reason that A-theory is more believable, I don't think the special relativity really favours any theory in specific as it simply changes the nature of time rather than the order of events and reality of the latter. (Which is why I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument for the actual theory rather than special relativity.)
So, what do you think? Did I miss something in my example of the ball? I feel like I did, but my basic understanding (the faster you go, the different your effect on time between events will be) is in tune with what the theory of special relativity states so I can't really see an error.
