Total nonsense?
Correct math, nonsense models?
Legit?
I currently lean towards right math, nonsense models. I think Einstein observed that fields and velocity have a slight effect on atoms, so he made up all this magic stuff to sell it. Otherwise he would just be a normal scientist. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the math were all nonsense too hahaha.
Well the group here - John Chappell Philosophy Society - for those who think Einstein’s relativity is wrong they don’t agree on what part. Some will focus on the math and say it is wrong but disagree on what part of the math etc. In my view the main issue is the underdetermination that does not get properly addressed and then that leads to further mess.
Could you elaborate? (on underdetermination)
Google AI says -Underdetermination, a concept in the philosophy of science, posits that empirical evidence alone is often insufficient to definitively choose between competing theories. It suggests that for any set of data, multiple, mutually incompatible theories can explain it equally well, meaning evidence does not mandate a single truth.
In the case of SR - the empirical evidence that supports SR is said to also support Lorentz theory.
Oh I fully agree! Let’s just merge this into 1 discussion I guess though. We are basically talking about the exact same thing in the other thread. Yes there is obvious bias! I like the way you think.
I have made thread on - Underdetermination in relativity.