Relativity and Philosophy of Science


Hey, I haven't seen any thread like this and it came up in the Moonlanding thread, so I thought maybe we can get some savvy people together here to have a discussion.

I think this video is a forms an okay basis to start off with

I first got interested in it from watching Ken Wheeler's videos and reading his books, mentioning Charles Steinmetz and Nikola Tesla and their hatred of both Einstein as a person as well as his theories. It made me wonder why field theory, which had been the basis for a great deal of actual inventions, got usurped by all the qunatum stuff from the second half of the century and all the bogus multiverse and string theory stuff, which really doesn't seem to do much other than produce convolute speeches that hardly anyone can follow.

The gist of the argument against it is that relativity isn't really part of anything scientific, but a first principle imposed on how we look at speed, acceleration and movement in general.
Key here would be Einstein's idea of the "non-preferred frame of reference" where no movement is ascribed to any of the theoretical objects from his thought experiments themselves, but instead only seen as "real" in reference to other objects. I'm not getting too much into the different aspects or the thought experiments, because it's been about a year since I looked at it and I have to get back into it again. What got me interested again recently is that it seems to have gotten a grip on the academy in a way similar to Boasian Anthropology and Critical Theory, both of which are wrong, philosophical garbage and yet aggressively presented by a majority of academics in their respective fields.

If this sparks anger among some people here (lots of very angry people in the comment section of the vid), I'm sorry, but I'd like to get into a bit and I think I am well within my epistemic rights to question something, even if people with degrees consider it a given. I would like to look at it somewhat dispassionate.