Dear Justo Pastor Lambare

What I wrote under the discussion title aligns closely with what is taught to students at leading universities. For instance, you can refer to the following lecture by Professor Susskind, beginning at 0:24:00.

General Relativity Lecture 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk

And what conclusion have you come to now? That you don't know whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth?

Or is this question rather unproblematic for you? Then I ask you: How could people have found that out, when everything is relative and we are completely incapable of knowing?

Personally I think it is very true what Jesus said: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

Dear Carmen Wrede

CW "And what conclusion have you come to now?"

I apologize if my main comment was not clear enough. I intended to highlight that "the emperor has no clothes." In other words, relativity is fundamentally based on metaphysical concepts dressed up in the guise of scientific principles.

In the past, I have engaged in more serious discussions and critiques of relativity, such as:

Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity

However, this discussion approaches the issue from a different perspective.

Ziaedin Shafiei You have errors in your preprint. For example the discrepancy between F and F′ arises when the transformations are not applied correctly or when additional assumptions are made that are not properly justified. Sadly this is not the only mistake.

Dear Carmen Wrede

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Could you please clarify where (which file) I went wrong? Additionally, I would greatly appreciate it if you could highlight any other mistakes I might have made. I am more than willing to learn from them.

I also hope you've had the chance to review my critique of Einstein in this thread. Do you see any errors in my judgment there?

Ziaedin Shafiei Unfortunately, I don't have the time to provide a full peer review at the moment. I encourage you to revisit your assumptions and analyses critically, as this often leads to fresh insights. Best of luck with your work!

Dear Carmen Wrede

Could you please let me know which file you reviewed so that I can revisit it? Is the file Preprint Electromagnetic Force and Special Relativity

In the thread rather popular discussion about what "thought” and “real” experiments" are, happens; and it looks as that the position that

“…No thought experiment can prove a theory right or wrong, …”

- in the discussion is admitted as is correct; this is admitted as is correct in rather numerous other discussions on RG, where non-professional scientists take part, also, though.

The claim really is principally wrong, first of all since there cannot be principally some “purely non-thought experiments”, every real experiment is made aimed at testing of some “purely thought” product – a theory, and so every experimental result isn’t only “some digits on some instruments screens’, the result always is “the digits + interpretation in framework of the theory”

Correspondingly some digits can be interpreted in a number of theories, and the results can be well different, however “confirm”, all theories, etc.

Say, long time experimental “digits” that Sun rotates around Earth well confirmed the theory that Sun rotates around Earth.

Etc. - moreover mainstream physics, first of all the SR?GR are based on postulates that Matter’s spacetime can be impacted by material objects as “space is contracted”, “time is dilated” , “spacetime is curved” [again etc. ] - despite that nobody and never directly observed experimentally any contracted/dilated/ curved spacetime.

At that really, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception [more see, say, the compact but rather complete consideration of this point in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception ] all these postulated in the SR/GR the spacetime properties and effects are some illusory interpretations of real experimental “digits”.

Besides: really “thought experiments” are one of the main obligatory approaches at development and experimental testing of any real theory, including all real experiments before their realizations are made, are made as often numerous “thought experiment” versions, utmost reliable ones are realized as real experiments;.

Again etc., and again moreover – one of principal criteria of any theory validity is that from theory postulates [which are based on experimental digits, however are interpretations of the digits] no any senseless consequences must follow, and this criterion is applied mostly as just “thought experiments”.

One of utmost known now is the Dingle’s “thought experiment” that considers relative motion of two inertial reference frames, from which completely rigorously scientifically it follows that the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every IRF are absolutely equivalent and legitimate are wrong, since from the postulates completely rigorously it follows that both observers in the frames age simultaneously faster and slower each other, what is evident nonsense;

- and, moreover, from this thought experiment so completely rigorously by completely rigorous “Proof by contradiction” follows the really fundamental point in physics that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, etc.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers