I'll take a minute to repeat what I'm sure I must have said before, somewhere in this thread.
You can get up in the morning, lay in the grass all day, and the Sun will appear to rise in the east and set in the west. Now, there are at least two possible explanations for this, viz:
1. The Sun is moving across the sky, or
2. The earth is rotating on an axis, so that it "appears" that the sun is moving relative to the earth, rather than vice versa.
What you "see" would be exactly the same, either way. Therefore, what you see, with your eyes, can never tell you which one is the case.
But that doesn't mean that
1. Neither 1 nor 2 (from above) can be true, or that
2. Both are true, because each viewpoint is "equally valid."
In fact, common sense tells you that it can't be both, and that it's probably not "neither."
Assuming that one of the two is actually the case, in fact, how can we tell which is the case?
Well, NOT by just looking at it. But by looking at other things we see, comparing hypotheses for confirming or falsifying evidence, etc. we can DEDUCE (not see) which of the two is more likely, under rational analysis.
Like any other scientific theory, neither SR nor alternatives to it, can ever be "proven." When two (or more) competing hypotheses explain all known phenomena equally well and neither has been falsified, we must make a decision which is based on something other than empirical grounds.
My position is that, for many reasons, LR is much more rational than SR, even assuming that neither has been falsified. But, for reasons I've stated many times (which includes empirical tests as well as rational grounds), I believe the primary implications of SR have actually been falsified (by the GPS, the H-K experiment, and many others, for example).
We all believe, for good reasons, that motion is absolute, even if we can't strictly prove it. We tacitly assume it every day, such as when we declare that the earth revolves around the sun and that the entire universe does not revolve around the earth while it remains motionless. SR attempts to deny that absolute motion exists (when inertial frames are involved). As I've shown, Feynman doesn't believe this, nor anybody else, really, even if they pay lip service to SR, as they are sometimes trained to do. Nobody can say, for example, that the universe is 13+ billion years old without assuming that motion is absolute and that it can be detected (even if the detection comes through inference rather than direct observation).
Edited by Moronium, 11 May 2018 - 01:03 PM.