I see your point that something has to be postulated and imagined.
In science, postulations/imaginings/guesses only have a place in hypothesis generation. The purpose of hypotheses is only to be experimentally verified or refuted. A hypothesis only becomes science after experimentally verified, and a valid hypothesis can never invoke fictional imaginings as a cause (ex "zeus caused this").
Newton understood that what he was doing was so blatantly unscientific that he famously didn't even attempt to formulate a hypothesis for gravitation - and of course - nor any experiment to test or validate it.
He just made it up (sort of, the concept already existed - credited to the ancient greeks - he really just "invoked" it)
Newton was observing physical laws and made math to best describe them.
He wasn't even observing physical laws - he was observing lights in the sky and then using math and fantasy to make up laws. This is, of course, completely unacceptable in science and inherently unscientific. Experiment is the driving engine of science, not fiction/imagination/math.
It is science to do as you describe - it is called "natural law", merely the description (in any language, mathematics included - but traditionally ... english) of what is. However, again, natural law cannot include fantasy/fiction nor speculate on cause (as newton's "law" blatantly did).
Newton didn't concoct fanciful new concepts as relativity does.
No, as i said - he merely "invoked" ones that rich ancient greeks had concocted while sitting on their asses, musing on reality.
It is hardly better.
Those bizarre physical assumptions lead to a view of the world with strange paradoxes including the absurdity of relative simultaneity which makes it technically impossible to determine cause and effect in the universe.
True. And it is a simple explanation why relativity is clearly wrong. Paradoxes that are irreconcilable with reality as well as unobserved are not a "badge of honor" (as they are often misrepresented as) for a framework designed to describe/explain it.
No mind bending paradoxes that turns physics on its head.
Keeping in mind that i generally agree that newtons "sin" was less egregious, he did exactly that - and every physicist worth their salt since has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. "Spooky action at a distance", something (mass) acting upon something (mass) through nothing is absolutely anathema to physics.
The level of absurdity and I'd dare say arrogance in trying to make the physical world fit a vision rather than simply trying to describe what is observed.
It is the war of rational positivism vs pure theory. One is science, the other isn't.
All that said, and largely agreeing with your position in many respects - it is worth mentioning that - just like "newton's folly" - relativity is useful in certain contexts and matches with what we observe.
For instance, when we try to accelerate a particle - even in the best vacuum we can muster, for instance, it does not take the energy that newton's equations predict - but the ones that relativity does. This is one example of many. It is kept and taught not so much because it is correct, but because it is useful in certain contexts.
Also, einstein is a patron saint of scientism and they paid a LOT of money to secure that title. They won't give it up easily.
I see your point that something has to be postulated and imagined.
In science, postulations/imaginings/guesses only have a place in hypothesis generation. The purpose of hypotheses is only to be experimentally verified or refuted. A hypothesis only becomes science after experimentally verified, and a valid hypothesis can never invoke fictional imaginings as a cause (ex "zeus caused this").
Newton understood that what he was doing was so blatantly unscientific that he famously didn't even attempt to formulate a hypothesis for gravitation - and of course - nor any experiment to test or validate it.
He just made it up (sort of, the concept already existed - credited to the ancient greeks - he really just "invoked" it)
Newton was observing physical laws and made math to best describe them.
He wasn't even observing physical laws - he was observing lights in the sky and then using math and fantasy to make up laws. This is, of course, completely unacceptable in science and inherently unscientific. Experiment is the driving engine of science, not fiction/imagination/math.
It is science to do as you describe - it is called "natural law", merely the description (in any language, mathematics included - but traditionally ... english) of what is. However, again, natural law cannot include fantasy/fiction.
Newton didn't concoct fanciful new concepts as relativity does.
No, as i said - he merely "invoked" ones that rich ancient greeks had concocted while sitting on their asses, musing on reality.
It is hardly better.
Those bizarre physical assumptions lead to a view of the world with strange paradoxes including the absurdity of relative simultaneity which makes it technically impossible to determine cause and effect in the universe.
True. And it is a simple explanation why relativity is clearly wrong. Paradoxes that are irreconcilable with reality as well as unobserved are not a "badge of honor" (as they are often misrepresented as) for a framework designed to describe/explain it.
No mind bending paradoxes that turns physics on its head.
Keeping in mind that i generally agree that newtons "sin" was less egregious, he did exactly that - and every physicist worth their salt since has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. "Spooky action at a distance", something (mass) acting upon something (mass) through nothing is absolutely anathema to physics.
The level of absurdity and I'd dare say arrogance in trying to make the physical world fit a vision rather than simply trying to describe what is observed.
It is the war of rational positivism vs pure theory. One is science, the other isn't.
All that said, and largely agreeing with your position in many respects - it is worth mentioning that - just like "newton's folly" - relativity is useful in certain contexts and matches with what we observe.
For instance, when we try to accelerate a particle - even in the best vacuum we can muster, for instance, it does not take the energy that newton's equations predict - but the ones that relativity does. This is one example of many. It is kept and taught not so much because it is correct, but because it is useful in certain contexts.
Also, einstein is a patron saint of scientism and they paid a LOT of money to secure that title. They won't give it up easily.