Utterly false. A set of coordinates is a conceptual construction which allows us to quantify the dynamics of things. An electron doesn't 'know' anything, it doesn't say "What's my location in terms of these coordinates", it just follows the forces acting upon it. If you jumped off a bridge you don't need to know any mechanics for your body to fall to the ground, you don't need to know the laws of nature to obey them.
Relativity is specifically formulated such that two points of view can disagree about things such as length or time but they predict the same physical outcome. Physics should be independent of choice we make to describe it. For instance, it is an historical convention that 1 metre was defined as one ten millionth the distance from the Equator to the North pole through Paris. Would the universe behave differently if we'd picked Cairo or Moscow or Sydney? Nope. There's plenty of other examples, is the Earth rotating clockwise or anticlockwise on its axis? Depends of you're standing on the North or South Pole, you'd get different answers but the two points of view are equally valid.
There's a difference between a physics model being 'trashed' and a mathematical result. F=ma or E=mc^2 are attempts to describe the behaviour of Nature. They could be proven wrong by experiment. It doesn't mean the maths is wrong, it means we're using the wrong point of view in our models. 1+1=2 is true given the axioms of arithmetic. In mathematics once something is proven it is true, absolutely and permenantly. You never prove a physics model, you only demonstrate it's not false for particular domains.
And I'm certain you don't know any kind of logic theory as you're extremely lacking in basic rationality.
Because you totally ignore logic, and replace it with approximations of event with pseudo cause. Most of your examples like.. "Liquids become spherical, because that is a natural state for a liquid to take." are pseudo logical. That isn't an explanation of anything. You could be talking about the Aether, you could be talking about membrane tension, but then you add "I am talking about Gravity." which is also a pseudo logic, as nobody knows what Gravity is, it could be Aether, it could be Vortex, it could be Bosons, it could be Photons. Then you talk about Waves, and you have a formula for them so they exist. You never actually know that you are constantly side-stepping logic.
If I said to you "Why does a rocket booster work in a vacuum?" You would say "I have a formula, Newton's 3rd rule." or something. You never stop to analyse a formula. "Does it really work?" Did Newton accidentally use the Aether in his formula? With the Aether being such a weak force that it may have been classified as a Vacuum then of course Newton will appear to be right. Such a weak force would not mess up his formula by very much, it would be tiny.
But the wave from a Photon is a very weak mass, but travelling very fast. this amplifies a weak force by thousands. All of those theories that work could be off by just a fraction, but a photon wave will show their failings. The two slit experiment will show their failings. I am very logical, I have to analyse everything down to the amplification of a very weak force that causes a wave to occur. I have to get the last ounce out of those rocket boosters. I have to see if they are pushing on their own gasses. I have to come up with examples that include both a Vacuum, and an Aether, and see if there is a error in the logic. I have to put a wall next to the rocket boosters, and see if the wall makes a huge difference with the centre of mass, and wonder why the wall makes a difference.
But no questions asked, and we get particle wave duality. So it's logical not to question it? That's not logical, that's just ignoring it.
