Because of the misdefinition of energy, most of the basics in physics, beyond Newton's laws, are in error.

With so much error, physics cannot function as a source of basic knowledge. It can only produce nonbasic knowledge, which limits its use to that of an engineering tool.

Without basic knowledge, there is a lack of understanding and ability to predict. Therefore, trial and error procedures must replace prediction. The result is greater expense and more failures in producing technology.

Relativity should also be viewed as erroneous, because it includes energy. There is not a direct link between relativity and the rest of physics. Relativity is a shadow of physics. But when the original is in error, the shadow must be in error.

If energy is not in proportion to velocity squared, how could the energy in matter be proportional to the velocity of light squared? It could not. So the velocity of light is not an absolute limit to motion.

Since relativity was self-contradictory to start with, nothing about it could be proven. But it's long past time for consistent relationships to be reestablished in physics and relativity to be abandoned.

Several observations in physics are said to be compatible with relativity but not Newtonian physics. The reason is because velocity is squared in the analysis of energy causing the results to be consistent with a reference frame which has velocity squared in it but not a normal reference frame. If kinetic energy were defined correctly (without squaring velocity) the observations would be compatible with Newtonian physics.
Nitty Gritty Discussion.

Physicists designed a definition of energy which erased some difficult questions which they could not answer. They cannot understand force amplification through a lever. But they know that force decreases as distance increases on a lever. So defining energy as the combination of force and distance assures that the total is always the same, and energy is conserved through a lever.

What if force is one of the forms of energy? Then physicists cannot explain how force amplification conserves energy. The truth is, force is one of the forms of energy regardless of definitions, because force and motion are interchangeable.

But physicists get around that problem by referring to force as potential energy, when it absorbs energy from motion. Potential energy is a self-contradictory word game. It supposedly is not energy, because the concepts are too mysterious to explain, while it supposedly is energy in conserving the energy which it absorbs. Like all word games, it is played in two contradictory ways.

When the definition of energy is corrected, the mysteries cannot be swept under a rug. When force times distance is not energy, then energy is not conserved through a lever. This means conservation laws must be modified to include amplification of energy where levers amplify force. And potential energy disappears, as force is one of the forms of energy.

A model for concepts is an elastic collision. As two objects move toward each other, they have energy of motion, and no force exists between them. As they collide, force between them develops and reduces the motion. At some point, all motion stops, and then the objects are pushed apart. When the motion stops, there is no kinetic energy, and all of the energy has been converted to force. Therefore, force is one of the forms of energy. Physicists call it potential energy, but that word game is dishonest.

So the driving force of the erroneous definition of energy is that physicists do not want a complex form of conservation laws which allows energy to be amplified through a lever. Not wanting correct concepts is not science. Trying to simplify away complexities destroys the ability of science to determine what the laws of nature really are.

Small minded persons will say no one sat down and conspired this. It took a few hundred years, but the decisions were arbitrated along the lines described above. For example, the Leibniz analysis which defined the existing concept of kinetic energy began with the force-distance combination for no explainable reason. Leibniz obviously liked the force-distance combination, because it does magical things to the analysis of levers.