"In 1915 Einstein publishes his Equations of General Relativity, without a cosmological constant Λ. In 1917 Einstein adds the parameter Λ to his Equations when he realizes that..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Essentially that was a curve fitting procedu

"Curve fitting is the process of adjusting a mathematical function so that it fits as closely as possible to a given set of data points. The function can then be used as a mathematical model of the underlying data." https://www.coursehero.com/file/22708453/Lecture-10/

One cannot add a fudge factor analogous to the cosmological constant to the Lorentz transformation equations. Why? Because special relativity is a DEDUCTIVE model, which means that anything in the equations should be deducible from the axioms (postulates). Ad hoc adjustments are forbidden by definition when the model is deductive.

Before 1915 theoretical physics was mainly DEDUCTIVE - you cannot add anything to your theory that is not deducible from initial axioms (postulates). In 1915 Einstein replaced deduction with induction, and unlimited ad hoc adjustment, unrelated to any axioms, was allowed. Nowadays the situation is as follows:

Ethan Siegel: "Scientific Theories Never Die, Not Unless Scientists Choose To Let Them. When it comes to science, we like to think that we formulate hypotheses, test them, throw away the ones that fail to match, and continue testing the successful one until only the best ideas are left. But the truth is a lot muddier than that. The actual process of science involves tweaking your initial hypothesis over and over, trying to pull it in line with what we already know. [...] By the addition of enough extra free parameters, caveats, behaviors, or modifications to your theory, you can literally salvage any idea. As long as you're willing to tweak what you've come up with sufficiently, you can never rule anything out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...e-to-let-them/

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Deduction from clearly defined axioms (postulates) is the only reasonable method in fundamental physics:

"By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set." W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, p. 199 http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf

Einstein also seems to suggest that deduction, not induction, is the correct method:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm

The crucial question is:

What if the theory is not deductive (no clearly defined axioms; no explicit deductive path leading from the axioms to any conclusion; permission to unlimitedly introduce ad hoc adjustments not deducible from axioms)?

Answer: Then the theory, e.g. Einstein's general relativity, is a not-even-wrong inductive concoction, essentially equivalent to curve fitting models.

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev