If you have ever driven a car, flown in an airplane, ridden on a train, peddled a bicycle, propelled a wheelchair, sprinted in a footrace or ridden on a rocket slide at Edward's AFB, then you have undergone an acceleration, meaning that your body has experienced a force acting upon it when you were at rest or moving uniformly in a straight line.



If, at some instant after your acceleration while still in your vehicle, you forgot, or do not remember whether you or the ground is moving and you have forgoten, or do not remember the acceleration, and others around you also have forgotten or do not remember any previous acceleration and whether they or the ground is moving and you then consider yourself at rest and the ground moving and you "really and honestly believe" you are at rest and the ground is moving, then you are in a state of existence known as, dead.



If you are voluntarily dead, then you have committed suicide, or, if you have forgotten or, do not remember your own suicide, then you are not only dead, you are also stupid.

lol - well you would be dead if you forgot you were travelling along the ground which is technically at rest because you would no longer be driving with 'Due care and attention'.
It would be suicide.

geistkiesel,
Imagine you are drugged into a state of unawareness.
When you awake, you find yourself in a locked wooden panelled room, which is fitted out as a physics laboratory.

What experiment can you perform to determine if you are in:

a) a room in a building
b) a very large, very stable ship cruising on a flat ocean?

a) I would determine my absolute velocity and variations including sun orbit and rotational variations, and if it was within the allowed limits of the rotational velocity of the earth and all angles of measurement, except one, were less than a unique angle, then I would assume, that v = constant, I was in a building.

b) If it were necessary to move the angle of my detection system, or the system detected a non-conctstant velocity with respect to the earth frame, in order to maintain a maximum signal strength of velocity, I would assume my other option.

If the ship has a north component (south) then motion along this line will be reflected in a time variation of the rotational constant velocity, constant at constant latitude.

If I were moving on a constant latitude perpendicular to the motion of the orbit, I would measure the relative velocity along the component of motion in the rotational direction. If this result varied from a presumed constant point in the latitude, then I would assume motion in the ship along a constant latitude.

For you who drive automobiles, have flown in airplanes, have ridden in trains, have peddled a bicycle, have walked, moved a wheel chair, or sprinted in a race, have always undergone acceleration, meaning that your body has experienced a force acting upon it. If at some time in your motion, later, you develop a question in your mind whether it is you who are moving, or is it the earth that is moving and you are at rest, and you have no memory of, or have forgotten the previous acceleration, and those around you also have forgotten, or not remembered, the previous acceleration then, if you singularly, or collectively, presume yourself at rest and the ground moving, and you really believe this is physically the way it is, you at rest and everything else moving, then you are in a state of existence known as, dead.

If you are dead and have voluntarily chosen this state of existence, then you have committed suicide.

If you do not remember, or have forgotten your own suicide, then you are still, not only dead, you are also very stupid.

Geistkiesel

Likewise if you presume that the ground is at rest and the rest of the universe is spinning, you are the Church.

All of which require an outside reference.

Such a reference only works locally if you know what to look for. It only works because through those steps you are assuming your velocity relative to one thing or another.

Likewise if you presume that the ground is at rest and the rest of the universe is spinning, you are the Church.
No, that is what I said. Surrender!! If you think you are at rest and the earth is moving at a velocity that you a originally accelerated to, you are dead. D'ya get it? You may be the church, but your still dead, and all voluntary, of course, you're dead and very stupid, agreed, you are still the church,well your church anyway.

But the problem is that the Earth IS moving relative to the sun and the rest of the universe.... so even the Earth isn't at rest. Hell, our entire galaxy is in motion.

The Church joke, which you obviously didn't get, was because the church was upset when people first said that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

The earth motion is indistinguishable from uniform motion. The turning rate for the earth is a whip-lashing rate of approximagtely 1.5 x 10 ^-8 degrees/second. All inertial frames that are earth borne, Vn, must necessarily accelerate before relative motion between Ve and Vn is observed. Ve never accelerates, the train accelerates the train station doesn't accelerate. If you really believe that you can achieve a state of rest with respect to the earth and that the earth moves, then you are either dead and/or stupid, but at a minimum, you are dead.

This isn't science.... either take it to religion or fuck off.

But the problem is that the Earth IS moving relative to the sun and the rest of the universe.... so even the Earth isn't at rest. Hell, our entire galaxy is in motion.

The Church joke, which you obviously didn't get, was because the church was upset when people first said that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

So you are trying to embarrass me in front of all my friends by having to expalin jokes to me. I did think there was something askew there, but I never considered yourself as having a sense of humor, kind of godlike, if you know what I mean. Ergp swisssh, right over the top.

This isn't science.... either take it to religion or fuck off.
You mean this isn't SR so fuck off, don't you?

What isn't science about it? Not in your science book, or is it not in your math book? That statement was rude also.

It's not consistent at all and it is just plain false. You choose to select the earth at V0 when there is no excuse to do so.

Of course I'm being rude, you're being an idiot. That's my job.

No excuse to do so? What does this mean in physics talk I mean? I did make the observation that all Vn, that were not Ve, all necessarily accelerated before any relative motion between Ve and Vn was observed. The Ve is never observed to acceleragte and create relative motion with Vn. Therefore Ve is effectively a zero velocity frame of reference, especially when the motion of Ve is measurably indistinguishable from a straight-line motion and where all Vn inherit, adopt, assume the motion of Ve before acceleration and after, ergo we may subtract out the background straight-line motion of Ve and Vn which are identical.

It is your job to be riude? Now htere's a difference between us, I'm rude for effect and because the moment calls for it, as I see it. But never, never , do I get rude just because the "other" is an idiot. What if I was an idiot, I mean really. Wouldn't you feel ashamed picking on someone mentally challenged? Fie persol.

Again, get to the essence of the thread and attack it after you've finished with me, hell by now, with that blast you just delivered, I'm a dead horse.

Do you really believe that your previous acceleration that created your motion with respect to Ve can be considered at rest and the Ve moving with the velocity you achieved by your acceleration? I mean really believe it to be reality, your realithy?

lol - well you would be dead if you forgot you were travelling along the ground which is technically at rest because you would no longer be driving with 'Due care and attention'.
It would be suicide.
Wouldn't it (or he) have to be consciously moving as you say, at some time and maybe forgot, or didn't remember, or what if the observer were just doing it just out of spite, because SR said he could? Like, "So there!, hmmpf", then when the oncoming car, parked on the side of the road came smashing into the SRist without the slightest attempt to avoid his body on the side of the side of the road, would his ghost have anything to say, like "well I thought it would work."?

What would the headlines in the paper say about this tragic loss?

Zero velocity ruins day for SR Theorist

Zero velocity is only tru in one frame of reference. A person in a box in the middle of space has no idea of velocity.

I would pick out a nice, heavy, expensive piece of physics equipment to knock a hole
in the wood panneling so I could see out, if someone had drugged me and locked me
in a room.

knocking a hole in the wall in space is a bad idea. You would then, in fact, be dead. I guess the kook is right.

Uh, the very, very large ship was on a flat ocean, remember? Do you have a spacecraft with wood panneling? Think, man!!! HeHe.

Wood panneling... interesting... time to call NASA!

Yes, a spacecraft with wood panneling and gravitational propulsion able to generate
1g. An engine spewing something out the rear would cause noise (inside the room) and
at least some vibration I could detect with that physics equipment. I guess I could check to see what kind of toilet was in there, too! There is a toilet, isn't there, especially after being drugged into a state of unawareness? Oh, I hope so, in case it
ever happens to me.

We left you a tree. Would you really expect a spaceship?

Zero velocity is only tru in one frame of reference. A person in a box in the middle of space has no idea of velocity.
A person in space in a box doesn't deserve a paid position on the space ship if she doesn't know her own velocity. What happened did the data of gthe history of accelerations get erased from the data base?

But we will save her. Take a photon and release the photon inside the space ship. As the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source, then the photon will draw a straight-line that is located in absolute space and that position is invariant, until acted upon by an outside force. Then she simply measures all velocity with respect to the straight-line of the photon. She mae even use the point of emixssion into the universe as the zero point of her reference frame. T

his is how you violate SR and detect absolute motion.

We left you a tree. Would you really expect a spaceship?
TYou are telling us that soemine consciously denied her data describing her velocity with respect to her home planet? Locked her in a rolm for the greater glory of advancing the science of physics, propgandized her into believing that she will never know her velocity and that her fate is just that, stuck in aroom with 2 inquisitive trying heroically to break through the walls and hand her the space ship speedometer. You had better expedite your effort 2inquisitive, the lady may have to go to use the powder room. She can emit her photons there.

All of which require an outside reference.

Such a reference only works locally if you know what to look for. It only works because through those steps you are assuming your velocity relative to one thing or another.


No ding-dong I only need access to a photon source inside the ship and when a photon is emitted from a known location that position is invariant and defines an absolute position in space, with a velocity equal to zero the line defined by the photon that is. The space ship will move relative to that invariant line, get it? Or do I have to do that ding-dong thing again?

Cn you deal with this as I have stated it? You do know do you not that the motion of photons are independent of the motion of the source. Hence, once emitted the photon motion is invariant until acted upon by an outside force. This is pretty basic stuff, persol, operhaps you could use a refresher? Quite frankly I think you have enough if you can just digest it mentally, that is, but you deny, deny deny, you are it seems the queen, so to speak, of denial.

Sheesh geistkiesel, give it a rest. Just because you cant find anyone else willing to limit their world view doesnt mean you can start slagging them off.

Can you not understand that your "absolute position" is merely one arbitrarily chosen, and that without external observations you cannot relate that to the positions of any other bodies? All you are doing is deciding upon one frame of reference and saying it is the one, the absolute. What about a spacecraft coming to meet the one this person is on, therefore has a different velocity? Do they have the same "absolute motion"?

No I am not saying it, is is the one physics is saying it. First the earth frame, Ve, massively indistinguisable from an infinite inertia frame (relative to any conceivable Vn on the earth frame, or that moves with respect to the frame). The Vn all accelerate with respect to the Ve and ergo all Vn have a velocity Vn > Ve = 0. How do we know this, because the Vn never varies from straight line-motion, measurably never varies that is and it certainly never accelerates in the same sense that Vn acclerates and produces an observed condition of relative motion Vn - Ve > 0, never is Ve > Vn, never, got it? So quit assuming your imaginary oworld that Vn = 0 and that Ve = 0, because you are making an erroneous statement of physical reality, and your negating your own velocity is to corrupt experimental data, I mean by subtracting your own motion from the data list, guess what insanity you get? I didn't choose the reaoity I see, it chose me, whether I care for the restraint, as you see it, I see it as ultimate freedom, or not. This is just the the way it is and for thatis always so cool., can you dig it?

The photon system must be looked at a little closer perhaps before you can see what it is I am saying. Take a photon emitter/ansorber pair, (a peap) and attach the device to a moving frame. As the peap emits photons, assume V = 0 of the frame, the photons will always return and be reemitted form the same two peaps. Now if the frame is moving, the general case, the peaps will not retrurn to the original emitting peap, or it's cousin. As the frame moves the photons, which haven't moved, as their straight-line motion is invariant, until acted upn by an outside force, will always be absorbed by a different peap than that that which emitted the photon.

This comes of course from the postulate of light that tells us the motion of the photon is indenpendent of the motion of the source. Ergo, I read, the photon described a straight line and the point of "origin" is an absolute position in space, whether any of us like it or not.
You say SR denies the physical reality of absolute zero velocioty, bullshit.

I didin't choose the laws of physics, and did not define the independence of the motion of light and source. You say my reference frame is arbitrary, have you read any SR theory lately? I have found simple ways of measuring absolute motion is free space. That is twio ships can determine their repsective absolute velocities, with respect to their point of origin (more or less). You will probably say that these measurements while interesting are what, useless, worthless, arbnitrary, and cwertainly outside the limits of SR to provide? Slagging them off you say, no way. I am a realist and I can see that I have no more persuasive power at changing your mind for instance, than I have of changing the average priests mind about all that stuff, do you know what I mean?

You make your words seem so demeaning while I say that I have advanced and am leaving you in the ditch. I trust you are sincere and honestly believe your position, but see my thread regarding "remembering" and the rest out there and see if you can logically negate any of them with an argument confined to physics and the laws iof physics. You shiouldn't have to even use the words SR, unless that is, you are one of those that just memorized the SR stuff and really aren't interested in the physical applications of all we discuss and that if its true to you it must be true to me also, but you just have to convince me.

Sheesh geistkiesel, give it a rest. Just because you cant find anyone else willing to limit their world view doesnt mean you can start slagging them off.


Where is my view limited and yours expanded?
Can you measure absolute zero velocity?
Can you detect the absolute velocity of two frames in free space?
" " " " " " " one " " " " ?
Can you find a system consistent with absolute time, space, simultaneity, certainity, rational thought thought?
Can your system absorb, or incorporate, nonlocal force centers and nonlocal activity?

Just for starters?
Geistkiesel

I'm ahead of you guthrie, light years ahead, but you will never recognize it, unless of course there is a general consensus of surrender in the SR industry, then you would go along, all of this being very unlikely iisn't it?

s the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source, then the photon will draw a straight-line that is located in absolute space and that position is invariant, until acted upon by an outside force.This is just plain wrong. It will move in a straigh line regardless of the velocity of the box/spaceship. She'll detect her reference frame as being at rest... which is the reason absolute motion is impossible to detect.

In fact ANY experiment she does will detect her at rest.

That is twio ships can determine their repsective absolute velocities, with respect to their point of origin (more or less)

Herein lies the problem and the serious flaw in your arguments.

How do know (more or less) the position of any one ship? You must use space as your reference since any object in space is moving.

That is twio ships can determine their repsective absolute velocities, with respect to their point of origin (more or less)

Herein lies the problem and the serious flaw in your arguments.

How do know (more or less) the position of any one ship? You must use space as your reference since any object in space is moving.
I know from a continuous radar signal analysis, the time of return gives the running distance. If I accelerate from, planet earth and achieve a uniform velocity of 6000 units and I do not change the motion I always know how fast I am moving with repaect to the home planet.

I don't understand yojur argument. Would you please elaborate?

Lets us say I measure the absolute velocity of my ship and another ship by one of the methds outlined. My ship is 6000 units your is 5000 units and we are on a near collison course for a net relative velocity of 11000. By now we know who is moving and at what velocity. Even if I didn't know you were earth based I can reaonably assume your relative velocity with respect to a massive inertial frame somewhat equivalent to my own, What is there to speculate about?

If I have been keeping judicious track of of my own velocity and my relative distance from earth, I can always determine the other 's distance also with respect to earth.

Sheesh geistkiesel, give it a rest. Just because you cant find anyone else willing to limit their world view doesnt mean you can start slagging them off.

Can you not understand that your "absolute position" is merely one arbitrarily chosen, and that without external observations you cannot relate that to the positions of any other bodies? All you are doing is deciding upon one frame of reference and saying it is the one, the absolute. What about a spacecraft coming to meet the one this person is on, therefore has a different velocity? Do they have the same "absolute motion"?
Where have I implied hat I do not use external olbservations. I use them constantly. Check out my posts on the subject.

Your question that another space ship was coming to pick up a passenger . No they don't have th esame motion, but their absolute motion can be measured. Their absolute velocity with respect to zero velocity, as close as you are able to measure, or want to measure can be detected.

I can't see your objection. You imply I am constraining myself, limiting reference frames and look what I have done and no one has proved me wrong,, I have measured the absolute velocity using three different techniques, I have devised a device to measure absolute zero velocity. I have discovered the straightline motion of the planet, and more.
Now tell me Guthrie, what do you find so limiting?

If I accelerate from, planet earth and achieve a uniform velocity of 6000 units and I do not change the motion I always know how fast I am moving with repaect to the home planet.

I don't understand yojur argument. Would you please elaborate? The key words are 'with respect to the home planet'. This planet is no more stationary than any other planet. Your absolute zero is simply because you decided to choose a specific reference frame. That's fine, but it is only absolute zero in ONE frame of reference.

If somebody on the Moon goes into space they will calculate a different 'absolute motion' according to your method.

Not very 'absolute'... is it?

Sheesh geistkiesel, give it a rest. Just because you cant find anyone else willing to limit their world view doesnt mean you can start slagging them off.

Can you not understand that your "absolute position" is merely one arbitrarily chosen, and that without external observations you cannot relate that to the positions of any other bodies? All you are doing is deciding upon one frame of reference and saying it is the one, the absolute. What about a spacecraft coming to meet the one this person is on, therefore has a different velocity? Do they have the same "absolute motion"?
Guthrie: let us try an experiment. You and I will discuss your thesis, ignoring answering any butinskies, using only the known laws of physics zas you and I understand them, while excluding theoretical constructs as if they were gospel. We use what we know. and do not attempt to prove anything by referring to theory. Ok? Verboten then would be, "X is true because the Y theories justify the answer".

We don't have to be in a huirry, or have deadlines., wed need be only thoriugh not letting the other skip by with arm waving claims of the righteous truith.

It's not consistent at all and it is just plain false. You choose to select the earth at V0 when there is no excuse to do so.

Of course I'm being rude, you're being an idiot. That's my job.


Let me get this straigtht. I had a nagging thought that blossmed into a real question.

Are you telling me that someone is paying you money to be rude to people like me, whatever kind of people like me is? You are saying that your rudeness is a professional job requirement?
if your job is supported by public funds do you not think that professional rudesness might not fly so well for the folks down in Peoria? Especially if supoprted by public tax money and especially that you used the f--- o-- words?

I am rude by instinct, anger and impatience, and when I sense another has "started it". I would be embarrassed, personally, to ever have been paid to be an asshole, do you know what I mean? In any event your rudeness isn't all that practiced and effective, in fact it plays a bit pedestrian, if you get my drift a kind of 'copycat asshole'.

Are you telling me that someone is paying you money to be rude to people like me, whatever kind of people like me is? You are saying that your rudeness is a professional job requirement? LMAO. You can't even get a joke correct. Selective editing for those who are unable to understand sarcasm: "you're being an idiot. That's my job."

if your job is supported by public funds do you not think that professional rudesness might not fly so well for the folks down in Peoria? Especially if supoprted by public tax money and especially that you used the f--- o-- words? I've never told you to fuck off.... but since you asked for it...

If you would actually address the issues raised with your 'idea' then I'd be glad to have you here. QQ is a good example. I disagree with most of his ideas, but he at least makes an attempt to understand. You however have started ELEVEN threads on the same exact topic/problem. That's not just rude, it is stupid. Everytime someone explains it to you a new thread appears and you expect people to agree with you this time.

LMAO. You can't even get a joke correct. Selective editing for those who are unable to understand sarcasm: "you're being an idiot. That's my job."

I've never told you to fuck off.... but since you asked for it...

If you would actually address the issues raised with your 'idea' then I'd be glad to have you here. QQ is a good example. I disagree with most of his ideas, but he at least makes an attempt to understand. You however have started ELEVEN threads on the same exact topic/problem. That's not just rude, it is stupid. Everytime someone explains it to you a new thread appears and you expect people to agree with you this time.

No I do not expect agreement, not from any relativity theorist. Persol, you really haven't dug into any of my threads, rudely published or other wise, and found any aspect of those posts that have been destroyed by a physical argument. You, and I suppose myself, do not solve problems by throwing our personal beliefs onto each other and expect that a communication has occurred. So I am guilty also, but I tell you Persol, old boy, tis the SR theorists that are the hard nuts to crack, just to get a serious analysis of a hypothetical problem. I am not able to change this and do not make any pretenses. about it. The postulates shouted by all, some better than others I have seen, that the measurement of the realtive velocity of light is a constant in all inertial frames is just not proved. Screaming it with admonitions that the experimental data is overwhelming doesn't cut it. So do not be surprised when I screech hearing the mantra of SR. and belch Hell, everyone knows what SR is going to predict or postulate. and everyone klnows SRists relally believe in the theory, but one's belief isn't enough,. Lining up named scientists and referring to theory agereement with what one says adds nothing. It may be convincing to the lay public or disinterested sicientistrs, but it ain't scientific.

Before I forget, let me suggest a personal reasearch project. that will say it better than my poor scribibling.

Get a Copy of Darwins Origin of the Speciess and just read that initial section I believe is is called "An Historical Sketch" , wiritten as a kind of preface and see how Darwin gives an enlightening point of view to the reader (the rest of the world?) of whatever .

I have said on many instances, that when someone points out flaws in my theses, all you have to do is point to the flaws with your physical reasoning.

You still miss the point. Nobody is going to complain about you using the Earth as your reference.

To claim that it is absolute motion is simply incorrect, as many people jave pointed out reasons for in other threads.

The claim that it is the only frame of reference of any worth (aka: ansolute motion) is simply wrong. You now seem to admit this, but then what the hell was the point of your 11 threads? It in no way contradicts SR, but just says that you'd like to use the earth as a frame of reference (which is fine, but not for the reasons you listed).
Lining up named scientists and referring to theory agereement with what one says adds nothing. It may be convincing to the lay public or disinterested sicientistrs, but it ain't scientific.Listen asshole, nobody has done this so don't pretend that they have. Your argument has been flawed from the begining, but you simply start the thread over whenever someone points it out. If you actually care about the reasons why then go and read the responses to your 11 other threads.

The key words are 'with respect to the home planet'. This planet is no more stationary than any other planet. Your absolute zero is simply because you decided to choose a specific reference frame. That's fine, but it is only absolute zero in ONE frame of reference.

If somebody on the Moon goes into space they will calculate a different 'absolute motion' according to your method.

Not very 'absolute'... is it?

It isn't meant to be absolute in the same sense that any photon absolute velocity zero measurring system. I know there is a gap here and the gap is the point of view of one emphacising a physical model and the other emphacizing a mathematical model, at the very least. Let me show yoju a way to shut me up, If it is that cklear to you that I ma completlely ion error as a matter of physical law probe it to me, Take my post where I showed three mways opf measuriong absolute velocity bewteenm space ships, I mean absolute velocity her as meaning one ship is measured as movinng at 3000 and the other at 2000 in a near collision course. I believe that what I have done, assuming it is locigcally and physically correct I know this violates a basic tenet of SR theory, that if the method I showed actually works as advertised then SR is no more. In fact I claim that "it is impossible to measure unnaccelerated translatory motion in free space" is just another equivalent postulate of special reativity equalling the statement regarding the measurement of the speed of light. This should be a slam dunk cinch to torpedo and i wish someone would put some energy into it. James R has answered byp haven[t read his post, that is nmext.

Now with respect to the earth frame's relative motion, virtually all relative motion of all Vn and Ve is preceded by an acceleration of the Vn frame, do you agree on thkis?. All Vn inherit all motion of the Ve exactly, and identical to the motion of Ve. There aren't any approximations implied ar expressed. At rest with respect to is not ambiguous, The Ve is massively and infinitley, as measured, greater than the mass of any Vn, or collection of Vn . There is no close one on this. Ve is just a liumberiing giang that seems impervious to attempts to spur it into motions it is just I not willing to particlipate in. After all we are discussing inertioal frames aen't we?

So if one is on the moon or on a distant planet in the Hercules cloud and uses a massive frame discovered there so what?

For our space man moving at some 6000 units as measured from Ve say 5 years earlier and since that time the ship has mde hundreds if not thousands of measurements with a whole spectrum of "preferred frames" and just ordinary frames, and may have left the concept of home planet relative velocity behind. At that point who would need it any way. When measuring a relative motion between another space ship and the subject ships is measured at 5945 instead of 6000, isnt going to make anyone break out in a sweat,

IK wopuld really like to understand what you find so attarctive about your reference frame syustem. Because I only chose one frame as you remarked, this seems to measn, top yourself, that only one means I can't choose two or a thousand, or that it isna't as usefuil as yours. I can do my measuring and analyzing as I have and as long as I am operating within the laws of physics then it works. ut you have to see that for me to axiomaticatlly erase all frame motion when frame and photon motion is measured is obnoxious. To say before the mesuremenmt, o measure it only one way ios silly.

Finally check out Dristam's remarks to me regarding my use of a remotie pioletd probe to meadsure the absolute velocity between the two ships. He read the posts wrong and was disgusted by the gaping hole he thought he found on my model. When his mistake was poiinted out there was no change in any of his statements. He didn't seem rto ecpognize to himself he was wrong . I can see maintaining a stubborn refusal to see another's pojint of view, but it is dangerous to hide the relaity of that view from yourself, don't you agree?i

You still miss the point. Nobody is going to complain about you using the Earth as your reference.

To claim that it is absolute motion is simply incorrect, as many people jave pointed out reasons for in other threads.

The claim that it is the only frame of reference of any worth (aka: ansolute motion) is simply wrong. You now seem to admit this, but then what the hell was the point of your 11 threads? It in no way contradicts SR, but just says that you'd like to use the earth as a frame of reference (which is fine, but not for the reasons you listed).
Listen asshole, nobody has done this so don't pretend that they have. Your argument has been flawed from the begining, but you simply start the thread over whenever someone points it out. If you actually care about the reasons why then go and read the responses to your 11 other threads.

You point out bullshit, Is this the extent of your scientific vocabulary? The physical characterisstics of the planet impose themselves on us a preferred frame shit sucker. You can ignore it if you want and you take your mental nothingness and piss on it.