Einsteins special relativity nonsense

You don't need to know anything in particular about the universe as a whole to determine which of two objects is moving relative to the other. As Feynman says, the "moving" object will be the one which has been accelerated. This is absolute, not relative, motion.

As Feynman says, the "moving" object will be the one which has been accelerated.

So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger;

Take the "twin paradox" scenario. It is the travelling twin who "really" ages less (even when he, per SR mandate, mistakenly assumes he is motionless and that, therefore, it is the earth's clocks which have slowed down, not his).

This is the equivalent of saying that, for these purposes, the earth is the preferred frame. It is the earth's frame of reference which provides the correct answer, not the travelling frame.

You reject SR. This has nothing to do with SR.

If you don't believe in clocks slowing down, then leave them out of the discussion. They aren't needed here... This is simple high school Newtonian Physics.

Let's just talk Newtonian Physics.

So are "relative" frames of reference, as described by Sir Isaac Newton valid?

If you agree with Newton, then I will feel we are making progress.

do "believe in" clocks slowing down. as would be more than obvious if you read and understood any of my posts. What I don't "believe in" is the absurd SR claim that BOTH clocks slow down

Layman wrote:

As Feynman says, the "moving" object will be the one which has been accelerated.

Feynman wrote:

So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger;

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

You are misunderstanding, and misquoting Feynman.

This example (with diagrams and anything) shows another contradiction in your reasoning.

You say "the moving object will be the one which has been accelerated".

However, considering the CMB frame as truth (which you want to do) I have shown that in your own line of thinking it is the motionless object that has been accelerated.

You are contradicting yourself.

According to you, the Earth is truly moving in some direction with some high velocity. A point in the CMB frame will be truly motionless. Let's draw a picture; E is the Earth, R is the Rocket, C is a motionless point in the CMB Frame.

1. At the beginning of the trip to become motionless, the Rocket is firmly attached to the Earth. The Earth and the Rocket are both moving away from "C".

Code:
<---- E C
<---- R


2. The rocket applies thrust to accelerate. This changes it's velocity... an in this picture we to thrust our engines away from "C". The rocket will accelerate. It's speed vis-a-vis the Earth will increase. Its true speed (measured by the CMB frame) will decrease).

Code:
<---- E C
<--R


3. After enough time, the Rocket accelerates enough to math the stationary point in the CMB frame of reference. At this point it will be "truthfully" motionless.

Code:
<---- E C
R


Do you agree with this analyisis? If not, please correct it.

The problem is not one of belief, it is one of understanding. You don't understand the claim the both clocks slow down. That is why it is absurd to you.

Isaac Newton says that measurement of velocity depends on the frame of reference (again this is hundreds of years before Einstein). Depending on which frame of reference you use, you will calculate different values of velocity. Newton had no problems with this.

You need to understand Newton before you can understand SR. Hence the problem.

Answer my question about the CMB frame please https://able2know.org/topic/545476-18#post-6973124

Please tell me where I am getting your logic wrong. You are contradicting yourself.

The question I am asking is "What do I have to do to get my rocket attached to the Earth to be motionless?"

Your view of Physics seems unable to address this simple question.