Einsteins special relativity nonsense

give an example please, otherwise your comment is worthless.
and what if its not my native language? Whats you point? Why do you even bother to comment?

Im off to work, replies may be a bit delayed. Im not in the USA.

We will start with two space ships going well below the speed of light relative to each other (so there is no need for Special relativity).

Captain Ahab on the spaceship Andares notices that Capitain Bertha on the Betelgeuse is getting 40 meters closer to him every second. Captain Ahab believes that he is not moving.

But, at the same time Captain Bertha believes that she is not moving. She sees the Andares getting 40 meters closer to her every second and deduces that it is Ahab, not her, who is moving.

You can have any piece of scientific equipment you want as long as you can explain how it works.

How do you determine captain is moving and which is stationary? (this has nothing to do with Einstein yet, in fact Galileo understood it long before.=)

1. I can answer your questions... but some of the answers you may not be ready for yet. There are topics that are beyond the reach of high school students. We cover them in college.

2. I am not "building a valid case". I am teaching you something about science.

If you are anti-science, then it is impossible for you to learn or for me to teach you anything.

So... how do these two captains figure out which of them is moving and which is stationary.

Galileo's observation about relative motion was intended to show that calculations could be done from either point of reference. It was not to set up some mystical situation where Physicists cant know if they are moving or not.
I dont know if you are aware of it, but Physics has NOTHING to do at all with the notion that an observers subjective beliefs come into the science.
The subjective belief that "I'm not moving".
Physics requires real data, so the ships captains can both take observations of land masses or star positions to tell if they are in motion, if they could not, then ships would continually run into each other. Einstein misuses Galileo's simple observation and applies it incorrectly when he claims that observer one (lets call him the stationary observer--Einstein's words there) is allowed to KNOW that the other observer is moving, yet observer 2, is NOT ALLOWED to know this fact. So we have two Physicists, trying to do a study, and one has all the required information, but the other is blocked from having that same essential information. So there is no chance that the data collected by the "moving " guy is benchmarked to the same standards as the stationary observer is privy to. You have two unmatched sets of data,, only because you refused the second observer to take proper account of the whole situation before and during the experiment. This is already NOT the way to do Physics, is it?
Fix this error, then we can continue.

What you wrote doesn't make any sense. The question was...

There are two captains of two space ships. Each says they they are stopped and that the other ship is moving. How can they decide who is correct?

By the way... This is important to understand for more advanced topics. My high school students worked this out just fine.

To teach, you MUST build a valid case, step by step.
Ive repeatedly said I'm not anti science, just anti WRONG science claims.
Please don't mention it again.
The two captains are not in isolation, Physics is the study of the natural universe, as observed. Its not a isolated thought experiment, where as Einstein put is, "he stripped away all "unnecessary" distractions".
Actually he stripped away so much that the result is no longer meaningful.

The captains use the background star positions as captains actually do on ships in earth oceans today.

But if you insist on removing critical components of Physics and still want to try to do meaningful Physics, the the consequences are that whatever you apply for one captain, is also applicable to the other.
Therefore any altering of Time or Distance or Mass must be applied to both observers equally, therefore negating the effect.

They take astronomical readings. That decides who is actually "stopped" and who is moving. Also to be moving inertially, such a vessel would have had to used the engines beforehand. so the both consult their ships logs.
Motion requires the application of force.

(I am ignoring your comment on what it means to be anti-science in favor of our experiment.)

Your answer is for the captains to use "background star positions". It won't work. Let's see if we can figure out the problem with that.

I will tell you the answer... a sea captain can not use background star positions to determine how fast they are moving east to west. They can tell perhaps get some reading about their north-south velocity.

Do you want to see if you can work out what the problem is?

Sea captain A is moving East. Sea Captain B is stopped. What measurement would be different for these two captains?

There is a bit of complication here. Let's focus on the original question.

Tell me what mathematical calculation a space captain could make based on measurements of the stars that could tell her if she is moving or not.

(The answer is that there is none.)

(Normally this would be a dialogue, but this is difficult in this format... so I am going to jump ahead and ask the key question)

The question is how to tell which space ship was stopped. What would it mean if there was possible measurement or experiment anyone could do to determine that one answer was better than the other.

Captain Ahab would declare that Captain Bertha was moving and he was stopped. There is no possible experiment or measurement that could prove him wrong.

Captain Bertha would declare that Captain Ahab was moving and she was stopped. Likewise there is no possible experiment or measurement that could prove her wrong.

Can they both be correct?

(What I am attempting to do here is to "break" the misconception held by your intuition. Human intuition has a hard time grasping the concept that there is way to define experimentally what is moving and what is stopped. A lot of being educated in science is learning to let go of your mistakes that your intuition feels are right).

you only needed to mention the gyroscopic effect of a wheel to show that intuition is not always an accurate guide.
but strangely, Apollo astronauts somehow managed to tell if they were still moving towards the moon or not and that it was they who were doing most of the moving, although they did have to aim at the place where both they and the moon would be, after the few days of travel, so in that case, they were able to tell that, in fact it was both of them moving. And so was the earth, and the sun, etc. But telling if you are moving or not has no bearing on Physics. Physics will do what it does whether you are aware of it or not.
Because the golden rule, (my opinion) of Physics, is that PERCEPTION is not necessarily reflective of reality. If one is moving but cant tell, then his perception of whats going on in really, will not be accurate. because he is not possessing of all the critical and pertinent facts with which to do the math of Physics.

The correct answer is that one or the other is moving or they are both moving. If in this unrealistically cut down universe, they are the only two objects existing, then no, there is no way to tell which is actually stopped, as stopped has no meaning with no other players in this practically void universe.
In reality, we can assume that everything is moving relative to everything else.

Good. My intention is to get your to drop a very common misconception. You are very close (but your intuition is hanging on). Let's take this further.

1). My spaceship example takes place in the actual universe. I am not asking for a "unrealistic cut down universe". My example is two spaceships in the real universe (with all the starts whirling around etc). In the real mess universe, there is still no way to tell which ship is moving and which ship is fixed.

2) You said that astronauts knew when they were moving "toward the moon". Did they? The moon is just like Spaceship B. The moon could be moving towards the astronauts.

What experiment can you do to prove it isn't?

3) This has nothing to do with "perception". In physics we have a quantity called "velocity" (usually written V). If abs(V) is 0 an object is said to be "not moving". If abs(V) is greater than 0 an object is said to be moving.

This may seem to be a contradicton, but it isn't. Captain A would say that V for their ship is 0 and that V for Captain B is -40m/s. Captain B would measure V for ship B as 0 and V for Captain A as -40 m/s.

In Physics both are correct. Since no experiment or measurement can distinguish between the two, there is no way to favor one point of view over the other.

Can you see how this is the case? (this is the key point I want you to understand before we move on).

4) In order to do the calculations of Physics, we need to set a value for V. All of our other calculations will be based on that setting. How do we do that?

Before we really begin, can I have a single statement from you stating exactly the core of SR? I like to know beforehand where you intend to take my thoughts, otherwise it feels as if I'm talking to a Mormon or Jehovah Witness, who talk around in circles and use tricks of rhetoric to get to their final conclusion.
I have a suggested one sentence summary of SR:
"SR theory concludes that a physical subject that is moving, gains Mass, becomes shorter but not wider or taller (in the direction of motion) and simultaneously experiences less Time than an observer who is moving relative to the subject in question, but considers himself stationary, even though there is no such state. Every other observer if moving differently and observing that same subject, will measure a totally different result for the Mass, Length and Time for the subject, its a subjective thing that somehow has a real, actual physical effect on the observed subject, although the subject has no clue that anything has changed. The "subject" has magically shrunk and gained mass differently for every observer who cares to take measurements. This is not a merely a perceived effect, its an actual Mass increase, actual length shrinking and actual Time dilation.
Additionally, SR results in the claim that every observer will undergo this same physical shrinkage, Mass increase and Time dilation as measured by the other observers."

Is this an accurate statement? If you have a better one, lets have it now, so I know where we are headed.

If the moon could be moving towards the capsule, then they need not have a rocket to get it up to 30000kph in the first place, they could just have floated motionless and waited till the moon approached. I'm not a rocket scientist, but Im pretty sure that NASA calculated the motion of the moon, and calculated what velocity, trajectory and timing would be needed for Apollo to orbit the moon. So this example is not too good, its breaking down in the face of actual experience with NASA.

hmmmm.... No. This isn't correct.

The point I am making with the two spaceships is key to even understanding the claim being made by Einstein in Special Relativity. The phrase "experiences less time" is problematic (it doesn't fit the actual theory, although why that is difficult to explain until you understand Galilean relativity). The phrase "shrunk for every observer who cares" is completely incorrect.

Of course we have to figure out what "moving" means before we can use it to say what Special Relativity is.

OK. Your assumption is that the rocket wasn't moving to begin with....

... do you see the problem?

In your latest "calculation", do you believe that the rocket was motionless before it blasted off?

(Again, the goal here is for you to "break" your intution that is holding on to a mistaken idea of what is motionless).

In my cars engine, there are pistons heading towards the spark plugs, or are the "spark plugs part of the engine" moving towards the stationary pistons? Gee, this is hard to figure out.