Einstein Frames of Reference illusion

And yet, NASA was able to calculate ALL the required trajectories and engine firing sequences for the entire mission, using nothing but Classical Physics.
Not once did they use Einsteins Physics.
You chose whatever object is appropriate to act as your stationary object. When the astronauts were circling the moon, then yes, they used the moon as their point of stationary reference, you think they still used Cape Canaveral as the reference point?

"There are so many contradictions to the idea starting with the fact that if the Earth is absolutely stationary... then the Sun orbits the Earth."

This is a stupid statement.

I never said that. and the fact you are, means that you can't wrap your head around basic Physics. You have a closed mind, unable to comprehend anything that's not been drilled into you by your superiors.

Yes! And all of these NASA engineers went to college. All of them studied Isaac Newton. All of them learned Einstein's theories and passed exams on Einsteins theories. You are right that classical physics was sufficient.

NASA engineers have the same education that I had, and have the same understanding of Physics that I have. They also understand that there there there is no "absolute stationary".

NASA engineers do the same math that I do. I know that this is the case because we got the same degrees from the same textbooks in the same Universities. We solved the same problems, did the same experiments and passed exams on the same material.

I could explain it to you. But you seem to be stuck in your own misunderstanding.

Well, I passed a lot of this off to a physicist to get their opinion. He said that a lot of what you are saying is just wrong and not true at all.

I asked him how I should reply and he said I shouldn't.

So, I will grab a bag of pop corn and watch from the stands.

This IS a reported quote of Einstein, and is referenced in a number of places in print and online sources.
one source uses, Einsteins version:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Albert Einstein

Feynmans version:
"If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood .
Richard P. Feynman

Others use the saying as I quoted originally. The thought is clear.

Classical Physics does not think that reference frames are anything more than intellectual constructs for the purpose of providing a starting point from which to do math. They are imagined.

Classical motion is not involved in outward subjective experiences. The motion laws of Classical Physics apply equally in both directions.
But Einsteins claim is that it does matter what your subjective apparent experience based view is. Classical Physics is objective, Einsteins Physics is subjective interpretation overriding classical Physics. causing Mass to miraculously growing from nowhere, lengths shrinking etc.
Its "miraculous" because at no point is it ever explained what is causing the object to be compressed in only one plane.. down to nothing, zip, zero, at light speed.

Where did he say this?

Could you provide a primary source link (i.e. a link saying when and where Einstein or Feyman said such a thing) for either one of these quotes?

(When you provide some random link... I am going to ask you again for a primary source link).

No, you are being deceptive. Newtons physics was totally replaced by Einstein's Relativity. Newtons physics is mathematically wrong at any speed, but greatly at near light speed.
As we have computers now, there is no excuse to still be using Newtons inaccurate equations, when Einsteins are 100% correct.
I've works through all the courses available online from Yale, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, ans well as a bunch of Professors who have their own teaching channels.
ALL of them make the same errors when deriving the equations, so all of them come up with the same errors.
The ONLY way you can honestly end up with Special Relativity, is is you literally, "Shut up and calculate". Don't ask questions,, stop thinking critically, and just learn the material by Rote.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)

This is really the only way to end up with SR. By NOT asking the hard questions, by ONLY focusing on Math, which is itself based on incorrect understanding of Physics.

Its telling that we have come this far, but you still have not attempted to explain what I originally asked.
Why is that? You keep ducking and dodging. You think I have a lack of understanding, but this should not prevent you from providing an explanation. Others are reading this, they cant be as thick as I am. Do it for their benefit.

And yet the NASA engineers produced by this education system keeps doing amazing things, they put ******* robots on Mars.

You are saying that they are wrong... and you are right. What have you done with your life?

When you geniuses from the internet actually accomplish something (rather than just arguing against people who actually did the work to get a real education), then maybe people will start listening to you.

I am still waiting for my perpetual motion machine.

Yes, there is no spot "out there" that is the god given sacred spot of Absolute Stationary, but this fact does NOT MEAN that LENGTHS SHRINK, MASS INCREASES, or Time does anything out of the ordinary.
And because they are imaginary, I can invent an absolute stationary spot according to my needs, as did NASA, and I do when I'm designing an engine.

As far as your education went,"if you keep doing what you have always done you will always get what you have always got." That's why all your buddies reading the same text books always get the same answer to the same questions, because they know no better. Its nothing to be proud of, is it?

Ok,

So what experiment would you do that would tell me that where I am sitting right now isn't that magically "Absolute Stationary" spot?

If we are talking about science... propose an experiment.

If there is no experimental difference between this magical spot and any other spot, an and no way to tell the difference, then why does it matter?

Clearly your professor has no idea of how to reply, or he would have.
I would be a tiny bit suspicious.
And I have not yet presented my best material on this subject.
You should ask the Professor exactly where I'm making mistakes, as this is a learning opportunity, but its more like being a Mormon as they are going to tell you what to read and what not to read.
That is far from exhibiting curiosity, which Einsteins said was more important than acquiring knowledge.
This act of your Professor is actually another point in my favor.

So this is an Anti-Education thread.

When I studied Physics in the University, I learned that science is testable. There are right answers and wrong answers in science. The rights answers are the ones that are confirmed by experiment. The wrong answers are the ones that can't be confirmed. As experiments get better, sometimes this changes... but when you come up with a new theory, you need to explain why all of the experiments to that point worked with the old theory.

Being open minded doesn't mean just accepting any crazy idea. It means being open to new theories that are
1) testable
2) match the experiments up to that point (i.e. match the current theory).
3) explain the results of new experiments

This is the way to know someone is full of ****.

If they make a scientific claim... they must be able to explain what experimental results will disprove their claim. If they can't do this, then their claim is not testable and is scientifically meaningless.

When you get an education in science, you aren't just fed random beliefs. You are taught the experiments (in fact you do them) and you are taught to look for results that will disprove your hypothesis and to test for them.

And when you get an education, you will be able to do exactly that.

“If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
Probably Ernest Rutherford, not mentioned by Einstein.
Proves that a lot of information on the internet is garbage, and I see a awful lot about Special Relativity....
But this is a moot point, as the saying has merit, or Feynman, who did repeat it with his own words, would not have done so if he did not approve of the concept.
Anyway, understanding Physics requires the initial explanation which precedes any in depth analysis.
Its this initial explanation that you are not providing.

or you could simply explain what I've asked for.

Again, you are failing to explain what I asked of you.
Why? Cat got your tongue?
And yes, it does not matter where we put the absolute stationary spot. as long as its relevant to what objects we are interested in. ALL of the objects that play a part, not just a drastically filtered set like Einsteins uses. (thus missing out on some of the most important information, but trying to do Physics anyway)

Ill give you an experiment after you oblige me with your answer, your explanation, originally requested so far back in this thread that I'm forgetting what I even asked.

No, now you are being really silly.
But most tellingly, you are still avoiding like the plague, to answer my question.
You are jumping from one topic to another, anything in an attempt to NOT ANSWER my question.

I'm not anti Education, I'm just anti pseudo science.
I don't really care what your indoctrination was like. Your 'club' does not own Science, or get to decide as an authority what is real and what is not.
Ever heard of the Ministry of Truth? (Orwell's book, 1984)

Explain your position, or give up because you have no sensible explanation to provide.
Which is it?

Ok, lets apply your standard to Einsteins Hypothesis:
"Being open minded doesn't mean just accepting any crazy idea. It means being open to new theories that are
1) testable
2) match the experiments up to that point (i.e. match the current theory).
3) explain the results of new experiments

This is the way to know someone is full of ****.

If they make a scientific claim... they must be able to explain what experimental results will disprove their claim. If they can't do this, then their claim is not testable and is scientifically meaningless.""

So, please show,
(1) where Einstein even proposed an experiment that could support his hypothesis, AND another place in the hypothesis where he proposes an experiment that could proven him wrong.
(2) as he proposes no such experiments, criterion 2 is totally unfulfilled.
(3) Einstein did no experiments in support of his Paper, neither did anyone else, so he could hardly explain the "results of the new experiments".
So according to your educated scientifically accepted method, Einstein's Hypothesis absolutely FAILS to meet the standard.
In your own words, Einsteins Paper therefore, " is scientifically meaningless", and the author is "full of ****".

I actually agree with you this time.

Why don't you have any idea what I'm talking about here?
I'm referring to Einsteins claims of SR.
His claim is that a moving object (remote from the observer) shrinks, gets heavier and its Time runs faster .

This should be very clear as my words were: "how a different view point is supposed to make a remote object physically change,".

According to the Hypothesis, the physical change is an actual real alteration of the object. And not just a result of the difficulty of measuring a fast moving object, or some apparent change.

So how about it? What causes the Shrinkage and Mass increase? The actual physical process. ?

Come on, lets hear the secret.

I think he is talking about objects approaching the speed of light and also time dilation.