Doesn't this argument prove something is still wrong in physics , since I can give examples whereby motion CANNOT be relativized?

[Wade12345]

Just watch the whole video and be patient.

[ChrisMaster69]

It’s a 35 minute video by someone with a voice that would make you jump off a fucking cliff.

Fuck me thsts the most boring voice I have ever ever ever heard.

[Wade12345]

Way to ignore the substance of my argument.

Because automobiles (and rockets) have on-board engines with on-board fuel, you cna prove which object is in motion and which object is at rest, contrary to Albert Einstein's claim that it was equally correct to say a train station m oves past the train.

Same goes for "relative mass" of a rocket engine.
If the mass of fuel changed, then the rocket wouldn't fly properly with the same engine. You can prove that a rocket is absolutely in motion relative to the cosmic microwave background, and you can prove exactly how fast the rocket is moving. modern scientists have already done that, and found the milky way galaxy is very, very close to rest and very close to the true center of the Universe, as it is only moving a few hundred kilometers per second with respect to the CMB.

They don't seem to realize this already contradicts SOME of Einstein's claims in Relativity.

Remember, the whole reason Einstein invented Relativity is he was trying to prove there was no God and trying to prove that the Universe was statix and self-eternal. All claims that have since been proven FALSE.

[Wade12345]

People don't realize that in Einstein's version of rElativity, the Speed of Light is circularly defined.

Atomic Clocks do NOT measure Einstein's relativistic time. They measure a change in friction as the position inside a gravity well changes. This was already predicted by Newton...