Relativity Is Wrong

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for maintaining a healthy debate. Although towards the end his arguments started to collapse towards the end.I am going to start off by making my argument titled "relativity and motion" or perspective (referance frames). As a mathematical model the theory of special relativity isn’t even that bad in fact, it’s very nice to think about different concepts such as the speed of light, etc. The only problem that I and some other individuals have is that it is being applied to the physics that we base our understanding of the universe on. For example: Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc. These concepts should only be based upon experimental evidence as well as common sense. I propose that ‘relativity’ is simply perspective and is exaggerated as being a phenomena in physics. In fact I am not the only person to suggest this; Hedrick Lorentz suggested that special relativity is simply a mathematical trick (Year 1895). An example of this would be reference frames; relativity tells us that there is no such thing as an immovable object. Although this is debateable, their explanation for it is ridiculous. Relativity states that an immovable object cannot be because if you move relative to it the object will start moving. Not only is this a ridiculous idea, but it is being applied to explain the forces in nature and describe the universe, when this concept is actually pure perspective and I will explain why. First let’s define relative: considered in relation or in proportion to something else. Now imagine you are riding a bike relative (compared) to a car, the car appears to be moving from your perspective, but does that mean the car is actually moving? Of course not this is what’s called absolutism. This is exactly what relativity is, and unfortunately it is being applied to describe the universe, especially to derive the theory of everything although a fantastic model has already been released but it has been disregarded because it contradicts relativity, however I will not go into details of how it does this. I (and many other scientists) propose that there is no such thing as relativity and that the universe is absolute, there is perspective yes but that has no significance in our universe. If you are moving relative or move past an object from your perspective the object seems to be moving although you are the one that’s actually moving, however a stationary observer will see that you are the one that’s moving. However saying that the object is moving just because it looks like it’s moving doesn’t mean that the object has a velocity. The result of this play of perspective is not a phenomenon, it relies on the way us humans observe things using our eyes and our unique field of view. If we had eyes at the back of our heads things would most likely be different. Representation : http://gyazo.com...; I believe when it comes to describing our universe we should think of our universe from a stationary perspective rather than relative. When describing forces such as gravity, there is usually one part that we struggle to get our head around. I believe this is due to the scientific techniques we are currently using to conduct experiments, hypotheses’, etc. I would also like to point out that some things in relativity have no significance in physics or even science such as the principle that states “if you have two objects and nothing else, then it’s not possible to tell which object is moving and which object is standing still.” This has absolutely nothing to do with physics and happens due to the biological features of a human. We need to accept that there is a different way to view our universe and shouldn’t just be based on the perspective of a human.Special relativity is the idea that length and time are perceived differently by different observers. I believe this has no significance in our universe, why? This’ how: by length and time they are relating to the phenomena’s known as length contraction and time dilation first off, time is originally distance as explained in the equation above, although time dilation does appear to have affect it is for different reasons as you will see later in the paper. This leaves us with length contraction which does occur in nature; however occurs because of different reasons rather than the ones they provided. We need to consider the likelyhood of extra terestriall life before we make such claims.Miles mathis explains how length contraction works : http://milesmathis.com...;As for my rebuttals:I appreciate that you're your doing your best to provide an argument, however I put a 72 hour reply time for a reason. In the latest argument you provided it was as bad (if not worse) than the other one. Please take your time with your new argument.I would like to finish off by asking you everyone a question.Without movement, will there be time?feel free to post your answers in the comment section and good luck to my opponent on his next argument aswell as the voters who hopefully I have managed to change their mind.onto you, con.