You mean not all people perceive gravity? Some perceptions are universal, aren't they. So is science.
I'll simply respond to this, since the rest of your replies were nonsense.
I'm strictly no-nonsense here.
This item you selected concerns perception, which you say is relative. I gave you one example, gravity, which is universally perceived by humans.
Motion is measured by distance and time, not force.
What does that have to do with universal (non-relative) perception gravity? Your perception of the ground against your feet is entirely measured by the force acting on your tactile sensors. That force is gravity.
As for your statement here: all measurements are relative to the inertial reference frame. Motion can be measured several ways. An inertial navigation system measures the motion of an aircraft by reacting to thrust (a force), applying Newton's 3rd Law. (He was right about that one, too).
You can apply a force for a second or 13 days, force tells you nothing about motion.
You mean like standing on the ground, motionless? So why are you bringing up motion? If you want to describe motion in the case where a force is involved, you need only recognize that force is the time rate off change of momentum, and momentum tells you about motion. Not sure what your point is, though. It doesn't change the fact that all motion is relative to an inertial reference frame (the thing you call "absolute"). Furthermore, there are cases where force completely describes motion.
Gravity is measured by distance and time.
Standing on a scale doesn't measure gravity? You seem to be locked into ballistics. Below you are either measuring distance and/or time using gravity as the standard. Obviously it's not the same thing as measuring gravity. You could measure gravity several ways, but you would need to be aware that the gravitational force is not a function of distance and time but rather, the product of the masses divided by the distance squared. This distance is the distance between the masses, and is therefore a relative measurement.
If the force equations don't add up then the force equations are wrong.
That's a pretty weird way of stating that the sum of forces acting on an object must equal zero. (Not sure why you mention this.)
There is no dispute that the ball traveled 16.087 feet in 1 second from an initial velocity of 0 ft/s. That is a reality.
On Earth, you mean. For a ball that is dropped (in negligible air friction). And for an observer in the same reference frame. The observer looking at a slant angle through a telescope from a sufficient height will measure 8 feet. He would need to know to calibrate his measurements according to the angle of his lens with respect to the direction of the gravitational force. And he's not even moving. Note, at relativistic speeds the this phenomenon is projected in a similar manner, the angle of the telescope corresponding to the arc-cosine of the Lorentz factor (as a function of relative velocity).
That's more related to the other threads on relativity. Here, under the topic of pseudoscience, we would want to test the OP. For example the statement that pseudoscience is marked by ideas that
James R said:
Any science that is contrary to common sense must be wrong.
could be weighed against
There is no dispute that the ball traveled 16.087 feet in 1 second from an initial velocity of 0 ft/s. That is a reality.
and then perhaps you could explain the difference in measurement from the guy on a hill with a transit, looking down at the experiment. That much would only need common sense (plus an atom of trig). Taking that a step further and applying it to special relativity, you can arrive at the analogy that spacetime works like a turret, distorting the projection on the objective (of a telescope). . . only to arrive at the conclusion that "science must be wrong" / "this does not comport with common sense". . . that's all James R is saying here.
Sounds accurate to me. Unless you wish to prove him wrong.
