If I haven't been able to get through to you in literally thousands of posts explaining how velocity and acceleration work in an absolute frame
If your pendulum on cars example is anything to go by you are demonstrably ignorant of what relativity says since it provides a description of the system without needing an absolute reference frame. Therefore, despite you asserting it, the requirement of an absolute frame in that scenario is false. Thus illustrating your grasp of such things is not as good as you think it is.
what makes you think I can write a paper and change people's minds?
I personally think you lack the capacity to even understand basic kinematics and the high school level mathematics necessary to describe the systems you like to talk about. Considering doing novel physics, writing papers and getting them published is most of a decade beyond introductory kinematics I don't think you could write such a paper anyway, even if the universe does work as you assert.
I know how it works, you don't.
An assertion you admit you have no evidence for. You have no experience with experimental data, you have no working valid models of your own, you have no grasp of the mainstream models you dismiss. By every single yardstick you lack justification for your claim you
know. You
know how the universe works despite having never examined it in this regard. That's plain delusional.
I would like to teach people how absolute velocity works.
Plenty of people grasp how absolute motion might work, it is a fairly simple concept to grasp. The issue is not one of not understanding, it is an issue of it not being physically valid, given all experimental data known at present. I can give you an infinite number of different ways of modelling distances and motion in space, how do I know if any of them are right? What does 'right' mean? It means accurately reflecting reality, so experimental data is needed. The experimental data is consistent with relativity, therefore the concept of no absolute frame is consistent with reality. As such your assertion you know things are absolute is unjustified. How do we know your notion of motion is valid, when there are so many invalid ones? Where's your evidence? Why do you know without evidence but if I were to just assert SR is right you'd complain?
It is one rule for you and one rule for everyone else. There is a fundamentally dishonest approach. You've had it pointed out enough time to you you cannot be unaware of it. This leads me to conclude you are either deliberately lying or you're too stupid to grasp it.
At the same time I realize human nature precludes people from understanding. Oh well, sucks to be them.
Why is it everyone else is wrong, due to human nature, but not you? Why doesn't human nature affect you? What makes you special? Farsight is the same, he likes to quote Feynmann about how the easiest person to fool is oneself but then doesn't apply it to himself.
I have no problem saying relativity might well be wrong. Hell, I believe that it will one day be replaced by something else, mostly in the realms of quantum gravity, but that doesn't mean your claims are true. There are many concepts of absolute motion, why is yours right? How do we know motion is absolute, it could be a different notion of relative motion. Which one is it? For that we need to use experimental evidence, not blind assertion. You do
exactly what you complain mainstream physicists do, assert without proof, which makes you a hypocrite.
In chronological order, I am the first to know this information.
Without any experimental data you just know how the universe works? Is this divine knowledge? Did voices tell you? Aliens? Did you just wake up one morning and know?
Your brain is not quite right if you think everything in the universe except you is in motion. My motion is not dependent on your motion!
I am currently not moving
relative to myself. This is a
tautology. I am not claiming I am special and it is everyone else who is moving and I am at absolute rest but rather I am stationary with respect to me and there are some things which are not stationary relative to me. Conversely there are some things which are stationary relative to themselves to which I am not stationary with respect to.
You're so enamoured with your notion of absolute motion you cannot grasp what relativity is saying. Hence why it is so daft of you to try these approaches, you always make the most trivial of errors. Relativity doesn't say your motion depends on mine but rather than your motion
relative to me depends on me. If two cars are driving around then the motion of Car 1 relative to Car 2 depends on how Car 2 moves AND how Car 1 moves. If the positions of Cars 1 and 2 are $$\mathbf{x}_{1}(t)$$ and $$\mathbf{x}_{2}$$ then their velocities are $$\mathbf{v}_{1,2}(t) = \dot{\mathbf{x}}_{1,2}(t)$$. The values of the components of $$\mathbf{x}_{1,2}(t)$$ and $$\mathbf{v}_{1,2}(t)$$ are dependent upon our choice of frame, our choice of coordinates. Relativity says that if you're considering velocities then an important thing is $$\mathbf{v}_{1}-\mathbf{v}_{2}$$, the relative velocity. Clearly this depends on the motion of both cars. Consider if they crash head on. The important thing is their relative speed. Suppose they both have the same mass M. There is a frame where they crash together and the resultant clump of metal ends up being stationary. This is the centre of momentum frame, so $$\mathbf{v}_{1} = -\mathbf{v}_{2} $$. If they had a relative speed of say 200kph then this means one drive to the right at 100kph and the other to the left at 100kph. If you changed to a frame where one is going at +1,000,000kph and the other at 1,000,020kph caught up and crashed into it the relative velocity is the same. Has the damage changed? The speeds are higher but no, since the momentum isn't zero in this frame, the clump of metal continues to move after collision in this frame. The importance is the difference in velocities, not the value of the speeds.
These sorts of thought exercises are something anyone doing an introductory course in relativity (or even Newtonian mechanics in some cases, as that covers the notion of different frames) would do. The fact you haven't is obvious, you don't grasp any of this but assume you do and assume you
know how things work. That's ignorant, delusional and flat out dishonest.