>>81109920No, I was talking about beliefs, not perspectives. And you, assuming you were the original anon to whom the reply was addressed, said, and I quote:
>>81109811>Not you because you're basically saying the entire universe would shift to accommodate the ballWhich is obviously very stupid, because depending on the frame of reference you decide to go with, either could be correct. Which is obviously why I brought up inertial frames.
AND- gravitational pull does not tell us which object is moving towards which object. For something like that, you need special relativity.
>>81109984There've been no contradictions. Point to a single one, just one.
Hardmode: No intentionally misunderstanding or strawmanning my points to warp them into something I didn't say.