J.C.MacSwell

You realize your response is unprovable, do you not? The earth doesn't meet the ball unless in the size of the moon, or another stellar object of comparable size and mass. Conservation of momentum. You cannot change the velocity of the centre of mass of a closed system. If you pick a reference frame where the centre of mass is at rest, it must remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it. If you mean the Earth/ball example is unmeasurable, you are no doubt correct, but if you sit down where you are standing you will have "raised" the Earth relative to where it would have been otherwise and all other things being equal.

Are the two not contradictory on some scale?

You accept the consistency of the math, but not the experimental results? Or not the physical interpretation?

The different elements produce different frequencies, as each photon "package" produced must correspond exactly to an available drop in energy level for the electron/s in the atom. The available drops in energy level vary with each element. This leads me to a question that I think fits well with this thread: Why is the black body radiation curve so common given that the elements behave this way? Also, I know this is probably obvious but when a blackbody radiation curve is redshifted or blueshifted it is still a black body radiation curve?

My motivation was to give an example that I was confident was correct. I did not mean to imply an "if and only if" only that I suspected it could be wrong otherwise. If you and I are at rest or "welded together" in one inertial frame (Let's say you at the start of the Indiannapolis 500 and me on my butt in front of my computer) we are not necessarily at rest in all inertial frames. Given enough spatial separation in one that we are at rest in, you could choose a continuum of inertial frames that correspond to you starting, racing and finishing the Indiannapolis 500 all with me sitting in front of my computer hitting the letter "x" (all the same moment for me, and each frame containing one different moment for you). We of course would not be at rest wrt each other in all those frames.

I think this is the idea. Simultanaeity must be thrown ou the window until an objective standard/absolute reference frame, if it exists can be found/defined. I think this is wrong. Ignorance is key. No observer can measure the speed of light in any direction. Only round trips of light can be measured.

Something like that, yes. However, does it feel no force, in this example, in all inertial frames? I'm sorry, but I missed the context of your last sentence. Are you saying you can rule out your example so that if it had an effect on time it could be accounted for?

Simultaneity is absolute if and only if you can find and define an absolute frame of reference. Noone has done this.

Yes, in the sense that a macroscopic body "blindfolded" would not feel the force. (no internal stresses one would feel in acceleration other than, say, gravitational acceleration is somewhat what I am getting at, with the idea that perhaps gravitational force could affect the workings subatomically). Sorry if that's less than clear (awkwardly worded). I know that a macroscopic result is produced as time flows at a different rate.

Just a thought Could a force be felt subatomically?

This frame requires pseudo force "corrections" depending on the accuracy required. The speed of light is not constant in this frame although it may be close enough locally for most purposes. Pluto is much faster in this frame than Mars and yet Pluto still manages to stay in orbit.

They are but it is definitely not an inertial frame although it could be a close approximation locally. How much higher is the satellite than the ground from the center of the Earth?

On that scale the effect is not measurable.

I think this is considered correct. It's a bit of a stretch, if you'll excuse the pun, but seems to be the most acceptable answer.

Yes, otherwise the force required would be infinite which of course is not possible.

Don't sell yourself short Johnny. You also proved reality was wrong as well in that thread because it also contradicted your "Galilean transformations are always correct" assumptions.

Gamow predicted it about 20 years earlier.

And from what I understand (or misunderstand) this was not predicted by steady state models, in fact I think it was predicted to not be there. Why would steady state space have no temperature/CMBR?