Strange

Good point.

But that is not the important part.

Only I if the bees were in space (in which case it would be astronomy). And, obviously, astronomy does that all the time. Hence it is a science. So, astronomy is a science then. Good. Glad we have settled that.

Nope. It is very obviously about superposition.

You haven't met Cladking before, then. He said he was leaving some time ago because we weren't sympathetic to his special type of insights and "knowledge".

Another example of the Law of Eponymy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy

First google result: https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.130

Schroedinger was trying to point out how strange and unintuitive quantum theory is. He was not trying to prove a cat can be alive and dead at the same time. It doesn't require a conscious observer. An "observer" just means that the particle (or system) interacts with the environment.

It is called "translation" for a reason. Lots of things have been mistranslated. Either because it wasn't known what the original word means, or because it describes something unfamiliar to a European audience. Jesus is the English translation of Yeshua (via Greek). (I assume you are just mucking about, here, "or the craic")

It is absolutely true for astronomy. And you have said nothing to suggest otherwise. That is true of physics generally. "rather than doing experiments with stars" Oh good grief. This isn't the idiotic "if you can't do the experiment in a lab it isn't science" is it? (often followed by "therefore the big bang / origin of species / whatever is not science") Another random non sequitur. Well, there is (of course) a whole branch of philosophy devoted to what knowledge is, what it means to know something, what it is possible to know, etc. so I think your statement is a little too reductionist. It is not science at all. (But I am not surprised you don't know that.) That is not a matter of belief.

Good find.

The same (rather grandiose) statement can be made about botany, physics or medicine. Why do you think this means it is not science? It uses objective evidence, data, mathematical models, testable predictions, etc. It is a perfect example of a science. (And it is one of those rare examples of a science where non-specialists can still make significant contributions.) You either have a very odd idea of what science is or a very odd idea of what astronomy is. OK. Not true but true. Got it. That is entirely possible. Or maybe Cladking will tell us that astrology is a science 😯

Why should we assume that a version you have invented has any basis in reality? We know the story changed over time. There are two versions in the Bible. There are older versions which vary from those. If you are so sure that your version is correct, you could provide a reference. And, therefore, always true. Logic is a branch of mathematics (and of philosophy). You are (suprisingly) correct to say it is not science. It, like other parts of mathematics, is a tool used by science (and by philosophy). Of course astronomy is a science. In what way does it not count as science? Sounds like reasonable good (if informal) definition of science. Ah, the good old etymological fallacy. Haven't seen one of those for a while. Thank you.

If you have two containers, one at 20º and one at 25º then, obviously, the second one will, initially cool faster. However, by the time it reaches 20º it will be cooling at the same rate as the one that started at 20º. So this cannot explain why the hotter one could freeze more quickly.

None of this can be detected or measured. (Rather like your your god.) So the existence of this "absolute velocity" is a purely religious belief. [I apologise for abusing my privileges to respond to a closed thread, but I don't think I can allow a blatantly false claim like that to go unanswered.]

Fixed. (Another data point for my spreadsheet(*) on the correlation between "personal theory" and "unable to use quote function".) (*) Purely imaginary, unfortunately.

They are a mathematical model that works (aka science). You can choose to invent a post-hoc explanation involving magic flying turtles but please don’t pretend that has anything to do with science No. Because you are not doing science. You are just using a fairy tale as an unnecessary explanation No disagreement there. I’ll ignore the preachy nonsense at the end. This is, after all, a science forum

Still avoiding the issue

No, that is not my view. (Wasn’t it you who said there can only be one correct theory?) But you are missing (avoiding?) the point: your “god did it” explanation can only ever be post hoc. You can use it for an explanation only after science tells you what happens. Then you nod sagely and say, “ah yes, god”. This is completely unscientific.

It may appear reasonable and rational to you, but it seems quite the opposite to me. That is the trouble with basing explanations on personal beliefs instead of science; the explanations are only meaningful to the person who invented them. You would have had to admit god was wrong if you had made the same claims about classical electromagnetic theory, Newtonian gravity, phlogiston, caloric and any number of other theories.

But the theories work just as well without gods doing this. You could just as well say that there an an infinite number of invisible pink flying unicorns guiding each photon to the right place. It is simply an unnecessary addition. Incorrect models are, perhaps, more likely to lead to insights. The inability of classical theory to explain the black body spectrum or the photoelectric effect resulted in the first attempts at quantisation. The observed limits of Newtonian gravity was one of the reasons that people were looking for a new theory of gravity at the end of the 19th century. Apparently, you haven't. We can, from either theory or experiment, determine a result. Then you say "because God wanted it that way". (And, contrary to what you say, you can never know why She wanted it that way; she may have just been moving in mysterious ways.) You can't start from "God wants ..." and come up with a testable hypothesis. And if those results that you so proudly say are because of God turn out to be incorrect, you have to back down and say, "no, God didn't actually want that"

! Moderator Note I don't think that would be off topic, as the thread appears to be about relativity (and the OP's misunderstandings).

Yes. For example: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/ancient-dna-confirms-native-americans-deep-roots-north-and-south-america More here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=genetic+analysis+"native+american"+origins

! Moderator Note As you are clearly unable to define, or even explain, what you mean, this thread is closed. Do not start another thread on this unless you can provide the required mathematical rigour in place of the waffle.

! Moderator Note If what you are saying is that physics is the same whether you use Imperial measurements, CGS, MKS or furlongs per fortnight, then this is trivially true and the thread can be closed. If you are trying to say something different then you need to state that clearly, ideally mathematically, so that it an be understood. If you can't do that, then this thread will be closed. Over to you.