Strange

Many things are in motion. That motion is relative to something else. But that distance will depend who measures it. If you measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon, you will get a different answer than someone flying past in a spaceship. There is no measurement independent of the observer. Each observer may make a different measurement of the spatial distance. You can determine the distance, from your frame of reference. Someone else might measure a different distance. Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity This has been known for well over 100 years. I am surprised you haven't heard of it.

Then you should be able to understand that A can consider themselves stationary and B as moving. Or B can consider themselves stationary and A as moving. The two cases are exactly equivalent. You do not need any third frame of reference to derive or use the Lorentz transform between A and B. A will see B's clocks as running slower. And B will see A's clocks as running slower. (By exactly the same amount.) You can introduce an arbitrary C (and D, E ... K ... M ... Z ...) moving relative to both A and B, but that doesn't change the relationship between A and B.

It is logically wrong. As shown by Galileo several hundred years ago. Not sure why you are incapable of understanding this. [p.s. reported as sock puppet.]

I don't think there is anything wrong in that math. (If so, I have missed it.) But he insists that you can only derive that if you establish an absolute reference frame to start with. Which is not true. He appears to derive the Lorentz transform with reference to only relative motion to A and B first, and then says it can't be done without an absolute frame. Which doesn't make much sense. But I haven't tried to wade through all his (slightly incoherent) arguments yet.

If two people are moving relative to one another then they will measure distances and times differently. They will disagree over whether events are simultaneous and even which one happens first. In short, there is no universal "now".

As the OP was concerned about "alkaline levels" I doubt there is any point trying to rationalise their behaviour.

So, we agree. No reason to give it up. But, like everything from water to vitamins, it can be harmful in excess.

Just to drag the discussion back on track ... As far as I am aware, there is no real reason to give up caffeine unless you have a medical condition that can be aggravated by it (anxiety, some heart conditions, etc.) or a severe allergy to it. However, it is something that an awful lot of people do seem to give up when they are trying to be "healthy". (No doubt falling for the 8-pints-of-water-a-day myth at the same time.) And the OP's reason was entirely bogus.

Yep. As someone said earlier, not everything natural is good. The most powerful poisons known are 100% natural.

Worth noting that while watermelon seeds are edible, that is not true of all fruit. There was a recent case of someone in the UK nearly dying after eating a small number of cherry(?) seeds. And tomato seeds are also very toxic.

Ah, I see. You picked up on the difference between "feelings" and "experience", which wasn't the point. The point is that an individual's experience is a single data point and, therefore, by itself of little value. It is also subject to all sorts of biases. On the other hand, one could carry out a scientific study of people's personal/subjective experience and/or feelings. In fact, this is very frequently done. If done scientifically, efforts would be made to eliminates sources of bias (such as blinded or double-blinded tests) or to take them into account when analysing the results. And yet another straw man argument.

As far as we know, space and time are continuous, not made up of "bits". Space-time moments (events) are not universal, there are observer dependent. We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite.

I can't imagine why you think I said that. Presumably you have misinterpreted something I said, but I can't see what would lead to that conclusion. Cherrypicking data to support an argument is also not scientific. OK. It'd didn't seem like it. And reading your horoscope....

Left-brain right-brain myth: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/right-brainleft-brain-right-2017082512222

Firstly, you cannot draw any conclusions from an individual data point. So appealing to an individual 's experience is not scientific. And, secondly, if you were to do a large study and find that, say, 64.3% of people said they felt healthier after switching to fresh juice (from coffee or even purchased juice) that doesn't tell you (a) if they are healthier or (b) the reason why they feel healthier. Well, an obvious option you missed (which would have been top of my list) would be to see what the expert recommendations are based on proper scientific studies.

That would make zero sense. Wasn't commenting on your original post. (I'm not sure how fruit juice is a substitute for caffeine, but it can obviously be a substitute for tea or coffee, or any other drink. I'm not sure why one couldn't drink both coffee and fruit juice (although probably not together!) But whatever.) That may explain a lot.

I don't understand how this is relevant. Maybe it would help if you define exactly what you mean by "information". Do you mean something like Shannon's information theory? This allows information to be quantified, but I'm not sure if it is what you are thinking of. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/22/shannon-information-theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory http://www.science4all.org/article/shannons-information-theory/

Science is about repeated (and repeatable) objective measurements (which can, of course, be of subjective feelings). Not about an individual's personal experience. And, one person's subjective experience does not help answer the question of whether an effect is physical, psychological, some combination, or due to some other cause. Do you really think they are the only possibilities?

Stop with the stupid and dishonest straw man arguments. No one said they were irrelevant.

No on is dismissing the evidence. But assuming those subjective feelings must be due to physical effects is not scientific either. Especially as things like the placebo effect are so well attested. Science is not about personal experience. In fact, this is almost the exact opposite of science. But, sadly, this is the sort of anti-science response I am coming to expect from you.

Does information have space and time? Can you explain that?

That doesn't rule out psychological (e.g. placebo) effects. It also doesn't rule out other possible (physical) causes such as, when they start to prepare their own fruit juice (or take supplements, or whatever) they also started looking after their health in other ways such as doing more exercise, drinking less, etc. As they say, correlation is not causation. Strictly speaking, that is not a distinction between natural and unnatural. For example, many pesticides, growth hormones and fertilisers are natural. And it is quite possible to produce poor quality food by completely "natural" means (i.e. not using such things). (Also, it wouldn't be possible to feed the world's growing population without the use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.)

In a (now trashed) thread, Moontanman linked to an interesting story about the role of retroviruses in brain function and memory: That was a very poorly written article (in one sentence, I couldn't even work out what the "it" referred to). But it still looked like very interesting, so here is a better one (with references to the original papers): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00492-w

One way of realising this must be true is to remember that the relativistic mass is a relative effect. In other words, someone else (moving relative to you)will see your mass increase. But you won't see your mass increase (because you are never moving relative to yourself). It is impossible for you (Earth) to become a black hole from their point of view and not yours. Therefore it can't be correct. This is why a lot of people avoid the concept of relativistic mass, because it can mislead in this way. (And it isn't really necessary; it is just a way of talking about energy.)

It doesn't matter. This has been know for 400 years. You need to catch up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance Science isn't a popularity contest. Relativity gives the right answers. Therefore it is accepted. You can only change that by showing a (real) experiment that goes the wrong answers. [Reported for more trolling. You seem to be more successful at breaking the rules of the forum than understanding science.]