Strange

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.

What? No. The book was translated multiple times into different languages. At each translation, words (including names) were translated into the new language. I can see that might be a bit hard to understand, but I'm sure it will make sense if you think about it for a bit. But you can always read it in the original Aramaic or Greek, if you prefer.

It is a translation of (ultimately) Maryam: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(name)

Good point. (Reminds me of Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong")

Understanding what knowledge is, how it can be gained, how it can be tested, what it means to "test" something experimentally, what paradoxes are (and if they actually exist), are all topics for philosophy. We only have the scientific method because of philosophers of science.

I think this poll confuses two concepts: philosophy as a discipline or process (a way of thinking about problems, definitions and questions) and a philosophy (a worldview or set of beliefs; e.g. I am (apparently) a naive realist). Both of these can be good or bad. The former (the "process") is highly valuable when done well. So I guess there is some sort of objective-ish measure of how good it is. For the latter meaning, I suspect good or bad become much more subjective.

That would make quantum theory wrong. You would need to provide some pretty impressive evidence to support that claim.

That universe was once smaller and hotter (and denser). And has always been uniformly(*) full of matter. Being large, small, finite or infinite makes no difference. (*) Until gravity started causing areas of higher density.

No, it would be true for a finite universe as well.

Can you provide a more specific reference than “some people”? Pretty much all matter (in the form of hydrogen and some helium) was formed early in the Big Bang. That is the “one source” and why matter is evenly distributed throughout the universe

! Moderator Note Moved to a more appropriate forum

It would be an adventure to visit the only planet we know that is entirely populated by robots

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

You could stick around and get involved in other discussions. That might be interesting and it might help you clarify your ideas in you own head so that you are able to explain them to others.

As you are unable to explain this vague feeling to anyone else, in meaningful terms, it seems to be the most spectacularly useless idea ever. "My theory of everything is that things seem kind of right to me in a way I can't quite define"

Looks like someone beat you to it: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-map-of-mathematics-20200213/

I've never quite understood this. How does killing someone show to others that they will have everlasting life? It sounds more like proof you will die. Possibly horribly. It sounds like a really stupid thing to do. I'm really not sure that God thought this one through. One the other hand, it seems to have worked for a lot of people, so what do I know.

If they came up with one piece of evidence that it was wrong, they would probably be in line for a Nobel Prize (roughly a million dollars?) That would have very obviously measurable effects. As these have never been observed, this is another falsification of the hypothesis. And yet the invariance of the speed of light has been extensively tested. And, if it were not invariant, it would be a violation of Lorentz invariance, which has also been extensively tested, to extremely high precision, in many and varied ways. An equally plausible "possible interpretation" of the results is that they were affected by invisible pink unicorns. You can make up any number of untestable reasons for the results of experiments. We tend to go with the ones that are based on known science, not unsupported guesses. There are no contradictions in GR. And, as others have noted, the experiment has been done and confirms GR. Also, it isn't "simple and logical" to come up with an explanation where you have to invent an extra mechanism that makes your different result look just like the one predicted by a successful theory.

I have a vague recollection of some studies on this (presumably based on versions of oral tales written down at different times) and it is remarkably accurate. In part, perhaps, because of the importance attached to the stories and to getting them right (and that the storytellers, for want of a better word) are highly respected in the society. And maybe the use of music (and actions/dance) helps reinforce the memories.

It would be interesting to know whether oral or written traditions are more error prone. It seems obvious that memorising epic tales, etc would be less reliable than relying on written forms. But I bet its not that simple.

Corrupted might be a better word. But it can have quite negative connotations. Changed or evolved are more neutral. The texts will have changed over time purely because of things like transcription errors. Whether anyone has deliberately changed them (eg to fit a particular interpretation) I couldn’t say

I would say the Relativity section, probably: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/10-relativity/ Unless it is more about their formation and role in galaxies, in which astronomy might be better: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/7-astronomy-and-cosmology/ There are at least two or three people with a good level of knowledge.

The most popular machine learning frameworks seem to be TensorFlow and PyTorch. These are both based on Python.

rode_of_the_ruin has been banned as a sock-puppet of Trần Thành (and others).

So the protests are helping. There is an incredibly powerful video of a young black women telling protestors who were looting that they are damaging the property and livelihoods of the local people; the very people the protests were intended to protect. She said "every one of you had better be registered to vote." You could hear them all muttering "yes we are", "yes we will" (all sounding rather like embarrassed school kids). Hopefully, many more people will be motivated to register and vote.