VanderL: why not start a thread, in the Q&A section, on neutron stars?

You could ask two questions (or sets of questions):

1) what is the logic, and what are the observations, that astronomers use to conclude that certain objects are neutron stars?

2) what is the logic, and what are the experiments, that physicists use to create models of stable neutron stars?

Or something similar.

More generally, I note that this scepticism towards astronomy, as a science, seems similar to that expressed in a thread started by ManInTheMirror, and suggests that the nature of astronomy, as a science, is perhaps rather less well understood than it should be.

Why not take advantage of BAUT's Q&A section, and the enthusiasm that so many who post there have for astronomy, to explore this?

Alternatively, why not start a new thread, in the ATM section, presenting a case for just how limited astronomy (as a science) is, as you see it? Perhaps such a case could start with what you consider to be so solid as to be sceptic-proof, and work your way out from there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

madman: why try to present a case against SR in BAUT? We are about space and astronomy; surely any refutation of SR, such as that you sketch, can be done here on Earth, even in labs, can't it?