Genady

I think it will be better if you answer, make mistakes, discuss, and fix them. We already know that Lorentz Jr knows how to solve this. What midpoint? In B frame?

What is A?

The velocity relative to what?

What is v in the current formulation?

No, it does not. Why would you think so? There is nothing confusing about this diagram, unless one reads into it more than it shows. B and C on the diagram are not events. They mark world lines of observer B and observer C, i.e., the lines, one vertical and the other one tilted. There is no even a mark for t=0. The horizontal line is just a line of events simultaneous in B. I shouldn't even call it x axis, just x line. At some moment in B, the observers B and C are on this line, in the events where it intersects with the world lines of B and C. There is nothing to review, but there is a lot to add to this diagram. Better be done step-by-step. Poco poco.

I don't know what you mean, initially. It just shows that at some moment in B frame, they are on the x axis.

Yes. 5-10 minutes... @martillo:

If they are at some distance, then it is not an event. It is two events.

What about, e.g., an adiabatic process? No heat flow, but the temperature changes.

It stops rising when the He density inside the balloon equals the atmospheric. Not a pressure.

This scenario shows how it could happen. But: 1) Did it actually happen this way? 2) Is religion a necessary ("inevitable") or even the most probable outcome when starting with those innate capacities?

From the several examples there, I can see that they interpreted the result in that way, rather than found what they say they did. The same results can be interpreted in different ways. Are there peer-reviewed articles on these studies?

Are we? Maybe mysterious but why supernatural? Isn't the latter quite an abstract concept to be wired for? Maybe we are wired to assume causal relations or correlations even when there are none, e.g., black cat - bad luck, but I don't see a necessary connection between such assumptions and religion.

almost? When going from frame A to frame B, we use in the Lorentz transformation the speed of B relative to A. When going from frame B to frame A, we use in the Lorentz transformation the speed of A relative to B. These two statements are symmetrical. In fact, I've copied and pasted the first to make the second, and then have simply replaced A by B and B by A. How more symmetrical it can be?

Ah, I see. Yes, it is a thermal component of internal energy. It can change without any heat flow, though (in a reference to the OP).

Yes, it is. You're talking about enthalpy, right?

Somewhere back on page 1, the term 'atheist' in this thread has been replaced by the term 'areligionist'.

As you're well aware, internal energy can change without any heat flow. Thus, the OP analogy with "a quantity of water in the body" would not hold.

Since they did it, they have figured out that it does not work on any level, and have it abandoned.

As I've said above, there is no such a thing as "a quantity of heat in a body". Following your logic, there cannot be such a thing as "a quantity of coldness in a body."

Does gravitational lensing affect gravitational waves similarly to the EM ones? (I doubt, because of the non-linearity.)

Thank you, I did not know. Found it here: Enthalpy - Wikipedia It says, Perhaps, not so obsolete, then. PS. Maybe this is another example that belongs to this thread:

AFAIK, there is no such a thing as "a quantity of heat in a body". For the same reason, there cannot be a meaningful concept of "a quantity of coldness in a body."

What do you refer to as "it"? A larger quantity of coldness, where? Let's say a body A gets colder and a body B gets warmer. Can you rephrase your statement for this case?

My road started differently, but perhaps was the same at the end. I grew up not having any religious adults around. God and religion were not in the picture. By the time I started interacting with religious people, at 9-10, I had enough knowledge and critical thinking to see that they are lying. The trust in facts and logic over words and stories is common for both ways. Maybe this trait has some roots in nature. In the words of your quote above, I meant a distinction between "the position that there are no deities" on one hand, and the other two on the other, i.e., "a rejection of the belief that any deities exist" and "an absence of belief in the existence of deities." edit: x-posted with @mistermack's post about his road and a similar message.