Genady

Here is a problem: If B and C are symmetrical relative to the signal in A, i.e, dist_A(B,A) = dist_A(A,C), then dist_B(B,A) ≠ dist_B(A,C). If, on the other hand, dist_B(B,A) = dist_B(A,C), then they are not symmetrical in A and thus their clocks don't need to be the same when they meet.

OK. The end point of both clocks is when they meet. What is a starting point of each?

I've noticed the edit: This confuses me even more regarding what you are calculating and what you expect in result. Velocity of C towards A relative to A? What about velocity of A towards B? I guess I will understand all this when I see your calculations.

Now I don't understand what you expect in the result. If A does not have any special properties, then the signal might go from B as well, i.e. A might be B itself. In this case, the signal goes off from B and B starts his clock, the signal gets received by C and C starts his clock, and sometime later they meet and compare their clocks? What is your prediction? Maybe I am confused because of the word "lectures" above (bold)? What do you mean?

So what? Heat is not conserved. Energy is conserved. The form of energy changes. There is no confusion there.

Given a choice between one's life and one's family well-being on one hand, and well-being of some foreign, perhaps bad, people on the other, most choose the former.

That is right. But the situation is described in A frame, specifically, B and C each move with speed v toward A, in the frame A. When you go to the frame B, what is the speed of C toward B? It is not 2v.

@Tom Booth, Here are examples of the textbook language as of 2021, as opposed to 1921, from Steven Weinberg, Foundations of Modern Physics, Cambridge University Press, 2021: In many places he uses the word 'heat', but it is always simply a short for the phrase 'heat energy'. Thus, to say that 'heat is destroyed' would be the same as saying that 'heat energy is destroyed', and this would be certainly wrong.

"2<3" means "2 is equivalent to <3"? No, it does not. For example, 1<3 as well, but 1 is not equivalent to 2.

@Tom Booth, In my sheet of paper analogy, the sheet of paper represents energy: - When the sheet is cylindrical, it is not flat. When the energy is in a form of work, it is not in a form of heat. Shape/form changes - not destroyed. - Being flat is not a constituent part of anything, it is a shape of the sheet. Heat is not a constituent part of anything, it is a form of energy.

In this case, the term "disappears" is used. Excuse me, but in my studies of thermodynamics, textbooks printed in 1921 were not employed. No. The energy is rolled up into a different shape. The heat was not a constituent part of the working fluid to start with.

This thread is about interpretations of the QM, not about other theories. If you want to discuss a theory which is different from QM, start another thread.

Electronic scales in a research lab. No, I did not. They were constantly in use by other researchers, too.

I've added these two events to the diagram, see below. Yellow lines are two signals. C receives the signal at event P. B receives his signal at event Q. You might refer to them in your calculations.

Bonaire. The data were used for research of effects of currents on coral distribution. I used part of the data for my own research and have published an article on it. Here are the snapshots from the relevant parts of the article: Results:

Good. I happened to have some. Several years ago, I was involved in comparing currents underwater along the cost of the island I live on. The measurements were based on comparing galvanic effect on pieces of zinc, placed underwater in various locations. The pieces all started as standard with the same weight in milligrams. They were taken out of water, weighted in the lab, and then placed back. Weekly. For one whole year. They were losing weight slowly and consistently, proportionally to the currents in the various places. In milligrams. Order of 10-4 of their weight. No fluctuations. No other effects. The results were very precise.

Do you believe in his measurements?

I see. I've replied too fast, sorry. Send your calculations whenever they are ready.

I don't see why their beards would be of equal 'age' at the crossing point. I expect them to be different. One hour ahead of me.

Take your time. I take mine, too. What is your time zone?

I don't think there is a way to consistently synchronize these frames when they are in relative motion and at a distance from each other. You can see it on my spacetime diagram above. Except the starting and the crossing points, there are no points on the B's and C's worldlines, which are simultaneous in B frame and in which the twins are the same age. Specifically, when A sends the signals, the twins are of the same age in A frame, but not of the same age in B frame. If you want, you can show your calculations, and I'll try to point where there is a wrong assumption.

If I have a flat sheet of paper and then roll it into a cylinder, did the flat sheet disappear, vanish, etc.? Certainly, not.

In my studies of thermodynamics, I have never seen such expression or its equivalents in any textbook. Then, according to the mainstream physics: No.

These "observations" of weight changes are as reliable as his "observations" of "pulsations" of the Earth movements around the Sun. Do you believe his "data"?

No, it isn't. He was. Where is it? Reference? Citation?