Genady

You too.

The fact that I do something is evidence that I can't do it? How come?

The fact that I do is a proof that I can do.

Well, you would say that... 🙄 Not only that I can, I also do.

Pun intended?

This is only an evidence that even a full blown monster could have some human - but not exclusively human - things. Repetition. Wrong. Every person, that's survived into adulthood, started with a wide range of capabilities. I don't think I can't see my bias. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there are other ways. I can imagine this. I also can imagine a sort of sweet growing up, without any suffering, and also be made to love dogs more than humans. I also can imagine many other scenarios with that same outcome. Of course, he was a human, i.e., Homo sapiens, biologically. I don't think that every supervillain does, but whoever does, it is only evidence that they had what was needed to get the doctorate. It does not say anything else about them. Even about their intellect.

It might help if you say it straight rather than via a metaphor. If the thing is, that we are but a product of our environment, then you don't need to repeat it. Repetition will not convince me. If the thing is, that deep inside we are all the same - ditto. If the thing is, that every person is capable of everything - ditto.

Does not seem so: Anatoly Chernyaev. The principle of the golden section (delachieve.com) Yes, independent of science.

Reference to the gravitational time dilation is helpful for a qualitative understanding of what is going on there, but to calculate the effect of the acceleration you don't need GR. It all is computed using SR, although the math is somewhat involved. Here you can find the calculations, and the author also applies them in the general case of two twins with various spacetime trajectories, of which two scenarios considered above - the twins A and B, and the twins B and C - are special cases: acceleration.pdf (uconn.edu) (The Relation Between Acceleration and Time Dilation in Special Relativity, James G. Bridgeman, December 8, 2018)

They keep coming: US military shoots down high-altitude object over Lake Huron on Sunday | CNN Politics

I don't know what it means, to go physically back in time and at the same time not to - As I don't see, how one can think about what is - and at the same time not to - These statements seem self-contradictory to me.

Maybe the most direct way to see what is going on there, is on a standard spacetime diagram. Here I've drawn it on the background of the A's frame, just because it is symmetrical and easy to draw. The analysis is still for the frame of twin B. The vertical black line is A's time axis, and the horizontal black line is A's space axis. But I am not going to refer to them. I will focus on the colored lines. The red line, IJK, is the worldline of B. The blue line, IMK, is the worldline of C. B starts at event I, turns at J, and returns at K. C starts at I, turns at M and returns at K. When B is getting to the turning point J while outgoing on the section IJ, the green line JN is his simultaneity line, i.e., all events on this line are simultaneous with J, for B. So, coming to his turning point, J, B observes C at N, which is quite some time before the C's turning point, M. This is time dilation of C observed by B. Then, B turns around, i.e., switches to the section JK. Now, the orange line JL is his simultaneity line, and he observes C at L, quite some time after C's turning point. While B makes the return trip JK, C makes only the part LK, which is again the time dilation of C as observed by B. The total time that passed on B's clock is, IJ+JK. The total time that passed on C's clock as observed by B is IN+NML+LK. Obviously, because of the symmetry, these two lengths are equal. IOW, they aged by the same amount and cross at K with the same age.

Do you mean that you+car's mass went back in time one week? How does it work with the conservation of energy? How can you or anybody know which variables affect or not the result of the rolling? Do the presence of you+car's mass, extra weight on the floor, changed resonance frequencies, air disturbance caused by you+car, etc. affect the result or they do not?

I mean that in the B frame, the change in his observation of C caused by its turning compensates exactly the total time dilation that it observes in C.

If this car makes you only a spectator, then how is it different from somebody taking a video of you rolling the dice and then replaying the video a week later?

No, turning of C does not affect B. B just observes C moving with different velocities and calculates the total effect. However, turning of B affects B and its observations. The same in the classical scenario, with A staying on Earth and B going out and returning. Turning of B does not affect A. It does affect B and its observations. We would have to consider the turning of C and its effect on the C observations, if we described the scenario in the C frame.

Hey, that was my breakfast today. Minus walnuts, orange, and milk, plus peanut butter.

I'd like to recognize my cultural bias, as much as possible. Where should I look?

Yes, you are. I picked some specific numbers for illustration. If you go through the math of Lorentz transformations, you'll find that it works out the same for any velocity. Nowhere I considered the twins' velocities as the same as the signals' velocities. I assume that the signals are light. The twins' velocities are whatever they are.

No, the acceleration is not 0. The air in the wind moves with the constant velocity before it gets to the wall. At this time, its acceleration is 0. But when it hits the wall, the air cannot continue moving as before because it cannot go through the wall. It starts slowing down before it hits the wall, because of the air in front of it, and eventually it stops moving toward the wall. So, its velocity changes during this time. Change in velocity per time is acceleration.

It is the same point all the way, i.e., the starting point in the full process, the source point of the signals, and the meeting point at the end. IOW, the observer A.

No. Two eyes allow to estimate a distance to an object in 3 dimensions, 2 dimensions, 4 dimensions, etc. You have a triangle with the known length of one side and two angles. From these, the brain computes the distance.

If B takes a picture of himself with a timestamp, say, 3, by his clock, and C takes a picture of himself with the same timestamp, 3, by his clock, then when they compare the pictures, they will look the same. The same at any timestamp.

They were moving toward each other. The OP wanted to avoid acceleration and instead to "synchronize" their clocks by a signal from the middle point.

No. C did not age more than B. C started his clock before B. That's why by the time B starts his clock C has already 5 on his.