Genady

You can do the same here.

I don't see how having number of a referenced post instead of a link to the referenced post, would solve these two problems.

I agree, the boxes make it a mess. But one more click eliminates them: when they appear there is an option underneath, "Display as a link instead", underlined. Then, instead of this: it appears like this: Maybe the staff could change the function, so the latter is a default rather than the former?

Right, but why would I use a reference other than for others to read the referenced post? If this is the purpose, the link makes doing so much easier than a number.

Thank you! Why would we need the post numbers then?

Thank you! This is much shorter than how I was doing it. Didn't notice that "posted ... ago" is a link.

The other three languages I know have the same feature. (But this is OT, perhaps.)

If the numbering is not technically possible, then maybe there are alternatives available? E.g., an easy way to link to a post.

Yes, it would be helpful. OTOH, I can just say, "You claimed earlier, that ...". If this is true, but they object, they perhaps do not argue in good faith. Otherwise, they can rephrase what they said, clarify, modify, etc., and go ahead.

@kba, Thank you. I got the answer to my question:

bs

Oh, yes. Another long list. But this is technology, not science.

Yes, there are too many differences between English in science and out. Such comparisons should not be considered here. "Horizontal" differences are almost the same. How about wave-particle duality in QM? Historically, it was talked about quite a lot, but I don't think it is mentioned anymore. Not as an important concept anyway.

That does not count. They did not speak English then. 😉

Symmetry: from a simple geometrical meaning to invariance under transformation.

How about geometry? From a study of shapes and figures to a study of coordinate invariance.

Good examples above. Here is another: metal in chemistry vs metal in astrophysics (any element but hydrogen or helium).

This sounds like common vs scientific names of species in biology.

This is not a question in physics. Perhaps, in history of science. But not in physics.

As noted in another current thread, hundred years ago science textbooks used to talk about "destruction of heat". This language is not used in science today. I think, there might be many other examples of interesting evolution of scientific English, not involving changes in underlying physics. The first came to my mind, "mass". Not long ago (but after 1905) it often was used with a qualifier, e.g., "rest mass", "relativistic mass". Today, it is just "mass" meaning "rest mass", in all (almost?) textbooks, presentations, papers. Other interesting examples?

Copyright date does not necessarily invalidate the principle, but it often invalidates the verbiage. Language evolves, including the one used in science.

Well, thank you for letting me know. I'll take a note and will not waste my time anymore.

Here it is. R is where C receives the signal, and S is where B receives the signal:

1) This is why the spacetime diagrams are so useful. You can draw it in one frame, which will appear orthogonal, and draw and analyze on the same diagram any other frame, which will appear tilted relative to the first. This allows for comparison between frames. 2) They are points simultaneous with the emission of the signals in point A, in frame B. There is a straightforward rule, how to find simultaneous points for any frame on the diagram. The points P, Q, and A are simultaneous in the frame B, and A is the emission. There is nothing about the reception, yet. Do you want me to show the reception points?

At this moment (in B frame), PA is a distance from B to A (in B frame), and QA is a distance from C to A (in B frame). In your notation, PA = dist_B(B,A) and QA = dist_B(A,C). You see on the diagram that PA and QA are not, and cannot be, equal.