J.C.MacSwell

I think it balances with the answers given. Did you include the moment from the thrust?

Looks Good

Yes. No. No

If she says it is full she will be off by just 50%, so she will say it is empty...

Good point. Just a minor effect but In experiments like these the way the World turns affects all the whirled turns... ...I'll get my coat as well...

The slight difference is that when they are out of the water there is a surface tension at the perimeter that is not there when submerged (which prevents the air getting in...not the main force) I have never had any trouble separating when submerged if I pried and just waited, but when out they can really stay stuck using the same technique...better to slide them apart if they are flat enough.

I think this seems right. It is not standard Minkowski space /SR interpretation (where I think you can deduce where time was lost or gained with respect to any well defined frame) but if I am reading it correctly it is consistent with your statements (and also consistent with experiment as far as I can tell)

After the initial departure of the two traveling clocks...the two clocks run slow in the stay home clocks reference frame - AND the stay at home clock runs slow in the traveling clocks reference frame. So given this...how is the bold a contradiction? One of the traveling clocks simply switched frames (though when it did it changed it's view of what it considers "now" back home with the stay at home clock)

Unbalanced equations are the greatest source of renewable energy... There ought to be a name for perpetual motion machines based on this concept as it comes up "perpetually"...ignore a small change in energy as insignificant and then use it over and over to perpetually drive the machine. We also see it's cousin that thrusts itself forward in space by creating it's own momentum...all by claiming as insignificant what is used over and over in some sort of circuit.

Looking at distant clocks with respect to "B spacetime system" can seem to yield very bizarre results, but they are still valid with respect to causality. The orders of spatially separated events can become reversed but never causally. It may be a very poor choice of frame to analyze events but it is not inherently invalid.

That's not a round trip for either in SR. They will both be displaced in the original frame.

Loses time why? For this essentially instantaneous acceleration/deceleration the two travelling clocks in this scenario are not displaced enough to have a significant change in time...just the rate going forward as measured by each. Compare with respect to the stay at home clock. The greater displacement effects a significant shift to the future through the deceleration.

It is easy to set up a contradiction in the logic if you start with a false assumption. In this case you are assuming all frames have the same absolute time. Read the bold without that assumption and there is no contradiction.

Agree with that. However we define "advanced", it really has not been held very long by any group or race. The Dark Ages were not that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Probably a key element to the advancement in Europe was Gutenburg's printing press.

Yes. It is correct. Just be aware that it is not an inertial frame or Earth frame. A vehicle is a very common frame of reference, generally limited to the immediate space. Proper context is everything, whether implied or assumed.

Seems like where Newtonian Physics was prior to Einstein...

Could it simply float? Pumice can be lighter than seawater, at least until it absorbs enough water... From Wiki "After the explosion of Krakatoa, rafts of pumice drifted through the Pacific Ocean for up to 20 years, with tree trunks floating among them.[5] In fact, pumice rafts disperse and support several marine species.[6] In 1979, 1984 and 2006, underwater volcanic eruptions near Tonga created large pumice rafts, some as large as 30 km that floated hundreds of kilometres to Fiji.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice

Gravitational effects aside, an observer in an inertial frame will never observe/calculate someones clock to be running faster. However, they can observe/see a blueshifted transmission from a clock that will make it appear as such due to the diminishing distance of transmission. When they allow for that they will measure the approaching clock to be running slower.

In your Bizarro World described it still works...right and left are relative to the observer, so no direction is preferred for the Bizzarro Physics...it is positions and directions of the clocks themselves relative to an observer that determine how they will be viewed, measured and interpreted. As long as Bizzarro Physics is self consistent all observers can reconcile their different interpretations to agree on causes and effects.

Read some 30 + years ago that every time we inhaled we breathed in some of what Julius Caesar breathed before...seemed reasonable and I suspected it was more likely true than not. I always remembered it but never the source. So this thread made me google it (you can debate whether I actually had a choice)...anyway found this: http://futurism.com/estimating-how-many-molecules-you-breathe-that-were-from-julius-caesars-last-breath/ If the Author's calculations and estimates are correct you likely breath in at least one molecule of nitrogen from Caesar's last breath... with most breaths you take in. So for oxygen it's less than that, but in the time you read this you probably borrowed one from a dying Caesar. Et tu Brute!

That's equivalent to saying that if something accelerates in one direction, it can never accelerate in the opposite and return to it's original velocity. (or original rest frame)

So the new phrase for offering someone a seat would be "take a load on".

It is easy to see that one travelling East and one West is not a symmetrical comparison. Is it not?

How so? The longest continuous time in space is just over 14 months, and only one other time has someone gone more than a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records

As John Cuthbert implied with his comment with regard to the need for use of the rudder, the plane would need to turn (59 degrees if your calculation is correct...seems right) while flying "straight" (geodesic and shortest route wrt a non rotating Earth frame) to the equator It would then be flying straight into the apparent wind, and not experience any lateral component. It would have to be capable of 1886km/hr, but forward, not sideways.