J.C.MacSwell

Because of length contraction. Until they are back to the initial rest frame the distance in their frame of rest would have changed. An extra displacement of one is required to maintain the separation distance as measured in their current rest frame. So they cannot be at rest with respect to each other and maintain that same distance at all times. A distance can be maintained, from the viewpoint of the observer or the object, but not both. The farther apart the observer object are, the more gradual the observers acceleration must be to allow enough time for the extra displacement of the object. For a light year distance to change to 1/2 a light year in the changing frame of the observer, the object would have to displace that much distance again, and of course this cannot exceed c in any inertial frame. So even if he left early to allow for the lag, the distance is to great in this set up. It has to be much closer, slower, and at a more gradual acceleration.

If they synchronized clocks and performed the same actions the distance between them would have changed. (unless they are back to the initial rest frame)

That is not what I said. Other than that, only your last sentence, if velocity is taken in the context that I specifically stated, is correct. Everything else is wrong.

I don't think they can, even in the theory, coordinate to maintain the distance and stay at rest wrt each other at all times during accelerations.

You can get a trademark on it, if it is a unique enough design of "isosceles triangle", though if it is actually just a triangle and nothing more, of course it will be rejected for lack of uniqueness.

As long as you recognize what it is that you measuring, average speed in terms of the traveler's moving and accelerating reference frame, while displacing a distance measured in their starting and final inertial frame; then you can make that claim. It is certainly valid for the traveler. There is no limitation of 1.0 c when measured this way. ...and it still is 0.866c measured in the inertial frame where the less than 1.0 c speed limit applies.

Are the wind generators not placed along the route/track? The advantage would be less transmission losses and of course generating electricity from the wind itself, not the apparent wind produced from the train's movement.

No. (obviously, though great question) My take: First of all if n the universe is infinite in size (we don't know) then it would require infinite energy for infinitely long to still not succeed. If the universe is finite then it would require more energy than the universe has to accelerate the spaceship to the "necessary approaching light speed" to accomplish this. In each case, the faster you go...the faster you are displaced toward an area of the universe that has most of it's mass that is at rest in your new inertial frame (due to the expansion)...so the behinder you get. Again great question. Sometimes looking at things from extremes brings up a lot of interesting ideas.

It's an analogy. I think it is an appropriate one. If you are confident in your logic and arrive at an incorrect answer then you should check your assumptions. Your post only makes sense if you assume or believe velocity is something that it is not. Velocity simply does not add the way you would like it to though the difference is not obvious until relativistic speeds become significant.

Lets suppose you are on a circle of 5 mile radius at point A. You walk along the circumference until you are at point B, exactly 1 mile from A. You then walk further on the circle until you are at point C, exactly 1 mile from B. However, you are not 2 miles from point A. Does this prove that not all points on a circle are equivalent? That there are preferred positions? Or does it tell you something about your path?

They are all photons. If you bounce (or absorb) them off something hard enough, you should hear the result.

Interesting idea with the car cooler, though you would have to make absolutely sure it would not let exhaust from a faulty exhaust system into the car when running. That used to kill quite a number of people every year though you hear it less now. It might be better to let the air in from the sides and out the top.

Especially after that Ark fiasco!

The minimum work required is the same, so if you disregard inefficiencies and kinetic energies on arrival (assuming stationary start) you are correct. That is very different from "energy expended" though, which may be your friends point (which he may be holding back?... and if it's not exactly East West he may have a trick!)

Energy expended may not be the same. In each case, I'm sure you would both agree that the potential energy, PE, at the top is the same, and the kinetic energy, KE, as well if you arrive at the same speed still weighing the same (regardless who took how long to get there). But in either case your energy expended will be much greater than your PE and KE at the top. Which took more energy depends on a lot of variables.

I've never done it intentionally, but I'm pretty sure I've done it accidentally, overcooking the core of something I've reheated by leaving it go too long.

The new ratio is F (Vo/So) where Vo and So are the original volume and surface areas. The ratio changes by a factor of F. It does not remain the same. Do you agree with that?

The bolded does not follow. It should be 12H-111=D and 36D-735=D.

This "CMB at a distance"; how is it different from the CMB here and now? It is here as well, correct? For your question, I think you are mixing old BB theory for the start, with the present BB theory for "now". Given those assumptions I think you are correct that there is a contradiction, but I think the new assumption is that if it is infinite now it was infinite then also, only denser. The old theory assumed a very small finite compact dense hot start, leading to an expanded finite current cooler state. The new theory assumes it was a possibly infinite and possibly finite, hot dense start leading to the expanded and cooler current state that is still infinite or finite (though expanded)

Can you expand (excuse the pun) on this part? Isn't the CMB everywhere?

The F factor will be cubed in one case and squared in the other so the ratio does change, correct?

The guy should be fined $50... ...and whoever authorized the $36,000 draining... fired.

So, you will only give us the answer if we let Will go? Give us your answer first, and if we like your answer we will let Will go. After all, with Satan at 97% and God only 3, chances are you are just trying to trick us.

The image in a mirror is reversed relative to a photo. Whether this reversal itself, as perceived, is the reality, or the way you view the world and your photos, is impossible to say.

This is possible, though extra assumptions are required, and Occam's beard starts looking pretty wild and unkempt. His wife would get after him. The speed of light would probably be changing or the rate of time or some combination to match up with the shrinking microscopic vs expanding macroscopic and I think there would be other "adjustments" required as well. That said, I have mused on some (interesting but half baked) steady state theories with a kind of balance of expansion and contraction in extra dimensions, but with no success.