Genady

@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?

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.