The problem with that question is the word “while”, which means “at the same time”, which presupposes a notion of universal time. In special relativity, time depends on your frame. Events which are at the same in B’s frame may not be at the same time in A’s frame. So you can’t say “while” without specifying whose…

The first and second paragraphs answer the first and second questions respectively.

Followup thought: if you apply your same comments about art to music, what you’ve just done is dismiss every song cover ever as “ridiculous, disrespectful and entitled”. Absurd.

“Entitled”? If you buy the film you can do whatever the hell you like with it. Draw an evil twirly moustache on Superman if you want. It’s none of your business. Go away.

Gonna second the comment about digital having nothing to do with this. I’m not sure whether you meant to blame the actual camera technology, but anyway. What you’re doing is comparing older films to newer ones, not celluloid films to digital ones. The problem is that it’s a modern aesthetic. The change in camera…

Your confusion is because you are picturing some kind of impartial, objective frame to observe all of this in. In special relativity it’s essential you specify the frame. A natural frame to choose here would be observer A’s frame. In his frame (where of course his watch is ticking “normally”), observer B is receding…

It just means that before you object to the facts presented to you, ask yourself if they are truly inconsistent, or if they simply contradict your experience.

No, in special relativity time travel is impossible precisely because you can change events causally linked to your past. There’s no reason you couldn’t. If you went back in time 24 hours with the explicit intention of violating your past experience, say by slapping your past self in the face, there’s nothing to stop…

I don’t think it would go the other way, certainly not for relativity. The “world of the mesoscale” is just a special case of special relativity. It’s like... if there were creatures who could only conceptualise a two dimensional, flat world because they lived on the surface of a huge sphere which locally appeared…

If spacetime doesn’t exist then what is it that gets bent by gravitational fields?

10ten? One hundred? One hundred and ten? ...Tintin?

The film wasn’t on par with the first two, but how was his role embarrassing?

The homonymy of “patronize” is confusing.

You’ve clearly got something of a chip on your shoulder, mate. Either that or trolling. I’m not a wine connoisseur. Understanding that a 170 year old wine from the bottom of the sea probably tastes a bit different doesn’t make somebody a snob.

Given you don’t seem to understand there is a distinction between wine and what is potentially briny sludge, the feeling’s mutual. You’d probably serve me a glass of delicious tar.

It didn’t taste like wine, that’s the freakin’ point. It’s been buried in a shipwreck for 170 years. Are you sure you understand the premise of this article..?

How do you know it didn’t smell smoky or leathery? What other words would you use to describe something that smelled of smoke and leather?

The picture is there to help illustrate the situation, and to disambiguate the text if you thought there were any ambiguities. It is not a random picture of an object with no relevance to the question. I can barely believe you’re not trolling because your assertion is absurd.

If you translate a helix along its axis by a little bit, and then rotate it a little bit, it looks exactly the same. This is what symmetry means in this context. Symmetry does not simply mean rotations or reflections. It refers to any kind of non trivial mapping from the object onto itself. So colloquially it means…

Actually I’m pretty sure you were fast because you’d been taught almost exactly the same type of question before. :/