Are most scientists sniveling fearful conformists?

@humy said
Yes, and many people don't realize JUST how tricky that concept really is!

What many people seem to not notice or realize is that correlation doesn't equate with causation nor merely imply a direct causation involved. For example, the day-night correlation (the event of day is always followed by the event of night therefore day is correlated with night) doesn't imply day caus ...[text shortened]... lts published by putting all these results in my book I am still writing to be eventually published.

"What many people seem to not notice or realize is that correlation doesn't equate with causation nor merely imply a direct causation involved"

Yeah, like temperatures and CO2 in the ice core samples. Another false causation. Literally backwards and most people still believe that false causation.

It isn't really a trick concept if you understand things well. It is not hard to stop yourself and say "oops, false causation. They are the same thing". It is only tricky if you don't know they are the same thing.

You really have to stop contradicting your own logic. Brian Greene is smarter than all of you and he agrees with me, time dilation is why things fall. The math shows that.

@metal-brain said
Nope. Nobody knows why.
That is why there are only theories and the graviton has not been proven to exist yet. Furthermore you don't even remember what my personal theory is.

There is a difference between a personal theory, make that an opinion, Vs actually writing a peer reviewed paper on the subject. What is your 'personal theory'? I assume it must somehow jive with Greene.

@metal-brain said
"What many people seem to not notice or realize is that correlation doesn't equate with causation nor merely imply a direct causation involved"

Yeah, like temperatures and CO2 in the ice core samples.

The two have not only been shown to be correlated but the models (applied to the real data) show each temperature rise then leads to a CO2 rise (due to the rise in temperature causing some CO2 to defuse out of the oceans) which then results in a higher rise in temperature (due to the greenhouse effect) than what you would predict if you assumed CO2 doesn't cause a temperature rise. In other words, this is an example of X causes Y but Y also causes X. This sometimes in science; causation is seen to happen both ways. And thus there has been NO confusion between correlation and causation there because they are BOTH clearly present there.

It isn't really a trick concept if you understand things well

You seem to be unable to grasp the extremely simple concept that causation can sometimes happen BOTH ways so apparently you do find that a tricky concept and you don't understand things well.

@humy said
The two have not only been shown to be correlated but the models (applied to the real data) show each temperature rise then leads to a CO2 rise (due to the rise in temperature causing some CO2 to defuse out of the oceans) which then results in a higher rise in temperature (due to the greenhouse effect) than what you would predict if you assumed CO2 doesn't cause a temperature ri ...[text shortened]... ppen BOTH ways so apparently you do find that a tricky concept and you don't understand things well.

Nope. If that were the case there would be uncontrollable runaway warming. It would be horrific and unstoppable if things worked the way you imply.

https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

Read the article and take it seriously this time. Being hopelessly dogmatic is why you keep getting proved wrong. You need to be open minded.

@metal-brain said
If that were the case there would be uncontrollable runaway warming.

Nope; and that assertion shows how ignorant of the physics involved.
There is a delayed reaction between warming of the atmosphere and the release of CO2 from oceans that allow time for natural cooling effects in the intermittent period and then there is a time delayed reaction between increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the maximum warming of the atmosphere it will cause and that, again, allow time for natural cooling effects in the intermittent period.

@humy said
Nope; and that assertion shows how ignorant of the physics involved.
There is a delayed reaction between warming of the atmosphere and the release of CO2 from oceans that allow time for natural cooling effects in the intermittent period and then there is a time delayed reaction between increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the maximum warming of the atmosphere it will cause and that, again, allow time for natural cooling effects in the intermittent period.

The Pliocene Epoch makes your explanation ridiculous. There were no cooling effects. You are just making crap up.

You know you are wrong and are merely pretending otherwise. Even you are not stupid enough to believe your own rhetoric.

@metal-brain said
The Pliocene Epoch makes your explanation ridiculous.

Nope. It has nothing to do with my explanation which is based on the scientific facts which are based on understanding of just basic physics any first-year physics student should know about. Nothing in the Pliocene Epoch contradicts those facts so stated. For example, C02 becomes less soluble in water as water temperature increases and CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of infrared etc. So it would be a complete mystery if none of the effects I stated happen for that would imply the known laws of physics are all wrong!

There were no cooling effects.

Yes there was. The temperature back then must have fluctuated just like it does now and always so there must have been cooling effects back then as well as warming effects.

You are just making crap up.

No, you are. I am just stating the known scientific facts. Your inability to handle the scientific facts is your problem not mine.

@humy said
Nope. It has nothing to do with my explanation which is based on the scientific facts which are based on understanding of just basic physics any first-year physics student should know about. Nothing in the Pliocene Epoch contradicts those facts so stated. For example, C02 becomes less soluble in water as water temperature increases and CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of infrared ...[text shortened]... the known scientific facts. Your inability to handle the scientific facts is your problem not mine.

What cooling effects? If you didn't make that up what is your source of information?

https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

It is obvious you never read the article. Either that or you dismissed facts as false assertions.

@metal-brain said
What cooling effects?

Can't your to read and comprehend?
I just said;
"The temperature back then must have fluctuated just like it does now and always so there must have been cooling effects back then as well as warming effects. "
Comprehend?
Or do you now deny there are cooling effects as well as warming effects? If so then what do YOU say causes fluctuations in temperature?

If you didn't make that up what is your source of information?

As usual, my source of information is science.
Example of where science says there exists a cooling effect;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

Do you deny that the Earth has an albedo that varies with time and when it increases this generally results in cooling?

@humy said
Can't your to read and comprehend?
I just said;
"The temperature back then must have fluctuated just like it does now and always so there must have been cooling effects back then as well as warming effects. "
Comprehend?
Or do you now deny there are cooling effects as well as warming effects? If so then what do YOU say causes fluctuations in temperature?

No source? Now everybody knows you made it up. Good enough.

@metal-brain said
No source?

I have just given you the source of information that there exists cooling effects but apparently you cannot read. Here it is yet again; example of a cooling effect;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

@metal-brain said
"What many people seem to not notice or realize is that correlation doesn't equate with causation nor merely imply a direct causation involved"

Yeah, like temperatures and CO2 in the ice core samples. Another false causation. Literally backwards and most people still believe that false causation.

It isn't really a trick concept if you understand things well. It is ...[text shortened]... marter than all of you and he agrees with me, time dilation is why things fall. The math shows that.

Slow down a minute. There's a difficulty in this forum with what is called splitting, some theory is either accepted wholesale or entirely rejected, this is directed at everyone, not just you. It's in the nature of theories that they capture something about the world, but it is not a requirement that they be perfect - depending on the use they are being put to. Regarding the ice cores it is entirely plausible to me that there would be a lag between CO2 signature and temperature increase even though CO2 is one of the drivers of the temperature change.

Regarding Greene's explanation it is intended for an amateur audience and is simplified, based on what you've written it is that the rate clocks tick at at different altitudes changes that causes gravitation. Assuming we agree on gravitation being the tendency of objects to fall.

@deepthought said
Slow down a minute. There's a difficulty in this forum with what is called splitting, some theory is either accepted wholesale or entirely rejected, this is directed at everyone, not just you. It's in the nature of theories that they capture something about the world, but it is not a requirement that they be perfect - depending on the use they are being put to. Regardi ...[text shortened]... es that causes gravitation. Assuming we agree on gravitation being the tendency of objects to fall.

There is a lag time of about 200 years more or less if I remember correctly. I never disputed that. It is the assertion that the CO2 from the ocean going into the atmosphere causing significant warming in the atmosphere that I dispute.

I'm not sure what you are asserting is theory. GR has been confirmed in several different ways so it is more of a fact than theory.

"based on what you've written it is that the rate clocks tick at at different altitudes changes that causes gravitation. Assuming we agree on gravitation being the tendency of objects to fall."

Yes. Brian Greene said himself the math shows that in "light falls". At the risk of applying causality when I like to resist it, time dilation causes gravity. Time dilation causes the bending of space/time. Oops, false causality, they are the same thing. Time dilation "is" the bending of space/time.

Now I am curious about Einstein's cosmological constant. He has an equation for that as well. I think that would be called a theory, not GR.

BTW, remember when you said this:

"I had an undergraduate course in General Relativity, a course in differential geometry and my thesis title was Polymerisation of 2D Quantum Gravity models. I am to all intents and purposes infallible in this field as far as discussions in this forum are concerned."

You were not infallible at all were you?

@metal-brain said
There is a lag time of about 200 years more or less if I remember correctly. I never disputed that. It is the assertion that the CO2 from the ocean going into the atmosphere causing significant warming in the atmosphere that I dispute.

I'm not sure what you are asserting is theory. GR has been confirmed in several different ways so it is more of a fact than theory.

...[text shortened]... ield as far as discussions in this forum are concerned."

You were not infallible at all were you?

A LOT less fallible than you it seems. HE is the one with a Phd, don't forget.

@metal-brain saidTime dilation "is" the bending of space/time.

No, it isn't. Or at least not in special relativity thus time dilation cannot always be simply defined that way.

In special relativity, there are a number of ways of expressing time dilation none of them involving gravity or things falling.
One such way is via the Lorentz factor inverse equation which I studied at university and here it is;

α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2))

where

α is the Lorentz factor inverse,
v is the relative velocity between inertial reference frames,
c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

In the trivial case of v=0 then α=1 and no time dilation observed.
The output variable α can only be in the (0, 1] interval.
If its a clock that is moving and if, say, α=0.76, that means the moving clock ticks only at 76% the rate of what it would if it was stationary in that from of reference.

And before you start again with your usual "what is the source of your information" crap, scroll about 1/4 down here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
and you will see the above equation.

OK; Now, see there is NOTHING in that equation about gravity or mass or things falling or bending of spacetime nor anything that implies any of those things.
That proves that, according to special relativity, you CAN have time dilation WITHOUT gravity or "things falling" in anyway involved and the amount of time dilation in special relativity is independent of any masses involved.
Therefore, in special relativity time dilation is NOT gravity. This disproves your claim that time dilation IS gravity. Thus this proves you were wrong and I was right about that all the time. But I guess you are not man enough to ever admit when you know you are wrong.