Are most scientists sniveling fearful conformists?

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

He was wrong thoughout this entire thread:

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/scalar-or-not-scalar.177919

I already posted many other wrong statements he made. Go back and look. You cannot find that many false statement from me on this forum, not even close.

You are clearly wrong and I can easily prove it.

@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]... ogical constant. He has an equation for that as well. I think that would be called a theory, not GR.

General Relativity is a theory. A theory is a description of the world and we judge it on how well it describes the world. Karl Popper's ideas of falsifiabillity apply. General Relativity simply hasn't been proved wrong yet and there isn't a better theory of gravitation. This does not mean that it won't be superceded by M-theory or some such in the future. General Relativity has passed all the tests thrown at it so far so it's pretty good.

Theories come in a few varieties: hypothetical and speculative theories, such as Brane Worlds, falsified theories like Newtonian Mechanics - which is nevertheless useful, validated and not yet falsified theories like General Relativity, and paradigm theories which is also what GR is.

To understand the distinction I'm making consider the Magritte painting The Treachery of Images which contains a picture of a pipe with the caption "Ceci n'est pas une Pipe.". It's a painting of a pipe and a representation of a pipe is not a pipe. Similarly General Relativity is a theory of Gravitation but the theory is not the thing.

The cosmological constant controls the overall volume. There are speculative extensions to GR in which it is not a constant. Dark Energy is a speculative theory of the origin of the cosmological constant - but, although I may be wrong, it is one where the constant can vary with time and position. Einstein introduced it to keep the volume of the universe fixed, and then they discovered Hubble expansion.

@humy said
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.
In 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
...[text shortened]... al relativity time dilation is NOT gravity. This disproves your claim that time dilation IS gravity.

SR is not about gravity. Go back to school or find some other hobby than trolling.
You already showed you don't know what you are talking about on this thread:

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/scalar-or-not-scalar.177919

@metal-brain said
SR is not about gravity.

correct and I never implied the contrary.
This doesn't change the fact that SR disproves your claim that time dilation IS gravity.
Explain to us all how can time dilation be defined as gravity when you can have time dilation without gravity?....

@deepthought said
General Relativity is a theory. A theory is a description of the world and we judge it on how well it describes the world. Karl Popper's ideas of falsifiabillity apply. General Relativity simply hasn't been proved wrong yet and there isn't a better theory of gravitation. This does not mean that it won't be superceded by M-theory or some such in the future. General Re ...[text shortened]... n introduced it to keep the volume of the universe fixed, and then they discovered Hubble expansion.

I did hear Einstein said someone might improve his theory some day so I don't disagree with your statements, but GR is pretty solid. It is based on time dilation. Notice the "T" in the equation.

You cannot have bending of space/time without time dilation. They are the same thing. One does not cause the other in a before and after sense.

@humy said
correct and I never implied the contrary.
This doesn't change the fact that SR disproves your claim that time dilation IS gravity.
Explain to us all how can time dilation be defined as gravity when you can have time dilation without gravity?....

I started out saying time dilation causes gravity. One of the reasons why I shifted to saying "is" was because you said the bending of space/time and gravity are the same thing. Since the bending of space/time and time dilation is the same thing you have to accept time dilation is gravity or admit you were wrong when you said the bending of space/time and gravity are the same thing.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/gravity.163599/page-2

You are contradicting yourself.

@metal-brain said
I started out saying time dilation causes gravity.

and then you for some reason claimed time dilation IS gravity.

One of the reasons why I shifted to saying "is" was because you said the bending of space/time and gravity are the same thing.

No, I didn't say this.

1, I never actually said/implied that the bending of space/time and gravity are the same thing, even though they are the same thing. You must have confused me with someone else.

2, time dilation isn't the bending of spacetime so that still doesn't explain whey you changed that to an "is".

Since the bending of space/time and time dilation is the same thing

No, it isn't the same thing. And why do you keep saying "space/time"? It isn't "space/time" as in "space or time" but "spacetime" and by keep saying "space/time" you give the impression you don't know what the physicists are talking about here.

If we have;

bending of spacetime = time dilation

then logically we must also have

time dilation = bending of spacetime

-that is assuming that is what you mean by "is" here, right? "is" means "=" here, right? It would seem that you do mean that because you actually then claimed time dilation IS gravity (and therefore IS bending of spacetime).
But special relativity proves time dilation can occur WITHOUT bending of spacetime being involved thus;
"time dilation = bending of spacetime" is false therefore "bending of spacetime = time dilation" is false and you are wrong.

@humy said
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 ...[text shortened]... out that all the time. But I guess you are not man enough to ever admit when you know you are wrong.

Not to be picky but the formula you gave is wrong. It is the inversion of the square root of 1-V^2/C^2 not as written. So Td(don't have greek) = Sqr root of (1/1-V^2/C^2). Td is time dilation.
So given 1/10c (~30,000 Km/sec) Td is about 1.05
I just started reading Ben Bova sci fi "New Earth" where he posits a trip to Sirius (8ly, going 0.1c) taking 80 years. So if I have it right that trip would save about 3.8 years or a bit more than 76 years off Earth time. Time would go by at .95 of Earthy time on that ship going 0.1 c.
The numbers are not exact, I just simplified V^2/C^2 to .9 and sqr to 1.05 as how much faster their clocks would run and .95 as clocks on Earth.
Of course he could cover that by saying the ship didn't do 0.1c, but only 0.08c or some such😉

@sonhouse said
Not to be picky but the formula you gave is wrong. It is the inversion of the square root of 1-V^2/C^2 not as written. So Td(don't have greek) = Sqr root of (1/1-V^2/C^2). Td is time dilation.

You are talking about

y = 1/√(1 – (v^2)/(c^2))

NOT

α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2))

BOTH are correct But I was talking about the α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2)) one.
If you scroll about 1/4 down at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
and below the y = 1/√(1 – (v^2)/(c^2)) equation you will see the α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2)) equation so that was correct!
It is a valid alternative (and the one I personally prefer) of expressing time dilation.

@humy said
and then you for some reason claimed time dilation IS gravity.

One of the reasons why I shifted to saying "is" was because you said the bending of space/time and gravity are the same thing.

No, I didn't say this.

1, I never actually said/implied that the bending of space/time and gravity are the same thing, even though they are the same thing. You must have co ...[text shortened]... of spacetime" is false therefore "bending of spacetime = time dilation" is false and you are wrong.

Liar!

You said this:

"Curvature of space-time can be viewed as being gravity as opposed to 'causing' gravity."

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/gravity.163599/page-2

6th post on that page. Stop Lying!

@metal-brain said
Liar!

You said this:

"Curvature of space-time can be viewed as being gravity as opposed to 'causing' gravity."

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/gravity.163599/page-2

6th post on that page. Stop Lying!

I wasn't lying. I merely forgot I ever said it. If you look at the date I said it that was 31 March and its now 5 June so that's about 3 MONTHS ago so hardly surprising I forgot. I still don't remember saying it although obviously I did. Do you remember every single thing you said 3 months ago?
I was mistaken about that tiny bit but the rest of what I said there is correct.

@humy said
You are talking about

y = 1/√(1 – (v^2)/(c^2))

NOT

α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2))

BOTH are correct But I was talking about the α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2)) one.
If you scroll about 1/4 down at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
and below the y = 1/√(1 – (v^2)/(c^2)) equation you will see the α = √(1 – (v^2)/(c^2)) equation so that was correct!
It is a valid alternative (and the one I personally prefer) of expressing time dilation.

Yeah, inversion just changes the POV.

@humy said
I wasn't lying. I merely forgot I ever said it. If you look at the date I said it that was 31 March and its now 5 June so that's about 3 MONTHS ago so hardly surprising I forgot. I still don't remember saying it although obviously I did. Do you remember every single thing you said 3 months ago?
I was mistaken about that tiny bit but the rest of what I said there is correct.

I provided the link for you to read on the specific page and everything. You didn't have to remember it.

You contradicted yourself needlessly. If you were honest you would admit you thought the bending of space/time and time dilation were different things when they are not. All of you thought that. You all erroneously thought the bending of space/time caused time dilation when they are basically the same thing.

@metal-brain said
You contradicted yourself needlessly.

What 'contradiction' did I say? Why don't you say what that 'contradiction' is? Are you referring to that trivial thing I forgot I said 3 months ago? If so, Big deal. If not, what?

If you were honest you would admit you thought the bending of space/time and time dilation were different things when they are not.

Nope, because "bending of space/time" is not what physicists mean and that wouldn't make much sense. It should be "bending of spacetime". I keep telling you its not "space/time" as in "space or time" but "spacetime". So you can't even get that very basic thing right! That shows how much of it you don't understand.

You all erroneously thought the bending of space/time caused time dilation when they are basically the same thing.

They cannot be "the same thing" in any sense because, yet again, you moronically said it as "bending of space/time" and not "bending of spacetime". Its not "space/time" but "SPACETIME". WOW you are slow to comprehend! Lets see if in your next post you finally show you learn something new from us and at last say it right...

@humy said
What 'contradiction' did I say? Why don't you say what that 'contradiction' is? Are you referring to that trivial thing I forgot I said 3 months ago? If so, Big deal. If not, what?

If you were honest you would admit you thought the bending of space/time and time dilation were different things when they are not.

Nope, because "bending of space/time" is not what ...[text shortened]... ee if in your next post you finally show you learn something new from us and at last say it right...

Stop pretending I didn't explain it perfectly. Just because you forgot you contradicted yourself does not mean you didn't.

Everyone knows you are a liar and nitpicking trivial stuff does not impress them anymore than it does me. I don't see any reason to respond to your mindless trolling anymore. Waste someone else's time as well as your own.