@metal-brain saidI've just seen this post. I reread that thread and I stand by every statement I made in that thread. They are all canonical. You are an amateur with no formal training. I've been learning a lot about psychology recently and, well, I could try to diagnose you but I'm aware of my limitations in psychology. You seem not to be of yours in either physics or atmospheric modelling. Try to be polite when you are talking about something you've investigated by following a few links on the internet to people trained in the field, in fact try to be polite to everyone. Yes, I am an authority in this field, as far as these forums are concerned, and really what you seem have a problem with is authority. So please take your issues with your superego to a counselor.
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.
@deepthought saidWhy did you say time dilation was not a field?
I've just seen this post. I reread that thread and I stand by every statement I made in that thread. They are all canonical. You are an amateur with no formal training. I've been learning a lot about psychology recently and, well, I could try to diagnose you but I'm aware of my limitations in psychology. You seem not to be of yours in either physics or atmospheric mo ...[text shortened]... eem have a problem with is authority. So please take your issues with your superego to a counselor.
@metal-brain saidBecause it's not. Time dilation is a disagreement between two observers of the duration between two events. Essentially a single observer cannot observe this. Imagine a scientist in a box in an inertial frame of reference - Einstein used elevators for this. They cannot tell if they are floating in one of the great voids or being pulled into a black hole (but see below). Their clock will seem to tick at a rate of one tick per second.
Why did you say time dilation was not a field?
Now imagine the scientist has a communication system which allows him to communicate with other scientists in similar plights. If we assume his correspondent is in a different frame, meaning a different state of motion or a different distance from the nearest gravitational source, then they will notice a difference in the rates that their clocks tick. So, in the case that the second scientist's clock is ticking faster she'll be reassured that she is further away from any large gravitational objects. The difference in the measured rate of clocks is what is meant by time dilation.
The scientist with the slower ticking clock could then do an experiment to see if two objects in his box tend to move towards one another, which one would expect if the time dilation effect was caused by a gravitational field, as the two objects would be attracted to the same point - think of the two equal sides of an isosceles triangle with dots moving down the two legs towards the apex. If the scientist cannot detect such a motion then he can be reassured that the difference in the rate of his clock relative to his colleague is due to their state of motion and there's some hope of meeting her at a conference and seeing if he can get over his shyness 😉
The gravitational field is fully described by a quantity called the metric, which gives the difference in time T as measured by an observer at a particular point {t, x, y, z} for a displacement of that observer by the small distance {dt, dx, dy, dz}, in a coordinate system where time t is measured by an asymptotic observer stationary with respect to the central mass or the cosmic microwave background or some such objective reference frame. The quantity T is known as the proper time and the quantity t is known as coordinate time.
In the simple case of an asymptotic observer relative to a black hole, and a stationary (station keeping) observer then since the second observer is stationary the dx, dy, and dz are all zero. So we have:
dT^2 = dt^2 * (1 - r_s/r)
Where r_s = 2GM/c^2, is the Schwartzschild radius. Taking the square root of this gives us the rate a stationkeeping observer's clock ticks relative to the asymptotic observer.
I think Greene, in order to keep things simple for his lay-audience, managed to give the wrong impression - although I haven't watched his program so I can't be sure. I'll let this sink in and then we can talk about how the metric tensor is the field and why I was getting confused. This discussion has helped clarify some of the fundamentals to me. I'm used to thinking about this in technical terms so explaining it to a persistent doubter is quite helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
@deepthought saidPure jargon meant to deceive by digression into the other aspect of the equivalence principal away from gravitational time dilation.
Because it's not. Time dilation is a disagreement between two observers of the duration between two events. Essentially a single observer cannot observe this. Imagine a scientist in a box in an inertial frame of reference - Einstein used elevators for this. They cannot tell if they are floating in one of the great voids or being pulled into a black hole (but see below ...[text shortened]... plaining it to a persistent doubter is quite helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
You do not have a phD. Anybody with a phD in the field of GR would not have such a poor understanding of GR. You do not understand Einsein's field equations. You disagree with Greene while claiming you never watched the program "Light Falls" so you can claim ignorance of what he said.
You are a fraud! Greene is right and you are wrong. Few physicists are as well respected as Greene so it isn't because of credentials at all. It is because you do not want to admit you are wrong and that is the only reason.
Time dilation from matter and the bending of space/time are the same thing. The latter is just a description including the other dimensions of space since they are affected by time dilation. I use the word "affected" lightly since they are the same thing.
The time dilation is real, the description is not. Descriptions do not cause anything. You said the bending of space/time caused time dilation. That is absurd. You are an excellent example of why rigid conformists make horrible physicists.
Admit you are wrong. Your myriad of lies is like a house of cards doomed to inevitable collapse. I already pointed out a lot of your false statements. Do you want to continue your being embarrassed? That is what humy does often. He is his own worst enemy and the same is the case with you. You both make unwarranted assumptions in a habitual way. That is why I asked you more than once if you two are brothers. You avoided the question both times.
Are you and humy brothers?
@metal-brain saidWow, you really are in denial. You seem more like a cultists than someone interested in science.
Pure jargon meant to deceive by digression into the other aspect of the equivalence principal away from gravitational time dilation.
You do not have a phD. Anybody with a phD in the field of GR would not have such a poor understanding of GR. You do not understand Einsein's field equations. You disagree with Greene while claiming you never watched the program "Light Fal ...[text shortened]... han once if you two are brothers. You avoided the question both times.
Are you and humy brothers?
@sonhouse saidThat is your psychological projection. It is you that is in denial. I suppose you are going to claim Greene is wrong too?
Wow, you really are in denial. You seem more like a cultists than someone interested in science.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Greene explained why things fall. Why don't you write Greene and tell him he is in denial and explain why things fall. In fact, explain it to us all here.
Why do things fall? And don't be a moron and say gravity. Gravity does not explain why. Gravity is just the name for the force Newton could not explain. You either agree or disagree with Greene's explanation. Which is it?
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI think Greene's explain is for an amateur audience. I don't think he would be touting time dilation as the CAUSE of gravity at a serious academic symposium.
That is your psychological projection. It is you that is in denial. I suppose you are going to claim Greene is wrong too?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Greene explained why things fall. Why don't you write Greene and tell him he is in denial and explain why things fall. In fact, explain it to us all here.
Why do things fall? And don't be a moron and ...[text shortened]... force Newton could not explain. You either agree or disagree with Greene's explanation. Which is it?
It is an effect not a cause. You ignore the argument that going fast also causes time dilation and that is clearly an effect not a cause otherwise time dilation would be a GREAT propulsion system for spacecraft.
In fact the time dilation is already a problem for GPS work,
Just being up a few hundred miles puts those sats in a lower grav field and the velocity of orbit causes about 50 microsecond time dilation per day that has to be countered something like 3 times an hour or else GPS readings would be worthless and that is due to the times of transmission, 6 microseconds per mile so 6 microseconds off means GPS would only be accurate to within 1 mile, not quite good enough.
@metal-brain saidI did my doctorate at Oxford and so have a D.Phil. rather than a Ph.D.. Everything I have said is as correct as I can manage. You are abusive whenever your untrained mind is contradicted. So I am no longer interested in attempting to explain General Relativity to you. If the others want me to continue then I will, for them. But you are not worth the effort.
Pure jargon meant to deceive by digression into the other aspect of the equivalence principal away from gravitational time dilation.
You do not have a phD. Anybody with a phD in the field of GR would not have such a poor understanding of GR. You do not understand Einsein's field equations. You disagree with Greene while claiming you never watched the program "Light Fal ...[text shortened]... han once if you two are brothers. You avoided the question both times.
Are you and humy brothers?
1 edit
@sonhouse saidYou are just parroting deepthought's nonsense. Neither of you has shown that at all.
I think Greene's explain is for an amateur audience. I don't think he would be touting time dilation as the CAUSE of gravity at a serious academic symposium.
It is an effect not a cause. You ignore the argument that going fast also causes time dilation and that is clearly an effect not a cause otherwise time dilation would be a GREAT propulsion system for spacecraft.
In ...[text shortened]... mile so 6 microseconds off means GPS would only be accurate to within 1 mile, not quite good enough.
It is an effect of what? It is an effect of matter and nothing else. Time dilation created by a spacecraft? That would be impressive if it was possible. How do you create time dilation like that? You have been watching too many Stargate SG1 episodes.
I cannot make any sense of that other nonsense. I have concluded that not many competent physicists would bother with a forum like this. If they could impress their peers why would they waste time here?
People here just make up nonsense and pretend it makes sense in a vain effort to save face. Truly pathetic. Greene was very clear, not vague. You are in denial.
@deepthought saidWhy do things fall? You either agree or disagree with Greene's explanation. Which is it?
I did my doctorate at Oxford and so have a D.Phil. rather than a Ph.D.. Everything I have said is as correct as I can manage. You are abusive whenever your untrained mind is contradicted. So I am no longer interested in attempting to explain General Relativity to you. If the others want me to continue then I will, for them. But you are not worth the effort.
@Metal-Brain
Put the effort into reading my posts. Compare what I said above with the introduction to the page on time dilation on Wikipedia, or a textbook. As I said I am no longer interested in discussing GR or pretty much any subject with you.
2 edits
I am no longer interested in discussing GR or pretty much any subject with you.I sure don't blame you!
I have lost count of the number of times I or somebody else here, with some effort and time, used his expertise to explain something here to him only for him, the non-expert, to completely trash it with this usual delusional arrogant "my personal theory on it is right and you are all wrong" attitude.
I did my doctorate at Oxford and so have a D.Phil. rather than a Ph.D.
Lets see now; Should we believe your insights over his, with your D.Phil against his non-qualifications and non-expertise on GR?
Or should we believe his ignorant unqualified opinions on GR over your EXPERT insights on GR?
...Err... personally I think I would go for your insights.
@deepthought saidSo you don't disagree with Greene, which means you don't disagree with me.
@Metal-Brain
Put the effort into reading my posts. Compare what I said above with the introduction to the page on time dilation on Wikipedia, or a textbook. As I said I am no longer interested in discussing GR or pretty much any subject with you.
If Greene was in the slightest bit inaccurate you would have shown it. BS cannot save you from all of your false statements. They are there and not going away.
People often try to save face by avoiding giving explanations to explain there flawed arguments. It rarely works.
Stop pretending to understand things you do not. You cannot BS your way through life forever. Furthermore, it prevents you from learning relevant subjects because you pretend to already know stuff you do not.
I hope you have learned a lesson from all of this. Be yourself. You will learn more without the ego bruising brought about by your BS and lying. Learning can be easy or hard, it is up to you.
1 edit
Deepthought is lying about his education. He doesn't even understand GR correctly. He masks his ignorance by convincing others he has a better education than them hoping they will not call him on his bluffing. Now he has contradicted Brian Greene, a prominent physicist of much greater credentials than his made up phd. Why would anyone in his right mind think he knows more than Brian Greene? Hubris!
He failed.
@metal-brain saidAll 3 of your above assertions are obviously false to all the rest of us here.
Deepthought is lying about his education. He doesn't even understand GR correctly. He masks his ignorance by convincing others he has a better education than them hoping they will not call him on his bluffing.
He has repeatedly shown he understands GR well and MUCH better than you and me but especially you and his understanding of GR obviously goes well beyond any credible layperson understanding of GR. So it would be a big mystery WHERE he got that understanding from if he did NO university course on it!
Don't know exactly WHO you are trying to convince here but you convince nobody.