Are most scientists sniveling fearful conformists?

@humy said
I just watched it.
It explains that part of special relativity about time dilation.
About two-thirds in and onwards, it explains with the help of showing spaceships how time dilation occurs with a moving spaceship relative to a stationary one.
In other words, it explains how time dilation can be created by a spacecraft... And yet note how metalbrain says that's impossible a ...[text shortened]... that explained to him; Wiki does a perfectly good job of it if only he would ever bother to read it.

The program is about GR, not SR. I'm sure stuff from SR is mentioned as would be expected. It is as if you want to digress away from GR into SR. You must really hate the thought of explaining why things fall to be so evasive.

This is what sonhouse said on the 13th page , 7th post:

"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."

Sonhouse was talking about propelling a spacecraft. I made the point that artificially created time dilation like that does not exist, that is all.
I was always aware of time dilation from velocity. Stop pretending this is something new. Anybody who knows the equivalence principal should know that and despite me bringing it up countless times you still pretend you are telling me something new. You know fully well I was talking about time dilation from matter and not velocity.

I realize it is painful for you to admit Greene is right because that means you will have to admit I am right. Your ego is too big for you to admit that. That is why you will not admit Greene is right and avoiding time dilation from matter is your goal. You don't want to talk about it. You would have to give your own explanation as to why things fall and all you have so far is gravity......lol!

Gravity is not an explanation. It is the force we all know is there. I gave the explanation to all of you years ago, time dilation. Now Greene is saying it, maybe he was always saying it. I don't know, but we both gave the same explanation.

Saying things fall because of gravity is something Homer Simpson would say. This is the science forum, not a bar where people spill drinks on each other and talk about nuking terrorists. People here are a bit more sophisticated than that.

@metal-brain said
The program is about GR, not SR.

I just responded to SONHOUSE's post, NOT yours. So it is OBVIOUS that I was referring to HIS youtube, NOT yours. And his WAS about SR, idiot! WOW you are slow to follow the current conversation!

SR proves you wrong.

@humy said
I just responded to SONHOUSE's post, NOT yours. So it is OBVIOUS that I was referring to HIS youtube, NOT yours. And his WAS about SR, idiot! WOW you are slow to follow the current conversation!

SR proves you wrong.

This is what sonhouse said on the 13th page , 7th post:

"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."

You implied I was wrong about spacecraft propelled by time dilation not existing. I was right, you just can't resist any opportunity to slander me. SR has nothing to do with sonhouse's nonexistent spacecraft.

GR proves me right. SR is your digression that makes no sense. It does not prove me wrong, it supports everything I am saying.

You are making a buffoon out of yourself. Everybody can see you are making no sense and making crap up.

@metal-brain said
This is what sonhouse said on the 13th page , 7th post:

What has what he said there got to do with my response to his youtube? He didn't say it in the post I responded to last which is the one with that youtube. You are now talking about a different post.

You implied I was wrong about spacecraft propelled by time dilation not existing.

"spacecraft PROPELLED by time dilation"? What the hell are you talking about NOW? I am unaware I imply you were "wrong" about that because don't know what you are talking about there. What I DO say is you are wrong about a spacecraft not being able to cause time dilation; SR proves you wrong about that.
SR proves you CAN have time dilation without gravity involved thus time dilation is certainly NOT gravity there!

@sonhouse said
Brian Greene is an expert alright but he is no Einstein, he interprets big Al's work and when he states time shift is what makes attraction he is just rerouting the effect to something he wants to have a successful paper about. That doesn't make it true.

What is true? You seem like an ape that just learned the word "no". That is all you say.

People must notice that every person that claims Brian Greene is wrong cannot give an explanation of their own. Of course, if Greene's explanation was not the same as mine it would be wholeheartedly accepted by all here without question, right?

Just admit it, right and wrong is dependent on a popularity contest with you. Whoever you like is right and whoever you don't like is wrong regardless of logic.

People are flawed that way.

@humy said
What has what he said there got to do with my response to his youtube? He didn't say it in the post I responded to last which is the one with that youtube. You are now talking about a different post.

You implied I was wrong about spacecraft propelled by time dilation not existing.

"spacecraft PROPELLED by time dilation"? What the hell are you talking about NOW? ...[text shortened]... u CAN have time dilation without gravity involved thus time dilation is certainly NOT gravity there!

He used the word propelled. That is entirely different than velocity time dilation. He went into sc-fi fantasy land again. Before this it was anti-matter rockets.

You need to stop humoring his fantasy world into the real world delusions. None of that crap exists!

@metal-brain said
He used the word propelled.

Not in the post I responded to last of his which is the one with that youtube and it wasn't ME who said anything about "propelled" so don't know what the hell you are talking about with this "You implied I was wrong about spacecraft propelled by time dilation not existing."(your quote to me in response to me responding to his post that said nothing about "propelled" ). Are you yet again hallucinating whole conversations between me and you that never took place? You do that a lot.

@metal-brain said

You implied I was wrong about spacecraft propelled by time dilation not existing.

OK, I have just got to ask;
What, at least according to you, does "spacecraft propelled by time dilation" MEAN?
I honestly have absolutely no idea. That's why I don't understand why you think I implied anything about it.
I even tried googling "propelled by time dilation" just in case this was part of something in science I hadn't heard of before but google gave me nothing. So I appear to have good reason to think "spacecraft propelled by time dilation" is just a piece of pure gibberish made up by only you.

@humy said
OK, I have just got to ask;
What, at least according to you, does "spacecraft propelled by time dilation" MEAN?
I honestly have absolutely no idea. That's why I don't understand why you think I implied anything about it.
I even tried googling "propelled by time dilation" just in case this was part of something in science I hadn't heard of before but google gave me nothing. So ...[text shortened]... think "spacecraft propelled by time dilation" is just a piece of pure gibberish made up by only you.

I said that about propulsion because I was showing time dilation as an effect, not a cause. I said you get time dilation going fast, actually you get some tiny time dilation even if you are walking your dog but that is besides the point. It gets obvious when you approach the speed of light and there is no dispute about that.

I said did you think there could be a propulsion system using time dilation as an argument against the idea time dilation is the CAUSE of gravity.

The fact you can get time dilation from both being in a high gravity field, ANY gravity field actually, just more noticeable with deep gravity wells but it is a fact even in our relatively weak gravity field of Earth GPS has to account for it or GPS would be worthless as a nav aid.

That only gets worse if you want to do GPS around a planet like Jupiter or close to the sun, don't know why you would even want to do that but nevertheless there is more to factor in the higher the gravity field.

I used the time dilation propulsion argument to show why time dilation is an EFFECT not a cause.

I was not suggesting there could ever be such a transport system.

I am sorry if you somehow got that impression.

I brought that up to show how ridiculous it would be, just absurd there could be such a thing because time dilation is not a cause. It is just one of the effects of being near mass or in a high velocity environment.

Do you deny time dilation happens when you go fast, the faster the more dilation?

@sonhouse said
I said that about propulsion because I was showing time dilation as an effect, not a cause. I said you get time dilation going fast, actually you get some tiny time dilation even if you are walking your dog but that is besides the point. It gets obvious when you approach the speed of light and there is no dispute about that.

I said did you think there could be a propulsio ...[text shortened]... y environment.

Do you deny time dilation happens when you go fast, the faster the more dilation?

"I said that about propulsion because I was showing time dilation as an effect, not a cause."

Explain that.

@metal-brain said
"I said that about propulsion because I was showing time dilation as an effect, not a cause."

Explain that.

It was an argument based on absurdity. It is absurd to suggest because time dilation happens when you go fast, that you could use time dilation as a propulsion system.
So there are TWO ways time dilation happens, going deep into a strong gravity field and going fast. That shows clearly time dilation is an effect not a cause.

So you would be saying if you go fast, time dilates, if you go faster yet time dilates even more so that obviously means it is time dilation moving the spacecraft.

Yet you are nowhere near a gravity field except the tiny field of the spacecraft.

I asked you once, do you deny time dilation happens when you go fast but you never deigned to answer that one.

@sonhouse said

there are TWO ways time dilation happens, going deep into a strong gravity field and going fast. That shows clearly time dilation is an effect not a cause.

Yes, I think that is a sound deduction given the standard but implicit meanings of the words "cause" and "effect" in everyday English.

If it is correct to say time dilation 'causes' gravity, we should expect that to imply time dilation causes gravity when things go fast because special relativity says when things go fast there is time dilation. But, in special relativity, gravity is NOT caused when there is time dilation from things go fast (because gravity need not even be present for that) which directly contradicts the assertion "time dilation causes gravity" given the standard but implicit meaning of the word "causes".

In contrast, if you said it the other way around i.e. "gravity causes time dilation", or alternatively, if you prefer, "time dilation is an effect of gravity", then you don't get any of that same problem thus its surely MUCH better to say it that other way around.

Incidentally, one of the things I will be researching in my current research is finding a way to completely unambiguously define the exact meanings of the words "cause" and "effect" and do so for an AI application. I have already made a start on it but I have discovered its a surprisingly very difficult non-trivial task! And I will explain in my book why it is a very difficult non-trivial task.

@humy said
Yes, I think that is a sound deduction given the standard but implicit meanings of the words "cause" and "effect" in everyday English.

If it is correct to say time dilation 'causes' gravity, we should expect that to imply time dilation causes gravity when things go fast because special relativity says when things go fast there is time dilation. But, in special relativity, gra ...[text shortened]... fficult non-trivial task! And I will explain in my book why it is a very difficult non-trivial task.

What in your view are some of the difficulties involved with those two words?

@sonhouse said
What in your view are some of the difficulties involved with those two words?

Some people rigidly tie the meaning of 'cause and effect' with a temporal relation, specifically with the 'cause' being before the effect.
But most other people, such as myself and you when we say something like "gravity causes time dilation", often don't do this and thus say something 'causing' something doesn't imply that 'cause' necessarily must come before its 'effect' but rather that 'cause' could coming at the same time as its 'effect' (but still never after its effect).
So I may say something like "gravity causes things to fall" without implying first at some point in time there is gravity and only then, after some time delay, does its presence 'cause' something to start to fall. But someone listening to my assertion of "gravity causes things to fall" who rigidly ties the meaning of 'cause and effect' with a temporal relation of 'before and after' may drastically misunderstand what I mean by assuming I also rigidly ties the meaning of 'cause and effect' with 'before and after' and thus think I am saying there is a mysterious time delay between the occurrence of gravity and it resulting in something to start to fall.

But that means what most of us mean by "cause" is actually two possible meanings depending on context because sometimes we mean a temporal relation involved and sometimes we don't. So to properly define what we mean by "cause" we must give a different definition for each of those two meanings. But can you define exactly what we mean by 'cause' when we don't imply a temporal relation involved? If you try and give such a definition I think you get some idea how difficult it is.

But what about trying to define 'cause' when we DO imply a temporal relation involved? One might be tempted to define that type of 'cause' as meaning "x causes y" simply means "x is always followed by y". But this won't work because, for example, day is always followed by night but you wouldn't say day causes night!
The problem here is that a correlation doesn't equate with what we mean by 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 causes night.

But, vice versa is also true i.e. causation doesn't equate with correlation nor merely imply a correlation directly involved.
For example, if there are many instances of x and y uncorrelated and x never caused y in the past but then there is a one-off unique instance of causation where x did cause y (generally unlikely but it can happen!), x and y will still stay uncorrelated and yet, and perhaps a bit counterintuitively, there was still an instance of causation!

The best definition I have come up with so far of what 'caused' means, which isn't perfect and needs some more work on it, is as follows;

If there is an instance of X that “caused” an instance of Y
then, what that means is that there was an instance of X and Y but if that instance of X was hypothetically 'magically' taken away (i.e. you needn't assume that it is causally possible to take that instance of X away; just imagine it was taken away) so that instance of X never occurred then that instance of Y would also not have occurred.

@sonhouse said
It was an argument based on absurdity. It is absurd to suggest because time dilation happens when you go fast, that you could use time dilation as a propulsion system.
So there are TWO ways time dilation happens, going deep into a strong gravity field and going fast. That shows clearly time dilation is an effect not a cause.

So you would be saying if you go fast, time d ...[text shortened]... u once, do you deny time dilation happens when you go fast but you never deigned to answer that one.

"It was an argument based on absurdity. It is absurd to suggest because time dilation happens when you go fast, that you could use time dilation as a propulsion system."

No, I never said it was absurd to have time dilation from velocity. Time dilation as a propulsion is a cool idea in theory, but nobody knows how to artificially create time dilation. It does not exist yet.

Antimatter rockets do not exist either. You seem to merge sci-fi with reality without cause. Next time you want to bring up stuff that is not possible yet think twice. It makes you look like a flake.

Time dilation causes gravity. Greene is right.