Are most scientists sniveling fearful conformists?

@metal-brain 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."

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 ...[text shortened]... e yet think twice. It makes you look like a flake.

Time dilation causes gravity. Greene is right.

Greene said that gravity is caused by a "time warp", he did not say it is caused by "time dilation". Frankly I don't care if he did say that, I am certain of my position here. Time dilation is a disagreement between two observers about the amount of time elapsed between two events. What I think Greene is talking about is proper time, as I discussed above - or possibly in the other thread.

@deepthought said
Greene said that gravity is caused by a "time warp", he did not say it is caused by "time dilation". Frankly I don't care if he did say that, I am certain of my position here. Time dilation is a disagreement between two observers about the amount of time elapsed between two events. What I think Greene is talking about is proper time, as I discussed above - or possibly in the other thread.

You are still digressing into velocity time dilation to avoid time dilation from matter. You are doing that merely to avoid admitting you are wrong and you know you are wrong. Greene was clear that the math shows it.

I am still waiting for your alternative explanation for "that tiny time warp" since you insist and denying the obvious. You know fully well he is talking about time dilation. Only a dishonest person would deny that, or a moron.

I think you are dishonest. You denied watching "Light Falls" after describing what he said about time passing faster at his head than his feet. That was part of it I had not quoted, but you did. You watched it and lied about seeing it, all to avoid answering my question.

If you are certain of your position why the lies? Confident people don't have to resort to lying.

@metal-brain said
You are still digressing into velocity time dilation to avoid time dilation from matter. You are doing that merely to avoid admitting you are wrong and you know you are wrong. Greene was clear that the math shows it.

I am still waiting for your alternative explanation for "that tiny time warp" since you insist and denying the obvious. You know fully well he is talking ...[text shortened]...

If you are certain of your position why the lies? Confident people don't have to resort to lying.

If you have reported his statement correctly then he is talking about proper time. This is a related concept to time dilation, but not the same. I'm sure Greene understands General Relativity better than I do. He understands Calabi-Yau Manifolds which I know nothing about. What I am also sure of is that you do not understand the distinction between time dilation and proper time. I don't want to watch Greene's programme, it's over an hour long and aimed at lay-persons. I'll happily read GR lecture notes he's written aimed at graduate students, if he has done so.

@deepthought said
If you have reported his statement correctly then he is talking about proper time. This is a related concept to time dilation, but not the same. I'm sure Greene understands General Relativity better than I do. He understands Calabi-Yau Manifolds which I know nothing about. What I am also sure of is that you do not understand the distinction between time dilation and p ...[text shortened]... ons. I'll happily read GR lecture notes he's written aimed at graduate students, if he has done so.

You watched Greene's program and you know it. Your Jargon does not impress anyone. Your position is that he misleads the layperson and is respected for it. That is absurd.
Do you teach two different ways for people without regard for accuracy?

@metal-brain said
You watched Greene's program and you know it. Your Jargon does not impress anyone. Your position is that he misleads the layperson and is respected for it. That is absurd.
Do you teach two different ways for people without regard for accuracy?

This speaks for itself.

@deepthought said
This speaks for itself.

Greene proved you wrong. His statements I quoted were meant for everyone regardless of educational level. Your failure to find any inaccuracy in his statements is evident to all. Your whole position here is that Greene made crap up to confuse simpletons because they would never understand it if he explained it accurately. Is that how you regard everyone on this forum?

Are you going to explain yourself and answer my questions or are you going to be condescending to everyone on this forum and tell them they would not understand time dilation? That is what you are going to do to avoid explaining yourself, right? In the end you are going to insult the intelligence of everyone here so you can hide your ignorance.

Your failure to answer any relevant question speaks for itself. Avoiding questions is not impressive. It indicates weakness.

@metal-brain said
Greene proved you wrong. His statements I quoted were meant for everyone regardless of educational level. Your failure to find any inaccuracy in his statements is evident to all. Your whole position here is that Greene made crap up to confuse simpletons because they would never understand it if he explained it accurately. Is that how you regard everyone on this forum?

...[text shortened]... ny relevant question speaks for itself. Avoiding questions is not impressive. It indicates weakness.

Greene did not prove me wrong, you misunderstood what he was saying. Further this is a strawman argument. I said I did not like his use of the term "time warp" I did not say that I thought he "made up crap to confuse simpletons".

@deepthought said
Greene did not prove me wrong, you misunderstood what he was saying. Further this is a strawman argument. I said I did not like his use of the term "time warp" I did not say that I thought he "made up crap to confuse simpletons".

"Greene did not prove me wrong, you misunderstood what he was saying."

Then explain what he meant by "time warp". Simple question, no straw man at all. If it is really a misunderstanding you can clear it up here and now and explain it for us all. You refuse to do that though, because you are not capable of it.

So he is unwittingly confusing simpletons? Is that your position? Where is the disclaimer saying simpletons should not take him literally? Are you saying Brian Greene is too stupid to explain it without lying?

Either Brian Greene is right or wrong. There is no gray area as you would like to BS everyone here into believing. You are insulting the intelligence of everyone on this forum by refusing to answer on the grounds they are simpletons that are incapable of higher thinking.

You could admit you are full of crap, but we all know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong even when it is evident to all. You are not fooling anyone. Everyone knows you have failed and are making up lame excuses for it.

One more time. If Greene was not talking about time dilation when he said "that tiny time warp" what was he referring to? If you are not full of crap you can answer the question instead of evading it.

@metal-brain said
"Greene did not prove me wrong, you misunderstood what he was saying."

Then explain what he meant by "time warp". Simple question, no straw man at all. If it is really a misunderstanding you can clear it up here and now and explain it for us all. You refuse to do that though, because you are not capable of it.

So he is unwittingly confusing simpletons? Is that your ...[text shortened]... was he referring to? If you are not full of crap you can answer the question instead of evading it.

Based on your report of what Greene said he is referring to a quantity called proper time. This is minimized for the motion of an object in a gravitational field compared with other paths that are unphysical - such as falling too slowly. Proper time is the time elapsed for an observer undergoing the same motion as the object - suppose the object is a box with a physicist and an atomic clock. The time elapsed as measured by that atomic clock is the proper time. A second observer in a different state of motion at a different altitude has their own atomic clock. The ratio of the rates at which the clocks tick is the time dilation effect.

As a technical point the boxes really ought to have infinitesimal size.

Just to prove I'm not making it up and the quantity exists here is the Wikipedia page:

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

@deepthought said
Based on your report of what Greene said he is referring to a quantity called proper time. This is minimized for the motion of an object in a gravitational field compared with other paths that are unphysical - such as falling too slowly. Proper time is the time elapsed for an observer undergoing the same motion as the object - suppose the object is a box with a physicis ...[text shortened]... up and the quantity exists here is the Wikipedia page:

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

Even if he ever bothers to read that above link, he will only misunderstand it and say it says proper time is time dilation merely because it mentions the words "time dilation". There's no reasoning with him. How can one reason with someone that seems to always moronically concludes from "X has some type of relationship R to Y" that "X IS Y"?

@deepthought said
Based on your report of what Greene said he is referring to a quantity called proper time. This is minimized for the motion of an object in a gravitational field compared with other paths that are unphysical - such as falling too slowly. Proper time is the time elapsed for an observer undergoing the same motion as the object - suppose the object is a box with a physicis ...[text shortened]... up and the quantity exists here is the Wikipedia page:

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

Nope. You are digressing into SR again.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/special-relativity-proper-time-proper-length.html

GR is about gravity, not SR. We all know about time dilation from velocity. We have discussed that factor before and it does not change the factor of gravitational time dilation in the math. Stop intentionally digressing into SR in a feeble attempt to obfuscate. You are not fooling anyone here except your minion cheerleaders with blind faith in your jargon.

Greene said the math shows things are attracted to areas where time elapses more slowly. He is not talking about velocity, that is obvious. Give up the jargon. The math shows it.

@metal-brain said
Nope. You are digressing into SR again.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/special-relativity-proper-time-proper-length.html

GR is about gravity, not SR. We all know about time dilation from velocity. We have discussed that factor before and it does not change the factor of gravitational time dilation in the math. Stop intentionally digressing into SR in a feeble atte ...[text shortened]... re slowly. He is not talking about velocity, that is obvious. Give up the jargon. The math shows it.

Show us the math then. Since you obviously have a Phd on the subject, teach us.

@sonhouse said
Show us the math then. Since you obviously have a Phd on the subject, teach us.

LOL.
Notice how he NEVER explains to us the maths; That's obviously because he doesn't understand it.
And yet he has the extraordinary delusional arrogance to think he knows better about physics than the REAL physics experts, who DO understand the maths just because they express disagreement with his many ignorant delusional assertions. One cannot have even close to complete understanding of advanced physics without understanding the maths!
He is quite obviously completely deranged.

@sonhouse said
Show us the math then. Since you obviously have a Phd on the subject, teach us.

You don't believe Greene? I thought you had faith in people with superior credentials. Greene has those superior credentials relative to all of you.
Funny how credentials do not mean anything to you anymore. It used to be your tool for being condescending and biased against a different opinion than yours.

This is why conformists are the problem with the stagnation of physics. They will not change the way they do things. Here is a quote from the author. "They constantly tell each other that what they are doing is good science. Why should they stop?"

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal?utm_source=pocket-newtab

You all need to knock off this "group think" thing you all have going on. Lee Smolin wrote about it in his book "The Trouble With Physics". Group Think is your pitfall.

@metal-brain said
Nope. You are digressing into SR again.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/special-relativity-proper-time-proper-length.html

GR is about gravity, not SR. We all know about time dilation from velocity. We have discussed that factor before and it does not change the factor of gravitational time dilation in the math. Stop intentionally digressing into SR in a feeble atte ...[text shortened]... re slowly. He is not talking about velocity, that is obvious. Give up the jargon. The math shows it.

Amazingly enough proper time is this thing in General Relativity as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time#Examples_in_general_relativity