Are most scientists sniveling fearful conformists?

@humy said
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 u ...[text shortened]... ing of advanced physics without understanding the maths!
He is quite obviously completely deranged.

In fairness typing in mathematical formulae in these forums is a complete pain.

@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.

Reposting this as it ended up the very last post on the previous page:

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

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

@deepthought said
Reposting this as it ended up the very last post on the previous page:

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

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

Proper time is just the measurement of time. That is how we know there is time dilation. Greene was referring to time dilation and used proper time to describe the time dilation.

Your claim that Greene was not talking about time dilation is clearly false. Admit you are wrong.

@metal-brain said
Proper time is just the measurement of time. That is how we know there is time dilation. Greene was referring to time dilation and used proper time to describe the time dilation.

Your claim that Greene was not talking about time dilation is clearly false. Admit you are wrong.

I really don't think I am. In fact, I am certain I am right. I answered GR questions in my finals paper, there is some quality control going on here.

@deepthought said
I really don't think I am. In fact, I am certain I am right. I answered GR questions in my finals paper, there is some quality control going on here.

You don't understand proper time. It is measurement and nothing more. More likely you are making crap up again. You do that a lot. BS is your MO.

@metal-brain said
You don't understand proper time

-says the non-scientist non-expert to a MPhil physicist.

Brian Greene is the expert in GR. Saying I am wrong is saying Greene is wrong in this context. Cheerleaders are not experts, just trolls. Deepthought knows that proper time is the measurement of time and that measurement from different locations was used to confirm gravitational time dilation. His obfuscation tactics have failed.

Deepthought is wrong and he knows it. It would just pain him to admit it, that is all.

@metal-brain said
Brian Greene is the expert in GR.

which means he must also be an expert in SR which is why he wouldn't agree with you that "time dilation IS gravity".

@humy said
-says the non-scientist non-expert to a MPhil physicist.

D.Phil., an M.Phil. is a Master of Philosophy and not a doctorate.

@deepthought said
D.Phil., an M.Phil. is a Master of Philosophy and not a doctorate.

Woops! Yes, my mistake.

@humy said
which means he must also be an expert in SR which is why he wouldn't agree with you that "time dilation IS gravity".

LOL! Then surely you can explain that and make sense.

@metal-brain said
Then surely you can explain that and make sense.

I already have and many times and worded in many different ways but you are apparently too stupid to get it. I try again;

Special relativity says time dilation can happen without gravity.

Exactly which part of the above do you not understand? Is it the word "can"? Or the word "without"? Or which part, exactly?

@humy said
I already have and many times and worded in many different ways but you are apparently too stupid to get it. I try again;

Special relativity says time dilation can happen without gravity.

Exactly which part of the above do you not understand? Is it the word "can"? Or the word "without"? Or which part, exactly?

That is the time dilation of the particle or mass less particle. Nobody is calling that gravity. I'm talking about time dilation from matter, not velocity. I have said that many times, but you want to believe velocity time dilation is relevant.

Digression away from what I am talking about does not prove anything. All that proves is you like to obfuscate by changing the subject. A child can do that.

@metal-brain said
I'm talking about time dilation from matter

Then why did you assert time dilation is gravity without specifying that time dilation has to come from something other than relative velocity for that to be true?
I naturally take it you didn't know about time dilation in special relativity.
And what about time dilation that is part from gravity and part from relative velocity? Would time dilation equal gravity there or not?
What if you are given limit information and told that two clocks no longer agree due to relativistic effects but not told whether that is from velocity or gravity and not told about velocity or gravity nor can you see which and then you are asked if time dilation is gravity there?

@metal-brain said
That is the time dilation of the particle or mass less particle. Nobody is calling that gravity. I'm talking about time dilation from matter, not velocity. I have said that many times, but you want to believe velocity time dilation is relevant.

Digression away from what I am talking about does not prove anything. All that proves is you like to obfuscate by changing the subject. A child can do that.

I'm looking at your first sentence:

That is the time dilation of the particle or mass less particle.

what you've written here seems to imply that you think that time dilation is a property of a particle. Is this a fair statement of your belief as to what "time dilation" is?

This isn't a criticism, but I want to make a point about your second sentence:

I'm talking about time dilation from matter, not velocity.

this is problematic as the state of motion of the particle is always going to matter. Imagine one cannon ball resting on the edge of a cliff and another in free fall a few feet past the cliff edge. At the moment the falling one is at just the same height as the resting one there'll be a difference in the rate the associated clocks run because they're in different states of motion. In a sense the one in free fall is in the more natural frame from the point of view of trying to separate out "time dilation from motion" and "time dilation from the gravitational field", but there are an infinite number of such inertial frames of reference corresponding to different heights the ball's dropped from. We could use the cannon ball at rest, as that frame is unique, but to me it seems less natural being an accelerated frame - an upward force from the ground is needed to prevent the ball from falling. I suppose it's unique so we should choose it. What I'm getting at here is that this attempt to separate out contributions to time dilation isn't actually trivial.

Note: "frame" is short for "frame of reference" and is a standard term in Relativity theory. If you don't know what I mean by this I'll explain on request, provided you read at least the intro to the Wikipedia page.

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