Faraday cages

@humy said
You just did. Was that painful to you? I only ask because I don't understand why you don't do that more often.

Often they are not.

I see no evidence of this. I understood the recent questions put to you just fine and knew the answers.

Of course, it was a straight forward question. It makes no point though.

You act as if he asked the question more than once. He didn't. Why don't you answer straight forward questions instead of wasting time?

@metal-brain said

You act as if he asked the question more than once. He didn't.

He did ask it again and again with many different wordings and in many different ways but until now you didn't just answer it but just angrily rant and rave and troll making a pointless issue with it.

@humy said
He did ask it again and again with many different wordings and in many different ways but until now you didn't just answer it but just angrily rant and rave and troll making a pointless issue with it.

I never ranted and he never asked that question before. You are making it up.

@metal-brain said
No. What is your point?

Good, I needed to check that you realized that, otherwise the next point won't work. The physicist has a colleague on the ground with an identical atomic clock. This physicist sends a timing signal. The physicist in a box has a receiver and can compare her timing signal with the readout from his own atomic clock. Do you agree that the difference the physicist in the box sees between his own clock and the timing signal is what is meant by "time dilation".

@deepthought said
Good, I needed to check that you realized that, otherwise the next point won't work. The physicist has a colleague on the ground with an identical atomic clock. This physicist sends a timing signal. The physicist in a box has a receiver and can compare her timing signal with the readout from his own atomic clock. Do you agree that the difference the physicist in the box sees between his own clock and the timing signal is what is meant by "time dilation".

Yes

@metal-brain said
Yes

Good, so it's not entirely clear what we've been arguing about for the last 5 or so pages. The principle Greene was using to explain gravity involves considering all imaginable trajectories a particle could take from some starting point. Each trajectory involves the "onboard clock" showing some duration, so each trajectory has a proper time associated with it. The actual trajectory that the particle follows is the one with the least proper time. In the "laboratory frame", so in the frame of reference of an experimenter tracking the particle, one has to work out the proper time for each trajectory relative to the time as measured in the lab frame, so knowledge of time dilation gives one the proper time for a given trajectory. But I still feel they are separate concepts, I'm making quite a fine distinction.

@deepthought said
Good, so it's not entirely clear what we've been arguing about for the last 5 or so pages. The principle Greene was using to explain gravity involves considering all imaginable trajectories a particle could take from some starting point. Each trajectory involves the "onboard clock" showing some duration, so each trajectory has a proper time associated with it. The actu ...[text shortened]... given trajectory. But I still feel they are separate concepts, I'm making quite a fine distinction.

That is a whole lot of jargon. What is your point? Proper time is at different locations. That establishes time dilation. You have no point.

@metal-brain said
That is a whole lot of jargon. What is your point? Proper time is at different locations. That establishes time dilation. You have no point.

You have all the information. Think it through for some time. I cannot force you to think clearly. It is in your interests so to do.

@deepthought said
You have all the information. Think it through for some time. I cannot force you to think clearly. It is in your interests so to do.

You have no point and are pretending to have one. You have failed.

@Metal-Brain
Why all this quibbling over semantics? We know space-time, gravity, mass, velocity are all deeply entwined and to start a flame war over what causes what is not helpful.
Who gives a shyte whether time dilation causes gravity or not? Prove it if you think that is deeply important and at the same time explain why it matters what causes what. Is there going to be some scientific development we can foresee where that would be useful? If not, what is the big frigging deal anyway?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Why all this quibbling over semantics? We know space-time, gravity, mass, velocity are all deeply entwined and to start a flame war over what causes what is not helpful.
Who gives a shyte whether time dilation causes gravity or not? Prove it if you think that is deeply important and at the same time explain why it matters what causes what. Is there going to b ...[text shortened]... development we can foresee where that would be useful? If not, what is the big frigging deal anyway?

Greene said it. His credentials are excellent. Why will you not accept he is right? Credentials meant the world to you before, now you reject it when convenient for you. Why so dogmatic?

@metal-brain said
His credentials are excellent.

So is that of Deepthought. So why don't you accept what Deepthought says on the matter? Do you hate people so much for disagreeing with your opinions that you dismiss whatever they say even if they are vastly better qualified in the subject than you are?
And Sonhouse is right; You are just quibbling over semantics.

@metal-brain said
Greene said it. His credentials are excellent. Why will you not accept he is right? Credentials meant the world to you before, now you reject it when convenient for you. Why so dogmatic?

Did Greene actually say "time dilation causes gravity" or did he say "a time warp that causes gravity"?

@deepthought said
Did Greene actually say "time dilation causes gravity" or did he say "a time warp that causes gravity"?

Are you going to falsely claim he is talking about proper time and not time dilation again? I told you proper time is merely the measurement of time. The time warp is the time dilation and you know it. Greene explained time dilation perfectly when talking about "that tiny time warp".

Why don't you admit the obvious? You have no alternative explanation. You tried to assert it was proper time and failed. Proper time is merely a measurement. I explained that to you very well before. Are you in denial or just stubbornly trying to avoid admitting you are wrong?

You are very wrong and not fooling anyone.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Why all this quibbling over semantics? We know space-time, gravity, mass, velocity are all deeply entwined and to start a flame war over what causes what is not helpful.
Who gives a shyte whether time dilation causes gravity or not? Prove it if you think that is deeply important and at the same time explain why it matters what causes what. Is there going to b ...[text shortened]... development we can foresee where that would be useful? If not, what is the big frigging deal anyway?

"Who gives a shyte whether time dilation causes gravity or not?"

Physicists.

"Why all this quibbling over semantics?"

You mean the quibbling over a hyphen? I agree, humy never should have brought it up.

"Prove it if you think that is deeply important and at the same time explain why it matters what causes what."

I did by quoting Greene. It isn't my fault you reject the expert. Are you going to claim Einstein is wrong next?

Now that you realize Greene is right you are now resorting to the "who cares" symptom of failure. I'll tell you who cares, the people who were right all along. The people who are wrong always downplay their mistakes and claim it is no big deal. You thought it was a big deal when you thought you were right. Now it doesn't matter?

None of you handle being wrong well. Even when you were convinced I was wrong none of you handled it well. You were all condescending without any justification at all. In other words, you made a big frigging deal about it!