@metal-brainsaid "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 ...[text shortened]... ndescending without any justification at all. In other words, you made a big frigging deal about it!
Tell me how you get time dilation without either going fast or going into a gravity well. If there is neither, there is no 'time dilation'. That means time dilation is an effect not a cause.
The root cause is mass or velocity. There is no way to get time warps without one or the other. Even going fast is a case of increasing mass too, they go hand in hand so it is mass creating gravity and time changes.
@sonhousesaid There is no way to get time warps without one or the other.
Best not to call time dilation "time warps" I think. I have sometimes made the mistake of been guilty of doing this myself until I finally got wise to it but if one keep using the usual made-up sloppy layperson terms instead of and at odds with the correct technical terms, one will only encourage the muddled layperson's thinking on it to get even more muddled. I have seen lot of layperson confusion generated that way.
Its bad enough he keeps calling space-time "time/dilation" as in "space or time", which isn't what it means at all. We must keep correcting him on that until he finally understands it and says it right. The exact language of education is key.
@sonhousesaid Tell me how you get time dilation without either going fast or going into a gravity well. If there is neither, there is no 'time dilation'. That means time dilation is an effect not a cause.
The root cause is mass or velocity. There is no way to get time warps without one or the other. Even going fast is a case of increasing mass too, they go hand in hand so it is mass creating gravity and time changes.
You said this:
"Who gives a shyte whether time dilation causes gravity or not?"
If you don't give a shyte why do you keep talking about it?
@metal-brainsaid 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 ass ...[text shortened]... t stubbornly trying to avoid admitting you are wrong?
You are very wrong and not fooling anyone.
I think you haven't understood what you are listening to. Time warp has no meaning in physics, Greene's used a term from science fiction in the hope of getting an idea across. This is not to do with time dilation, and if Greene said it was then I disagree with him.
Here is my reason for thinking this, and this is jargon in the sense that you use the word because I don't know how to translate it into ordinary language. All the information necessary to deduce the four-acceleration of a test particle is contained in the tangent spaces to the space-time manifold at the point the test particle occupies, so that no reference to points in the neighbourhood of that point is necessary and comparison between clock rates is not relevant to the calculation.
@deepthoughtsaid I think you haven't understood what you are listening to. Time warp has no meaning in physics, Greene's used a term from science fiction in the hope of getting an idea across. This is not to do with time dilation, and if Greene said it was then I disagree with him.
Here is my reason for thinking this, and this is jargon in the sense that you use the word because I do ...[text shortened]... od of that point is necessary and comparison between clock rates is not relevant to the calculation.
Greene was talking about the difference in proper time between his head and feet. That difference is what time dilation is. He referred to it as a "tiny time warp" because the difference in the two proper times is very small. He is clearly referring to time dilation.
You may say the "bending of space/time" and others may say the "warping of space/time". Greene is simply calling the latter a time warp because he is describing time dilation and not including the space dimensions in his description because it is NOT necessary. THEY ARE THE SAME THING!
Get it through your bloody thick skull! I understand perfectly. You do not understand so you are interjecting irrelevant jargon in an attempt to BS people into thinking you know something you don't. More likely you know I am right so the jargon is to avoid admitting you are wrong. After all, every time I point out that time dilation and the bending of space/time are the same thing you never disagree with me. If you accept that you must know you are wrong.
Does it really hurt that bad to admit you are wrong? Is it so important to you that you will risk inevitable embarrassment? Personally, I think you have already done that. It is only the few ignorant people you have fooled and even they are figuring it out.
@metal-brainsaid Greene was talking about the difference in proper time between his head and feet. That difference is what time dilation is. He referred to it as a "tiny time warp" because the difference in the two proper times is very small. He is clearly referring to time dilation.
You may say the "bending of space/time" and others may say the "warping of space/time". Greene is simply ...[text shortened]... ady done that. It is only the few ignorant people you have fooled and even they are figuring it out.
Ok., so there is a time dilation effect between his head and his feet. What does this have to do with why a particle falls?
@metal-brainsaid Greene was talking about the difference in proper time between his head and feet. That difference is what time dilation is. He referred to it as a "tiny time warp" because the difference in the two proper times is very small. He is clearly referring to time dilation.
You may say the "bending of space/time" and others may say the "warping of space/time". Greene is simply ...[text shortened]... ady done that. It is only the few ignorant people you have fooled and even they are figuring it out.
The reason I won't admit I am wrong is because I think I am right. Consider a satellite in an equitorial circular orbit about a planet. The satellite carries an atomic clock. There is an asymptotic observer, stationary with respect to the planet and above its North pole receiving a timing signal from the satellite. The rate of the satellite's clock, as measured by the asymptotic observer, does not change throughout its orbit. Similarly an observer sat on the North pole also sending and receiving signals will see a static time dilation effect. The clock rates don't change throughout the motions of all three observers so time dilation has no explanatory power regarding the orbit and the weight of the static observer on the planet.
@deepthoughtsaid Ok., so there is a time dilation effect between his head and his feet. What does this have to do with why a particle falls?
Greene explained that. I quoted him more than once. Are you in denial?
"The math shows things are attracted to places where time passes more slowly".
Denying he said that will not make you right. It is time for you to stop your denial of reality.
@deepthoughtsaid The reason I won't admit I am wrong is because I think I am right. Consider a satellite in an equitorial circular orbit about a planet. The satellite carries an atomic clock. There is an asymptotic observer, stationary with respect to the planet and above its North pole receiving a timing signal from the satellite. The rate of the satellite's clock, as measured by the ...[text shortened]... on has no explanatory power regarding the orbit and the weight of the static observer on the planet.
More obfuscation tactics. You are still trying to confuse people by interjecting velocity time dilation. You know you are wrong because you keep using velocity for obfuscation. Velocity time dilation is irrelevant in this context. Pretending it is relevant is why you are not fooling anyone. You have tried to pretend it is relevant before and failed. You even started to ask straight forward questions leading to that and abandoned your whole point because you realized there was no point at all.
Remember? You claimed you provided the information that proved you right and you had nothing of the sort. Bluffing is not science. All you do is BS when you fail. Jargon is not compelling. You underestimate the intelligence of people around you. The only person you are fooling is yourself.
@metal-brainsaid More obfuscation tactics. You are still trying to confuse people by interjecting velocity time dilation. You know you are wrong because you keep using velocity for obfuscation. Velocity time dilation is irrelevant in this context. Pretending it is relevant is why you are not fooling anyone. You have tried to pretend it is relevant before and failed. You even started to as ...[text shortened]... ou underestimate the intelligence of people around you. The only person you are fooling is yourself.
Read the post properly, I had a stationary observer at the North Pole of the planet. His clock never changes rate. In fact none of their clocks ever change rate. An observer freely falling directly towards the planet's centre's clock would change rate. What I was getting at with that post is that there are gravitational effects without a change in the rate clocks run. The particles never move to points where their clocks run at different rates so only the properties of the points they occupy matter, not the points in their neighbourhood. This is why I do not think time dilation is an adequate explanation of gravity.
@metal-brainsaid Greene explained that. I quoted him more than once. Are you in denial?
"The math shows things are attracted to places where time passes more slowly".
Denying he said that will not make you right. It is time for you to stop your denial of reality.
"The math shows things are attracted to places where time passes more slowly."
1) This is not the same as saying time dilation causes gravity.
2) I do not care what Greene says, I am right about this.
Faraday cages
26 Jun '19 14:48
Back to Top