Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    14 Jun '19 06:46
    @deepthought said
    Technical language is jargon. This is the principal meaning. You failed to read a dictionary properly. Technical language is difficult for lay-persons to understand, you don't understand what "time dilation" means.
    If you have some special understanding of what "time dilation" is feel free to explain how Greene cannot teach it to a layperson without resorting to misleading jargon. After all, if the term "time dilation" is jargon you can explain why.

    Your "layperson" argument is stupid. Greene doesn't make crap up like you do. He described time dilation perfectly, not kind of or a lot like. He described it perfectly.

    You have no other explanation. You are now resorting to constant evasiveness. It is obvious that you don't answer questions because you do not know the answers, not because nobody but you would understand.

    You are just debating in circles to evade questions you cannot answer. Your failure is evident to all, even your cheerleaders who will never admit it. Throw them some scooby snacks for their blind loyalty and unconditional faith in you.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81031
    14 Jun '19 10:55
    @metal-brain said
    If you have some special understanding of what "time dilation" is feel free to explain how Greene cannot teach it to a layperson without resorting to misleading jargon. After all, if the term "time dilation" is jargon you can explain why.

    Your "layperson" argument is stupid. Greene doesn't make crap up like you do. He described time dilation perfectly, not kind of or a ...[text shortened]... ever admit it. Throw them some scooby snacks for their blind loyalty and unconditional faith in you.
    You are attempting to evade the point. Jargon is technical language, specific terms invented to describe phenomena, techniques, or name objects either theoretical or empirical. Typically they are hard for lay-persons to understand. Merriam-Webster gave three definitions, two of which appear in the Oxford Dictionary. The only definition you give weight to is the one in Merriam-Webster, not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary, which suits your purposes. You cherry pick.

    I've explained numerous times why "time dilation" is a piece of jargon. It is a term from a technical subject which can, and as the rest of us see, is misunderstood by some lay-persons.

    That you are incapable of even admitting to the existence of the primary definition in both dictionaries of the word "jargon" either means a severe cognitive deficit, a spectacular level of self-deception, or a deliberate attempt to evade information inconvenient to your argument. At the moment I am thinking that your assessment of any information at all is suspect.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    15 Jun '19 02:43
    @deepthought said
    You are attempting to evade the point. Jargon is technical language, specific terms invented to describe phenomena, techniques, or name objects either theoretical or empirical. Typically they are hard for lay-persons to understand. Merriam-Webster gave three definitions, two of which appear in the Oxford Dictionary. The only definition you give weight to is the one in ...[text shortened]... ur argument. At the moment I am thinking that your assessment of any information at all is suspect.
    You evade my questions then accuse me of evading? Jargon is not confined to technical language. You are trying to evade good questions because you cannot answer them and are trying to mask it with jargon that makes no sense at all.

    Since you cannot explain time dilation without jargon to mislead you are falsely claiming the term time dilation is jargon. It isn't jargon at all. you are the source of the jargon because you cannot answer any questions without misleading people.
    Stop projecting your BS jargon onto a term that can easily be explained. Clocks have been proven to move slower at lower altitudes. That is indisputable. You are misrepresenting the observer effect by digressing into velocity time dilation which is different than time dilation from matter.

    You are not fooling anyone. The observer can read clocks and know time elapses more slowly at different altitudes. You are deliberately obfuscating in a feeble attempt to mislead.

    You are the layperson. It is you that do not understand it. That is why you fail to explain anything, not because it is hard to understand. You just want to pretend it is more complex than it is so you do not have to explain something you cannot.

    Your position is that nobody can understand time dilation but you so you cannot possibly explain it. Perfect excuse for failure and ignorance. Now you can pretend you are not a pathetic failure. You will always know it though. You cannot fool yourself. Feel good about yourself?
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81031
    15 Jun '19 07:03
    @metal-brain said
    You evade my questions then accuse me of evading? Jargon is not confined to technical language. You are trying to evade good questions because you cannot answer them and are trying to mask it with jargon that makes no sense at all.

    Since you cannot explain time dilation without jargon to mislead you are falsely claiming the term time dilation is jargon. It isn't jargo ...[text shortened]... athetic failure. You will always know it though. You cannot fool yourself. Feel good about yourself?
    You are still misusing the word jargon. I've given a clear explanation of time dilation on page 13 of the other thread. It was rather a long post and I see no reason to write more to indulge an individual who dismisses any statement that undermines their fragile sense of self-worth. You even digged up an old thread where I explained that pressure was a scalar field as evidence of my "incompetence", I bring this up to make the point that you cannot tell when you are wrong. I've already answered your questions and received disbelief from you, there is no point in discussing anything until I get through to you that you cannot select evidence and definitions simply on the grounds they suit you. This is why I am pressing the jargon point.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81031
    15 Jun '19 07:24
    @metal-brain said
    You evade my questions then accuse me of evading? Jargon is not confined to technical language. You are trying to evade good questions because you cannot answer them and are trying to mask it with jargon that makes no sense at all.

    Since you cannot explain time dilation without jargon to mislead you are falsely claiming the term time dilation is jargon. It isn't jargo ...[text shortened]... athetic failure. You will always know it though. You cannot fool yourself. Feel good about yourself?
    I am interested in this sentence:
    The observer can read clocks and know time elapses more slowly at different altitudes.
    Suppose the observer is in a closed container which is pressurized to 1 atmosphere and has an atomic clock. Further suppose the clock is an atomic clock as accurate as we need it to be. The container is suspended from an extremely large crane so the height can be shifted enough that the clock's change in rate is measurable. The crane is very smooth so the physicist cannot tell that he is being lowered or raised. There are no windows. All the observer knows is the output from the clock.

    Can the observer tell what altitude he is being held at, and can the observer tell from the clock's output if his altitude has been changed?
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    15 Jun '19 13:35
    Deepthought has continually failed to answer basic questions to prove he knows what he is saying. He puts forth jargon in a feeble attempt to hide his being wrong. It does not matter where an observer is to read a bloody clock and know time passes differently at certain locations. Observers are not blind or otherwise incapable of reading clocks.

    Jargon is not proof. Greene is right, time dilation causes gravity.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    15 Jun '19 14:30
    @metal-brain said
    Deepthought has continually failed to answer basic questions to prove he knows what he is saying. He puts forth jargon in a feeble attempt to hide his being wrong. It does not matter where an observer is to read a bloody clock and know time passes differently at certain locations. Observers are not blind or otherwise incapable of reading clocks.

    Jargon is not proof. Greene is right, time dilation causes gravity.
    So show my your proof. You ignore the fact that going fast also causes time dilation so does time dilation also cause going fast? Time dilation is not two things it is ONE thing, TIME DILATION. If two things can cause time dilation then dilation is an EFFECT not a cause. What is so hard about that to understand?
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jun '19 14:541 edit
    @sonhouse said
    So show my your proof. You ignore the fact that going fast also causes time dilation so does time dilation also cause going fast? Time dilation is not two things it is ONE thing, TIME DILATION. If two things can cause time dilation then dilation is an EFFECT not a cause. What is so hard about that to understand?
    I couldn't have possibly put that point better myself.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    15 Jun '19 17:46
    @sonhouse said
    So show my your proof. You ignore the fact that going fast also causes time dilation so does time dilation also cause going fast? Time dilation is not two things it is ONE thing, TIME DILATION. If two things can cause time dilation then dilation is an EFFECT not a cause. What is so hard about that to understand?
    Time dilation is an effect of matter. I never said it was not an effect. Show me I ever said such a thing.
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81031
    15 Jun '19 23:26
    @metal-brain said
    Deepthought has continually failed to answer basic questions to prove he knows what he is saying. He puts forth jargon in a feeble attempt to hide his being wrong. It does not matter where an observer is to read a bloody clock and know time passes differently at certain locations. Observers are not blind or otherwise incapable of reading clocks.

    Jargon is not proof. Greene is right, time dilation causes gravity.
    Answer the question, can the observer in a box, unable to tell his altitude any other way deduce his altitude by reading the output of the clock.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    16 Jun '19 15:31
    @deepthought said
    Answer the question, can the observer in a box, unable to tell his altitude any other way deduce his altitude by reading the output of the clock.
    No, but an observer on the earth can because he or she is aware of their location and surroundings. Being blind doesn't disprove any point I have made.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81031
    17 Jun '19 13:14
    @metal-brain said
    No, but an observer on the earth can because he or she is aware of their location and surroundings. Being blind doesn't disprove any point I have made.
    It's necessary for the point I'm trying to make. So you got the right answer, but did you get it for the right reasons? Will my physicist in a box be able to tell from their atomic clock that there has been a change at all, if they are raised or lowered?
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    18 Jun '19 03:36
    @deepthought said
    It's necessary for the point I'm trying to make. So you got the right answer, but did you get it for the right reasons? Will my physicist in a box be able to tell from their atomic clock that there has been a change at all, if they are raised or lowered?
    Not everyone is blind. So blind people cannot know the difference. People that can see do. Should people that can see dismiss the obvious? Should blind people tell people that can see what reality is?

    Your reality depends on everyone being blind. That is not actual reality. I know where my location is. So do you. I am at the 45th parallel. Where are you? Do not pretend you are blind.

    Would you ask directions from a blind person?
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81031
    18 Jun '19 10:153 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Not everyone is blind. So blind people cannot know the difference. People that can see do. Should people that can see dismiss the obvious? Should blind people tell people that can see what reality is?

    Your reality depends on everyone being blind. That is not actual reality. I know where my location is. So do you. I am at the 45th parallel. Where are you? Do not pretend you are blind.

    Would you ask directions from a blind person?
    I think you are missing my point. The box is small enough that the gravitational field does not measurably vary inside it, so that the physicist and his atomic clock are in the same frame of reference. We are also making the rather unrealistic assumption that the crane is big enough that the box can be raised and lowered enough that there should be a change in the rate the clock runs due to the gravitational field varying over the distance the box is moved. I'm denying the physicist weighing scales so he can't just measure the acceleration due to gravity with weight and a spring and work out his altitude that way. The physicist only has the output of the one clock to go on. We are assuming the clock is as precise as we need it to be (see below). Will the physicist notice any change in the clock's behaviour when the crane is operated and the boxes distance from the centre of the Earth changes significantly?

    Real atomic clocks are accurate to about 1 part in 10 quadrillion (10^16), so I don't know whether the example I'm giving is realistic. We can do a calculation later on.
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    18 Jun '19 11:13
    @deepthought said
    I think you are missing my point. The box is small enough that the gravitational field does not measurably vary inside it, so that the physicist and his atomic clock are in the same frame of reference. We are also making the rather unrealistic assumption that the crane is big enough that the box can be raised and lowered enough that there should be a change in the rate ...[text shortened]... 16), so I don't know whether the example I'm giving is realistic. We can do a calculation later on.
    And this box has no windows and he cannot see what is outside it.
Back to Top