07 Jan 20
2 edits
@metal-brain saidwhich is irrelevant even if true.
You don't agree on Brian Greene.
You clearly do NOT agree with each other about everythingThat is what I just said.
but you are clearly pretending to.I am clearly not pretending to. I just said "...we generally agree with each other on most (not all) things ..."
Is it the concept of "most" you don't get here or the concept "not all" you don't get here?
This shows your paranoid delusions.
07 Jan 20
@humy saidIrrelevant digressions will not save you from the facts.
which is irrelevant even if true.You clearly do NOT agree with each other about everythingThat is what I just said.but you are clearly pretending to.I am clearly not pretending to. I just said "...we generally agree with each other on most (not all) things ..."
Is it the concept of "most" you don't get here or the concept "not all" you don't get here?
This shows your paranoid delusions.
Why would gravity cause time dilation? There is not a single Einstein quote saying that is the case. Do you know why? Because it is a myth!
Brian Greene has better qualifications than any of you wannabes.
@Metal-Brain
BG definitely has less on the ball than Einstein.
You just pick a dude who happens to agree with your own bias and run with it.
Just like you think your 90 year old buddies know more about climate change than ANYONE from century 21.
09 Jan 20
@sonhouse saidThat is irrelevant. Einstein is dead.
@Metal-Brain
BG definitely has less on the ball than Einstein.
You just pick a dude who happens to agree with your own bias and run with it.
Just like you think your 90 year old buddies know more about climate change than ANYONE from century 21.
Pick a dude that disagrees with Brian Greene. Can't you find a single prominent physicist as an example? If you cannot find even one person you might want to accept you are wrong and Greene is right.
09 Jan 20
1 edit
@Metal-Brain
Well show me where BG put up a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting this idea TD CAUSES gravity.
A working scientist won't waste time trying to refute a lecture for laymen.
BG wouldn't DARE sign his name to a paper like that for fear of being run out of town on a rail.
09 Jan 20
@sonhouse saidWhy would anybody put up a paper that Einstein put up first?
@Metal-Brain
Well show me where BG put up a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting this idea TD CAUSES gravity.
A working scientist won't waste time trying to refute a lecture for laymen.
BG wouldn't DARE sign his name to a paper like that for fear of being run out of town on a rail.
Einstein's GR is the theory that TD causes gravity. How many times do I have to tell you that?
It isn't mt fault you have been mislead and/or misinterpreted Einstein's GR. It is Einstein's theory, not Brian Greene's. Greene is simply telling you what he understands about GR. He is an expert at it. That is why he got the gig for "Light Falls".
09 Jan 20
2 edits
@metal-brain saidEinstein's paper didn't say time dilation causes gravity.
Why would anybody put up a paper that Einstein put up first?
Einstein's GR is the theory that TD causes gravity.No, it isn't.
How many times do I have to tell you that?How many times would we science-experts have to tell you we hear you just fine and we don't believe your layperson BS?
09 Jan 20
@humy saidHow many time do I have to remind you Brian Greene is the real expert. You are contradicting your own logic. Your credentials are nothing compared to Brian Greene's. That makes you the layperson.
Einstein's paper didn't say time dilation causes gravity.Einstein's GR is the theory that TD causes gravity.No, it isn't.How many times do I have to tell you that?How many times would we science-experts have to tell you we hear you just fine and we don't believe your layperson BS?
Brian Greene is right and that makes you wrong. Stop pretending you are more of an expert than Brian Greene. That is laughable!
09 Jan 20
@metal-brain saidWhat you mean "the" expert as if there only exists one?
How many time do I have to remind you Brian Greene is the real expert.
Deepthought is also a relativity expert and he said Brian Greene may well not have ever implied what you claim he implied and, given Deepthought is a relativity expert and you are not, my (and our) default assumption should be he is probably correct and you are probably wrong.
09 Jan 20
@humy saidSomething to be borne in mind. Physics theories, especially the paradigm ones, are written in a formal language, i.e. maths, there's a meta-language which is a natural language such as English which explains what the symbols in the formal language mean and which of them have physical reality. That there is a mathematical object in the theory does not entail that it exists in the real world. The classic example of this is the dispute between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Many Worlds interpretation, to resolve the EPR paradox the Copenhagen Interpretation denies the physical reality of the wavefunction - it's just a mathematical device for generating answers - and since correlation does not imply causation there is no paradox. This is somewhat unsatisfying so Everett invented the Many Worlds Interpretation which gets around the problem by having the observer go into a linear superposition of states. They're still arguing about it. The point is that these interpretations are in the meta-language.
What you mean "the" expert as if there only exists one?
Deepthought is also a relativity expert and he said Brian Greene may well not have ever implied what you claim he implied and, given Deepthought is a relativity expert and you are not, my (and our) default assumption should be he is probably correct and you are probably wrong.
Professional physicists don't spend their time worrying about this much, they just shut up and calculate (Ensemble interpretation). So both Kazet and Brian Greene spend their time working in the formal language and don't worry about interpreting the theory except when babbling on internet forums or making videos to attempt to improve public understanding of science. Brian Greene is certainly a better mathematician than I am, this is not in dispute, he understands the formal language part better than I do. Whether he's got the interpretation, the meta-language part, of General Relativity right in his video or not is another matter. I'm guessing, to avoid losing people, he's been forced to simplify too much. The statement Metal-Brain reported him making about things not liking to age implies that he's aiming to make the video accessible to as wider audience as possible. So don't expect rigour.
09 Jan 20
5 edits
@deepthought saidYes, I am also guessing that. And I think doing that is often a bad thing to do (even if it is also often necessary) because many laypeople may take such assertions TOO literally and end up believing some nonsense ideas (like MB has) .
I'm guessing, to avoid losing people, he's been forced to simplify too much.
I am currently writing a book about statistics and mathematical philosophy but I am trying to write it so it can be understood easily by laypeople (as well as the experts) and one thing that means is having to explain much in plain common English and that's causing me some real problems because I am finding many of the concepts I want to explain are such that explaining them in common English is extremely difficult without either over-simplifying the concept or making it sound like the concept is far FAR more complex and harder to understand than what it actually is when in fact the concept is actually fundamentally simple! English is often inadequate for the job. Difficult to find workarounds. Don't know what to do about that.
10 Jan 20
@humy saidYou claim Greene is wrong. Deepthought doesn't agree with you. You two are not even on the same page and you expact me to believe deepthought when you don't even agree with him?
What you mean "the" expert as if there only exists one?
Deepthought is also a relativity expert and he said Brian Greene may well not have ever implied what you claim he implied and, given Deepthought is a relativity expert and you are not, my (and our) default assumption should be he is probably correct and you are probably wrong.
I know Brian Greene's qualifications. I don't know anybody's qualifications here. All I know is what people claim on here. Even still, nobody on here has qualifications that come even close to the professor's.
10 Jan 20
1 edit
@deepthought saidWhat is Brian Greene's exact quote about things not wanting to age? I think you are nit picking at things not meant to be taken too literally. The notion the he is saying things can think about aging is absurd. He is clearly explaining that things move to where time passes slower, not that particles have a brain.
Something to be borne in mind. Physics theories, especially the paradigm ones, are written in a formal language, i.e. maths, there's a meta-language which is a natural language such as English which explains what the symbols in the formal language mean and which of them have physical reality. That there is a mathematical object in the theory does not entail that it exis ...[text shortened]... he's aiming to make the video accessible to as wider audience as possible. So don't expect rigour.
Wouldn't it be easier for you to just admit Brian Greene is saying time dilation from matter causes gravity? You still have not explained why gravity would cause time dilation. How do you explain that?