@humy saidYou mean like you and deepthought telling me time dilation is not gravity and is the result of gravity. You were both wrong unless Brian Greene is wrong about GR.
Simple; Like you, he can form his own irrational opinions about scientists and science while not being a qualified scientist himself.
Is the purpose of this thread to try to attack the reputation of us science experts here in revenge to us generally disagreeing with your various non-expert opinions about various science-related topics? If not then what purpose?
http://www.briangreene.org/portfolio/light-falls/
Brian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly."
That is exactly what I have been saying all along. I was right and not one person on this forum defended me and I had to fend off your unjustified attacks. You all were taught wrong about GR and ASSUMED I must have been wrong.
How many times have I told you not to assume?
30 May 19
@metal-brain saidGreene might want to parse it that way but the underlying phenomena is due to the malleability of space and time. Mass in our universe affects changes in space/time. It affects BOTH. He just says the same thing in a different way.
You mean like you and deepthought telling me time dilation is not gravity and is the result of gravity. You were both wrong unless Brian Greene is wrong about GR.
http://www.briangreene.org/portfolio/light-falls/
Brian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly ...[text shortened]... wrong about GR and ASSUMED I must have been wrong.
How many times have I told you not to assume?
@metal-brain saidanyone who claims time dilation IS gravity is an idiot for doing so.
You mean like you and deepthought telling me time dilation is not gravity
Do you? You seem to clearly imply it in the above comment.
If time dilation IS gravity then how is it that special relativity implies you can have time dilation without gravity?
(that's by far not the only thing wrong with that bit of nonsense but lets just keep it simple)
30 May 19
@humy saidWell technically speaking, time dilation without gravity is, I think you are referring to, going near c. But in that case going near c increases mass to so it still is a double whammy, which increases gravity also, I think.
anyone who claims time dilation IS gravity is an idiot for doing so.
Do you?
If time dilation IS gravity then how is it that special relativity implies you can have time dilation without gravity?
(that's by far not the only thing wrong with that bit of nonsense but lets just keep it simple)
30 May 19
@humy saidBrian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly."
anyone who claims time dilation IS gravity is an idiot for doing so.
Do you? You seem to clearly imply it in the above comment.
If time dilation IS gravity then how is it that special relativity implies you can have time dilation without gravity?
(that's by far not the only thing wrong with that bit of nonsense but lets just keep it simple)
Are you calling Brian Greene an idiot? He has excellent credentials. His statement clearly vindicates me and makes you look like an idiot.
30 May 19
@sonhouse saidThe time dilation causes attraction. I was right all along and it was proposed by Einstein 100 years ago. Go ahead and explain what causes the time dilation with theories if you like. That is all you are left with now.
Greene might want to parse it that way but the underlying phenomena is due to the malleability of space and time. Mass in our universe affects changes in space/time. It affects BOTH. He just says the same thing in a different way.
Time dilation is gravity. Greene's statement did not merely imply it, he was clear. Of course it affects both space and time. You can't have one without the other.
@metal-brain saidNot for saying that above.
Brian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly."
Are you calling Brian Greene an idiot?
Did he ever say/imply time dilation IS gravity? -certainly not from the above statements.
Time dilation is gravity.No, it isn't.
Where did you come up with such nonsense?
If time dilation IS gravity then explian to us all here why special relativity clearly implies time dilation can happen WITHOUT gravity....
Greene's statement did not merely imply it, he was clear.Which one of his statements implied time dilation is gravity and HOW so? So far none of his statements you have shown here implied time dilation is gravity so apparently its not him being an idiot but just you.
time dilation causes attractionEven if Greene would agree with that assertion, does X attracting Y imply X IS Y? A moth is attracted to light therefore a moth IS light (YOUR logic)
@humy saidWhat causes objects to fall to earth? Time dilation. That is what Greene said.
Not for saying that above.
Did he ever say/imply time dilation IS gravity? -certainly not from the above statements.Time dilation is gravity.No, it isn't.
Where did you come up with such nonsense?
If time dilation IS gravity then explian to us all here why special relativity clearly implies time dilation can happen WITHOUT gravity....
[quote] Greene's ...[text shortened]... oes X attracting Y imply X IS Y? A moth is attracted to light therefore a moth IS light (YOUR logic)
No ambiguity there. Notice he did not say the bending of space/time like you did. The bending of space/time is just a description of observation of time dilation's effect, not the other way around as you and deepthought implied.
You all claimed time dilation was the result of gravity and not the weak force that attracts objects. Furthermore, it was all because none of you understand GR well and merely pretended to. You were all wrong and I was right.
What is really sad is that this was established 100 years ago and you fools claimed I was wrong and even became condescending about it. Don't you feel stupid?
"Even if Greene would agree with that assertion, does X attracting Y imply X IS Y? A moth is attracted to light therefore a moth IS light (YOUR logic)"
Even your comparisons are illogical. I didn't say objects are attracted to the earth because of time dilation so the object is time dilation.
You omitted gravity from your comparison. Stupid!
@metal-brain saidWhere and when did he say this?
What causes objects to fall to earth? Time dilation. That is what Greene said.
Via what quote?
What was his EXACT words to that effect?
If you aren't lying and he siad/implied this, why don't you vindicate yourself to us all by PROVING it to us all just by SHOWING us exactly where he made that assertion and/or words of this effect?
it was all because none of you understand GR well and merely pretended to.WOW what delusional arrogance. So you think YOU, who has NO expertise nor qualifications in GR, understands GR BETTER than DeepThought even though he has a relevant SCIENCE DEGREE on it while you do not!?
DeepThought has vastly more understanding and knowledge of GR than me or you so, even if you don't believe me, you should at least believe him on it unless you are completely way out of it.
I didn't say objects are attracted to the earth because of time dilation so the object is time dilation.No, and I never implied you did. You implied time dilation is gravity because "time dilation causes attraction" which is just as stupid. Same stupid logic; "X causes Y 'therefore' X IS Y" is stupid logic (not to mention the premise is incorrect anyway but that's besides the point I was making).
31 May 19
@humy saidBrian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly."
Where and when did he say this?
Via what quote?
What was his EXACT words to that effect?
If you aren't lying and he siad/implied this, why don't you vindicate yourself to us all by PROVING it to us all just by SHOWING us exactly where he made that assertion and/or words of this effect?
[quote] it was all because none of you understand GR well and merely pretended to. [/quo ...[text shortened]... id logic (not to mention the premise is incorrect anyway but that's besides the point I was making).
That tiny time warp is time dilation. Do you deny that?
31 May 19
@metal-brain saidThat doesn't mean cause and effect. It means mass has TWO effects. So if time dilation causes stuff to fall, what about a spacecraft going .99% of the speed of light? It is well known THAT causes time dilation also. Does that mean the ship is powered by time dilation?
Brian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly."
That tiny time warp is time dilation. Do you deny that?
@metal-brain saidClearly nothing there implies he is claiming/thinks time dilation IS gravity.
Brian said "that tiny time warp is why things fall. Objects do not want to age. The math shows things are drawn to locations where time elapses more slowly."
So it's only you being an idiot here for saying time dilation IS gravity.
If a clock is moved close to c and far away from any significant gravity well (so no gravity involved) and so to be seen to tick more slowly from an outside observer and thus time dilation is observed, how is that observed time dilation also 'gravity'? You make no sense.
31 May 19
@sonhouse saidA spacecraft is not capable of going that fast. It is simply impossible.
That doesn't mean cause and effect. It means mass has TWO effects. So if time dilation causes stuff to fall, what about a spacecraft going .99% of the speed of light? It is well known THAT causes time dilation also. Does that mean the ship is powered by time dilation?
31 May 19
@humy saidYou need to watch the video. Greene spends a considerable amount of time explaining the equivalence principle. You would be advised to learn it instead of remaining ignorant and denying reality.
Clearly nothing there implies he is claiming/thinks time dilation IS gravity.
So it's only you being an idiot here for saying time dilation IS gravity.
If a clock is moved close to c and far away from any significant gravity well (so no gravity involved) and so to be seen to tick more slowly from an outside observer and thus time dilation is observed, how is that observed time dilation also 'gravity'? You make no sense.
01 Jun 19
@metal-brain saidThat's not only irrelevant to the argument even if true (what if it DID go that fast? ), If you were not so ignorant you would know special relativity proves time time dilation happens at ANY non-zero relative speed.
A spacecraft is not capable of going that fast. It is simply impossible.
How can such time dilation BE gravity (like you claim) when it happens well away from any significant gravity well thus no gravity involved? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.