Einstein's Relativity Is Wrong?

@Metal-Brain
Bending of spacetime IS time dilution which is CAUSED by mass.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Bending of spacetime IS time dilution which is CAUSED by mass.

Much better.

@metal-brain said
"Time dilation is CAUSED by the bending of space-time."

Einstein NEVER said such an absurd thing like that.

You do not know what you are talking about. Notice that your sentence started with time and ended with time. Time is not caused by time.

Again, you DO know that time and time dilation are two totally different things, right?

Einstein used the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction equations to show how gravity and velocity both distort space-time and both cause time dilation. These equations go back to 1892. You'd know this if you had read and understood either paper.

@suzianne said
Again, you DO know that time and time dilation are two totally different things, right?

Einstein used the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction equations to show how gravity and velocity both distort space-time and both cause time dilation. These equations go back to 1892. You'd know this if you had read and understood either paper.

You mean "proper time". Since you accept time dilation, there is no absolute measurement of time.

The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction equations do not prove me wrong in any way. I already brought this up to you when I told you to "see the equivalence principal". You'd know this if you had read and understood either.

I think it is cute that you are pretending to know what you are talking about, but you are out of your league here. Go back to the debates forum before you really embarrass yourself.

@Metal-Brain
Too bad you don't realize YOU are the one embarrassing yourself.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Too bad you don't realize YOU are the one embarrassing yourself.

That equates to Brian Greene embarrassing himself since he agrees with me. You are embarrassing yourself by claiming Brian Greene is wrong.

Have you written 4 books about physics? When you write a book and it outsells the Elegant Universe let us all know.

@Metal-Brain
Ah, so now science is run by how well a scientist's book sells. I did not know that.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Ah, so now science is run by how well a scientist's book sells. I did not know that.

Tell me why Brian Greene is not deserving of such high respect in the physics community. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008.

What is wrong with him?

@metal-brain said
Tell me why Brian Greene is not deserving of such high respect in the physics community.

Sonhouse didn't say/imply in his last post that he is "not deserving of such high respect in the physics community" and whether Brian Greene does or doesn't 'deserve' so is irrelevant to your missinterpretations of what he said and irrelevant to whether everything he asserted is correct and irrelevant to the scientific facts which, and completely contrary to what you keep making out, are NOT defined by how 'respected' a scientist is that claims those said facts but rather they are defined by scientific method and the evidence alone.

@humy said
Sonhouse didn't say/imply in his last post that he is "not deserving of such high respect in the physics community" and whether Brian Greene does or doesn't 'deserve' so is irrelevant to your missinterpretations of what he said and irrelevant to whether everything he asserted is correct and irrelevant to the scientific facts which, and completely contrary to what you keep makin ...[text shortened]... hat claims those said facts but rather they are defined by scientific method and the evidence alone.

So why do you say he is wrong again?

@metal-brain said
So why do you say he is wrong again?

Who did I say was wrong and wrong about what exactly?

@humy said
Who did I say was wrong and wrong about what exactly?

LOL!
I thought so.

Look, just a point to contributors to this forum. This is a lot closer than people seem to think. Gravity is the tendency of particles to fall towards objects with mass. What is not in dispute is that local concentrations of energy cause space-time curvature and because space-time is curved and particles travel along geodesics they fall. One can work out what the geodesic is using a method called the Principle of Least Proper Time, the geodesic is the trajectory along which a co-moving observer's clock advances least. Metal-Brain is almost right, but not quite. The difficulty I have with what he's saying is that time dilation is a difference in the time between two events as measured by two different observers. The reason I'm saying that it does not cause gravity is because of it's status in the theory, it is what is measured, the actual cause is that things travel along geodesics, it's just the generalization of Newton's First Law of Motion to non-flat geometry. If there is only one observer, say the co-moving one, then there is only one clock running and therefore no disagreement on how much time has elapsed and no time dilation. Brian Greene is almost certainly simplifying for an audience who 1) have little or no mathematical knowledge and 2) may have an IQ as low as 70. He has to keep it simple and statements like "things don't like to age" is a way of allowing people who are not going to cope with the distinction I'm making here relate to what he's trying to explain.

@deepthought said
Look, just a point to contributors to this forum. This is a lot closer than people seem to think. Gravity is the tendency of particles to fall towards objects with mass. What is not in dispute is that local concentrations of energy cause space-time curvature and because space-time is curved and particles travel along geodesics they fall. One can work out what the geod ...[text shortened]... ho are not going to cope with the distinction I'm making here relate to what he's trying to explain.

"Brian Greene is almost certainly simplifying for an audience who 1) have little or no mathematical knowledge and 2) may have an IQ as low as 70. He has to keep it simple and statements like "things don't like to age" is a way of allowing people who are not going to cope with the distinction I'm making here relate to what he's trying to explain."

What does the math have to do with explaining it in some inept way as you imply? He said the math proves things move to where time passes slower. There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. If you think there is then explain why. What does the math knowledge of the listener have to do with it? He didn't have the need to do any math to explain it. If you feel there was a need what did he omit that you think is important?

As for #2, you really expect us to believe he didn't teach properly because he thought he was talking to a bunch of morons? LOL!
Tell us how he should have taught people of above average IQ then since you seem to think you know what he should have said.

@Metal-Brain
Here is my take: You want us to do your research, which is intellectual laziness.
You are quite capable I'm sure of googling stuff for yourself., but the fact is, when you tie your to some expert or other, everyone else in the universe is second class and therefore you can look down from your lofty position and claim superiority in your own mind.
The fact is, if you wanted to learn the depths of TD you would need an entire overhaul of your physics education and that you will never do so all you are doing here is called 'trolling'.
I never see you put in new science here, only that which you think you can tear down. That is not science. That is in fact ANTI science.