Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 17:39:22
Last three years ago, I submitted (but rejected) to both Nature Journal and SCIENCE Journal an article titled, "All About Gravity", discussing Gravity and how our science and schools did it wrong while Einstein did it right. Did it wrong because a trampoline is not a good way of explaining gravity. A pool full of water is probably the best example.
I think that the Black Holes that we are seeing and presenting in pictures are not really black holes, probably some stars that we still do not know.
If I have time, I think that I will submit the Article to Zenodo and let people read it for free...
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:00:46
Did it wrong because a trampoline is not a good way of explaining gravity.
The trampoline analogy was never meant to be taken literally.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:09:43
Of course, I understood it but the trampoline is the wrong way to explain gravity, I think. You cannot use trampoline in explaining gravitational waves and black holes.Did it wrong because a trampoline is not a good way of explaining gravity.
The trampoline analogy was never meant to be taken literally.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:22:49
You cannot use trampoline in explaining gravitational waves and black holes.
It's only an analogy.
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 18:24:29
I think that the Black Holes that we are seeing and presenting in pictures are not really black holes, probably some stars that we still do not know.The black holes at first were deduced by calculations before being observed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2022 18:30:41
You cannot use trampoline in explaining gravitational waves and black holes.Nobody said you could.
Last three years ago, I submitted (but rejected) to both Nature Journal and SCIENCE Journal an article titled, "All About Gravity", discussing Gravity and how our science and schools did it wrong while Einstein did it right.Is that like your unsupported and impossible claim to have reviewed all the papers about the theory of evolution?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:31:38
Why not use a pool with full of water, with two balloons; one is the Sun and other is the Earth? And when you popped the other balloon inside the pool, you can see Black Hole and the effect of gravity... Did you visualize it?You cannot use trampoline in explaining gravitational waves and black holes.
It's only an analogy.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:33:22
Why not use a pool with full of water, with two balloons; one is the Sun and other is the Earth? And when you popped the other balloon inside the pool, you can see Black Hole and the effect of gravity... Did you visualize it?
That would just be another analogy. Neither the trampoline nor your example are truly reflective of the reality of the situation.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:34:42
I love experiment in science and I think when a professor or teacher uses trampoline to explain gravity, and use marbles to symbolize massive objects in space is very wrong and very confusing, unless, you knew what Einstein had seen about Gravity...You cannot use trampoline in explaining gravitational waves and black holes.Nobody said you could.Last three years ago, I submitted (but rejected) to both Nature Journal and SCIENCE Journal an article titled, "All About Gravity", discussing Gravity and how our science and schools did it wrong while Einstein did it right.Is that like your unsupported and impossible claim to have reviewed all the papers about the theory of evolution?
In ToE, it is another topic. Wait, I am in the last part of my article...I will surely give you the ABSTRACT before I submit.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:36:48
In the pool, you could explain gravity, the grav waves and black holes, and probably predict another phenomenon that Einstein did not see. You could also show the bending of light, if you use a sketch. If you see that phenomenon, let us submit, co-author, to NATURE and SCIENCE. Anybody interested?Why not use a pool with full of water, with two balloons; one is the Sun and other is the Earth? And when you popped the other balloon inside the pool, you can see Black Hole and the effect of gravity... Did you visualize it?
That would just be another analogy. Neither the trampoline nor your example are truly reflective of the reality of the situation.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:40:48
In the pool, you could explain the grav waves and black holes, and probably predict another phenomenon that Einstein did not see. If you see that phenomenon, let us submit, co-author, to NATURE and SCIENCE.Why not use a pool with full of water, with two balloons; one is the Sun and other is the Earth? And when you popped the other balloon inside the pool, you can see Black Hole and the effect of gravity... Did you visualize it?
That would just be another analogy. Neither the trampoline nor your example are truly reflective of the reality of the situation.
Water doesn't behave like space and water waves don't behave like gravitational waves.
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 18:42:11
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:44:15
Do you understand gravitational waves and bending of light? If you do, what is the best analogy in reality, except the pool with water, with ball or balloons, or a pet bottle (or fish tank) with full of water (but since its volume is small, hard to do)?In the pool, you could explain the grav waves and black holes, and probably predict another phenomenon that Einstein did not see. If you see that phenomenon, let us submit, co-author, to NATURE and SCIENCE.Why not use a pool with full of water, with two balloons; one is the Sun and other is the Earth? And when you popped the other balloon inside the pool, you can see Black Hole and the effect of gravity... Did you visualize it?
That would just be another analogy. Neither the trampoline nor your example are truly reflective of the reality of the situation.
Water doesn't behave like space and water waves don't behave like gravitational waves.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:45:49
@MrIntelligentDesign it's obvious that you know practically nothing about physices.Which parts that I did not know? Do you know the bending of light through gravity? If yes, which analogy can you use to explain it in classroom, for example?
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 18:48:18
If you do, what is the best analogy in reality, except the pool with water, with ball or balloons, or a pet bottle (or fish tank) with full of water (but since its volume is small, hard to do)?Your pool siphon (vortex) will look more like a black hole than your pool.
Which parts that I did not know? Do you know the bending of light through gravity? If yes, which analogy can you use to explain it in classroom, for example?I understand that you don't understand.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:49:02
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:49:41
But you will have a good calculation if you have the correct and realistic parameters. The reason why I like Einstein because before he used mathematics, he had seen reality first, thought experiment, you knew, then, math.. a genius.I think that the Black Holes that we are seeing and presenting in pictures are not really black holes, probably some stars that we still do not know.The black holes at first were deduced by calculations before being observed.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:51:05
Light refracting through water isn't the same as light being bent by a gravitational field, either. Light of different wavelengths refract by different amounts through water, whereas light bent by a gravitational field does not experience that.I got it, what I said is if you know how Einstein had seen the bending of light caused by gravity on a massive object in space?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:55:00
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 18:57:32
The bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 18:58:15
And with the gravitational lens too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensThe bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 18:59:36
The bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
He got all of that from the equivalence principle.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 19:02:21
I do not know, maybe you did not see what Einstein had seen on reality before he published his GR or claimed about Gravity. It is very clear and very easy to visualize...If you do, what is the best analogy in reality, except the pool with water, with ball or balloons, or a pet bottle (or fish tank) with full of water (but since its volume is small, hard to do)?Your pool siphon (vortex) will look more like a black hole than your pool.Which parts that I did not know? Do you know the bending of light through gravity? If yes, which analogy can you use to explain it in classroom, for example?I understand that you don't understand.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 19:04:14
Yeah, I knew it too... thus, if you use a pool full of water, you could probably predict a phenomenon that Einstein did not see. Whoever seen it, let us co-author and submit to NATURE and SCIENCE.....And with the gravitational lens too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensThe bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 19:06:19
That what Einstein had probably written and called AFTER his thought experiment when he was thinking about gravity. Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.The bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
He got all of that from the equivalence principle.
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 19:09:53
Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.Thought experiment and also in relation to observation.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 19:11:07
That what Einstein had probably written and called AFTER his thought experiment when he was thinking about gravity. Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.The bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
He got all of that from the equivalence principle.
Do you know what the equivalence principle is?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2022 19:53:38
I love experiment in scienceWhat experiments have you done with black holes?
In ToE, it is another topic.Yes, but the important thing you said in that topic was something that can't be true.
Given that you said something that isn't true, I wonder if what you are saying here is also not true.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Origin on 20/02/2022 19:55:45
Whoever seen it, let us co-author and submit to NATURE and SCIENCE.....If I wanted to give the people at Nature a laugh, I would just send them a cartoon, there is no need to spend time writing an silly ignorant article.
Post by: evan_au on 20/02/2022 20:09:33
Quote from: OP
I think our current understanding of Black Holes are wrong.Einstein knew that General Relativity could not completely explain the center of black holes, because it kept coming up with infinities.
- Einstein considered that his theory did not apply at this point
- But it has passed an incredibly precise test of black holes, as shown by predictions of the characteristics of colliding black holes (and their subsequent detection via gravitational waves) and the Event Horizon telescope.
Steven Hawking knew that General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory could not completely explain the event horizon of black holes, because it kept coming up with infinities, and it created an information paradox.
- He took some steps towards explaining it, with his eponymous Hawking Radiation
It's not enough to say "Our theory is wrong", because all physicists know that - you have to come up with a better theory.
- An analogy like a balloon in a pool is not a better theory
- You need to numerically reproduce all of the results of gravitational wave detections and the Event Horizon telescope - and then predict some new result which differs from Einstein's relativity and Hawking's radiation.
- The plastic skin of a balloon does not adequately imitate the plasma of a collapsing star, so that you could use it to make numerical predictions.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 20:53:15
Agreed.Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.Thought experiment and also in relation to observation.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 21:02:04
Yes. I think you must make it easier for a layman to understand reality. Einstein loved thought experiment, like me.. From his window in Patent Office he visualized what will happen when a person in elevator cut in a free fall and a person in space with gravity. So, those scientists had used technical terms and used equivalence principle.That what Einstein had probably written and called AFTER his thought experiment when he was thinking about gravity. Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.The bending of light was predicted by the equivalence principle.But do you know how Einstein had seen it in realistic way? He calculated the angle when light bends, and English Astronomer (forgot the name) had confirmed it. Do you visualize bending of light in space clearly, or no?
He got all of that from the equivalence principle.
Do you know what the equivalence principle is?
From that, he got and understood what is gravity. From that, he visualized bending of light and he became Einstein, the genius.
Try to make it simple and you will see reality better.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 21:07:46
About Black Holes, I am just following what I think Einstein had seen about gravity. I think Einstein was right, with no doubt. My pool full of water could explain and easily replicate gravity, grav waves, bending of light and probably, the correct Black Holes, esp when a photon of light cannot escape from Black Hole, as one characteristics of Black Hole.I love experiment in scienceWhat experiments have you done with black holes?In ToE, it is another topic.Yes, but the important thing you said in that topic was something that can't be true.
Given that you said something that isn't true, I wonder if what you are saying here is also not true.
Do you understand that?
That is why, whenever I see and read pictures and explanations of Black Holes, so different from I think Einstein and me had seen, I wonder who is right... But I always support Einstein.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 21:10:05
That is why I am always thinking: do scientists in NATURE really smart or just a simple office clerks? In SCIENCE Journal, she is the top who had seen my article. Did they really understand bending of light caused by massive object with gravity?Whoever seen it, let us co-author and submit to NATURE and SCIENCE.....If I wanted to give the people at Nature a laugh, I would just send them a cartoon, there is no need to spend time writing an silly ignorant article.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 21:16:44
OK, but I will repost: My pool full of water with balloons could explain and easily replicate gravity, grav waves, bending of light, event horizon and probably, the correct Black Holes, esp when a photon of light cannot escape from Black Hole, as one characteristics of Black Hole.Quote from: OPI think our current understanding of Black Holes are wrong.Einstein knew that General Relativity could not completely explain the center of black holes, because it kept coming up with infinities.
- Einstein considered that his theory did not apply at this point
- But it has passed an incredibly precise test of black holes, as shown by predictions of the characteristics of colliding black holes (and their subsequent detection via gravitational waves) and the Event Horizon telescope.
Steven Hawking knew that General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory could not completely explain the event horizon of black holes, because it kept coming up with infinities, and it created an information paradox.
- He took some steps towards explaining it, with his eponymous Hawking Radiation
It's not enough to say "Our theory is wrong", because all physicists know that - you have to come up with a better theory.
- An analogy like a balloon in a pool is not a better theory
- You need to numerically reproduce all of the results of gravitational wave detections and the Event Horizon telescope - and then predict some new result which differs from Einstein's relativity and Hawking's radiation.
- The plastic skin of a balloon does not adequately imitate the plasma of a collapsing star, so that you could use it to make numerical predictions.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
I am not saying that Einstein was wrong. I am saying that if we used my analogy, we could easily explain Black Hole sucking up light...when I submitted that to NATURE and SCIENCE, either the NATURE or SCIENCE (I knew who did it. She is the top in Science) who reviewed my article was wrong or has no clue on the topic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2022 21:20:31
My pool full of water with balloons could explain and easily replicate gravity, grav waves, bending of light and probably, the correct Black Holes, esp when a photon of light cannot escape from Black Hole, as one characteristics of Black Hole.Go on then.
Show us the predictions your model makes.
(That's what scientific models are for.)
We know that the "trampoline" analogy is bad.
We even have jokes about how bad it is.
https://xkcd.com/895/
But it's still useful.
Now, either your model is better or it is useless.
Can you show how it is better?
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 21:23:15
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 21:25:49
Einstein had already done everything about GRAVITY. There is no more thing to be predicted, but a pool with full of water and balloons probably is the best analogy. If I am a professor in any UNIV or if I will lecture about gravity, I will surely use the pool with water...My pool full of water with balloons could explain and easily replicate gravity, grav waves, bending of light and probably, the correct Black Holes, esp when a photon of light cannot escape from Black Hole, as one characteristics of Black Hole.Go on then.
Show us the predictions your model makes.
(That's what scientific models are for.)
We know that the "trampoline" analogy is bad.
We even have jokes about how bad it is.
https://xkcd.com/895/
But it's still useful.
Now, either your model is better or it is useless.
Can you show how it is better?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 21:27:05
@MrIntelligentDesig Can your pool also bend space-time?You don't bend time, you bend space caused by massive black object.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2022 21:28:08
If I am a professor in any UNIVYou aren't.
if you were, you would be expected to answer questions put to you.
You don't, I don't know if it's because you are lazy or ignorant.
Now, either your model is better or it is useless.
Can you show how it is better?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2022 21:28:43
You don't bend timeWould you like another guess?
Maybe one that isn't wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 21:53:37
No, your swimming pool model cannot properly replicate gravitational phenomena. It makes incorrect predictions. Water waves travel at various different speeds, whereas gravitational waves always travel at the speed of light. Water causes chromatic aberrations when it bends light, whereas gravitational lensing doesn't. Water has drag and viscosity, whereas space-time doesn't.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 22:55:11
The equivalence principle is already easy enough for a layman to understand.I did not say that water is the perfect example of gravity. I said that instead of trampoline, a pool full of water is the best analogy.
No, your swimming pool model cannot properly replicate gravitational phenomena. It makes incorrect predictions. Water waves travel at various different speeds, whereas gravitational waves always travel at the speed of light. Water causes chromatic aberrations when it bends light, whereas gravitational lensing doesn't. Water has drag and viscosity, whereas space-time doesn't.
In your own word, what is equivalence principle? Why you used that? That is very far from bending of light..
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 23:24:30
Now imagine that you have a flashlight held sideways in this upward accelerating room. When you switch the flashlight on, the light beam moves out of the flashlight in a straight line. However, the floor of the room is accelerating upwards toward the light beam. From your own perspective (if your senses were good enough) it would look like the light beam was falling towards the floor.
Since the equivalence principle states that the behavior of light in this accelerating room is identical to the behavior of light in a room in a gravitational field, that means the equivalence principle predicts not only that light will bend in a gravitational field, but also how much it will bend.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 20/02/2022 23:48:37
The equivalence principle very elegantly explains gravitational lensing. The equivalence principle basically says that, if you were inside of a room with no windows, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the room was sitting still on the surface of the Earth or whether it was out in space away from a gravity source accelerating upwards at a rate 9.8 m/s/s. No experiment could distinguish between the two scenarios.This explanation, whoever made it, is not specific. Einstein had made it simple when he used massive object, and when he used both a person falling down from roof, a man inside an elevator and the cable is cut and the man in the space, he could easily explain the curve space, the malleable space and Black Holes. Michio Kaku explained it very well in one of Einstein documentary.
Now imagine that you have a flashlight held sideways in this upward accelerating room. When you switch the flashlight on, the light beam moves out of the flashlight in a straight line. However, the floor of the room is accelerating upwards toward the light beam. From your own perspective (if your senses were good enough) it would look like the light beam was falling towards the floor.
Since the equivalence principle states that the behavior of light in this accelerating room is identical to the behavior of light in a room in a gravitational field, that means the equivalence principle predicts not only that light will bend in a gravitational field, but also how much it will bend.
Do you think that by using the Equivalence Principle, a physicist could tell what is the real and correct nature/characteristics of Black Holes?
Post by: Origin on 20/02/2022 23:55:43
This explanation, whoever made it, is not specificThe guy that made that explanation is Einstein.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 00:05:46
I knew but I think Einstein had used his own thought experiment when he was working in Patent Office, in front of his office, wandering if a man fall from roof and a man on space. That is equal phenomena, hence Equivalence Principle...am I right?This explanation, whoever made it, is not specificThe guy that made that explanation is Einstein.
Post by: Origin on 21/02/2022 00:38:45
am I right?No, you are wrong as usual. When Einstein was working on GR he was long gone from the patent office.
Shouldn't be working on your attempt to disprove Evolution?
Post by: Kartazion on 21/02/2022 01:56:44
.. wandering if a man fall from roof and a man on space. That is equal phenomena, hence Equivalence Principle...am I right?There is work there. You could never question the assessment that scientists make to explain a black hole, unless you are able to understand the basics of physics. Clearly just ignoring the basic rules of physics, I can tell you in advance that you are wrong in your paper without even having read it.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/02/2022 02:18:37
Post by: pzkpfw on 21/02/2022 03:04:34
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 07:56:43
About Einstein, well, I just followed what Michio Kaku had explained.am I right?No, you are wrong as usual. When Einstein was working on GR he was long gone from the patent office.
Shouldn't be working on your attempt to disprove Evolution?
About Falsification of Evolution: I am in the last part...
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 08:00:45
I am just relying on the derivation of Einstein's explanation of realty, of space time and gravity, based on scientists' account. Did you watch the documentary about Einstein in YouTube, discussing how Einstein made his discoveries? That is a very good documentary. I've watched that probably 15 times, admiring Einstein and following his approach in reality... wandering if a man fall from roof and a man on space. That is equal phenomena, hence Equivalence Principle...am I right?There is work there. You could never question the assessment that scientists make to explain a black hole, unless you are able to understand the basics of physics. Clearly just ignoring the basic rules of physics, I can tell you in advance that you are wrong in your paper without even having read it.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 08:02:46
@MrIntelligentDesign Sorry to talk to you like that, but you have to learn physics first. And yet you haven't tackled quantum mechanics. All this to say that you cannot say that such and such a phenomenon or object in physics is false without having studied it.Oh Quantum Mechanics, I am planning to write a science articles to be submitted in science journals about Uncertainty Principle and Bell's Inequality Equation. I think that they are both wrong... Do you want to co-author with me?
What I studied about Einstein is on how he discovered his explanations of reality. How he used his thought experiment and come up with the best and correct explanation. You do not have to worry about me. I always rely on what I could see and test in reality, since reality is in front of us. I do not care about others.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 08:06:21
I like how "the trampoline analogy" is mostly hassled for using gravity to help explain gravity, and here a replacement is touted that uses balloons and a pool of water. How does _that_ avoid the self-reference problem?What do you mean?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2022 08:43:49
Did you see the cartoon?I like how "the trampoline analogy" is mostly hassled for using gravity to help explain gravity, and here a replacement is touted that uses balloons and a pool of water. How does _that_ avoid the self-reference problem?What do you mean?
The big problem with the trampoline analogy is that it uses gravity (pulling the trampoline down) to explain gravity.
So it isn't much use.
In your model, the water only stays in the pool because of gravity, so it has the same problem.
Water waves would be using gravity to explain gravity. [ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 08:47:19
No, totally different!Did you see the cartoon?I like how "the trampoline analogy" is mostly hassled for using gravity to help explain gravity, and here a replacement is touted that uses balloons and a pool of water. How does _that_ avoid the self-reference problem?What do you mean?
The big problem with the trampoline analogy is that it uses gravity (pulling the trampoline down) to explain gravity.
So it isn't much use.
In your model, the water only stays in the pool because of gravity, so it has the same problem.
Water waves would be using gravity to explain gravity. [ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Kartazion on 21/02/2022 09:37:00
Oh Quantum Mechanics, I am planning to write a science articles to be submitted in science journals about Uncertainty Principle and Bell's Inequality Equation. I think that they are both wrong...You think? So you can't confirm it. But for the benefit of the doubt let's take the simpler one. In QM how would you fix the problem of the Uncertainty Principle in the results of its measurement? In this scientific context to say that it is wrong implies that an interpretation of it has been improved and not degraded.
Post by: Colin2B on 21/02/2022 09:54:51
No, totally different!In what way, please explain.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 14:36:12
I am not using the top surface of the pool as waves or gravity. I am using the whole pool with water as space. Gravity is just a squeezed space.No, totally different!In what way, please explain.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/02/2022 17:19:05
I am using the whole pool with water as space. Gravity is just a squeezed space.How do you squeezed the space alias the water volume?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 21/02/2022 23:51:18
That is a very good question and a very, very basic one. You add massive objects!. That is why GRAVITY is so weak, compared to other three major fundamental forces.I am using the whole pool with water as space. Gravity is just a squeezed space.How do you squeezed the space alias the water volume?
Now, for thought experiment, assuming that you used two balloons, a big one (Sun) and a small one (Earth), while the volume is FIXED or negligible variance, then, you can create or make gravity, gravitational waves (you wave the two balloons, you make waves!) , bending of light (if you pour say, red liquid, you will see bending color), and BLACK HOLE!).
You see that I am a genius? lol! No, it was Einstein...
In honor of me, when you use this ANALOGY, please, call it Postrado's Pool or MrID's Pool... or MrIntelligentDesign's Pool..
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 00:12:55
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 00:20:31
The problem being the veracity of the singularities to act with a real reduction of space-time in a much smaller 'imaginary point' ; Namely much denser. For example in your water/space ratio experiment you would have to reduce the amount from 1 liter to 0.01 litre. So you can't use this pool analogy.I knew that water is much denser than space. But Postrado's Pool is the only best ANALOGY if you would like to talk about GRAVITY and Black Hole, and related topics. To any teachers and Professors and educators in science who are reading this, please, FREELY use this Postrado's Pool. Just tell the class that this is from me, Postrado, and I called it Postrado's Pool...
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 00:26:50
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 00:32:21
This thread is a joke. I googled 'Postrados Pool gravity' and you are the first with this thread.This is my first time to reveal this, Postrado's Pool.. I have many things to share... and from today, I will be using that name..like Schrodinger's cat, or Newton's Apple...
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 01:00:41
I will be using that name..like Schrodinger's cat, or Newton's Apple...Or Bozo the clown 🤡.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 04:14:47
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 05:42:39
Taking a look at the thread title, what is it that is wrong with black holes?This is an article from NASA:
What Is a Black Hole?
This article is part of the NASA Knows! (Grades K-4) series.
A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out. The gravity is so strong because matter has been squeezed into a tiny space. This can happen when a star is dying.
Because no light can get out, people can't see black holes. They are invisible. Space telescopes with special tools can help find black holes. The special tools can see how stars that are very close to black holes act differently than other stars.
How Big Are Black Holes?
Black holes can be big or small. Scientists think the smallest black holes are as small as just one atom. These black holes are very tiny but have the mass of a large mountain. Mass is the amount of matter, or "stuff," in an object.
Another kind of black hole is called "stellar." Its mass can be up to 20 times more than the mass of the sun. There may be many, many stellar mass black holes in Earth's galaxy. Earth's galaxy is called the Milky Way.
The largest black holes are called "supermassive." These black holes have masses that are more than 1 million suns together. Scientists have found proof that every large galaxy contains a supermassive black hole at its center. The supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is called Sagittarius A. It has a mass equal to about 4 million suns and would fit inside a very large ball that could hold a few million Earths.
How Do Black Holes Form?
Scientists think the smallest black holes formed when the universe began.
Stellar black holes are made when the center of a very big star falls in upon itself, or collapses. When this happens, it causes a supernova. A supernova is an exploding star that blasts part of the star into space.
Scientists think supermassive black holes were made at the same time as the galaxy they are in.
If Black Holes Are "Black," How Do Scientists Know They Are There?
A black hole can not be seen because strong gravity pulls all of the light into the middle of the black hole. But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole. Scientists can study stars to find out if they are flying around, or orbiting, a black hole.
When a black hole and a star are close together, high-energy light is made. This kind of light can not be seen with human eyes. Scientists use satellites and telescopes in space to see the high-energy light.
Could a Black Hole Destroy Earth?
Black holes do not go around in space eating stars, moons and planets. Earth will not fall into a black hole because no black hole is close enough to the solar system for Earth to do that.
Even if a black hole the same mass as the sun were to take the place of the sun, Earth still would not fall in. The black hole would have the same gravity as the sun. Earth and the other planets would orbit the black hole as they orbit the sun now.
The sun will never turn into a black hole. The sun is not a big enough star to make a black hole.
How Is NASA Studying Black Holes?
NASA is using satellites and telescopes that are traveling in space to learn more about black holes. These spacecraft help scientists answer questions about the universe.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-black-hole-k4.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take note:
1. Too much gravity or no gravity at all at first?
2. Matter has been squeezed or there is no matter?
3. When a Star dies, the star is gone, what left? Empty, right?
4. No light can get up or light is rushing to the center?
5. Invisible because there is already NO object?
6. Collapse of a dead star is the source
IF you use the Postrado's Pool, you could predict that a Black Hole has these characteristics:
1. First, the Sun had collapsed, or the balloon had bursted
2. Empty space had formed (No water had formed)
3. Then, all the squeezed space = gravity (I called it squeezon in my book and article),
rushed toward the center bursted balloon or empty space
(This is the meaning of "Even Light Cannot Escape"
See the differences? I think Postrado's Pool could explain Black Hole better
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 08:51:07
In honor of me, when you use this ANALOGYLOL
Like anyone will be using it.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 10:03:22
As you can see that I think I knew what I am saying, and could explain it in a very simple, easy to understand explanation. That is why I have the confidence that I can falsify ToE, or any explanation in science that I think is wrong.In honor of me, when you use this ANALOGYLOL
Like anyone will be using it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 10:59:32
could explain it in a very simple, easy to understand explanation.Why didn't you?
So far you have not explained anything; you have just said vague things about balloons in pools.
That is why I have the confidence that I can falsify ToE
Do you remember that, in order to make your point about that, you felt that you had to lie?
You certainly have confidence, but you have no competence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 11:00:29
IF you use the Postrado's Pool, you could predict that a Black Hole has these characteristics:It hadn't.
1. First, the Sun had collapsed,
I can still see it from my window.
Post by: The Spoon on 22/02/2022 13:19:32
In honor of me, when you use this ANALOGY, please, call it Postrado's Pool or MrID's Pool... or MrIntelligentDesign's Pool..I think Fool's Pool is far more fitting.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 15:10:21
Quote
1. Too much gravity or no gravity at all at first?
Too much.
Quote
2. Matter has been squeezed or there is no matter?
Matter has been squeezed, although the exact form of the matter at the center of a black hole is unknown at this time.
Quote
3. When a Star dies, the star is gone, what left? Empty, right?
No, there is very much something still there.
Quote
4. No light can get up or light is rushing to the center?
Both.
Quote
5. Invisible because there is already NO object?
An object is definitely there.
Quote
6. Collapse of a dead star is the source
That one's not a question.
Quote
1. First, the Sun had collapsed, or the balloon had bursted
The Sun collapsing is the opposite process of a balloon bursting. Besides, the Sun can't collapse into a black hole.
Quote
2. Empty space had formed (No water had formed)
That really doesn't make sense. In your pool, water itself is supposed to represent space. If there is no water, then there would be no space.
Quote
3. Then, all the squeezed space = gravity
What squeezed space? When was space squeezed?
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 16:34:57
This is my first time to reveal this, Postrado's Pool..Your pool analogy fits perfectly with your misunderstandings. So I'm afraid your analogy won't help anyone understand anything useful about gravity
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 17:18:09
The black hole creates a distortion of time. Your pool analogy will not be able to explain it. End of the story.
But what are you still going to say?
This is my first time to reveal this, Postrado's Pool..The real revelation should be in your understanding. In other words realize that your pool analogy is very very far from explaining anything with the black hole.
PS: Your pool analogy is false due to the real characteristics of a black hole. Do not forget
the black hole creates a distortion of time. Your pool analogy will not be able to explain it.
That it.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 20:35:41
You still cannot figure it out?Quote1. Too much gravity or no gravity at all at first?
What squeezed space? When was space squeezed?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 20:37:56
I don't know if more messages from each of us are necessary to tell at @MrIntelligentDesign that he is wrong.OK, which or whose time that is being distorted are you talking about?
The black hole creates a distortion of time. Your pool analogy will not be able to explain it. End of the story.
But what are you still going to say?This is my first time to reveal this, Postrado's Pool..The real revelation should be in your understanding. In other words realize that your pool analogy is very very far from explaining anything with the black hole.
PS: Your pool analogy is false due to the real characteristics of a black hole. Do not forget
the black hole creates a distortion of time. Your pool analogy will not be able to explain it.
That it.
In one of YT video, I had discussed "Time, What it is?"..
Please, be specific.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 20:44:00
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 21:16:08
High speed "slows down" time while low gravity "speeds it up".Which time are you talking about that had slowed down?
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 21:24:42
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 21:40:16
In short, black holes are massive pits of gravity that bend space-time because of their incredibly dense centers, or singularities. This time.Please, be specific.
Pits of GRAVITY? What are you talking about? Are you talking about a SUPER MASSIVE object, a star, that has a super gravity and you called it BLACK HOLE?
Which did you bend in spacetime? Space or time?
Please, be specific...
Tell me, do you really understand GRAVITY? If you do, then, tell me, by using GRAVITY, how can you predict the existence of Black Hole? And how to confirm it?
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 21:48:45
Which time are you talking about that had slowed down?Time will pass more slowly in any inertial reference frame that is moving relative to your frame.
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 21:50:34
Which did you bend in spacetime? Space or time?Both.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 21:51:35
... Are you talking about a SUPER MASSIVE object, a star, that has a super gravity and you called it BLACK HOLE?I am talking about gravitational singularity.
A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity)
... how can you predict the existence of Black Hole? And how to confirm it?By calculations and radio telescopes.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 21:57:20
Oh...now I got. You really had no clue on gravity, then, you really had no clue, probably of gravitational waves or bending of light or lensing..... from these ignorance, you will NEVER know what is a Black Hole... You must admit it first...... how can you predict the existence of Black Hole? And how to confirm it?By calculations and radio telescopes.
Then, if you don't know it, even though you can calculate, you will never surely know what are you calculating about or what are you seeing about with telescope..
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:01:45
OK, if that scientist has no clue whatsoever on GRAVITY like you, how could that scientist say or conclude that there's such a thing as gravitational singularity? Who said that and why we need to accept that explanation?... Are you talking about a SUPER MASSIVE object, a star, that has a super gravity and you called it BLACK HOLE?I am talking about gravitational singularity.
A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity)... how can you predict the existence of Black Hole? And how to confirm it?
"A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically."
They need to debate me first and defeat me.. Oh my goodness... anybody could invent explanations in science... oh my...
Is that "so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically" a black hole? Be speciific...
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:03:44
Oh...can you bend time? And whose or which time can you bend?? oh my... oh my... oh no....Please be specific...Which did you bend in spacetime? Space or time?Both.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:05:02
I knew that time will slow down when you are speeding up to the speed of photon of light... between you and photon but what are you talking about?Which time are you talking about that had slowed down?Time will pass more slowly in any inertial reference frame that is moving relative to your frame.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 22:06:57
I knew that time will slow down when you are speeding up to the speed of photon of light.Well, gravity also acts in this way on time.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:14:13
Please, be fair and be honest.I knew that time will slow down when you are speeding up to the speed of photon of light.Well, gravity also acts in this way on time.
Tell me, do you really understand GRAVITY? If you do, then, tell me, by using GRAVITY, how can you predict the existence of Black Hole? And how to confirm it?
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:15:26
If you do, then, tell me, by using GRAVITY, how can you predict the existence of Black Hole?
The Schwarzschild radius is an exact solution to Einstein's field equations and it is the radius of the event horizon around a black hole.
Quote
And how to confirm it?
Observational support for black hole:
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Black-hole-workable.gif)
(https://astronomy.com/-/media/Images/News%20and%20Observing/News/2021/01/blackhole.png?mw=1000&mh=800)
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 22:17:27
Please, be fair and be honest.No. Do you?
Tell me, do you really understand GRAVITY?
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:21:20
I knew that time will slow down when you are speeding up to the speed of photon of light... between you and photon but what are you talking about?I am talking about relativity. Relativity applies to ALL speeds. The effects are not pronounced at low speeds but they are still there.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:26:35
SchwarzschildI did not talk to Schwarzschild, so I cannot ask him if he too knew about GRAVITY, because anybody could imagine anything and use and invent formula and conclude, "Hey, this formula is part of nature about gravity". If Schwarzschild did not know GRAVITY, then, his calculation, whatever good it is, is wrong. FIRST, you must see the real reality of GRAVITY and use math...
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:29:22
Thank you for being honest. That is why from today, stop talking about GRAVITY and its related topic since you will only be messing gravity more and showing yourself as stupid.Please, be fair and be honest.No. Do you?
Tell me, do you really understand GRAVITY?
Yes. I think I knew what Einstein had seen about Gravity. The only thing that I did not know is what composed of gravity.. a photon or another particle, I do not know... Graviton or I called it squeezon.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:32:54
I knew it, but I am just specific: between me and the photonI knew that time will slow down when you are speeding up to the speed of photon of light... between you and photon but what are you talking about?I am talking about relativity. Relativity applies to ALL speeds. The effects are not pronounced at low speeds but they are still there.
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:35:41
Oh...can you bend time?Yes, spacetime is warped by a mass, both space and time.
Quote
And whose or which time can you bend??The time and space affected by the mass.
Time at the surface of the earth for instance passes more slowly than time passing farther away from the earth. This has been shown experimentally, countless of times.
Quote
oh my... oh my... oh no....Please be specific......Oh yes... it's a real thing.
Here is one experiment: https://www.science.org/content/article/after-botched-launch-orbiting-atomic-clocks-confirm-einsteins-theory-relativity (https://www.science.org/content/article/after-botched-launch-orbiting-atomic-clocks-confirm-einsteins-theory-relativity)
There are many more, just google it.
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:39:31
I knew itThen why ask?
but I am just specific: between me and the photonWhat is that supposed to mean? There is no time dilation between you and a photon, a photon does not have a valid reference frame.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:40:59
You don't bend time, you just bend space. And when you are inside that bended space, that is the time you called "bended time"...or can call it "slow time or time had changed or time differences"... make reality simple, and you will see it clearer...that is how Einstein saw the world.. from simple curiosity, you changed the world. For example, Action Reaction...that is very basic from Newton.. but we use that to build beautiful buildings...Oh...can you bend time?Yes, spacetime is warped by a mass, both space and time.QuoteAnd whose or which time can you bend??The time and space affected by the mass.
Time at the surface of the earth for instance passes more slowly than time passing farther away from the earth. This has been shown experimentally, countless of times.Quoteoh my... oh my... oh no....Please be specific......Oh yes... it's a real thing.
Here is one experiment: https://www.science.org/content/article/after-botched-launch-orbiting-atomic-clocks-confirm-einsteins-theory-relativity (https://www.science.org/content/article/after-botched-launch-orbiting-atomic-clocks-confirm-einsteins-theory-relativity)
There are many more, just google it.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:42:38
Just checking if you have the same level of understanding with me...I knew itThen why ask?but I am just specific: between me and the photonWhat is that supposed to mean? There is no time dilation between you and a photon, a photon does not have a valid reference frame.
There are many people who are boasting that they knew reality, when asked, they could never answer...just checking...
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:46:26
I did not talk to Schwarzschild, so I cannot ask him if he too knew about GRAVITY, because anybody could imagine anything and use and invent formula and conclude, "Hey, this formula is part of nature about gravity". If Schwarzschild did not know GRAVITY, then, his calculation, whatever good it is, is wrong. FIRST, you must see the real reality of GRAVITY and use math...Please don't be an idiot. Einstein's field equations are the best and most accurate theory of gravity. The Schwarzschild radius is an exact solution to the field equations.
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:48:49
There are many people who are boasting that they knew reality, when asked, they could never answer...just checking...Oh, bovine excrement! You are clearly ignorant of physics, it is painfully obvious.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 22:54:01
There are many people who are boasting that they knew reality, when asked, they could never answerThe first question asked in this thread was
Is that like your unsupported and impossible claim to have reviewed all the papers about the theory of evolution?
and you still have not answered it.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:55:09
lol!!! I believed Einstein, but I do not believe Schwarzschild! Why should I believe him?lol!!! I believed Einstein, but I do not believe Schwarzschild! Why should I believe him?
I could personally confirm with my simple Postrado Pool what Einstein had seen, thus I support Einstein, but with Schwarzschild, I do not know if he really understood about GRAVITY.
Be honest here: do you too understand GRAVITY, if you do, can you predict black hole by using GRAVITY? Let us try if you can..
Be honest...
I could personally confirm with my simple Postrado Pool what Einstein had seen, thus I support Einstein, but with Schwarzschild, I do not know if he really understood about GRAVITY.
Be honest here: do you too understand GRAVITY, if you do, can you predict black hole by using GRAVITY? Let us try if you can..
Be honest...
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 22:55:19
You don't bend time, you just bend space.That is obviously wrong. If only spaced warped and not time then a cannon ball, a thrown baseball and a photon moving from the same starting point would trace out the same path around a massive object. Since that doesn't happen you are wrong yet again. At least you're consistent.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 22:58:19
WHAT??? Let us go to the basic: what is the cause of warped or bent space? Which time did you bend, what angle of bending? Oh please, be specific and be real... go back to the basic of bending space... let us see who has the best knowledge...You don't bend time, you just bend space.That is obviously wrong. If only spaced warped and not time then a cannon ball, a thrown baseball and a photon moving from the same starting point would trace out the same path around a massive object. Since that doesn't happen you are wrong yet again. At least you're consistent.
You are talking two objects: a ball and photon of light.. do not mix it...ok, let us see who has the best understanding of reality...
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 23:00:09
lol!!! I believed Einstein, but I do not believe Schwarzschild! Why should I believe him?Einstein, all other physicists and mathematicians agreed with Schwarzschild. You are really quite clueless about physics aren't you?
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 23:01:48
... Which time did you bend, what angle of bending? Oh please, be specific and be real... go back to the basic of bending space... let us see who has the best knowledge...If you take two clocks they will tell you a different time.
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 23:03:14
Be honest...Really, that from you...?? ::)
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 23:04:28
I told you that I support Einstein. But those physicists and mathematicians and Schwarzschild, I do not know. Do they know Einstein's explanation of GRAVITY? Why nobody could not predict a black hole here by using GRAVITY, if they think know about GRAVITY from Einstein?lol!!! I believed Einstein, but I do not believe Schwarzschild! Why should I believe him?Einstein, physicist and mathematicians agreed with Schwarzschild. You are really quite clueless about physics aren't you?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 23:05:44
Please be honest. Do you really understand GRAVITY? If yes, can you use GRAVITY to correctly predict a Black Hole?Be honest...Really, that from you...?? ::)
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 23:06:22
Yeah, I knew it too and knew when and where to apply.... Which time did you bend, what angle of bending? Oh please, be specific and be real... go back to the basic of bending space... let us see who has the best knowledge...If you take two clocks they will tell you a different time.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/02/2022 23:13:46
Yeah, I knew it too and knew when and where to apply.And how do you apply it on your pool analogy?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 23:30:54
Post by: Origin on 22/02/2022 23:35:34
I told you that I support Einstein. But those physicists and mathematicians and Schwarzschild, I do not know. Do they know Einstein's explanation of GRAVITY?Are daft????
What do you not understand about Schwarzschild finding an exact solution to Einstein's field equations? How could he possibly find a solution to a problem he didn't understand? Are you even reading what you are writing?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 23:46:40
Please be honest. Do you really understand GRAVITY? If yes, can you use GRAVITY to correctly predict a Black Hole?Please be honest. Do you really understand GRAVITY? If yes, can you use GRAVITY to correctly predict a Black Hole? Let us forget
Please be honest. Do you really understand GRAVITY? If yes, can you use GRAVITY to correctly predict a Black Hole? let us stop talking Schwarzschild, I cannot confirm if he really know what he had done..I told you that I support Einstein. But those physicists and mathematicians and Schwarzschild, I do not know. Do they know Einstein's explanation of GRAVITY?Are daft????
What do you not understand about Schwarzschild finding an exact solution to Einstein's field equations? How could he possibly find a solution to a problem he didn't understand? Are you even reading what you are writing?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 23:48:27
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 22/02/2022 23:50:42
Yes, you can use gravity to predict black holes.How? What is a black hole by using GRAVITY, accdg to Einstein?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 23:55:18
Yes, you can use gravity to predict black holes.How? What is a black hole by using GRAVITY, accdg to Einstein?
A black hole is any object with a gravitational field so strong that light can't escape.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 23/02/2022 03:41:29
That explanation is untestable and impossible since you don't know what is GRAVITY...Do you know GRAVITY?Yes, you can use gravity to predict black holes.How? What is a black hole by using GRAVITY, accdg to Einstein?
A black hole is any object with a gravitational field so strong that light can't escape.
Einstein and me: A black hole has an empty space due to collapse of massive object and light rushing towards it center and we call it "light cannot escape".
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 03:55:51
That explanation is untestable
It absolutely is testable. The Event Horizon Telescope even confirmed it when it imaged the super-massive black hole at the center of the galaxy Messier 87. The object there is black, just as predicted.
Quote
and impossible
Obviously not. Your argument is a non-sequitur anyway. A person doesn't have to know what gravity is in order to know things about it. Do you not think that cavemen realized that things fall towards the ground? They knew about gravity, even if they didn't know exactly what it was or what caused it. A caveman can predict that a rock thrown into the air will fall and do so without having to know what gravity is.
since you don't know what is GRAVITY
Gravity is the tendency for objects with mass to attract each other.
Do you know GRAVITY?
Who doesn't?
Einstein and me: A black hole has an empty space...
I doubt Einstein ever said that a black hole is "an empty space". If you think he did, then give us the exact quote.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 23/02/2022 05:11:58
Sorry, you really do not know gravity. What if there are only two object in the universe, a sun and earth, how could they attract each other if they are very far from each other? Then, where is GRAVITY?That explanation is untestable
It absolutely is testable. The Event Horizon Telescope even confirmed it when it imaged the super-massive black hole at the center of the galaxy Messier 87. The object there is black, just as predicted.Quoteand impossible
Obviously not. Your argument is a non-sequitur anyway. A person doesn't have to know what gravity is in order to know things about it. Do you not think that cavemen realized that things fall towards the ground? They knew about gravity, even if they didn't know exactly what it was or what caused it. A caveman can predict that a rock thrown into the air will fall and do so without having to know what gravity is.since you don't know what is GRAVITY
Gravity is the tendency for objects with mass to attract each other.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2022 08:49:50
If yes, can you use GRAVITY to correctly predict a Black Hole?Yes.
I can start with the law of gravity that tells me the attraction follows an inverse square law.
Then I can calculate the escape velocity of an object for a given mass and radius.
And I can show that, for any particular mass there's a radius where the predicted escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
And that is what a black hole is- a region of the universe where light can't escape the local gravity well.
And that's something I learned in high school.
So the real question isn't whether or not I can do it, but why can't you?
(And I also know that Schwarzschild made essentially the same calculation, as well as some other, much more complicated ones)
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 15:07:31
Sorry, you really do not know gravity. What if there are only two object in the universe, a sun and earth, how could they attract each other if they are very far from each other? Then, where is GRAVITY?
Apparently, I understand gravity better than you do. At least I was aware that gravity obeys the inverse square law (meaning that the strength of attraction varies with the square of the distance). Gravity gets weaker with distance but never goes to zero. This means that the gravitational attraction between two objects always exists, no matter how far apart they are.
The inverse square law is one of the most fundamental aspects of gravity. If you didn't know something that basic about gravity, how are you in any position to tell us that we don't understand gravity? Make sure you know what you are talking about before you try lecturing others.
Post by: puppypower on 26/02/2022 12:16:05
The equivalence principle very elegantly explains gravitational lensing. The equivalence principle basically says that, if you were inside of a room with no windows, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the room was sitting still on the surface of the Earth or whether it was out in space away from a gravity source accelerating upwards at a rate 9.8 m/s/s. No experiment could distinguish between the two scenarios.
Now imagine that you have a flashlight held sideways in this upward accelerating room. When you switch the flashlight on, the light beam moves out of the flashlight in a straight line. However, the floor of the room is accelerating upwards toward the light beam. From your own perspective (if your senses were good enough) it would look like the light beam was falling towards the floor.
Since the equivalence principle states that the behavior of light in this accelerating room is identical to the behavior of light in a room in a gravitational field, that means the equivalence principle predicts not only that light will bend in a gravitational field, but also how much it will bend.
The force of gravity is mass times acceleration with acceleration d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. The bending of light is actually connected to the second time vector; rotational frequency; 1/t. Bending and rotating are essentially the same affect. If we model gravity as a spinning ball, as we go to the center of the ball the bending or curvature increases; smaller radius, and as we go out the larger diameter and radium will curve less.
In a gravitational field, local space-time will change and matter/energy will display certain phase characteristics as a function of the strength of gravity. For example, the center of a star has the most space-time contraction; GR, as well as the fastest frequencies in terms of matter/energy transitions. These two things are connected to the first and second time vectors, respectively. The frequency of physical light beams change with the second time vector. The distance or space variable is passive and follows suit to maintain space-time. Time is the dynamic variable and no action can occur, even in space, if time is stopped.
The problem physics has created for itself is in not recognizing how gravity and the pressures it generates impacts the phase characteristics of the matter contained. Space-time change is only half the story connected to gravity. For example, based on the extreme pressure and temperature phase diagram of water, the layers of the earth; oceans/crust, mantle, inner core and core seem to coordinate with different phases of water. This has little to do with space-time but more to do with the second time vector that is more Newtonian in character.
In Special Relativity, space-time can also contract, but the impact on matter/energy is different since SR lacks the second time vector. A space ship will not contract to a lump and undergo further phases changes. The reason is SR is based on velocity and only the first time vector. GR is based on acceleration and has two time vectors. .
The topic is about black holes and gravity. The full story will not be just space-time contracting as though all we have is SR, but also about exotic phases of matter due to there extra time vector of gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2022 12:49:32
Maybe/
But Puppy power is certainly wrong.
Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time.You keep saying that. It still doesn't make sense.
he bending of light is actually connected to the second time vectorTime is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.
The problem physics has created for itself is in not recognizing how gravity and the pressures it generates impacts the phase characteristics of the matter contained.Nonsense.
the layers of the earth; oceans/crust, mantle, inner core and core seem to coordinate with different phases of water.It only seems that way to you.
This has little to do with space-timeSo why do you mention it?
second time vectorTime is still not a vector.
It never will be.
I invite the Mods to consider setting up a "dross from PP" thread to put all his thread derailments / hijacks into on the basis that something that's nonsense must be off topic.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2022 18:08:12
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 26/02/2022 23:52:42
I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..Sorry, you really do not know gravity. What if there are only two object in the universe, a sun and earth, how could they attract each other if they are very far from each other? Then, where is GRAVITY?
Apparently, I understand gravity better than you do. At least I was aware that gravity obeys the inverse square law (meaning that the strength of attraction varies with the square of the distance). Gravity gets weaker with distance but never goes to zero. This means that the gravitational attraction between two objects always exists, no matter how far apart they are.
The inverse square law is one of the most fundamental aspects of gravity. If you didn't know something that basic about gravity, how are you in any position to tell us that we don't understand gravity? Make sure you know what you are talking about before you try lecturing others.
Gravity goes to zero? Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2022 00:45:11
I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..
I understand both explanations. The inverse square law applies to general relativity as well.
Gravity goes to zero?
No, it doesn't go to zero.
Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.
I don't know what that means, so that's not what I meant.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 00:46:21
You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.
I don't know what that means, so that's not what I meant.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2022 00:53:03
You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!
And what's your evidence for that?
Post by: Origin on 27/02/2022 00:53:36
You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!I know this will come as a shock, but you are the one who is showing a profound ignorance of physics.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 02:54:18
Everything you posted about GRAVITY is not complete...You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!
And what's your evidence for that?
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 02:55:28
The topic is GRAVITY and Einstein had already told us about it! lol...oh my...You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!I know this will come as a shock, but you are the one who is showing a profound ignorance of physics.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2022 03:40:33
Everything you posted about GRAVITY is not complete...
And you expect me to write down everything that is currently known about gravity? That's not feasible.
If I've said anything about gravity that is actually incorrect, then please point it out (while supplying evidence that shows I am wrong). I've already pointed out where you have been wrong.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/02/2022 07:47:25
This has all the characteristics of a child trolling.You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.
I don't know what that means, so that's not what I meant.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 08:17:26
It is vey difficult to explain Cosmology or Physics, if you do not know GRAVITY. Do you The Spoon? Can you help Kryptid about GRAVITY?This has all the characteristics of a child trolling.You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.
I don't know what that means, so that's not what I meant.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 08:23:49
Tell me if you understand this:Everything you posted about GRAVITY is not complete...
And you expect me to write down everything that is currently known about gravity? That's not feasible.
If I've said anything about gravity that is actually incorrect, then please point it out (while supplying evidence that shows I am wrong). I've already pointed out where you have been wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 09:54:12
Tell me if you understand this:Are you really asking a bunch of professionals if they understand a pop science video?
If you tell us what bits you think we don't understand, that might help us track down your errors.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2022 14:22:34
Tell me if you understand this:
What I asked you to do was to point out where I was wrong. You haven't done so.
Post by: puppypower on 27/02/2022 16:30:22
Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.
A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.
Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.
If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.
The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.
If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.
For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.
We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.
Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 16:40:40
Did you notice that, after you wrote all that, you were still wrong because time still isn't a vector?Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.
A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.
Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.
If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.
The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.
If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.
For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.
We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.
Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/02/2022 17:28:54
Kryptid appears to understand it perfectly well. However, your vacuous, idiotic, childish statements indicate that you do not.It is vey difficult to explain Cosmology or Physics, if you do not know GRAVITY. Do you The Spoon? Can you help Kryptid about GRAVITY?This has all the characteristics of a child trolling.You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.
I don't know what that means, so that's not what I meant.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2022 17:47:54
a vector defines direction
In space.
Quote
A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity.
In space.
When I say time vector, it is the direction of time.
Which is completely redundant, since time only ever goes in one direction.
The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers.
Exactly, that's why calling time a vector is wrong.
That was a mistake.
It's semantics. Vector is not defined in such a way that time is a vector.
There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time.
Where's a facepalm smiley when you need it?
Quote
I am open to a different term that time vector
You could just call it "time", like everyone else does.
You seem to be getting off-topic here. This thread is about MrIntelligentDesign's own ideas and interpretations of gravity, not yours. Feel free to start your own thread about your idea.
I think you are getting off-topic.
Post by: Origin on 27/02/2022 18:23:55
Thanks for addressing this finally. Time is not a vector because it does not have a directions in space.Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.
A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.
Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.
If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.
The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.
If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.
For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.
We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.
Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.
Since you are open to a different term than time vector I would vote for the term 'time', there is no need to call time the 'time scalar' either.
Now we can get back to MrIntellegentDesign misrepresenting science...
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 20:08:00
You are wrong about GRAVITY per Einstein!Tell me if you understand this:
What I asked you to do was to point out where I was wrong. You haven't done so.
Post by: MrIntelligentDesign on 27/02/2022 20:10:11
I did not misrepresent science. I had shown you some of the best scientists in the documentary talking the topic of GRAVITY. Did you get their explanations? Like gravity is pushing force?Now we can get back to MrIntellegentDesign misrepresenting science...
Post by: The Spoon on 27/02/2022 20:38:31
Don't talk crap.I did not misrepresent science. I had shown you some of the best scientists in the documentary talking the topic of GRAVITY. Did you get their explanations? Like gravity is pushing force?Now we can get back to MrIntellegentDesign misrepresenting science...
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 21:09:56
Did you get their explanations? Like gravity is pushing force?Ok, at what point in the video did you form the opinion that they had said that?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2022 01:15:17
You are wrong about GRAVITY per Einstein!
If you don't explain plainly what it is exactly that I have wrong about gravity, I am going to consider your continual accusatory dodging as a form of spam. Keep that up and I may well end up locking your thread because spam is against the rules.