[Kartazion]

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?

And with the gravitational lens too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

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...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

And with the gravitational lens too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

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.....

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

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.

[Kartazion]

Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.

Thought experiment and also in relation to observation.

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

Do you know what the equivalence principle is?

[Bored chemist]

I love experiment in science

What 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?

[Origin]

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.

[evan_au]

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

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Thought experiment is one of the best way to explain reality.

Thought experiment and also in relation to observation.

Agreed.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

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.

Do you know what the equivalence principle is?

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.
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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

I love experiment in science

What 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?

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.

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (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

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kartazion]

@MrIntelligentDesig Can your pool also bend space-time?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

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...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

@MrIntelligentDesig Can your pool also bend space-time?

You don't bend time, you bend space caused by massive black object.

[Bored chemist]

If I am a professor in any UNIV

You 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?