[Bored chemist]

You don't bend time

Would you like another guess?
Maybe one that isn't wrong?

[Kryptid]

The equivalence principle is already easy enough for a layman to understand.

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

The equivalence principle is already easy enough for a layman to understand.

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.

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.
In your own word, what is equivalence principle? Why you used that? That is very far from bending of light..

[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

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.

Do you think that by using the Equivalence Principle, a physicist could tell what is the real and correct nature/characteristics of Black Holes?

[Origin]

This explanation, whoever made it, is not specific

The guy that made that explanation is Einstein.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

This explanation, whoever made it, is not specific

The guy that made that explanation is Einstein.

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?

[Origin]

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?

[Kartazion]

.. 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.

[Kartazion]

@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.

[pzkpfw]

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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 Einstein, well, I just followed what Michio Kaku had explained.

About Falsification of Evolution: I am in the last part...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

.. 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.

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

@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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

Did you see the cartoon?
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.
waves.png (42.8 kB . 648x455 - viewed 1746 times)

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

Did you see the cartoon?
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 ]

No, totally different!

[Kartazion]

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.

[Colin2B]

No, totally different!

In what way, please explain.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

No, totally different!

In what way, please explain.

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.