[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

That explanation is untestable and impossible since you don't know what is GRAVITY...Do you know GRAVITY?

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".

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

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.

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?

[Bored chemist]

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)

[Kryptid]

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.

[puppypower]

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.   

[Bored chemist]

"Black Holes are Probably Wrong?"
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 vector

Time 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-time

So why do you mention it?

second time vector

Time 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.

[Kryptid]

Please stop saying "time vector"...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..

Gravity goes to zero? Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.

[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!

[Kryptid]

You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!

And what's your evidence for that?

[Origin]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!

And what's your evidence for that?

Everything you posted about GRAVITY is not complete...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

The topic is GRAVITY and Einstein had already told us about it! lol...oh my...

[Kryptid]

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.

[The Spoon]

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.

You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!

This has all the characteristics of a child trolling.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!

This has all the characteristics of a child trolling.

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

Tell me if you understand this: