[greeniemax (OP)]

Its just a thought but speed of light is constant this is why its denoted by C.

Lets look at a black hole, can't escape the gravitation pull of black hole because its speed is not enough to escape event horizon.

We don't have information on how much time it takes for light to slow down to speed of 0 and we don't even know the distance it travels before it hits that speed. Now lots of people here would start shouting with speed of light being 0 but in case you want to shout you have to give a "logic" reason why it doesn't escape.

Well that isn't the question, assuming a body moves into a black hole before it hits event horizon its speed might be X, which is less than C but when it hits the point where light was emitted from its speed will be X+C, that is more than speed of light.

I do not see terminal velocities in a black hole because of heat everything is plasma and light could have originated at a point where there is no effect of terminal velocities.

Thus question is does matter in Black hole travels faster than speed of light?

[Nizzle]

I think that there's only 1 thing that can travel faster than light, and that's space itself.
In the vicinity of a black hole, space is warped and "leaks" towards the mass center of the black hole.
The event horizon is the 'line' where space moves with velocity v=c. Inside the event horizon space's v>c. Outside the event horizon space's v<c

This implies that light that enters the Event horizon cannot escape, even when it's direction is pointed away from the mass center of the black hole, because in the time it takes the photon to bridge 1 kilometre let's say, space itself has moved the photon back with more than 1 kilometre.

[imatfaal]

Nizzle - that's a bit of a heterodox explanation for the existence of the Blackhole and its event horizon - mass/energy does not make space flow in the direction of the object, rather it produces curvature of spacetime.  I don't know whether space flow (as I think of your idea) is an analogue to curved spacetime - if it is then it could be a useful tool, but I tend to feel that it wouldn't be an acceptable parallel.  For starters the mathematics behind creating curved spacetime and the plotting geodesics in that curved spacetime is hard - but doable.  Flow of even a simple fluid through a pipe is very difficult - flow in four dimensions to a rotating singularity makes me shudder

[Nizzle]

Nizzle - that's a bit of a heterodox explanation for the existence of the Blackhole and its event horizon - mass/energy does not make space flow in the direction of the object, rather it produces curvature of spacetime.  I don't know whether space flow (as I think of your idea) is an analogue to curved spacetime - if it is then it could be a useful tool, but I tend to feel that it wouldn't be an acceptable parallel.  For starters the mathematics behind creating curved spacetime and the plotting geodesics in that curved spacetime is hard - but doable.  Flow of even a simple fluid through a pipe is very difficult - flow in four dimensions to a rotating singularity makes me shudder

Hmm no, I was thinking really that space flows towards the center of the black hole. Who said spacetime needs to be static and curved, rather than dynamic and not curved? If the universe is expanding isn't it even more likely that spacetime is dynamic?
We should not dismiss theories because the math behind it is too difficult..

[imatfaal]

Nizzle - that's a bit of a heterodox explanation for the existence of the Blackhole and its event horizon - mass/energy does not make space flow in the direction of the object, rather it produces curvature of spacetime.  I don't know whether space flow (as I think of your idea) is an analogue to curved spacetime - if it is then it could be a useful tool, but I tend to feel that it wouldn't be an acceptable parallel.  For starters the mathematics behind creating curved spacetime and the plotting geodesics in that curved spacetime is hard - but doable.  Flow of even a simple fluid through a pipe is very difficult - flow in four dimensions to a rotating singularity makes me shudder

Hmm no, I was thinking really that space flows towards the center of the black hole. Who said spacetime needs to be static and curved, rather than dynamic and not curved? If the universe is expanding isn't it even more likely that spacetime is dynamic?
We should not dismiss theories because the math behind it is too difficult..

Basically in answer to your first question - Einstein said it.  And the theory behind it is remarkably good at making accurate predictions about the real world.  Any new theory must be at least as good at those predictions and either bring something new to the table, or explain the current thinking in a simpler manner.  I am certain that your idea does not do the former and I do not think your idea can help with the latter. 

I didn't dismiss it - I called into question its usefulness; a tool that we cannot use is merely an ornament that gathers dust.   We may have already touched upon a theory of everything - but if it cannot be translated into mathematics and thus given predictive power, then it will be left until the maths catches up with it; science must be falsifiable.

[greeniemax (OP)]

Dear imatfaal,

None what is said above answer my questions and as I do not agree with Nizzle, but frankly speaking its science not religion.

Its not Moses said it so it has to be right, its about what is said and what we get.

Einstein didn't think about expanding universe even though his theory clearly predicted either the universe is expanding or contracting (actually contracting), he added cosmological constant to fix it, which frankly had no value, even today (though lots of people say its dark energy) but that only works outside our solar system, our solar system isn't expanding.

Overall "Einstein said it" isn't even scientific its religious, yes Einstein said something he thought to be true but he was wrong and many thing. Ptolemy's epicycles were giving better results and explaining things we see but he was wrong.

In my opinion don't give someone so much credit that you forget science look for a change to improve it and get answers for things we have no answers for, we have no clue about lots of things that are just ignored.

1. Mechanism of production of light.
2. Why we have orbits in atom and why value of each orbit is fixed?
3. What is dark matter?
4. Why do we have accelerated expansion?

and many more, not answered using QM, GR or ST, sorry even though what I said had nothing to do with my question but its not answered anyways.

[imatfaal]

Dear imatfaal,
None what is said above answer my questions and as I do not agree with Nizzle, but frankly speaking its science not religion.

Its not Moses said it so it has to be right, its about what is said and what we get.

  Please do not impute that sort of nonsense - I am not at all dogmatic about science.  I was asked who said that spacetime was curved and static and not a dynamic flow and I stated Einstein said it.  GR is one of the most well tested and exhaustively research theories of all time - and so far, at any scale other than the microscopic it has passed with flying colours - to stick with GR for the time being isn't some form of religion or faith, its the scientific method.

Einstein didn't think about expanding universe even though his theory clearly predicted either the universe is expanding or contracting (actually contracting), he added cosmological constant to fix it, which frankly had no value, even today (though lots of people say its dark energy) but that only works outside our solar system, our solar system isn't expanding.

  Background Expansion would not happen in a gravitationally bound system (like the solar system) anyway - Dark Energy is a real puzzle, the fact that Einstein's initial formulation allows for it but choosing inputs strengthens rather than weakens the theory.

Overall "Einstein said it" isn't even scientific its religious, yes Einstein said something he thought to be true but he was wrong and many thing. Ptolemy's epicycles were giving better results and explaining things we see but he was wrong.

  If you had read the thread you would actually realise this was a direct answer to a direct question.  The implication that mainstream science is ignoring a new theory merely because of the hidebound dogmatism of the individual scientist is a canard that has been around for ages - please feel free to browse the crackpot index

In my opinion don't give someone so much credit that you forget science look for a change to improve it and get answers for things we have no answers for, we have no clue about lots of things that are just ignored.

  Please stop assuming my motives or thought processes.  Yes science is always looking for new models and new ideas that explain those mathematical models - but they have to be at least as good as the present ones.  the experimental data from tests of SR and GR is huge - and all so far fits nicely. 

1. Mechanism of production of light.
2. Why we have orbits in atom and why value of each orbit is fixed?
3. What is dark matter?
4. Why do we have accelerated expansion?

and many more, not answered using QM, GR or ST, sorry even though what I said had nothing to do with my question but its not answered anyways.

  We have lots of models that deal with the first two with unbelievable accuracy (maxwell and hertz were nineteenth century so it aint exactly new)  - if you are looking for an exact explanation of the underlying reality then you have come to the wrong place.  Science does not do that.  The last pair are being worked upon - that's science

[greeniemax (OP)]

Dark Energy is a real puzzle, the fact that Einstein's initial formulation allows for it but choosing inputs strengthens rather than weakens the theory.

When Edwin Hubble discovered that universe is expanding that is the time when Einstein realized that CC was his mistake, so basically he didn't add CC knowing the future of today but just to balance his theory, secondly value of CC has changed a lot since then.

If you had read the thread you would actually realise this was a direct answer to a direct question.  The implication that mainstream science is ignoring a new theory merely because of the hidebound dogmatism of the individual scientist is a canard that has been around for ages - please feel free to browse the crackpot index

Maybe you think its stupid but these people are coming up with something, they are thinking differently, now don't tell me whatever we have today is right, if scientist are ready to put fingers in their ear and run that isn't solving the problem. 1000 of smart people wasted their time on String Theory, 0 provable or testable hypothesis. All those people who did String theory qualify for "crackpot" too. So many people have come and gone from Aristotle to people who could prove their point, everyone gave their idea, everyone was wrong about something and right about other things. That is science, don't tell me few leaders are allowed to say things and everyone else is suppose to be quite because "Pope" says so.

Its science not religion...

GR gets it right till edge of solar system and it can't even explain slowing down of Pioneers.
QM doesn't give you a reason why things are like that, it only gives you a formula to calculate few things and same calculations get predictions right... but why is not to be asked.
Standard Model is doing the same thing, no reasons, just calculations and 20 constants that could be changed freely or so called "tweaked" to get right answers.

I don't even have to talk about string theory... or Quantum Gravity or other millions of theories invented from equations.

We have lots of models that deal with the first two with unbelievable accuracy (maxwell and hertz were nineteenth century so it aint exactly new)  - if you are looking for an exact explanation of the underlying reality then you have come to the wrong place.  Science does not do that.  The last pair are being worked upon - that's science

Give me link of one please of "mechanism" of light production, not "electron jumps from high orbit to lower orbit and produces a photon"... I need mechanism not process.

First of all last 2 are the two simple reasons why GR fails, you don't want to accept it because "God" Einstein said so but that is true, you can't explain motion of Galaxies with GR, unless you put 90% dark matter, so either theory is wrong or you are missing 90% of matter in the universe.

It says "New Theories" i.e. let people speak...

[imatfaal]

/snipped

Maybe you think its stupid but these people are coming up with something, they are thinking differently, now don't tell me whatever we have today is right, if scientist are ready to put fingers in their ear and run that isn't solving the problem. 1000 of smart people wasted their time on String Theory, 0 provable or testable hypothesis. All those people who did String theory qualify for "crackpot" too. So many people have come and gone from Aristotle to people who could prove their point, everyone gave their idea, everyone was wrong about something and right about other things. That is science, don't tell me few leaders are allowed to say things and everyone else is suppose to be quite because "Pope" says so.

  At what point did I say any of the above?  You are knocking down strawmen.  The string theorists don't quality as crackpots - because i) they do maths (and not much else so far) ii) they dont have the persecution complex iii) they are scientists working towards a theory

Its science not religion...
GR gets it right till edge of solar system and it can't even explain slowing down of Pioneers.

  That's just incorrect about the Solar System - and the pioneer anomalies are a lot less clear cut than many proponents claim

QM doesn't give you a reason why things are like that, it only gives you a formula to calculate few things and same calculations get predictions right... but why is not to be asked.
Standard Model is doing the same thing, no reasons, just calculations and 20 constants that could be changed freely or so called "tweaked" to get right answers.

  What makes you think any science asks why things happen on a most fundamental level?  Science models, predicts, and checks - the eternal verities are left to the philosophers.

I don't even have to talk about string theory... or Quantum Gravity or other millions of theories invented from equations.

We have lots of models that deal with the first two with unbelievable accuracy (maxwell and hertz were nineteenth century so it aint exactly new)  - if you are looking for an exact explanation of the underlying reality then you have come to the wrong place.  Science does not do that.  The last pair are being worked upon - that's science

Give me link of one please of "mechanism" of light production, not "electron jumps from high orbit to lower orbit and produces a photon"... I need mechanism not process.

  Your comments are fundamentally misportraying the idea of what modern science does; modelling processes and mechanisms are the basis of physics. 

First of all last 2 are the two simple reasons why GR fails, you don't want to accept it because "God" Einstein said so but that is true, you can't explain motion of Galaxies with GR, unless you put 90% dark matter, so either theory is wrong or you are missing 90% of matter in the universe.

It says "New Theories" i.e. let people speak...

  Please stop with this nonsense about God/Einstein and what my motivations are - they are ad hom and not acceptable.  The problems (which are no where near the magnitude you are saying) of GR do not green light every other theory.  And secondly - where exactly have I stopped people speaking?  New Theories get challenged - that's the way of science

[greeniemax (OP)]

At what point did I say any of the above?  You are knocking down strawmen.  The string theorists don't quality as crackpots - because i) they do maths (and not much else so far) ii) they dont have the persecution complex iii) they are scientists working towards a theory

So it doesn't matter what formula is and it doesn't even matter if you could define infinite number of theories from it? You need a formula or math that's all? Great so Ptolemy was right even if the he said planets and sun go around the earth and their orbits are circles over circles? So MOD is right, even if it can't explain the reason for change in acceleration of galaxies? Yes I agree with you that math is important and when you say something that has to be proven using math because future points could be tested using the same, but theory that start from math doesn't lead anywhere like string theory, but theory that start with an idea and then math is applied to it makes clear sense. Let people think, maybe you think they are coco but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to think, if they are wrong correct them.

After reading so many books on String theory I would love to know what the theory is, even Brian Greene in his book isn't 100% sure of it, its all unproven hypothesis that can't be experimentally tested and dark matter or dark energies aren't part of it.

That's just incorrect about the Solar System - and the pioneer anomalies are a lot less clear cut than many proponents claim

GR can't explain the speed of stars in Galaxies edge, the theory fails, we have 2 pioneers and both are acting the same way, if it was one yeah we could say something is wrong with our data.

What makes you think any science asks why things happen on a most fundamental level?  Science models, predicts, and checks - the eternal verities are left to the philosophers.

Sit with data about periodic table, size, electrons, isotopes, density, etc. and see if they even make sense, you could put formulas and find answer for sure, but it doesn't matter you could create formula for anything but there is no real reason why we are getting these values. You want to leave it to philosophy, that is fine but every new theory is born out of philosophy, its an idea.

Your comments are fundamentally misportraying the idea of what modern science does; modelling processes and mechanisms are the basis of physics.

Dear imatfaal that is what I'm saying don't make it a religion, science is free let people think let me recommend you a great book that I really love, "The trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. Let science be free in old times when this revolution of science started most of the people who came into this field were not educated as scientist, Newton wasn't educated before he made his great theory, Copernicus, Darwin, Galileo etc, were not educated in this field. Even if they were educated in a different field they came up with something totally different an idea that had nothing to do with standards at that time.

I'm stupid and I could never come up with idea like theirs but let people think maybe they have something, something worth look at. Calling them a crackpot would just discourage them.

Please stop with this nonsense about God/Einstein and what my motivations are - they are ad hom and not acceptable.  The problems (which are no where near the magnitude you are saying) of GR do not green light every other theory.  And secondly - where exactly have I stopped people speaking?  New Theories get challenged - that's the way of science

I'm sorry imatfaal, I didn't mean to make you upset that isn't my goal, you are one of the smartest person here and I would never want to do that.

Look frankly speaking it doesn't what variables you put in and answers you get, its same you could design an equation to give you whatever answer you want, even if your data is random, you could get it right to about 10% of accuracy, but if we don't know why we are getting the answers its like random data.

[imatfaal]

At what point did I say any of the above?  You are knocking down strawmen.  The string theorists don't quality as crackpots - because i) they do maths (and not much else so far) ii) they dont have the persecution complex iii) they are scientists working towards a theory

So it doesn't matter what formula is and it doesn't even matter if you could define infinite number of theories from it? You need a formula or math that's all? Great so Ptolemy was right even if the he said planets and sun go around the earth and their orbits are circles over circles? So MOD is right, even if it can't explain the reason for change in acceleration of galaxies? Yes I agree with you that math is important and when you say something that has to be proven using math because future points could be tested using the same, but theory that start from math doesn't lead anywhere like string theory, but theory that start with an idea and then math is applied to it makes clear sense. Let people think, maybe you think they are coco but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to think, if they are wrong correct them. .

  At present the theory is just the maths.  And regarding ptolemeic epicycles - yes we would still use them if it was easy and accurate.  We still use newtonian mechanics for practically everything and that was based on instantaneous force at a distance - it works and its a damn sight easier than ptolomeic calculations, and easier still than solutions for einstein's equations.  my history isn't great but I think newtonian celestial mechanics took off from maths - it was the need to fit some consistent mathematical model to the data that couldn't be argued with. data - not blue sky ideas is where science starts; you look at evidence that you cannot explain, or that contradicts the model currently used - through seeking patterns, relationships, and insight you can move to an idea that might explain it.  science really doesn't work (much) by moving from an overwhelming idea and then making the maths and seeing if the data fits the predictions.

After reading so many books on String theory I would love to know what the theory is, even Brian Greene in his book isn't 100% sure of it, its all unproven hypothesis that can't be experimentally tested and dark matter or dark energies aren't part of it

String theory is another kettle of fish entirely - and if it wasn't for the amazing intellects and mathematical rigour involved it would be completely bonkers.  It has almost bypassed most of the normal process - they have a physical plan of what is going on (from gravity attracts and obeys inverse square at one end, to colour charge conservation at the other) without any halfway house they are seeking a mathematical model that can consistently model the whole thing.  There are beginning to be a few testable hypotheses - but for the amount of work, pretty low returns.  If Mozart, Dylan, Monteverdi, and  Miles Davis said they were going away to invent a new music - could you argue? no you wait for the results - and that's the terrible position we are in.  everyone is a bit worried its gonna be crap.  Ed Witten is one of the cleverest guys in the world - and people trust/hope its not a dead end.

That's just incorrect about the Solar System - and the pioneer anomalies are a lot less clear cut than many proponents claim

GR can't explain the speed of stars in Galaxies edge, the theory fails, we have 2 pioneers and both are acting the same way, if it was one yeah we could say something is wrong with our data.

  There are lots of theories - just no ways of testing the pioneer stuff.

What makes you think any science asks why things happen on a most fundamental level?  Science models, predicts, and checks - the eternal verities are left to the philosophers.

Sit with data about periodic table, size, electrons, isotopes, density, etc. and see if they even make sense, you could put formulas and find answer for sure, but it doesn't matter you could create formula for anything but there is no real reason why we are getting these values. You want to leave it to philosophy, that is fine but every new theory is born out of philosophy, its an idea.

  I diasgree with this fundamental idea - as per the top paragraph.  Theories come from data, from observations, from anomalies - philosophy helps form them - but is not crucial.

Your comments are fundamentally misportraying the idea of what modern science does; modelling processes and mechanisms are the basis of physics.

Dear imatfaal that is what I'm saying don't make it a religion, science is free let people think let me recommend you a great book that I really love, "The trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. Let science be free in old times when this revolution of science started most of the people who came into this field were not educated as scientist, Newton wasn't educated before he made his great theory, Copernicus, Darwin, Galileo etc, were not educated in this field. Even if they were educated in a different field they came up with something totally different an idea that had nothing to do with standards at that time.

  Sorry - but that's an old chestnut. Newton had an eduction that most of the world are still denied (to our global shame) and had 6 years at school and a bachelors of science at cambridge by the time he was 23.  Admittedly he was already changing world science and maths in 1666 - but he certainly was not ill educated.  Copernicus was a graduate of the University of Krakov and highly educated.  Darwin's education was more general - but remember he was a son of one of the most intellectual families in england at the/any time - his two grandfathers were erasmus darwin and josiah wedgwood; science, botany and biology, and theories of life ran through that family like no other.  Galileo studied maths at the University of Pisa.  Now these men were standout geniuses - and I wouldn't say a word against them.  But they were not self-taught pariahs working without a foundation of education - this does not belittle their achievements, nothing could, but does make the context fit.   

I'm stupid and I could never come up with idea like theirs but let people think maybe they have something, something worth look at. Calling them a crackpot would just discourage them.

Please stop with this nonsense about God/Einstein and what my motivations are - they are ad hom and not acceptable.  The problems (which are no where near the magnitude you are saying) of GR do not green light every other theory.  And secondly - where exactly have I stopped people speaking?  New Theories get challenged - that's the way of science

I'm sorry imatfaal, I didn't mean to make you upset that isn't my goal, you are one of the smartest person here and I would never want to do that.

Look frankly speaking it doesn't what variables you put in and answers you get, its same you could design an equation to give you whatever answer you want, even if your data is random, you could get it right to about 10% of accuracy, but if we don't know why we are getting the answers its like random data.

 

Science is great; and I am such a fan I want to get people to do it the best way possible.  We all have an amazing toolkit installed between our ears - but I happen to think that some of the tools are not intuitive to use.  I know, to a tiny extent, how some of these tools can be used to great effect and how if misused others can cause real cognitive problems - if you saw someone undoing a screw with a chisel wouldn't you want to explain the actual use of the chisel, the need to keep the edge keen, and the benefits of a screwdriver.

[MikeS]

imatfaal

That almost brought tears to my eyes, seriously.

[imatfaal]

imatfaal

That almost brought tears to my eyes, seriously.

Hopefully, in a good way! :-)

[MikeS]

imatfaal

That almost brought tears to my eyes, seriously.

Hopefully, in a good way! :-)

Of course.

[R B Bartley]

Wow
I hate to point out the obvious but there are a lot of contradictions of opinions on this thread. I’m afraid I take Greeniemax’s side on this point, just to touch on science and philosophy briefly, was it not Descartes who said “To better understand god I must challenge everything he has done” or very similar. Descartes contributed a huge amount to maths and philosophy, but Descartes also believed animals couldn’t feel pain so promoted live animal experimentation, not such a great idea by today’s standards.

Einstein truly believed along with most ground breaking scientists that the only real breakthroughs in science come from intuition not re-churning over old ideas, this is why you tend to find the more you know about science the more you realize how little you know about science.

Now the idea of this forum section is "New Theories" I believe but I mostly see people quoting back old theories that do half the job when someone proposes a theory that might do ¾ the job, I fail to see how that’s contributing. When a person suggests an idea contrary to mainstream thinking I dare say they have atleast read the equivalent points on wikipedia or some similar web site to have got as far as a science forum.

Nizzle - that's a bit of a heterodox explanation for the existence of the Blackhole and its event horizon

You really think its a bad idea to suggest concepts that are a little contradictory to main stream thinking on a "New Theories" forum, I mean Hetrodox, really? Now Nizzles idea is wrong in many ways but his opinion is valid, it is as you said later GR gives us a very good and measurable description of how and why Space-Time curves so its well understood.

What makes you think any science asks why things happen on a most fundamental level?  Science models, predicts, and checks - the eternal verities are left to the philosophers.

Sit with data about periodic table, size, electrons, isotopes, density, etc. and see if they even make sense, you could put formulas and find answer for sure, but it doesn't matter you could create formula for anything but there is no real reason why we are getting these values. You want to leave it to philosophy, that is fine but every new theory is born out of philosophy, its an idea.

  I diasgree with this fundamental idea - as per the top paragraph.  Theories come from data, from observations, from anomalies - philosophy helps form them - but is not crucial.

Science models what?, predicts what?, and checks what? you are correct in that science is a tool but a tool is only as good as the person using it. How can you use science the way you suggest without an idea or purpose in the first place, the whole point of science is to understand things fundamentally or it has no purpose. With science you collect data that alows you to understand so much but you then have to use that data, Science is anything but data administration.

A popular misconception about math is that its infallible, math is a language just like English or Spanish only math is very clear by definition and not open to interpretation. Math does not create new ideas it is only the means by which that idea can be expressed and used, as such you can get math to say pretty much anything but it does not mean the concept behind the math is correct. That’s how string theory manages to accomplish so much, If you use math to add dimensions to reality it’s no different to adding exceptions in English, this will happen in such and such a way except when… Now that doesn't mean those exceptions couldn't be proved correct but it is a shot in the dark and as such I'd call it philosophy and not science/math.

Put simply if math told you to jump of a cliff would you do it? No math is only as good as the idea behind it.

So returning to the original thread post I’m afraid I don’t believe in black holes or worm holes because as much as GR allows for them they can only happen when the numbers are pushed so far. Just as GR breaks down at the atomic scale I’m not really sold on Black holes at the super massive scale and to state the obvious hasn’t Sir Steven Hawkins said just that. He who gave real form and mathematical grounding to the concept is also now thinking it might be a stretch to bend Space-ime that far, regardless of whether the math supports it or not.

So I apologise if I come over a little strong but its easy to crush ideas rather than develop them. I'd rather try and understand the logic behind an idea incase its right and lost in comunication than just shoot it down, thats just me
;-)

[CliffordK]

It is my belief that there is in fact a one-way speed of light, call it (c+x) & (c-x), in which the average, 2-way speed of light is equal to c = ((c+x)+(c-x)) / 2

On Earth, the factor x is likely on the order of 600 km/s (speed of the CMBR), with c being 299,792 km/s.  And, unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to make the measurement of the one-way speed of light to the 4^th or 5^th significant figure as would be necessary to make the determination.

It is possible that near a dense object, this rate would in fact change, and near a black hole, the factor x could exceed the speed of light, in which case the one way speed of light towards the black hole could be more than double the speed of light.

Light would never leave the source when going away from the black hole as the acceleration due to gravity would be greatest near the center of the black hole.

[Geezer]

There is no mystery here. Light (which is electromagnetic radiation) simply propagates through space at constant speed - always!
 
I think there might be some confusion associated with wavelength and speed of propagation. Relative motion between a light source and an observer does change the wavelength/frequency of light (energy conservation demands it), but it has no effect on propagation speed.
 
If there was a Universal time and distance base, we would measure c at different speeds, but time and distance are not universal constants. c is the constant that determines time and distance - which is why we always measure the same value for c.