[jeffreyH (OP)]

 Now if gravitation slows in effect at the event horizon it too can't escape. This may well have rid me of the density issue except that all calculations of g have to be outside the mass being modeled. If c stops then there is effectively no g. If there is no g then what stops light. This is chicken and egg. So we are back to density.

Now I see what you're having trouble with Jeff. Consider what the term "relativity" really means. Relativity is about the relative differences between the local events and what someone at a distance observes. For anyone falling into a black hole, time marches along exactly the same way it passed before they started their fall. However, for an observer the light coming from the black hole seems to be frozen. You may be thinking a bit backwards about this issue and this is very common for people to confuse the understanding about the dilation of time.

Local to the black hole, light still travels at c. Local to the black hole, gravity is the same as it was beyond the region. What has changed it what the distant observer sees.

I'm sure you've heard about how speed and gravitational forces slow the advance of time. But this slowing of time is only observed by those outside the local frame. For those experiencing the speed or the gravitational forces of huge masses like a black hole, time advances as it always has.

Remember the example of the astronaut leaving the earth and speeding around the galaxy and returning to find those he left much, much older than himself. People confuse who's time has slowed. If the people on earth are much older, it appears to the astronaut that their time has accelerated and his has slowed. When we talk about speed and huge gravity causing time to slow, this slowing is only apparent to the observer, not the ones under observation. And conversely, those who remained on earth seeing their astronaut returning many years later and looking only months older would cause them to think his time had slowed. But for the astronaut, his interpretation remembers his time as advancing quite normally.

BTW Have you ever read up on phonons?

No, can't say that I have.

All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point. Frames of reference are not useful in all situations. Although necessary for relativity they can hamper physics in unanticipated ways.

[Ethos_]

All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point.

I didn't mean to marginalize your comments Jeff and I'm sorry if you may have taken it that way.

Frames of reference are not useful in all situations.

Could you expound on that for me Jeff? What I've learned about physics tells me that space/time is all about frames of reference. That's because time can not be separated from the equation. Space does not exist singularly, it is always accompanied by time.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point.

I didn't mean to marginalize your comments Jeff and I'm sorry if you may have taken it that way.

Frames of reference are not useful in all situations.

Could you expound on that for me Jeff? What I've learned about physics tells me that space/time is all about frames of reference. That's because time can not be separated from the equation. Space does not exist singularly, it is always accompanied by time.

No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.

[Ethos_]

No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.

That would simplify things Jeff, but the problem is defining that point of reference. We have to ask the question; Is there a position in the universe that remains motionless? And then we have to ask; Motionless to what?

According to present theory, the universe has no central point to gauge that point of origin from.

There's a thought experiment about this problem and it goes something like this:
Imagine there are only two objects in the universe, yourself and your best friend. You both notice that the distance between you is growing, your friend sees you moving further away and likewise, you see him receding also. Now, determine which one is moving. Is it you, or is it your friend?

This thought experiment only involves two objects, the universe contains trillions upon trillions complicating the answer to the question. Truth is, it is more logical to assume that they are both moving than to decide which one is standing still. To determine which one is motionless is impossible.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.

That would simplify things Jeff, but the problem is defining that point of reference. We have to ask the question; Is there a position in the universe that remains motionless? And then we have to ask; Motionless to what?

According to present theory, the universe has no central point to gauge that point of origin from.

There's a thought experiment about this problem and it goes something like this:
Imagine there are only two objects in the universe, yourself and your best friend. You both notice that the distance between you is growing, your friend sees you moving further away and likewise, you see him receding also. Now, determine which one is moving. Is it you, or is it your friend?

This thought experiment only involves two objects, the universe contains trillions upon trillions complicating the answer to the question. Truth is, it is more logical to assume that they are both moving than to decide which one is standing still. To determine which one is motionless is impossible.

There is always a midway point between observers. This midway point can then be positioned with reference to points beyond the two objects being observed. Say two stars behind each object being observed. This midway point can then be gauged to be either stationary or moving at a certain speed with reference to the distant stars. In this way the motions of a series of objects can be plotted with reference to each other. Although the stars will also be moving a correction can be made to compensate for this. The relevant motions of the two objects being observed can then be calculated with reference to the whole system. The velocities can then be determined as well as any relativistic effects within a frame enclosing all objects in the system.

BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.

[Ethos_]

BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.

The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.

The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.

[Ethos_]

BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.

The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.

OK, for one reason or another, I seem to have misunderstood where you were headed with this discussion.

I think we can agree concerning these points about relative motion. But how does this relate to electromagnetic radiation and gravity? Electromagnetic radiation always propagates at c, and according to the latest estimates, gravitational waves do as well. These velocities would of course apply to their local frame. As observers, there exist many circumstances where we can see slowing of these speeds from our frame of reference. But just because we see them slowing from our frame, doesn't mean they have slowed in theirs. The photon always experiences it's local speed as c. And if the graviton is a proper estimation for the gravitational force carrier, it does as well.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.

The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.

OK, for one reason or another, I seem to have misunderstood where you were headed with this discussion.

I think we can agree concerning these points about relative motion. But how does this relate to electromagnetic radiation and gravity? Electromagnetic radiation always propagates at c, and according to the latest estimates, gravitational waves do as well. These velocities would of course apply to their local frame. As observers, there exist many circumstances where we can see slowing of these speeds from our frame of reference. But just because we see them slowing from our frame, doesn't mean they have slowed in theirs. The photon always experiences it's local speed as c. And if the graviton is a proper estimation for the gravitational force carrier, it does as well.

I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.

[Ethos_]

I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.

Which three virtual particles are you considering Jeff?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.

Which three virtual particles are you considering Jeff?

That would be jumping the gun. I need to produce an experiment to test the theory first. This is not as strange as it first sounds. I obviously cannot mimic a particle travelling backwards in time but I can produce what the forward travelling version would look like. One of the virtual particles is known and named. The other two are not as far as I know. I need to look into whether or not they have been discovered yet.

This interaction will also provide elliptical motion as seen in celestial orbits and have an attractive property. BTW It is only generated by molecular matter but acts on both solids and elementary particles. Whilst this sounds counter-intuitive, as we think of all matter types as generating gravity, it will work. Helium can be considered within the molecular group due to its shell stability, although it interacts with gravity in a different way and gives rise to the low temperature effects of superconductivity and container climbing effects.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Something to bear in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
"For the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, the zero rest-mass of the associated boson particle permits long-range forces to be mediated by virtual particles."

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I have come to the conclusion that a new particle exists as an intermediary between the graviton and the proton via the Coulomb potential well. This may of course be totally wrong. I am investigating further.

I am wondering if this would resolve the proton spin crisis.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

If the photon is a long string that we can only detect at its tip then this particle would have a mass that we currently cannot detect fully. In this case it would interact with the Higgs field like any other mass. Outside the gravitational field of a large mass the vector of momentum through the Higgs field averages to a straight line for these so called massless particles. The Higgs field if then aligned by a large mass into a generally elliptical spiral configuration would then bend light and other particles whilst giving them mass. I propose 3 virtual particle interactions creating an inverse square effect to infinity to be the mechanism aligning the Higgs field around a large mass.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The Higgs field being under greater compression the nearer to a gravitational source it is will cause a slowing of momentum resulting in time dilation and a compression of the space causing length contraction. The elliptical spiraling causes the gravitational lensing.

One more feature of the compression of the Higgs field is to put matter into a lower energy state. Like the electrons in a potential well atoms tend towards lower energy states. In the Coulomb potential well, as protons are compressed, the wells overlap producing a stronger attraction. At a particular density the combined well potential reaches the Schwarzschild radius limit permanently trapping photons. The electrons can no longer reach an energy state to allow photon emission. This could result in all photons falling inward to be pulled into and trapped within the extended well. This will amplify the overall negative charge on the electrons compressing the protons even further until the mass is forced into a compressed singularity.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

It appears I may be near the mark.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/what-if/what-if-black-hole-formed-near-solar-system2.htm
Hawking radiation
"Everywhere, all the time, pairs of positive and negative "virtual particles" pop briefly into existence, then recombine and annihilate one another. What would happen to such particle pairs at a black hole's event horizon? According to physicist Stephen Hawking's theory, the negatively charged particles would be caught by the black hole, whereas the positively charged ones would escape. This Hawking radiation, if it weren't too faint to detect, would provide another way to spot black holes in space [source: Economist]."

[jeffreyH (OP)]

One of my virtual particles is actually a pseudoparticle called an instanton. This leads to the very interesting twistor theory proposed by Roger Penrose.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Could the fact that a photon picks up mass in a superconductor be due to string compression? So it is no longer just the string tip that is detected.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Just found the reason for the 2GM in Schwarzschilds calculation of the event horizon radius. It was Einstein and Stern's modification of Planck's energy radiator equation. This was related to the zero point energy at absolute zero. This is 1/2hv. I'm glad that is sorted.