[timey]

No - it would be a faster rate of time that is finite...  An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine.  A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.

What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?

Why do you believe that it is temperature that prevents photons from escaping a black hole? That is incorrect.

Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque.  Light cannot shine through opaque.
(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque.  Light cannot shine through opaque.
(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)

If you have a supermassive black hole then the g force at the event horizon would hardly be noticeable. So that the forces required to destroy particle cohesion would be absent. Escape velocity equalling the speed of light is the cause of photon confinement.

[timey]

Only if you attribute photons with mass.  Photon's don't have mass unless you apply the gamma.

Replacing the gamma with inverted time dilation, escape velocity doesn't apply for photon's, and the sheer compression and resulting temperature of a black hole is causing atoms to be stripped to a particle plasma.

As I am attributing the black hole phenomenon as the causation of the Big Bang, that a black hole would display conditions attributed to the Big Bang is fitting.

Black holes violently eject jets of particles via their accretion disks.

Please remember what in physics is proven, and what is not, before you start denoting 'anything' as incorrect...  What you are stating as 'correct' is unproven.

Why would g force be hardly noticeable at the event horizon of a black hole?  The mass of a black hole is greater than earth, so the g force of a black hole will also be greater... unless you stretch the 'distance' staying that a black hole warps the geometry of space, which is what relativity states.  Inverted time theory states the geometry as flat and the curvature as caused by the linear changes in the rate of time (inverted time dilation) within the changes in the gravitational gradient.

As anything moves towards a black hole, it will cover the measure of a meter in a quicker time.  Relativity states that it is the meter that will stretch.

Honestly Jeff, if it wasn't for the fact that these concepts that I am putting forward all fit together like a jig saw puzzle and portray (albeit awaiting mathematical confirmation) the mechanics of a fully described system of a cyclic universe, a notion backed up by the Higgs being 125GeV, instead of 140 for the Multiverse, or 115 for Supersymmetry, I really wouldn't be bothering with it...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Gamma is NOT applied to photons since they have no rest mass to apply it to. Escape velocity does apply to photons though. The g force is calculated via mass and the square of radial distance from the source. The g force decreases as the mass and event horizon radius increase. The mathematics have been shown to agree with observation so I can't see how you can refute them. The GPS system wouldn't work anymore if time dilation were inverted.

[timey]

Oh for goodness sake, what part of me saying that inverted time dilation is 'additional' to GR time dilation did you not understand?

I'm saying that both exist and that GR is calculating what time is doing for mass in elevation to mass.  Inverted time dilation is calculating what time is doing for open space in relation to mass.

If the gamma is what calculates relativistic mass, then I'm sorry, but photon's are only able to be gravitationally attracted on account of relativistic mass, so I don't understand your saying that gamma is not applied to photon's.

If photon's do not have relativistic mass then escape velocity cannot apply in the context that you are stating.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Light has a constant velocity, hence v^2/c^2 has the ratio of the changing velocity of the source mass against the constsnt velocity oif light. If gamma were to be applicable to photons then this would become c^2/c^2 which equals 1. This is then a constant and so no change happens. Which is why gamma does not apply to photons.

[timey]

So if the gamma doesn't apply to light then what is the procedure for calculating relativistic mass for light? And why is the procedure of calculation different for light?

In any case this is purely academic because what I'm suggesting negates the necessity for relativistic mass altogether for both mass and light, offering a physical process of inverted time dilation as causality, while remaining within the mathematical proportionality of the original working hypothesis.

ie: the notion I'm suggest does the same job as relativistic mass, but unlike in the case of relativity's relativistic mass, inverted time dilation also gives causality for the physical process...

So... Light being massless is not gravitationally affected but must travel through reference frames that, due to the gradient of the gravitational field, experience rates of time inherent with longer (or shorter) seconds than the standard second that we measure time with on earth...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Since mc^2=hv where v is frequency and energy is E=mc^2 then the relativistic mass of the photon is hv/c^2. This will increase or decrease with a change in the frequency v. This is affected by a gravitational field as the photon passes through it. Therefore the gravitational field affects the relativistic mass of the photon. Gamma appears nowhere in the calculation.

[timey]

As Pete has stated that gravity potential is not used to calculate relativistic mass, it must be KE that is calculating relativistic mass for light.

KE=0.5mv^2. ... Light does not have rest mass to calculate this equation, and Pete stated that this equation 0.5mv^2 is not used for relativistic speeds, at which point he brought up the gamma, and hey presto... We've come full circle...

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v where h is height and v is the velocity of the Doppler shift and vc=f where f is frequency, and then examine this equation you have posted hv/c^2, where you have used v for frequency... (edit: and h is Planck's constant)

I'm saying that the velocity of gh/c (edit: where h is height) is a time aspect.  That the vc=f is akin to saying that v is a speed, c is a distance, and f is the time, or timing, whereas a wave'length' is inversely proportional to f in keeping with the gravitational field, the length of the wave remains constant and it is a longer or shorter second of the gravitational field that causes the wave to 'appear' to be longer or shorter in length.

It is an incredibly simple concept!
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

[timey]

Well - I'm not computer literate enough to copy and paste the maths from the link, but here is the link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

Clearly I'm not a mathematician and my given manipulation of these maths may be at fault, but I think my intended direction of calculation is clear.

I have noticed that there are quite a few proficient mathematicians posting here.  Can't someone help out?

[alancalverd]

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

but you need to read the next sentence

In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.

PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

[Ethos_]

PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

When the voting block becomes moron dominant, we can expect a moronic future.............................Pessimism grows with each passing moment.

[timey]

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................
(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

but you need to read the next sentence

In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.

PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

... no longer hold true for using that notation for the calculation.  Presumably where h = R there is still an acceleration of gravity that is then calculated via the notation of R rather than h? (where h is height).

P.S.  Norway?  Fish?  Bang goes my visualisation of a hammock and girls in hoola skirts...(chuckle).  I daresay the flavour of your thoughts on the morons will not fail to amuse either way... Welcome back.  I missed you!

[alancalverd]

The full equation holds for all values of R and h.

Blondes on skis are very acceptable, and a reindeer skin by a blazing fire in a Saami tent is much more sociable than a hammock. As for the aphrodisiac qualities of dried cod, snow and midnight sun....   

[timey]

Thank goodness for that.  I don't think my model would be viable if the acceleration of gravity ran out where h = R...

So given that we now have either the notation of h, or R, to calculate in relation to g, (ie: gh/c=v) ... and vc=f... can we turn the v of the calculation into a time aspect by considering the equation to be equivalent to the speed, distance, time formula, where v can be speed, c can be distance, and f is time, or timing, and the wave'length', being inversely proportional to f, can be viewed as a longer or shorter second (relative to the standard second)?

Granted, hammocks are by design awkward and the reindeer skin by the fire in a Sammi tent, (presumably something along the lines of a yurt), sounds divine.  But dried cod, snow and midnight sun?  Hmmm, the mind boggles!  I imagine some Nordic equivalent of the Karma Sutra exists as a means of instruction?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

An interesting angle is that using a coordinate acceleration viewed from infinity we can show a mass for the photon as m(rel) = ha/c^2. Since we also have hv/c^2 with v for frequency then a change in coordinate acceleration equates with a change in frequency. We are now dealing with acceleration terms for both gravitation and the photon. So at infinity we can establish some sort of unification mechanism.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Disregard the last post. The mathematics are incorrect.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

It should have been ha/c^2 = h/lambda so that it is wavelength and not frequency that relates to coordinate acceleration. Sorry for the confusion.

[timey]

Well - I can see where you are coming from, but just as a point of exercise try leaving the photon and the mass out of the equation, and let the equation be a calculation of the gravitational field 'only'.

If you need a focus of visualisation, imagine you are making a calculation of the De Broglie wave'length' for a 'massless graviton', where the v of gh/c=v is a time aspect that can be calculated as vc=f, and 'length' of time, (ie: length of second relative to the standard second), is inversely proportional to f.  Edit: maybe this can be calculated as c(distance)/v(speed) = wave'length'(length of second)

Edit:  I think I'm representing the maths correctly, but if I am missing out the ^2 with regards to c in those equations, please someone tell me.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

How am I supposed to know how to describe a graviton mathematically. Do you just want me to pop the equation out of a hat? Viola I am David Blaine.